There is nothing like fire under the ocean. This may sound pretty stupid but it is of interest when you consider the evolution of life and of civilisation.
First - what is fire? It is a rapid and runaway oxidation reaction which releases energy and consumes local fuel until it is exhausted.
Why can't we have fire under the ocean? Well in fact we can - there are certain chemicals which when mixed and subjected to ignition will commence a runaway oxidation reaction. But these chemicals do not occur naturally, as does wood and air.
There is another exception to this point which I feel I should also address. By stretching the definition a little we could perhaps say that life (which is a heavily modulated oxidation reaction) is itself a type of fire.
And by stretching the definition of fire in this way to include life I have actually managed to refute my first assertion. Life evolved in water and life does exist in water. Please bear with me.
Why do we have fire in our world? A good way to think about this question is to ask - what burns? And when you think about it - life burns. Before life left the oceans there was nothing - no oil, no wood, no people - to burn. So the modulated oxidation reaction called life that began in the oceans evolved up and onto land and carried with it oxidisable material to where it could burn. Thus fire.
It has been argued that life is only likely in places where liquid water can exist. This is because water is a unique molecule, whose electromagnetic properties are predisposed to generation of complex surfaces, films and structures, among many other specialities. This generative nature of water give rise to a wildly heterogenous environment of liquids, solids and gases and it for this reason (the argument goes) that life formed on earth.
Could we argue that water gives rise to fire?
Thursday, August 10, 2006
exponentially exponential
Jared Diamond likens humanities' global activity and related impact to a race in which two competing forces are accelerating exponentially.
The first force is the brute impact as population grows and consumption grows. Assuming there is a physical limit, the closer we get to that limit the more dramatic the effect of each increment of load on the system. Jared also talks (as do other complexity scientists) of non-symmetrical effects due to positive feedback; that is, no turning back from the tipping point.
The second force is our awareness and response to the change. It too accelerates exponentially. If it was just will-power alone we might consider the situation hopeless. But it is more than just will power; it is the cumulative and network effect of the information collection and processing which occurs when all minds turn to the same problem. Maybe it is enough?
The manhattan project is a primitive example. The technical expertise developed in the few short years of the project in response to a massive social threat are one of humanities wonders and horrors. Splitting the atom is truly a tipping point whether you are a star or a society.
And the manhattan project has further resonances too. As the world looks for ways to respond to an exponential threat, nuclear power is back on the agenda big time. Ironic that this tipping point should attract the product of another earlier one, and offer the same dilemma of creation and destruction once again, with exponential force. Again.
The first force is the brute impact as population grows and consumption grows. Assuming there is a physical limit, the closer we get to that limit the more dramatic the effect of each increment of load on the system. Jared also talks (as do other complexity scientists) of non-symmetrical effects due to positive feedback; that is, no turning back from the tipping point.
The second force is our awareness and response to the change. It too accelerates exponentially. If it was just will-power alone we might consider the situation hopeless. But it is more than just will power; it is the cumulative and network effect of the information collection and processing which occurs when all minds turn to the same problem. Maybe it is enough?
The manhattan project is a primitive example. The technical expertise developed in the few short years of the project in response to a massive social threat are one of humanities wonders and horrors. Splitting the atom is truly a tipping point whether you are a star or a society.
And the manhattan project has further resonances too. As the world looks for ways to respond to an exponential threat, nuclear power is back on the agenda big time. Ironic that this tipping point should attract the product of another earlier one, and offer the same dilemma of creation and destruction once again, with exponential force. Again.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Tipping Points - Climate Change - how fast can you re-arrange the deck chairs?
Recognition of the reality of climate change is cyclical. A balmy winter is merely nice, and news from Southern Hemisphere heatwaves is faint, and obscured by the other natural disasters the South is routinely subject to.
Clarity increases every northern summer as the largest populations of first worlders max out their communal power supplies in search of personal cool breezes.
It is for this reason that it this summer of 2006 that concensus has finally been reached - even the most rabid small government neoconservative has gotta admit its kinda hot.
The tipping point for our minds has been reached. Too bad it is probably ten years after the physical tipping point.
Clarity increases every northern summer as the largest populations of first worlders max out their communal power supplies in search of personal cool breezes.
It is for this reason that it this summer of 2006 that concensus has finally been reached - even the most rabid small government neoconservative has gotta admit its kinda hot.
The tipping point for our minds has been reached. Too bad it is probably ten years after the physical tipping point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)