My views on the folly of pursuing "freedom from" the constraints of our physical world of action and consequence. by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Human beings already reproduce and consume with all the reason and planning of bacteria. One limiting factor on this self-destructive behavior is the cost of energy. If we thought wars financed with fiat currency were horrendous, just imagine the horrors a hate and fear-based civilization such as ours could inflict on ourselves with fiat energy.
One of my fellow NolanChart.com authors, Dann McCreary, author of Truth Realm is pursuing an interest in free energy generation. His series of articles about the technology and the company behind the generation technology, Steorn, have been balanced and informative. Sure, they are optimistic, Dann WANTS this to be possible, but, they have not been evangelical nor aimed at convincing anyone of anything without proof.
My comments on more than one of Dann's articles put me on record as doubting that proof will ever show that an "over unity" device has been created. Additionally, I don't regard "free" simply as getting more energy out that is put in. That is certainly part of the qualification but in order to be "free" the excess energy must also be free of negative consequences and be usable in productive applications. Otherwise, the notion of "free" is simply a matter of defining the criteria narrowly enough. Furthermore, I view the existence of "free" energy as a development that would spell disaster for the future of mankind.
The reasons for my doubt in the possibility rest on these notions: 1. The conservation of energy - I have faith that this physical law will be more resilient than Steorn's technology. 2. The market viability - However, if they manage to apparently and demonstrably circumvent the physical laws there are other hurdles before the resulting energy can be said to be free. The generation devices must be manufactured and operated in profitable business models. If a unit the size of a refrigerator is needed to power a cell phone then it doesn't really matter if the energy is free, the device will not be marketable. 3. The logic, #1, As pointed out by other reader's, I agree that if Steorn had a viable technology they would be selling it, not evangelizing it. #2, If such a technology were available I believe the military would have it and would have used it to kill brown people somewhere...and that we would have already suffered the inevitable collapse such technology will bring.
The reasons for my dim view of the consequences of free energy rest on these notions: 1. The unintended, but probable, consequences of behaving as if consumption were free by avoiding the true costs/consequences in the present. 2. The known consequences - Heat. An ever-increasing inventory of perpetual heat producing devices must be addressed, pro-actively. Moral Hazard. Simply put, moral hazard results when folks are convinced to behave as if one set of consequences are to be expected when reality will actually, eventually, dish out far worse consequences. Humans are an economic species. Our behavior is shaped by economic consequences. If there are no perceived consequences for infinite and even infinitely accelerating energy consumption then human behavior will shift from being driven by economics to being driven by extravagance only possible by creating ever more voracious energy consumption spectacles. 3. The unknown consequences - Since it is my belief that any such seemingly "free" energy will actually employ an unknown mechanism for generation, I believe any "over unity" energy must come at a cost to some other system's balance. The consequences of draining that other, unknown system at an infinitely accelerating rate wouldn't take long to manifest. I believe such folly would spell a quick, horribly violent collapse of civilization. I don't think I can even imagine the magnitude of the violence that could be committed given no constraints on energy consumption. 4. My faith - I am not a religious person but I do base my behavior on faith. I think God is a great idea but religion has polluted and diluted the essence of that idea by papering over God with thick layers of anthropomorphization. My faith rests on a definition of God that has no human traits and involves no religion or worship. My God is simple to define: Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Eternal. From that definition follows the rest of everything I believe about reality and consequences, economics and philosophy, politics and human behavior.
The possibility of "free" ie. consequence-less consumption, doesn't fit with my faith. Omniscient means that God isn't still working things out. There are not any gray areas in our reality where consequences do not exist. Omnipresent means there is no where you can imagine nor anywhere you cannot imagine where God is not present. Everything from here to edge of the universe and whatever lies beyond is God. Everything. Every atom, every subatomic particle, every molecule and cell and fiber and fluid of everything that we are is God. This is why religion makes no sense to me. God-centric religions are based on pursuit of a closer relationship with God, or having some personal "deal" or whatever. The way I look at it, my consciousness is walking around in God's atoms and molecules; I can't imagine a closer or more personal relationship. But I digress. Omnipotent means that our reality, as we experience it and discover it, is possible whether we are able to understand the mechanism whereby it is created or not. I do not believe in a biblical-type creation event I believe creation is a process that started when time began and continues still today. I believe an omnipotent God could have created a universe as a veritable life-producing factory. Our DNA-based life mechanism may be only one of infinite varieties by which life can be created in this fantastic reality that envelopes us. However, in every case, I believe life develops as a result of the physical world of its origin. Life cannot be created in an environment that is hostile to life.
Our existence is not only compatible with the earth but it is dependent on it...and most importantly, constrained by it. Whenever we use the notion of consequence-less behavior to separate our existence from the constraints of the real world, such as with fiat currency, fiat energy, overwhelming oppression or God-granted absolution for aberrant behavior, the result is behavior shaped by moral hazard. Eventually when those real-world consequences, dependable and inevitable as only omniscience could account for, come home to roost and they are suffered. It is no coincidence that the phrase "suffer the consequences" is common in so many diverse cultures.
