LIVING INSIDE AN HOURGLASS: A study of people’s disquieting inability of perceiving the future
By: Val Mile
Tags: Systems Thinking, Science, Ecology, System Dynamics, Ecology And Environment

LIVING INSIDE AN HOURGLASS: A study of people’s disquieting inability of perceiving the future Val Mile Jun 1·29 min read

PART I: REALITY

#1 COMING TO TERMS WITH REALITY

“The first step toward change is awareness. The second step is acceptance.”

— Nathaniel Branden

“We must let go of the life we have planned, so as to accept the one that is waiting for us.”

— Joseph Campbell

“Facing it, always facing it, that’s the way to get through. Face it.”

— Joseph Conrad

Which area of scientific research will humanity benefit from the most in the XXI century? The very first ever time I was asked the following question my initial reaction was to avoid answering it completely, because the way this enquiry had been constructed is simply not serious enough. Too abstract, too trivial, and awfully one-dimensional. So much so, in fact, it isn’t worth wasting one’s time on it, as there are more productive and exciting things one may spend his or her time on.

Having said that, however, I am obliged to admit I have always been inclined to think such matters over — as a form of intellectual sport I suppose — therefore down below I put my personal contemplations regarding this enquiry.

Prior to proceeding, it is my wish to point out — to emphasize, really — that any social issue (of even marginal significance to the general populace) is ought to be, A, well-defined, B, specific, and, C, as precise as it may possibly be. In other words, any social enquiry into the future of humanity — our lives, our health, the ecology, and the general well-being — absolutely must! — be, what one may call, on target.

Furthermore, taking into account the very nature of my essay, as well as my natural love for meticulousness and explicitness, I would have composed the above question in the following fashion:

By means of which science (exactly) are we (as peoples of the world) to overcome the future (social as well as environmental) challenges in (an inevitable) wake of limitations (perhaps even, complete dissipation) of Earth’s natural resources?

Formulating the above, I tried being as objective and straight-forward as possible. Nonetheless, if the above still happens to not strike a regular reader as prosaic and earthly enough, I’d be more than happy to elaborate and paraphrase — and perhaps even simplify:

What exactly do we plan on fuelling our transport with? What precisely are we going to power manufacture by? What about hospital equipment? Household appliances? Food production? Heating? Air-conditioning?

The list of things we depend on today is approaching singularity [1], and so far it seems to have no intention of slowing down. Reality is not a toy, and therefore it is not to be toyed with. It is to be analyzed, understood and adapted to. Without tears, sentiments and needless subjective judgements. As a matter of fact, there exists a certain level — a measure, so to speak — of acceptance one has to build up to in order of, first, handling reality and, then, perhaps starting adjusting to it. And that is precisely what humanity would sooner or later face. If we are to survive — we are to accept, handle and perhaps one day try reclaiming reality, in which we are to prosper. The inevitability of this is an axiom. Because we happen to live inside an hourglass. And for the past couple of centuries people have been eager to help its sands seep away faster, and faster still…

#2 THE ICELANDIC MODEL

“Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.”

— Aristotle

If I was to guess what an unconcerned bystander’s answer to the questions above would be, I’d say they are most likely to start talking about Iceland. And here is why.

Nobody is arguing technology has rooted its way into our daily lives so deep, there is no chance anyone is to willingly give up on them. The best possible solution therefore is to follow the Iceland’s footsteps.

Cute, little place. Picturesque. Clean, accurate, sensible and considerate. It is generally thought Iceland has figured a few environmental things out — striking a workable, functional balance in maintaining optimal living standards without excessive exhaustion and exploitation of Earth’s resources. How has this been achieved, one may inquire? And the answer is: through nation-wide hydrogen fuel policies and thermodynamic plants mounting the larger of the hot-water geysers Iceland is famous for. As a matter of fact, Iceland is the only world state lucky enough to extract its energy via smart industrial engineering and indigenous natural processes, instead of resorting to clean yet dangerous sources of energy such as the nuclear.

There is however a single evident logical miscalculation regarding the Icelandic energy managment model: in comparison to major world states and continents, Iceland really is tiny. Sure, their state is well-adapted and apt when it comes to energy supplying; however having a population that of a regular European province, whatever Iceland has going on for it in terms of power generation and consumption is obviously sufficient for just that — supplying Iceland. Therefore whatever it is they have going on would never work for the rest of the world because mathematics say so: the world is way too large (and discrete) for balancing out proportions and scales that happened to work out for Iceland. (Besides, where are we to find this many geysers to support even a fraction of, say, European electrical infrastructure?)

