Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:41 PM Feb 2013

Why we will finish eating the planet [View all]

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:50 PM - Edit history (4)

In 1975 the American ecologist Howard T. Odum presented a natural principle that he called the Maximum Power Principle (MPP), that governs the structure and development of all open, self-organizing systems. In his book Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of Energy he showed how this principle governs the development of thunderstorms and the structures of river systems, as well as the shape of human societies.

For living systems, including human ones, everything begins with the energy-seeking behavior that's essential to all life. The MPP governs the nature of that behavior (given the environment and the energy sources of the organism) and feeds the fitness criteria so that natural selection determines the evolutionary outcome. In bald terms, organisms that use the most energy most effectively prevail over those that do less well.

Through natural selection the MPP gets encoded at the base of the genome, but it's really more of a structural principle than a genetic driver per se. As the organism evolves, the expression of its energy-seeking patterns evolve as well, to ensure the optimum efficiency at producing power. This has natural consequences, such as the development of hierarchies (which are not simple human failings, pace anarchists).

Our evolutionary development of conscious awareness, abstract thought and strong problem-solving ability was done in the context of these structural principles of energy-seeking and power maximization. As a result, our cultures also developed within this framework, which operates throughout the human experience at a level we can barely perceive.

This is why it took a genius like anthropologist Marvin Harris to correctly recognize that human culture is primarily driven from the bottom up rather than the top down. The environment and the technology that directly implements energy-seeking and the MPP forms the basis for our culture. Most of our social structures, thoughts, values and beliefs are formed in response to that basic physical level. They either support it, as in our economic, political, and educational systems, or they rationalize it through our values and beliefs. Our thoughts arise in the context of the energy and resource pathways that are available, and are largely directed toward promoting supportive beliefs, values and practices. (This is a very hard thing for those steeped in the traditions of humanism to accept.)

Natural selection operates at the cultural level as well as the level of the organism. This is why, for instance, capitalism won out over communism - not because it is a more humane system, but because it represents a more efficient approach to maximizing power. It's why agriculture superseded hunting and foraging. It's also why we have constantly increasing levels of hierarchy. Hierarchic systems are more effective than egalitarian systems at controlling the increasingly complex processes that are required to transform large amounts of energy into work.

And it's why we have climate change deniers and no progress on CO2 reduction. It's not because people are evil, it's because addressing climate change would require us to immediately reduce our use of fossil fuels. Such a reduction represents an energy devolution that is antithetical to the principle at very foundations of the human organism, and as a result to our culture that evolved from the same principle.

It also explains why we drive towards energy efficiency the way we do. Efficiency improvement represents an improvement in the amount of work that can be done in a unit of time with a unit of energy - i.e. power. The MPP drives us always toward maximizing our production of power (hence its name). It also explains why efficiency improvements never cut our energy consumption - life always strives to use more energy more effectively in order to ensure its survival.

The MPP plays an essential role in every self-organizing system, whether human or not. That's why I use the analogy between the MPP and gravity. The MPP is a fundamental force on the same level as gravity, and with the same pervasive influence on how things develop.

And in the end it means we will not be able to avoid eating the rest of the planet. The desires of environmentalists like Amory Lovins and Lester Brown, the resistance of deep green activists like Derrick Jensen and Edward Abbey, or the walking-away of the "new story" advocates like Daniel Quinn and Paul Kingsnorth - they amount to farting in a hurricane. Not even an encounter with physical limits will stop us from fulfilling this thermodynamic destiny. The Maximum Power Principle will keep working even in the presence of rising pollution, unfolding climate change, and growing food and resource shortages - just like gravity.

Best wishes for an aware future,
GliderGuider

32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why we will finish eating the planet [View all] GliderGuider Feb 2013 OP
In my heart of hearts, I have to agree. But it doesn't prevent me from trying. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #1
The part that this post doesn't address is how we might respond to unfolding events GliderGuider Feb 2013 #4
Hmmmm..interesting dixiegrrrrl Feb 2013 #2
This sounds right. Sorry about that. immoderate Feb 2013 #3
Yes. The Maximum Power Principle is the inverse of the Maximum Entropy Principle. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #5
I carry on a "debate" with a friend who is a libertarian, free-market, climate denier. immoderate Feb 2013 #6
Please let me know what he says. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #7
Be aware he is not typical. He is a resourceful denier though. immoderate Feb 2013 #8
I have his response. immoderate Feb 2013 #9
Fascinating. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #10
I'm not sure he truly follows the implications of the MPP immoderate Feb 2013 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #17
What sort of reactions have you cataloged so far? PETRUS Feb 2013 #25
Very good question. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #26
My thoughts. PETRUS Feb 2013 #31
Yes, this thesis challenges a lot of core beliefs. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
I don't buy it. fasttense Feb 2013 #12
I'm not saying "societies do better with hierarchic systems" GliderGuider Feb 2013 #13
There are assumptions you make when referring to societies. fasttense Feb 2013 #24
Thanks for your input. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #27
Exactly so. And 9 Recs? Gimme a break! AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #16
You don't like it? GliderGuider Feb 2013 #18
Lulz. n/t AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #19
To make up for the distress this has caused you, what would you say to... GliderGuider Feb 2013 #20
Not so much distress as annoyance. AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #21
My mission in life is to comfort the afflicted GliderGuider Feb 2013 #22
You may want to rethink your strategy, Paul.....n/t AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #23
You don't think afflicting the comfortable by presenting challenging new ideas is a good thing? GliderGuider Feb 2013 #28
You missed something by a MILE, G.G. AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #29
In the immortal words of Ricky Nelson, GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
A good friend of mine works in the fracking fields of the great white north. A number of the firenewt Feb 2013 #14
Yeah, you got it. nt GliderGuider Feb 2013 #15
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Why we will finish eating...»Reply #0