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
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
9. Pretty much everything.
Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:40 PM
Feb 2013

Last edited Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:39 PM - Edit history (7)

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 recognize.

This is why the genius anthropologist Marvin Harris correctly recognized 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 it (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.

So basically the MPP plays a 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" crowd 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.

Is that understandable?

Not to mention the possibility of Fireballs Demeter Feb 2013 #1
Oooh! Aaah! hatrack Feb 2013 #2
... phantom power Feb 2013 #3
"May stick to certain types of planets" hatrack Feb 2013 #7
Unfortunately the time we might have been able to address this was 50 years or more ago. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #4
excuse my tangent... phantom power Feb 2013 #5
Pretty much everything. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #9
no, I mean you are missing a word in your sig line phantom power Feb 2013 #11
D'oh! GliderGuider Feb 2013 #12
"Is that understandable?" mcranor Feb 2013 #15
Question, ... do you consider energy seeking behavior, ... CRH Feb 2013 #23
No, it's everything from gathering wood for a fire to planting vegetables and smelting iron. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #29
And we could have addressed it then, if it were not for fear of change. zeemike Feb 2013 #13
Actually, we couldn't have. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #14
While that is an interesting observation. zeemike Feb 2013 #17
This is why I say that people steeped in humanism will have a very hard time with the idea. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #18
Actually, I'll walk that back a bit. Almost everybody will have a hard time with it. nt GliderGuider Feb 2013 #19
I understand it. zeemike Feb 2013 #20
As you say, GliderGuider Feb 2013 #21
First it is the individuals, then it is society. zeemike Feb 2013 #22
That's the fundamental misperception of how change happens. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #25
Well that is an interesting perspective. zeemike Feb 2013 #34
I agree, this is Koyaanisqatsi. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #35
We could've maybe done it 20 years ago. joshcryer Feb 2013 #27
It might have been physically possible 20 years ago. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #30
We humans tend to usually act in response to catastrophe. joshcryer Feb 2013 #31
Yep, that's the way it works. GliderGuider Feb 2013 #32
Foom! nt Javaman Feb 2013 #6
Election meltdown small potatoes? Bernardo de La Paz Feb 2013 #8
If all this methane is released in the arctic austinlw Feb 2013 #10
My guess is that we start playing fast and loose with geo-engineering before it happens. Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #16
I think it's easy to mis-underestimate pscot Feb 2013 #24
I think you entierly missed my point, it's just not going to be allowed to happen we will cheat. Exultant Democracy Feb 2013 #26
That's the point I was responding to pscot Feb 2013 #33
Geoengineering will only happen as a response to AGW. joshcryer Feb 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»New Scientist - Major Met...»Reply #9