What will you do once the reality hits you like a crazy train, and yesterday’s fuel canisters are null and worthless? Which direction will you look in search of energy necessary to power up technology you are so used to spoiling your daily existence with?

Alas, the following questions remain as they were — unanswered.

#3 MOTHER NATURE IS NOT A DIPLOMAT

“Man is a creature that can get accustomed to anything, and I think that is the best definition of him.”

— Fyodor Dostoevsky

The above may sound grim and gloomy, however once I made use of this precious opportunity of frightening a reader I also get to expiate my guilt by providing them with a humble yet valuable note of the good news.

To some this news might seem overly trivialized, however, philosophically speaking, they are still good: humanity always seems to find a way.

I have absolutely no doubt with regard to Mother Nature’s love for us. I am confident She really does appreciate us as her very children. Nonetheless when it comes to Earth’s capacity for hostility and viciousness, it is not Her we ought to worry about — but us. It is us who ought to always keep survival in mind; it is us who always need to plan ahead — tactically, as well as strategically. Because surviving is neither a game nor a matter of choice. It is a duty that comes with the territory; a duty granted along with the burdens of intelligence and consciousness. And should Mother Nature — in all its fathomless and boundless wisdom — ever decide to toss a coin, we all know which way up that ducat [2] is most likely to land…

I am not a preacher. Neither am I a messiah or a twisted environmentalist freak. I am none other but a thinker. A wanderer. An educator. And perhaps even an amateur philosopher. And I happened to wander into this peculiar realm of environmental carelessness and irresponsibility ready to question and anatomize.

I really do think people have somewhat lost their edge. Their survival intuition. The sixth of the atavistic senses that dwelled within us for thousands of years, ensuring our adapting to the utmost belligerent environment we happened to be born in. Life has gotten way too cosy and way too comfortable for the survival gene to be rendered active unceasingly. No need for bonfires and watchtowers; everything is increasingly 24/7. Devices, gadgets, professional equipment, household appliances; home lights, street lights, traffic lights and city navigation; public transport, seaports, train stations and airports… These are just a few instances of the many faces of the Electric God we’ve been worshiping since its worldwide propagation. I risk sounding repetitive but — yes! — the list of things we depend on today is truly endless, and there is absolutely no chance this sort of dependence will remain at this level of availability forever.

There is, however, something to hope for and look forward to: no matter how rusty the human race becomes, good news shall forever and always remain as such — good. People are to get used to anything. (Dostoyevsky has been right all along.) Whatever this anything happens to be — whatever it is we must overcome, reconstruct, revaluate or get used to — is entirely up to us. Are we to get used to the disintegration of things and utter collapse? A painful yet manageable resetting of social datum-lines? OR Is it a complete realignment of civil, economic and technological frameworks? These are the critical issues remaining in dire need of a thought-out resolve.

#4 BURDEN OF IMMATURITY

“Some grown-ups never grow up.”

― Frank Sonnenberg

In spite of the aforementioned, modern society does seem to possess a common interest. A mutual desire, so-to-speak. Generations living at this day and age do seem to want pollution reduction and general ecological solicitude. Modern societies do seem to realize that nothing in Nature passes as overlooked and consequenceless.

As peoples and nations of the world, however, we are still unable to reach the leveling off of awareness on a global scale. In fact, the process of raising such awareness seems to run headlong into the classic obstacle of inability of convincing major world states to act on the environmental issues jointly. Simultaneously. Teamwise.

The first-world countries tend to scream their heads of — sometimes even louder than necessary — while the developing states demand what they refer to as space and time to catch up with the former. Economically as well as technologically.

Environmental issues are the issues of leading economies. The rest of us can’t afford the luxury of being bothered by the environmental problems, — China would claim repeatedly.

Eastern Europe seems to have given up on existence entirely: influenced largely by Christian Orthodoxy and — as bizarre as it may sound — classic literature, eastern Europeans’ philosophical worldview continues being exceedingly fatalistic, nonchalant and sometimes dangerously negligent.

South America — in light of their never-ending economic turbulence — seems to have adopted the Netflix & Chill approach to life nation-wide, with the Amazonian rainforests being reduced to nothing but lifeless flatlands as we speak. (Though they are not the only carefree ones: Russia isn’t far behind with its Siberian forests becoming a mere subject of boundless Chinese conquista. So far, it appears the world is in greater need of low-quality furniture and unequally-legged stools than clean air so I guess it all evens out.)

