The End of Entropy: A Look at Our Entropic World and the Evidence Supporting How We Can Change This

Originally posted by Mr. D
*sigh*, sign me up. Sounds beautiful on paper however there are some
issues that will be a big problem if this is ever allowed to happen. You
recommend open source for technology. I agree 100% however for us
to truely grasp this kind of system, we (everyone) would spend all of
our short life spans studying the technologies that result of infinite
energy. Think about it, we would all have to become not just specialized
in one field or profession but we would have study every single one in
order to get rid of greed and distrust. Ignorance is a fertile breeding ground
for those things. It is how we got to where we are now in the first place.

"Greed" is a meaningless term in a world where One may have what One wants for the asking... And without the incentive of money, trusting others becomes easier (and safer!) by leaps and bounds. All information would be on the web for any who would like to learn... And much of how we got where we are has to do with having to devise social structures based in scarcity. With abundance, a whole new paradigm can be built. I don't think everyone would have to study - just those whose bliss it is to know those things. Though some very small (and statistically insignificant) number of people might want to try to impose on others, but, by and large, Humans will opt for the best solution for all. (The individual having had Its social solutions solved as they relate to physical needs and wants.)

We simply don't live long enough to keep up with the pace of technology
so we tend to trust others to do things for us. For example: Cell phones.
Almost everyone wants one, yet many do not even know what every resistor,
diode, transistor etc., does in the cell phone that enables it to work. Yet
people buy them up like there is no tomorrow. Distrust comes in the fact
that we let others design, manufacture and market them but what else can
a cell phone do besides let us communicate? It enables others to spy on
us against our knowledge. Every call, text and picture is stored on some
computer at the "provider" of the service that can be used by others. The same
thing applies to many things around us.

In the money-driven scarcity paradigm we're operating in, distrust is a wise stance. Once money as motive vanishes, motive will come from the heart or maybe pranking. But seldom will it prove malicious (especially if we encourage our children to grow up following their bliss and with a strong "betterment" ethic reinforced).

Yes we can make it work, we would also have to concentrate on extending our
lifespans as a species to truely benefit from such a society. Star Trek, here we
come.

Oh, I am certain our lifespans will be lengthened phenomenally, but I doubt we will use them to just keep up with tech. All tech will be available for use, and as you pointed out, today there are plenty who use it with no full understanding. The thing that will change is, the "guts" will be available for others to examine (no money so patents become superfluous - status will be gained for the best displays) rather than secreted away, and people will build reputations as good "reviewers." "Programmer Paul says the code for the new hair-dressing robot is awesome! I will ask for one!"

And yes... Gene would have loved my ideas, I think. [smile]

Originally posted by Dagar
We already have a near-infinite source of energy, one that bombards our planet constantly and for all intents and purposes eternally .... our sun.

If we could but find a way of harnessing the energy, as individuals and in large usable amounts (regardless the weather) we would get to the stage you're describing.

Solar energy is entropic energy. It is not likely to solve social issues - especially for those who have no money to buy the panels - because it is is entropic. I recommend reading Jeremy Rifkin's Entropy for an understanding of how entropy affects societies, causing ripples of chaos, which are met with efforts to clamp down and control the chaos - i.e., fascism. I think we can agree that signs of fascism are cropping up, more and more. This is why.

And likely, with solar panels, since you have "haves" and "have nots" still, some will have to pay others for energy - and as soon as that is the case - you begin to develop poverty.

For these reasons, plenum energy is a far better option.

I think two things are going to really set us free as individuals ... a limitless and cheap/free supply of energy, and the ability to convert that energy into whatever form we like, at will .... in other words, a Star Trek type personal replicator.

When these two things become possible THEN the game changes completely.