Since the name of my column is It's All Related, I'll bring this assessment of "free" energy into the context of other aspects of our existence. Pursuit of freedom from the struggle is driven by the hope of getting something for nothing. It doesn't matter if it is in the context of politics, economics or faith; the pursuit of getting something for nothing opens the door for behavior shaped by moral hazard. In politics, the left, the right, the anarchists, the minarchists and the monarchists all hope to eliminate the opposition by various forms of physical or intellectual oppression. In religion certain rituals and beliefs are followed with the hope that doing so will provide freedom from the consequences of ignoble or worse behavior by individuals. The "hall pass" from God for bad behavior that religious practice promises only ensures the ever-increasing practice of such behavior. In economics, the latest paradigm to foster the pursuit of getting something for nothing is the Keynesian-based practice of deliberate inflation to pay for expansion of empire. Free war and free oppression of those who disagree or believe differently is the result of this system of finance and monetary policy. I have no doubt that the existence of "free" energy will also be used to pursue free war and free oppression and free expansion of empire.
Examples of moral hazard created by the pursuit of freedom from the struggle are all around us. They range from the belief that an Article V Convention will result in nothing but puppies and ponies for everyone to the belief that the welfare state frees mankind to pursue higher ideals than grubbing for a living. These pursuits usually entail a core belief, faith and religious rituals aimed at manifesting the lament, "If everyone would just...". Whenever I see this in action my interpretation is, "If everyone would just behave as if the moral hazard does not exist, then it doesn't exist and we are all free of consequences." One person, standing alone and pointing out the reality of the moral hazard and its inevitable consequences spoils the whole illusion. Therefore ever-increasing oppression must be exerted until every last dissenter is eliminated. This is true in every instance where the behavior is aimed at establishing a permanent freedom from the struggle. Whether that struggle is for individual liberty or simply for existence in a world of inevitable consequences, the pursuit of permanent freedom from that struggle is a disaster in the making.
In the abstract world of human creations such as currency and markets, the consequences are eventually suffered but the systems that enable our very existence are not affected. When it comes to implementing a mechanism for pushing moral hazard onto the consumption of the natural force/energy systems that foster our existence I wonder if those systems can actually be destroyed by a species insistent on pursuing freedom from the struggle within the constraints of those natural systems. With the stakes so high and the inevitability of consequences in our universe, I'd rather not find out.
-Jahfre Fire Eater.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jahfre Fire Eater is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This comment is just a quick note to express my sincere thanks for taking the time to expand on your previously much more compact comments. Thank You! :) Thumbs up! :):):)
After one quick read, I think I now better understand where you're coming from... although you haven't yet persuaded me to your point of view. (Who could? :)
You've given me a larger context in which to think about your ideas; I fully agree with you that "fiat currency" is a great evil, but I don't think you're comparing apples and oranges when you put "fiat energy" in the same breath and seemingly parallel or equal to "fiat currency."
Fiat currency is created and enforced by the state. Cui bono? The state benefits by inflating the supply. Quite in contrast, once an individual has the means of "fiat energy," that individual is the one to benefit. I see free energy machines as the "great equalizer" much as the Colt 45 gave individuals the power of self-protection.
As far as energy weaponization and use in that area, the idea of equalization is important to me. Right now, the state already has all the power of overwhelming force because it can readily afford all the necessary energy. Given free energy, the individual will much more ably be equipped to resist the power of the state. Or, choosing not to resist, to at least be able to flee (even the planet, if necessary.)
Thanks again for such a thorough treatment of your perspective! :)
Interesting viewpoint, except fiat money is already a form of free energy but only for the monopoly of force, government. Free energy has a lot better chance of liberating mankind than destroying it, especially with the way the world is going now with peak oil endangering lives across the world. By helping to develop third world countries with this technology and provide them with clean water and the ability to pay their insurmountable and unfair debts placed on them after arguable wars could spurn a sort of renaissance of humanity. Your mindset could essentially be a paradox that man is inherently evil, when in truth man is inherently good but easily influenced by the spirit of the age and his willingness to fit into the prevailing attitudes.
There is no such thing as free energy, but we live in a sea of magnetic energy and if we are smart enough to tap it like the photons from the sun then we can stop the burning.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-12-20 09:30:26
Hi All, thanks for reading and your comments. This is just one man's view on his place in this universe.
@Creator: I make no attempt to convince, only describe my perspective.
@Fiatguy: I don't believe in evil. I believe in incentives, actions and consequences.
@Gene: I guess that settles it then, for you.
@Bob: Yep, we're surrounded with energy sources. Even the sun has a limit. If the entire earth were covered in solar energy panels, only 1/2 of them would receive sunlight at any given moment. Factor in the useless rays at low angles and and you can see how the effective generation area for converting sunlight to energy is pretty small...finite. The output of the sun onto an area of that size, whatever it calcualtes out to, can be calculated. (See: The World According to Pimm, by Stuart Pimm)
Over what period of time does a solar panel have to produce energy to pay for its existence? I don't know but that can also be calculated.
Energy from the sun may be free to entities who can use it directly in its raw form...like almost every living thing on earth except mankind. We prefer to convert it to elecricity first and that is certainly not free.
Nuclear energy is viewed by some as free also. It is easy to believe something is free when one is shielded from its consequences. The whole point of this article is an assertion that I will not be "sold" on free energy until the consequences and all costs associated with it are known and addressed.
Very thoughtful column and I generally agree ... but:
"This is why religion makes no sense to me."
... what you describe is Pantheism, which has been around for centuries ... though it is religious, it doesn't sustain any kind of religious organization.
It is also inherently contradictory, since a God that is everywhere is nowhere in particular. Therefore, it cannot have the attributes of consciousness, much less omniscience or prescience.
In any case, it is true that the sun's energy is free: we obtain it without effort. Whether it can be converted to electricity isn't relevant: if it didn't warm the earth, we wouldn't exist. We also benefit from "free" radiation from the earth's core and radioactive elements, but that doesn't negate your point that *human action* cannot produce anything for free. TANSTAAFL
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