On a more serious note however, it appears as though Scandinavia is the only place on Earth that takes environmental issues seriously. Forest care, exhausts filtering, fume neutralization and waste recycling. It’s been a number of years now since the Swedes have been converting trash into cheap electricity. (And I am neither kidding nor exaggerating. There was a time when Sweden would purchase rubbish from Britain — to subsequently convert it into pure electrical power.) Sure, Scandinavians fish much. (And if there is anyone out there deserving a luxurious salmon meal it is — them.) Nonetheless it looks as though Scandinavians are the only people whose minds seem to have actually matured — with the rest of the nations stuck in a stasis of cyclical infantilism. Responsibility comes with the territory. I guess this would be the most accurate, most proper way of putting it. And this happens to be the very way Scandinavia has been heading since the age of enlightenment. And — by God — they’ve gotten good at bearing responsibilities and standing the grounds of their principles. Unlike the rest of the world — which seems to only put up a facade of being environmentally progressive and considerate?

Why is that, I wonder? Appreciation of customs? Conservatism? A desire for comfort and higher quality living? A taste for survival? Respecting Nature? OR A matter of cultural heritage? And the answer to these is, I believe, quite simplistic: yes, — it is a matter of culture. Culture is EVERYTHING! Culture is more than important. Never is culture to be underestimated! Countries do not give birth to the rational and farsighted — culture does! Culture is the soil out of which sprout those who possess the contemporaneous wisdom. Without culture the latter are destined to never develop the skill set for analysis and perception of present dangers and challenges.

Scandinavian approach to handling ecology and nature doesn’t come toll-free though. It is a common misconception that most forms of responsibility come natural. Alike many things in life responsibility, too, is a skill one may (and should) train. Consequently, the Scandinavian attitude towards environment comes at a high price — of not just hard work but of personal time, too. Environmental responsibility is something their children are being taught at school level — that no one is going to tend to the general healthiness of one’s land until he or she decides to tend to it on their own account. (Something other countries seem to miss out (or perhaps even ignore) entirely.)

Responsibility comes with the territory. So much is true. But the way one carries his or her responsibility originates somewhere in the background — within the culture you are raised in. People are merely clay sculptures, and our household upbringing is the hands that shape us into who we are — giving us texture, context and behaviour patterns. It is our cultural background, however, that provides us with bearings and reference points regarding things that are right and things that are wrong.

Alike illustrious German attitude towards hard work, the Dutch, the Swedes, the Norwegians, and the Finns strive for environmental harmony, efficiency and safety. The most mature, the most parent-like of nations. And should aliens ever make a decision of befriending Homo Sapiens, they ought to first contact someone with a bjorn or thor in their passport because anyone with a Johnson, Ivanov or Chan will probably mess everything right up.

Why is that? Why is our think-of-the-future gene dormant? Is it human irresponsibility? A case of senselessness? A case of naivety? OR Is it a burden of multicultural outlook on life? Personally, I am inclined towards the latter.

Culture is the key to it all, it seems. And while some of these cultures do plan ahead — do leave some space for consideration of the future and avoidance of arduous and worrisome long-term challenges — the rest of us are yet to develop such a skill set. Otherwise, we are destined to get hopelessly stuck in a mire of blind archaism.

Is it at all possible, to make a more efficient, more rational use of natural resources? Is it possible to avoid facing the ugly truths and losing sleep over cynical yet worrisome question: Will my children afford clean air? A frightening question of such nature does seem to occupy the minds of considerate adults, and yet we still fail at producing at least a simulacrum of a feasible solution to it. What’s even more disturbing is our mindless insistence on setting up still newer manufactures: factories, plants, industrial parks, production sites, assembly facilities, trading posts and shopping malls. In wake of disturbingly evident reports of diminishing natural environment we keep on erecting and launching these as though we are under some sort of a spell.

Kyoto protocol, Paris Agreement, Vienna Convention and numerous other international and intercontinental documents have well all been signed and authorized, and yet we continue — still do we zealously defend our right to set up more and more manufactures, the sole purpose of which is to produce more goods than humanity may possibly consume, need or want. And although this sort of behaviour is illogical and irrational, it still is — extremely human.

Why is that? Carefree upbringing? A natural tendency towards hedonism? Consumerism warship? Natural inability of perceiving the future? OR A logical side-effect of capitalism? Personally, I have never blamed capitalism. Never have I blamed a political system for below par results and outcomes. And there are two reasons why:

Other political systems seem to only produce an even greater amount of waste. (You think socialists ever gave a damn about Earth?) ; Although vague and opaque, capitalist states seem to have at least done their homework — producing a plan for battling environmental plights. (In contrast to other countries and political systems, which appear to have only put up a facade of being solicitous.)