Good thread

Actually... We're a lot closer that you might guess to having a replicator. There's a LOT of fun things in Black Ops. I KNOW the energy extraction is there, and with 50 years' development since the tech was last seen in the public sector, I cannot doubt that some wonderful stuff has been developed.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

P.S. With regards to "conservative" sites banning you for this post, I gotta tell you this; As much as I like and agree with the contents of this thread, I could only expect two responses from conservatives. 1.) They are part of the energy for profit paradigm and therefore immediately move to ban your participation for fear of being disclosed, or 2.) They are akin to Jeff Dunham's "Peanut" and "Swish," it went right over their heads.

Thanks for your assessment of my work. [smile]

I have to bet it is #1. When "Swish" something goes over another's head... They tend to make jackass comments. Or at least warn.

It was the banning - without reason - that clued me in.

I think you've made some good points about how entropy might work on the scale of societies, but I have a couple objections.

While power generation, transmittion, and consumption is a large portion of our economy, it's certainly not all of it. We buy electricity and gas to power our other stuff, and even with an infinite power source the other stuff that we spend most of our money on would still be in limited supply. Movies won't start filming themselves, and new gadgets won't start designing and assembling themselves.

Our entire economy isn't reducible to the kind of energy your talking about. No power source can replace human activity. Consider the world before electricity; societies still functioned using familiar governments and economies, and people still went to work everyday. They didn't need power for anything. Even if the power source could be used to power equipment which performed essential tasks, the equipment would still need to be designed and built. I think all that would happen is that humans would consume more media because we wouldn't have to work as much. That's what people do with their free time now in the most prosperous societies. Economies would still exist the same way they do now, it's just that energy markets would be replaced with other markets.

Additionally, there is no suppresson of free energy. Free energy would cause some people to lose their jobs, but society as a whole would benefit. The free energy devices and delivery systems would be tremendously valuable, and I market would be created for devices that took greater advantage of the new energy source. Anyone who could develop such technology, would. Big oil could no more stop a free energy source than the Postal Service could stop e-mail. There's a demand for energy so an infinite energy source is extremely desirable.

The whole conversation about how the free energy source would effect society is really a contradition, though. The basis of the ideas about how society works discussed in this thread is the thermodynamic reality that systems tend toward entropy and useable energy decreases over time. We're saying that's the way physics works, and then we're using that idea to understand sociological phenomena. But all this business about what would happen if there were free energy is rendered trivial by the fact that entropy always increases; the very fact that is the basis of this particular line of consideration. If entropy always increases, no free energy is possible, and if free energy is possible, entropy doesn't always increase and the model of society we're discussing is invalid.

I think the Mr. Rifkin might be working from a flawed argument here. To begin with, I'm not real sure about the validity of assigning laws of energy to a societal construct, but then again, I'm no physicist, so I could be talking through my proverbial hat here.

The biggest issue I have, and again, I'm no physicist, lies in this line-

… Every time we add our labor to a product or perform a service we expend energy and increase the overall entropy of the environment.

On the surface this makes sense, as entropy increases as energy decreases. However, here's my issue:

Entropy is only an issue in a closed sytem.

When all energy in a system is expended, yes, entropy increases until stagnation is reached. However, in a societal context, there is a constant influx of new energy. New people, new ideas, new technologies all introduce new energy into the system. As long as there is a supply of energy, entropy is held at bay, and as long as there are new people introduced into the societal system, there will always be more energy, effectively making entropy a non-issue.

I could be totally off base here, but as our world/society is definitely not a closed system, with new energy being constantly introduced, I don't believe entropy is problem.

Cool thread, by the way. Quite thought provoking and well laid out.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
I think you've made some good points about how entropy might work on the scale of societies, but I have a couple objections.

While power generation, transmittion, and consumption is a large portion of our economy, it's certainly not all of it. We buy electricity and gas to power our other stuff, and even with an infinite power source the other stuff that we spend most of our money on would still be in limited supply. Movies won't start filming themselves, and new gadgets won't start designing and assembling themselves.

If you look at the costs of things... It is the energy in the end that we are paying for. Starting with agriculture, we paid for the energy of the One who tilled the fields, did the planting and the tending, and the harvesting. And often times for the energy to transport the harvest to market. The sun, the seed, the water was all free.