Budgets, profits, surpluses and deficits. These — as well as a bunch of others — seem to be the only concepts of existence bothering the dormant neurons of Modern man.

Having absolutely no time (or desire, it seems) for considering the implications of our industrial era on the planet is a fact extremely hard to prove otherwise. Sure, there are a handful of activist cells out there trying to make a difference and raise awareness. However the issues with the activists are twofold: A, not only is this utterly insufficient, but, B, it really is a disappointment — a disgrace, really — this few people actually consider the future of our planet.

What in hell are the rest of us dreaming about? The flowery meadows of Mars? Excuse me for the disenchantment but A, they are non-existent, and, B, although most seriously-minded futurologists are excited about colonization of the nearest planets, most of them still claim — no matter what we do out there, no matter what we achieve, build or accomplish — nearby planets would never match the riches the Earth’s offering.

Territorial expansion is a real thing, I agree. A real deal, sure. However a sequoia tree is as good as dead should its roots start rotting away. Because, ultimately speaking, one’s origin is of vital importance. Losing one’s origin would mean one’s lifeline is no longer whole — it’s been dashed and made discontinuous. Let us not allow for that to happen. We can’t afford to let the Earth rot away as a languishing root, because humanity is a tree. Humanity is the aforementioned sequoia that has been growing for hundreds and hundreds of years. Let us not allow for something (or someone) to start hewing us down. Let us not become our own reckless lumberjack.

PART II: POTENTIAL

#5 FUTILE EXPECTATIONS

“Life’s under no obligation to give us what we expect.”

― Margaret Mitchell

I really do believe inability of perceiving the future ought to be classified as a form of mental disability. If there is anything humanity is able to learn from our short (yet weirdly rich) history is that ignorance and negligence — of whatever magnitude, scale or extent — always — and I repeat, always — come at a price too high.

I have always been keen on philosophy. It happens to be a great passion of mine. However when things are rough I do admit (to myself, that is) that philosophical wanderings and contemplations are what I’ve always called a full-stomach science. Why am I trying to imply by that?

Philosophical explorations and debates are wonderful. However these are good as long as one’s hunger been tended to. With a belly half-empty and aching, philosophical wanderings turn into a worthless chore rather than devotion. And if that is so regarding philosophy, economics should be considered a full-lung science. Because economics become irrelevant in the world where services are abundant and air is scarce.

Sure, the planet is tougher then we think. Sure, we are no match to Mother Nature. In its utmost wild and savage form, She is neither harmless nor frail. Should Earth make a decision of making humanity redundant and obsolete, there isn’t much we’d be able to counteract with. Oblivious as we are to how harmful and borderline suicidal our toying with Mother is, we are practically walking away from a fragile balance of living unharmed and to some extent happy in the hostile and aggressive medium that is — nature.

Why is that? Is it due to our genetic predisposition towards risk-taking? Built-in suicidal tendencies? Self-harm? Mindless bravado? An attempt to conquer the unconquerable? OR A case of not being able to learn from thousands of years of evolution? Romantic as we are, we always seem to make a grave mistake of believing that air is here to stay. Blind as we are regarding the fragility of our situation, it seems humanity is doomed to what some refer to as pernicious optimism. (In actuality, however, this isn’t optimism at all — but hopeful, childish and apparent absent-mindedness.)

Moving harmful manufacturing to Vietnam, China and India does not mean our children are to breathe safer, cleaner air. Atmosphere is a dynamic and sophisticated system of inner interdependence. A system too delicate to temper with. Alike everything else within our surroundings, it is an ecological subsystem, which — although seems resilient and stable — will always remain extremely breakable and brittle. Constantly moving and drifting, the levels of pollution it withstands today will sooner or later hit the critical spot, as its capacity isn’t as interminable as many imagine. By setting up harmful and hazardous manufacturing in desperate and less well-off states we are neither saving ourselves nor postponing the inevitable. Instead, we are slowly digging a pit that we’d stumble into — not this week but the next.