With mining, we paid (and pay) for the energy to extract the stuffs being mined. The stuff is just sitting there waiting to be taken. Free. Oil, same. And on and on.

Now... Movies will be made by the Ones who love to create movies. We may see an explosion of movies, even. New gadgets will be created by those who love to create gadgets.

Our entire economy isn't reducible to the kind of energy your talking about. No power source can replace human activity.

I agree, but with emphasis on a betterment ethic and encouragement to follow One's bliss, people will NOT be sitting around doing nothing. We truly are Creators. And though not everybody will contribute, plenty - most, I would wager - WILL be going lots of stuff. And, actually, our economy IS reducible - because it's all about the energy that we have money in the first place.

Consider the world before electricity; societies still functioned using familiar governments and economies, and people still went to work everyday. They didn't need power for anything. Even if the power source could be used to power equipment which performed essential tasks, the equipment would still need to be designed and built. I think all that would happen is that humans would consume more media because we wouldn't have to work as much. That's what people do with their free time now in the most prosperous societies. Economies would still exist the same way they do now, it's just that energy markets would be replaced with other markets.

In the world before electricity, the world was powered by sweat. We definitely needed power. It was just human (and animal) power. I know many who LOVE to design (and build!) equipment. I don't think we'll lack there. And even in the most prosperous of societies, there is vast poverty - and many, many who consume media because they can't afford to follow their bliss. They may want to go surfing in Hawai'i - but have no means to get there. Or any of a zillion other things. (If the very rich can handle being very rich, why wouldn't the rest of us?) And no... Economics will become moot, unnecessary.

Additionally, there is no suppresson of free energy. Free energy would cause some people to lose their jobs, but society as a whole would benefit. The free energy devices and delivery systems would be tremendously valuable, and I market would be created for devices that took greater advantage of the new energy source. Anyone who could develop such technology, would. Big oil could no more stop a free energy source than the Postal Service could stop e-mail. There's a demand for energy so an infinite energy source is extremely desirable.

I know for a fact that free energy is suppressed. Please see my posts here:

www.abovetopsecret.com... and here www.abovetopsecret.com...

Free energy would remove power over others in favor of autonomous power over self. Oh, believe me, letting free energy would strip the power from the present power elite, so, though temporarily, money could be made if a device were marketed, the money will soon have no value, and the PTB would lose their control. This is why it is suppressed.

The whole conversation about how the free energy source would effect society is really a contradition, though. The basis of the ideas about how society works discussed in this thread is the thermodynamic reality that systems tend toward entropy and useable energy decreases over time. We're saying that's the way physics works, and then we're using that idea to understand sociological phenomena. But all this business about what would happen if there were free energy is rendered trivial by the fact that entropy always increases; the very fact that is the basis of this particular line of consideration. If entropy always increases, no free energy is possible, and if free energy is possible, entropy doesn't always increase and the model of society we're discussing is invalid.

It's not a contradiction. All reports of extracting the plenum energy have reported temperature DROPS - as opposed to heat - in the process of extraction. This is a sure sign of negentropic function. In fact, if you believe there is no such thing as negentropy, it might aid to try to explain the organizing (negentropic) behavior of life itself. It is a fallacy that entropy always increases. (Just as the "closed system" does not exist.)

Not sure why you think the model of society we're discussing is invalid in the presence of negentropy... It is the very presence of negentropy that makes the model I offer work.

I recommend reading Rifkin's Entropy. You will understand more easily the relationship between entropy and fascism. And we don't want this encroaching fascism, now do we?

Thank you for your considered response. I do appreciate it.

Originally posted by subject x

I think the Mr. Rifkin might be working from a flawed argument here. To begin with, I'm not real sure about the validity of assigning laws of energy to a societal construct, but then again, I'm no physicist, so I could be talking through my proverbial hat here.

The biggest issue I have, and again, I'm no physicist, lies in this line-

… Every time we add our labor to a product or perform a service we expend energy and increase the overall entropy of the environment.

On the surface this makes sense, as entropy increases as energy decreases. However, here's my issue:

Entropy is only an issue in a closed sytem.

When all energy in a system is expended, yes, entropy increases until stagnation is reached. However, in a societal context, there is a constant influx of new energy. New people, new ideas, new technologies all introduce new energy into the system. As long as there is a supply of energy, entropy is held at bay, and as long as there are new people introduced into the societal system, there will always be more energy, effectively making entropy a non-issue.

Except... That because we have lived with a scarcity of energy, we devised a money system to account for it, which leads to elite and poverty-stricken. Most wind up closer to the latter than the former. So though we add energy with new people, we are losing them at the back end, they do not produce enough energy (in today's world) to cover their use of energy, and that means - more in poverty. In other words, not enough energy added to counter the entropic outflow... And, also, if we had free energy, society will still be greased with these new additions, but money is no longer needed to account for energy.

There is no such thing as a closed system (funny I said that above and then got to your post discussing clo9sed systems; LOL). Maybe in a mind experiment, but that's it. Entropy is only loosely associated with the openness or closure of a system.

I could be totally off base here, but as our world/society is definitely not a closed system, with new energy being constantly introduced, I don't believe entropy is problem.

Cool thread, by the way. Quite thought provoking and well laid out.

I do recommend reading the whole of Entropy. I merely scratched the surface of Rifkin's work, and in order to understand well the implications of free energy to society, digesting his work is highly likely to assist.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Explanation: Flagged and a constellation of st*rs for you!

Personal Disclosure: There is a simple decartelizable and decentralized common resource that increases in value with the more work one puts into it and its non inflationary when spent to do work in a well balanced with appropriate accountable audit prone built in bias economy. So we can fix this unfair currency BS!

Its called compressed air!

Hey Presto! Out of Thin Air! A magical new currency and economy! (by OmegaLogos posted on 8-9-2010 @ 05:30 AM) [ATS]

There is also a simple way to eventually subvert the money all together although it appears pricey right now!

Its called easy access to space and its near infinite resources with Project Orion!

TPTB can't Tax you, if you're beyond their reach, out in space! Viable ways to get off this planet (by OmegaLogos posted on 5-1-2011 @ 08:10 AM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: OL hopes that info helps you condense it even more and even distill some essential ingredients /oils out of it! Beware as both can be volatile issues.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Explanation: Flagged and a constellation of st*rs for you!

Wow. Thank you so much for that. [smile]

Personal Disclosure: There is a simple decartelizable and decentralized common resource that increases in value with the more work one puts into it and its non inflationary when spent to do work in a well balanced with appropriate accountable audit prone built in bias economy. So we can fix this unfair currency BS!

Its called compressed air!

I like the concept, but... In order to compress air, you need energy - now that energy may be provided via Human effort or wind or solar...but the average person only has Human power to work with (they would have to pay for any other source). So this would require people to be their own energy source, which would require, like a job, time away from their bliss (or still the inability to afford their bliss if they can't now). Though the value of money will drop, it will not go away - because somebody has to pay (in the form of food, or to the energy producers) for their energy. The overall gain in energy will be heavily counterbalanced.

(I added this to your thread, BTW, as I feel it should be brought up there, as well. [smile])

Hey Presto! Out of Thin Air! A magical new currency and economy! (by OmegaLogos posted on 8-9-2010 @ 05:30 AM) [ATS]

There is also a simple way to eventually subvert the money all together although it appears pricey right now!

Its called easy access to space and its near infinite resources with Project Orion!

TPTB can't Tax you, if you're beyond their reach, out in space! Viable ways to get off this planet (by OmegaLogos posted on 5-1-2011 @ 08:10 AM) [ATS]

Personal Disclosure: OL hopes that info helps you condense it even more and even distill some essential ingredients /oils out of it! Beware as both can be volatile issues.

I do appreciate the efforts of others to polish the rough work I do. Thank you.