Hopeful expectations really are hopeful. However they are futile, too. And I refuse to believe that people are this inane. We explored, broke through and discovered; we outfought, overcame and triumphed; we built, ruined and rebuilt, and survived hitherto… I refuse to believe we are to be victimized by our own miscalculations and vice. I despise the idea of us having no brainpower to battle daftness and being incapable of learning valuable lessons; extracting wisdom and sapience. Humanity is neither genetically defected not suicidal nor stupid. Unnecessarily risky? Yes. Overly adventurous and endeavouring? Sure. Excessively confident and at times even mindless? True. But — by God! — are we not stupid. We ought to cease being hopeful and start being pragmatic and practical.

#6 SYSTEM DYNAMICS

“An important function of almost every system is to ensure its own perpetuation.”

“Purposes are deduced from behaviour, not from rhetoric or stated goals.”

― Donella Meadows

So, what are the main areas of scientific knowledge humanity may benefit from the most within the XXI century? Some claim it is genetic engineering. Some defend ecological research and green tech. Many believe in IT while others poll votes for medical science and food industry. Sounds familiar? I am sure it does.

Analysing the above, however, I see us stumbling into a common trap of what I’ve always referred to as everything yet nothing paradox. A logical paradox where each one of us advocates a particular science they consider most vital, and yet — as the discussion advances — always end up fighting for either of the four classics: energy, food, ecology, or the environment. The trouble with the big four, however, is their elementary quality:

Energy = powering transport and electronics;

Food = sustaining biological life;

Ecology = sunbathing and travelling;

Environment = growing yet greater amounts of food.

What exactly am I trying to point at here? See how these so-called scientific endeavors are really set up? These are merely the concepts of a bare minimum: a set of absolute basic needs people have always tried to satisfy. A purely natural Hierarchy of Needs. The very bottom layer of Maslow’s pyramid. Its sheer quintessence. And that is precisely why, when it comes to deciding what’s important and what isn’t, we may not — and never should — trust the general public’s judgments, because — when taken en masse — the general public is simply too shallow. Any form of such cross-examination or surveying is destined to be either tremendously biased or extremely fallible.

In my opinion, we — as a functioning society — always needed a very specific scientific discipline, the sole purpose of which was to not just educate — this is easily managed by universities and colleges — but to curve the cultural tangent we approach dealing with nature at. What do I mean by curving the tangent? The way we treat environment and exploit things that took hundreds of years to form and grow. And I believe such discipline exists, and its name is System Dynamics. A set of quasi-scientific analysis and management techniques used in understanding the behavior of a target system over a period of time. In my view, system dynamics is the main area of scientific application we may benefit from most in the current century.

Well-researched, well-documented and applied not just theoretically but in practice, this approach in resolving serious crises has proven to be quite effective. Moreover, the ultimate beauty of this discipline in the breadth of its applicability — system dynamics is the only antibiotic that works for virtually any sort of system. Be it a household, a candy factory or a tropical rainforest… Whether the issue is purely environmental or, say, social/financial/economic in nature, there won’t be many details which remained unnoticed being analyzed using system dynamics approach.

The trouble with this science, however, is pure prejudice. By most system dynamics are considered as a body of knowledge that’s been depleted research-wise. A washed-up science, so to speak, with majority of its theorems, models and principles identified, constructed and well-understood. Having most of its departments and applications more or less studied, this quasi-scientific discipline has been declared inessential and academically redundant. (And therefore, abandoned.)

I, nevertheless, — as well as a number of other academic enthusiasts and zealots — believe introduction of system dynamics into school and college curricula — particularly in context of ecology and environment — might become a pivotal point in environmental rationality and conservation. In fact, it is my sincere belief: the faster the Academia recognizes the benefits and advantages of system dynamics the faster the younger generations would realize the necessity of smart and, essentially, holistic management of natural resources. As a matter of fact, I believe the greener future lies in the hands of Academia and educational authorities. For they have the required tools, technology as well as organic reach into the general public to really make a difference in the way people interact with nature. Moreover, Academia possesses necessary legality to actually educate the general populace.

System dynamics is more than a science. In spite of what many may consider it to be, system dynamics is rather a set of skills and complex analysis techniques than anything else. As an undergraduate science faculty student I was taught critical and complex thinking by the professors. When I graduated and started studying system dynamics on my own account I realized how close the former skills are to the latter.

In similar fashion to any other strictly scientific field, system dynamics have: terminology for grasping; theorems, axioms, principles and laws to master; models to build, analyze and reflect on. However the most valuable aspect of what this technical, quasi-scientific discipline has to offer is a skill set to treat everything — absolutely everything — as a dynamic, sustainable and interconnected system; allowing any regular user to approach any — in our particular case, environmental — project with well-trained and well-practiced rationality, optimality and assiduity.

If there is anything we’ve learnt from decades of system dynamics application, it is that any system remains well-functioning, stable and resilient as long as the inflow/outflow of resources is mindfully maintained. Once the balance is off — once the shift in the levels of resource input/output occurs — the system tilts significantly. And we have absolutely no idea which way it is to tilt. We also have no idea if there is, in fact, such a thing as the right way.

(Having studied System Dynamics at University level, the concepts of the right/wrong way are considered irrelevant. If a system slowly becomes depleted of its potential — it is bad news. Should its resources start accumulating limitlessly, however, it doesn’t lead to prosperity either. Any system that appears to be overly prosperous is either extremely short-lasting or full of fundamental defects.)

The world is a system. An extremely fragile one. (I’ve tried my best to emphasize this point above.) And if the balance is not watchfully maintained, we are to suffer the consequences of the aforementioned system tilt. And the most disturbing is the following: none of us know when the shift is to occur. To predict such a shift is practically impossible because the world — as well as the environment — is a mathematically non-linear system. In other words, there are so many factors affecting the environment that any attempt in predicting what is to happen and when seems utterly futile.

None of us know when that critical carbon concentration — collapsing the system and poisoning the organics — would in fact be reached. Nobody is capable of predicting when or where such events are to take place. However they most certainly ARE to take place.

Remember the school experiment with water and salt? Where we pour pure H2O into a beaker and start adding NaCl (common salt) to it? A single spatula is fine: the salt dissolves completely. The second spatula is usually fine, too: once again the salt dissolves. So we carry on with the experiment… And suddenly there comes a moment when no matter what you do — no matter how strongly you stir and shake the contents of the beaker — the excess salt no longer dissolves. Instead, it precipitates at the bottom of the beaker and may not be removed.

The point I am trying to make is we have no idea when that excess carbon will turn our rains into acid, air — into a noxious gas, and organic life — into partially scarred tissue. (Plants would carry on living, sure, — in wake of having this much carbon in the atmosphere — however, over time, even flora is to lose a significant fraction of its biological diversity.)

PART III: PERSPECTIVE

#7 ALTERNATIVES: SKIMMING THE SURFACE

“Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives.”

― Abba Eban

Without the energy supply everything is to suffer: agriculture, transport, food production, waste treatment, information storage, communications. And we are still relying on crude oil and its chemical fractions as the main source of fuels. (Sure, there is a bunch of cars running on electricity, hydrogen and even alcohol out there, however the disproportion in types of fuel used is obvious and significant.) And in this part of the essay I am intended to analyze some of the major ones in terms of their general potentiality.

Hydrogen fuel. Produced by means of passing electricity through water — breaking the latter down into its hydrogen and oxygen components. Although reasonably safe and clean, there aren’t many places on Earth capable of running completely on hydrogen. Iceland is one of the major ones, and Iceland is, as I have already said, tiny.

Gasohol. Comprising of 90 to 10 (gasoline to alcohol [3]) proportion, it is yet another example of a less polluting fuel. As a matter of fact, there even was a debate held at some point regarding gasohol potentially becoming an acceptable alternative to the classic hydrocarbons. And although such fuel-consuming giants such as Brazil and India [4] do subscribe to using gasohol as a source of fuel, over the years gasohol has proven to be extremely inefficient. Raw materials used in production of the alcohol component are usually coal and organic wastes such as spoilt food, rotting food, left-over food and excessive (and therefore, cheap) grains, starchy plants and sugary crops. However the latter is a problem. A, the organic waste is not as abundant as many may think, B, poor countries are not inclined towards wasting food (even if it’s rotten), and, C, almost all sugary plants are given away to rum and confectionary production.

Next was the Biodiesel. Considered by many as a greener & healthier alternative to the traditional fuels due to its clean-burning, non-toxic, biodegradable properties, biodiesel is an alkyl (organic molecule, with carbon atoms sharing triple bonds with other atoms instead of the traditional single/double bonds) with an addition of either vegetable oil or animal fat. (Hence the bio- in the name.) However, alike most other biofuels, biodiesel has become a victim of its own success: the cost of the organic oils and fats used in production of these fuels has been on the rise lately — precisely because they are being used in fuel-production. A truly vicious cycle. Having stuck in a loop like that the future of many biofuels (including biodiesel) is bleaker than most experts tend to predict.