The issue with space (and I would LOVE to go!) is that it's not a solution for Humanity at large. Nor do many even want to live in space. My life has been spent garnering information and seeking a solution therein for Humanity, as a whole. And I believe I see a solution. With conscience Ethically guided, having seen a solution, I must come forth with the ideas that have come to me.

Yes, many of Us will leave the planet Earth behind, but I want to see Earth (Eridu) become the Heaven She can be if we consciously choose to protect that.

Never before on Earth have we had the communications, robotics, energy, information, or (hopefully) the will to attain the goal of building Heaven here. I humbly offer what I see so clearly will work.

Open Systems (social, economic and political)
Prosperity Consciousness (abundance trumps scarcity)

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Open Systems (social, economic and political)

In abundance, there is no economy - well except in the form of gifts - and politics will flow on the Interweb driven of, for and by the people. With no one motivated by profit.

Prosperity Consciousness (abundance trumps scarcity)

And how!!! Rather as an ace of spades trumps the two of diamonds. LOL!

Thank you for your input. [smile]

Living is defying inertia.

When people feel they have something personal to gain, that is when they are willing to do their best, contribute the most, and so produce the most energy.

This is the biggest key for any successful society, a system which provides opportunity to those willing to contribute.

I spend alot of time thinking about how, as a species, we could restructure our societies to be able to live in harmony with the universe, and found myself getting quite excited by many of your ideas.

But there is one rather major problem that is facing us all - population growth. How on earth do we deal with this one, in a humanitarian way?

I kindof suspect Gaia may have a few plans for this one, and maybe a near extinction level event is what is required, for humanity to be able to learn to live so differently, and fewer of us to squabble about it as well.

Lets hope that blueprints for the various technologies for energy production etc are somewhere safe, would be a shame to start from the beginning again!

Originally posted by poet1b

Living is defying inertia.

When people feel they have something personal to gain, that is when they are willing to do their best, contribute the most, and so produce the most energy.

This is the biggest key for any successful society, a system which provides opportunity to those willing to contribute.

Well, I hope that will work in the favor of spreading these ideas. Join the Ethical Planetarian Party...? (See link in my sig.)

Originally posted by Psychoparrot
I spend alot of time thinking about how, as a species, we could restructure our societies to be able to live in harmony with the universe, and found myself getting quite excited by many of your ideas.

But there is one rather major problem that is facing us all - population growth. How on earth do we deal with this one, in a humanitarian way?

First, it is a fallacy that we are "overpopulated." This planet produces enough food to feed us three times over. Because food is presently distributed based on profit - not need - we see supermarkets throwing out hundreds of thousands of tons of food a month while poor areas starve.

Second, as we will all be able to live as today's elite do (if we so choose) and pursue our bliss, we will be less inclined to have children until we really want them. (Just as the elite and even the middle class have fewer kids than the poor today.)

I don't expect an issue with population growth.

I kindof suspect Gaia may have a few plans for this one, and maybe a near extinction level event is what is required, for humanity to be able to learn to live so differently, and fewer of us to squabble about it as well.

Well... I'm not so sure about Gaia, but there are surely NWO plans to get rid of most of us. My goal is to spread this to the tipping point such that we avoid such an evil ending.

Lets hope that blueprints for the various technologies for energy production etc are somewhere safe, would be a shame to start from the beginning again!

Oh, I imagine there are many who know, and hopefully they will step forth with that info before we are all killed.

I see where you are coming from. We do need to shift in the way we live and percieve our world. The problem is the greed that is set in motion from profits and big business. We have to remember that in a capitalist society profits are king, the king says what goes on. This system that is set up is a massive undertaking of centuries of human sacrifice and loss of dignity all in the name of wealth. The wealth makes the laws and governs what is "right" and "wrong'. This wealth will do whatever it takes to acquire more wealth.