Unto the Nuclear Power now. Nuclear energy has been a very contentious issue in the United States, Russia, China, France and a bunch of other rapidly-developing parts of the world — Brazil, Pakistan, India, Iran. Ever since the Chernobyl Accident (April 26th, 1986), there has been a great deal of reconsidering and rethinking conducted regarding managment and disposal of radioactive materials as well as rates of erecting newer nuclear plants. The Chernobyl Nuclear Accident has served as an extremely harsh yet valuable lesson to all — resulting in complete renewal and update of the industry’s methods of extracting and managing the power which have now achieved levels of system safety and rigidity that ensure absolute fail-safe energy production. Consequently — in the wake of such progress — I suppose the world is only to expect an increase in the number of nuclear plants around the globe, expanding nuclear technology to yet newer territories.

The down side of nuclear technology expansion however, are its concomitant controversies and international discord. In other words, there’s been a great deal of controversies accompanying construction of nuclear plants in lesser developed states. Who is helping whom? Who is really in charge? What purposes exactly are these being built? Where were the materials obtained from? Why less technologically and scientifically sophisticated countries happen to participate in such sensitive industry?

Naturally, some of these concerns are organic: objectively speaking, when it comes to responsibility, different nations and cultures possess different views and mentality — no two countries are equally responsible. (Just as well, not all countries are after nuclear energy.) Nevertheless the atomic industry has been performing extremely well in both: nuclear power management and its delivery, suggesting the only thing — humanity seems more adequate, saner and more rational than World War III believers would care to admit.

There are a couple of disadvantages however.

In contrast to the renewable energy, nuclear power is of very high-density. What does that mean? All standard nuclear plants produce a wide range of energy — the major one being electricity — through the same technical process: alternant heating and cooling of radioactive rods in water, producing huge amounts of steam which, in turn, drives the electricity-generating turbines. Energy extracted from any sort of biomass per square meter is lesser in wattage (power, W) than that of nuclear power per same unit of area. Nuclear power generating process is technically finite. What exactly am I implying by finiteness? In terms of earthly abundance, uranium — a naturally occurring element used in manufacturing of the above rods — is plentiful. The greatest difficulty, however, lies in location of a uranium ore. And if the process of extracting this very ore has over the years been well-practiced and perfected, it is the locating of an ore with a specific atomic concentration that is, in fact, troublesome. (There is only 0.3% of natural uranium on Earth, which is fissionable — may be used in nuclear fission.)

Solar power. Over the past few decades a great deal of theoretical (as well as practical) research has been conducted in the field of extracting power directly from the Sun. A number of first-world countries — but most importantly a number of European and North American private sector companies — are demonstrating a great deal of interest in solar power production and management. The extent to which the more progressive of world states rely on this type of energy grows on annual basis, with better, more efficient and more damage-free technologies developed and deployed at even a greater pace.

In terms of future applications, space-based solar power systems perhaps possess the greatest potential. The solar energy is collected in space and then beamed directly to Earth where specialised plants convert it into pure electricity. Safe, efficient and space-saving — collecting unfiltered solar power near Earth’s orbit is one of the most — futuristically speaking — promising and realistic energy sources humanity may turn to in the long-run. Besides being simple and inexpensive, it is also extremely reliable: the giant thermonuclear rector we happen to see in the skies every single day has yet to miss a workday. (Honestly, I bet it would even show up for work should it develop a walking pneumonia!)

Wind power. Here is yet another great energy alternative. There, too, have been a number of debates regarding wind: service and maintenance expenses, noise pollution, weather-dependence, loss of excessive power and a certain degree of inefficiency… (And that’s not mentioning the horrifying size and vibrations of the monstrous turbines!) However, in wake of all that, wind power still seems a better source of energy than the classic carbon-based fuels, the extraction and exploitation of which always seems to lead to the same very outcome: greater levels of carbon in the atmosphere. (Terrible, terrible practice.)

Of course, there are those who are against installing more wind turbines — and some of the protesters may have a reasonable point or two — however, objectively speaking, there is also a number of things going in favour of wind farms. Among them are eco-friendliness, calculable efficiency, self-sustainability, job places and economical sense. Furthermore, whatever continent you pick there certainly are uninhabited territories ready to provide enough expanse to produce sufficient amounts of power without bother the locals or the nearby fauna.