The world as we know it, knows no other way. A shift that you speak of will take a massive overhaul in the way that humans think of themselves and others on this planet. I think that everybody is programmed to be in a survival mode, and in a capitalist society, this programmed mode of survival just happens to coincide with greed. (I hope that this makes sense.)..This change will not come easy and I feel that for it to happen, this planet will have to experience something never experienced before.

I am all for this kind of change but I have so many concerns I wish to speak of, and the kids are driving me crazy..I will try to make a few more posts tonight.

Originally posted by liejunkie01
I see where you are coming from. We do need to shift in the way we live and percieve our world. The problem is the greed that is set in motion from profits and big business. We have to remember that in a capitalist society profits are king, the king says what goes on. This system that is set up is a massive undertaking of centuries of human sacrifice and loss of dignity all in the name of wealth. The wealth makes the laws and governs what is "right" and "wrong'. This wealth will do whatever it takes to acquire more wealth.

While all this is true, I think it's safe to say that if most of Humanity were to support these ideas, we could waltz in a different direction entirely. All we need to do is get these ideas to the tipping point.

The world as we know it, knows no other way. A shift that you speak of will take a massive overhaul in the way that humans think of themselves and others on this planet. I think that everybody is programmed to be in a survival mode, and in a capitalist society, this programmed mode of survival just happens to coincide with greed. (I hope that this makes sense.)..This change will not come easy and I feel that for it to happen, this planet will have to experience something never experienced before.

That is why the spreading of the ideas is so important. And getting more and more crucial every day. I also suspect that if the ideas spread, it will be surprisingly easy, the change. The PTB are few and we are many. If we get behind this as a (more or less) whole, it will happen.

I am all for this kind of change but I have so many concerns I wish to speak of, and the kids are driving me crazy..I will try to make a few more posts tonight.

I look forward to the thoughts you have and thank you for your input.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Except... That because we have lived with a scarcity of energy, we devised a money system to account for it, which leads to elite and poverty-stricken.

I think you're mixing ststems here. I see society, monetary, and energy as three totally different systems, and lumping them together makes for a flawed experiment. Maybe that's the difference in our views right there. It could be the inherent flaw in using phsics models to explain societal systems.

There is no such thing as a closed system (funny I said that above and then got to your post discussing clo9sed systems; LOL). Maybe in a mind experiment, but that's it. Entropy is only loosely associated with the openness or closure of a system.

A flashlight is a closed system, as is a fire in a fireplace. If no more fuel is added, entropy will occur.
The openness or closedness of a system is inextricably related to entropy as I understand it, as a closed system will always end in entropy, while in an open system that's not necessarily so.

In societal terms, I agree, there is no such animal as a closed system. But that's the very thing that insures entropy is not an issue. Once again, this might be the flaw with using physics to explain society.

I do recommend reading the whole of Entropy. I merely scratched the surface of Rifkin's work, and in order to understand well the implications of free energy to society, digesting his work is highly likely to assist.

I'll read up on that, to be sure.


edit: Upon searching for "Entropy", I find it not available on the web, so I need to look into finding his book to read his work.

I did, however, find a few other things, for instance:

In his best-selling (and ostensibly non-fictional) "Entropy", Rifkin's absurd "the life and death of new organisms increase the entropy of the earth, meaning that less available matter [sic, italics inserted] exists for the unfolding of life in the future" (32, p 38) ultimately soars toward "Everywhere we look, the entropy of our world is reaching staggering proportions. We have become creatures struggling to maintain ourselves in the midst of growing chaos"

source

All-in-all, Rifkin's theories on how thermodynamics fits into the various processes of human life are, in most cases, unsubstantiated and very illogical.

Rifkin’s general theory is a result of a misinterpretation of the definition of entropy and the framework behind the second law of thermodynamics.

In sum, Rifkin’s entire theory is based on a terminological misinterpretation through his referece of Georgescu-Roegen.

source
Also this, although it's not about "Entropy", it's referring to "The Emerging Order", another of Mr. Rifkin's works.

It seems that I'm not the only one who finds flaws in Mr. Rifkins theories and methodology. I was kinda surprised to see, most especially, this quote, which I listed above, but which I think is important enough to list again:

All-in-all, Rifkin's theories on how thermodynamics fits into the various processes of human life are, in most cases, unsubstantiated and very illogical.

This is pretty much what I've been saying, that there are problems with using physics models to explain society.

Based on these examples (and others) I might read "Entropy" if I happen to stumble upon a used copy in paperback, but I don't think I'll go out of my way to locate one.

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Except... That because we have lived with a scarcity of energy, we devised a money system to account for it, which leads to elite and poverty-stricken.

I think you're mixing ststems here. I see society, monetary, and energy as three totally different systems, and lumping them together makes for a flawed experiment. Maybe that's the difference in our views right there. It could be the inherent flaw in using phsics models to explain societal systems.

Well, x, you may think that. It doesn't make it so. They are all inextricably interconnected. Better minds than mine have shown this. I don't know if you're old enough to remember the stir Entropy created when published, but it began the whole recycling thing in earnest. It brought people the awareness that waste = entropy = disorder. I pulled three paragraphs from a work that is best understood as a whole.

Next I recommend looking into books on the sciences of emergence, chaos (which is different from randomness - chaos has hidden or "infolded" structure - randomness is, well, random), complexity, and fractals. These will help in understanding the behavior of society at large. And last, I recommend reading A Paradise Built in Hell, by Rebecca Solnit. A great piece illustrating how Humans behave in moneyless situations.

There is no such thing as a closed system (funny I said that above and then got to your post discussing clo9sed systems; LOL). Maybe in a mind experiment, but that's it. Entropy is only loosely associated with the openness or closure of a system.

A flashlight is a closed system, as is a fire in a fireplace. If no more fuel is added, entropy will occur.
The openness or closedness of a system is inextricably related to entropy as I understand it, as a closed system will always end in entropy, while in an open system that's not necessarily so.

Not so. Though on a macroscopic level, this may appear to be so, on a quantum level, the plenum energy is flowing in, particles, atoms and molecules escape and enter, as does other energy. Therefore, there is no such thing as a closed system. For this reason, then, entropy is loosely connected to the imperfect confines on a macroscopic level. (And a fire in a fireplace is anything BUT a closed system - the energy can enter and exit the system at will.)

In societal terms, I agree, there is no such animal as a closed system. But that's the very thing that insures entropy is not an issue. Once again, this might be the flaw with using physics to explain society.

In society, entropy does have an effect. For, like most systems, it is semi-closed, and does therefore confine to some degree the energy. That is why, as energy is used in society, the society exhibits greater and greater chaos, leading to efforts to clamp down and control the chaos leading to (finally) fascism.

I do recommend reading the whole of Entropy. I merely scratched the surface of Rifkin's work, and in order to understand well the implications of free energy to society, digesting his work is highly likely to assist.

I'll read up on that, to be sure.

I look forward to hearing from you upon completion. [smile] Thank you for your intelligent response.

Originally posted by subject x
edit: Upon searching for "Entropy", I find it not available on the web, so I need to look into finding his book to read his work.

I borrowed it from the library...

Based on these examples (and others) I might read "Entropy" if I happen to stumble upon a used copy in paperback, but I don't think I'll go out of my way to locate one.

Hmmmm.... I know of many books that have had scoffers. Did not mean the work in question was wrong. And I bet I can find a great number of glowing reviews. Granted, reviews are irrelevant to the validity of the work. I seldom pay any attention to reviewers - they may have an agenda. I'm a "see for myself" kinda gal. (And Rifkin's work did ruffle feathers in some powerful circles of the day...) In fact, the more vehement and nasty a review is, the more likely I am to want to see for myself, as this suggests some motivation to put forth the effort to disparage beyond the work itself.

Thing is... I came to the realization of the direct and intimate connection between money and energy before I came across this work, but when I found this connection so strongly supported in Rifkin's work, I was moved to write The End of Entropy.

So... You do as you see fit. Thanks, again for your contemplation and discussion of my work.