Lastly, the waste management techniques are not to be overlooked, too. One of the few things Elon Musk (of Tesla & SpaceX corporations) mentioned — and this really did get stuck in my memory — is the inevitable degradation of technologies in the absence of systematic updates and upgrades. (What Mr. Musk meant was the absolute necessity of constant improvement of any sort of technology in order of avoiding its getting rusty and eventually disintegrating.) The same may be said about waste management. Filters, collectors, accumulators… — whatever is being used today in gathering and collecting of toxins and hazardous refuse requires constant modernization and streamlining. And not just on an industrial scale but perhaps on academic and engineering levels as well. It would perhaps even be a better idea for the general Academia to consider introducing university degrees in not just environmental conservation and management — alike what they offer today — but purely technical, purely applied disciplines — what I usually refer to as Applied Ecologic Design, the main purpose of which is to produce a generation of specialists capable of planning, designing, constructing and managing the medium-cleaning [5] facilities. (Something we are to surely need in the future.)

#8 HOURGLASS PHILOSOPHY & VECTORS OF LIFE

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”

― Albert Einstein

French premier minister Dominique de Villepin [6] once said, — we have entered the post-oil era. I want to draw all the consequences of this and give a real impulse to energy savings and to the use of renewable energies! I couldn’t agree with monsieur de Villepin more. A new era demands a new approach to life. And the power of ushering in this new approach is in truly in our hands.

Hourglass ideology — allegorical term I referred to in the first part of the essay — is no longer applicable. Times change, and humanity is ought to catch up. It is a standard. A norm. The philosophy of existence on this planet needs serious revision. The understanding of us perhaps being alone (in the Universe) and not having another planet that would be as welcoming as Earth is essential. (Our planet sure is a hostile one; however its friendliness towards us is still unmatchable.)

There was a time when humanity didn’t need to worry about things like natural resources. Because everything was in abundance and the greatest threat was inter-species aggression and seizure of one’s territory. However, considering the paces of technological development and industrialization, an epoch of not giving a damn is passing as we speak. It really is time to care.

Destined to become obsolete the limitless consumerism philosophy is something people may no longer afford to practice. In contrast to the long-gone age of industrial breakthroughs, technological innovations and expansion of manufacture, we are swamped with goods and services we — in all objectivity and reality — may not possibly need. Sure, consumerism served its purpose. At a certain stage of social development such philosophy played an important role: providing jobs, stimulating economy, diversifying trade, serving society and inducing creativity. Of course, people require jobs — we do need to keep busy and productive; however productive does not necessarily mean effective and salutary. XXI century demands results. Efficient and mutually beneficial. The current century requires wholesomeness and salubriousness. Mindless, drone-like process of producing plastic cups for the sake of producing plastic cups should no longer be tolerated. Result over process — is the slogan the XXI century needs. And it is my honest, full-hearted belief that this may in fact be achieved: through system dynamics, rewiring of social philosophy, in-depth education and technology greenification. These are my personal big four.

Moreover, future faces great challenges due to world’s increasing population. People demand higher standards of living which directly imply: excess comfort, excess goods and higher quality services. Is this achievable? I believe it is. The cynics may argue that the rich are to get richer and the poor are to only get poorer. Judging objectively, however, the rich are mortal, too. The rich are progressive as well. Only uneducated believe that the rich are all about conservatism. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of believing that high-society successors are to remain as conservative as their predecessors. The elite will inevitably evolve, too. We are merely human — we are merely animals. And if there is anything professional primatologists really do preach it is the following: an individual chases ambition as much and as long as their respective society chases mutually beneficial coexistence. (There are, of course, exceptions; however they only serve as proof of the general rule.)

How long will this process take? Not a clue. How much sweat and blood is to be poured into our survival? Unimaginable. However, if not by will then by circumstance, humanity is to sooner or later face the harsh choices. Are we heading towards a brighter future OR a future a tint bleaker? Time in this lonely hourglass is running out, and with each one of its seemingly infinite iterations, it is only getting faster. As the sands upon which we erected our civilization seep away, Life finds a way [7]… The levels of pain of Life’s finding its way are partially up to us. The endurance of this pain, unfortunately, is up to us entirely.

Val Mile (vadimalmil@gmail.com); first published March 2006; revised & updated March 2021

[1] A mathematical term used in describing non-linear systems and their respective solution behavior, i.e. solution’s escape (OR rather, explosion) into infinity

[2] A gold or silver coin used as a trade coin in Europe from the later Middle Ages

[3] Usually ethanol or methanol spirits

[4] It is also worth mentioning that Brazil’s and India’s fuel choice was most likely dictated by economical sense rather than ecological.

[5] By mediums author implies: air, water OR soil

[6] Prime-Minister of France 2005–2007

[7] The phrase uttered by Ian Malcolm, a character from Jurassic Park movie (1993, Stephen Spielberg)