The Available Matter and Energy Wednesday, Nov 19 2008
philosophy 8:58 pm
Part of the rationale for being a “transhumanist”, or, more broadly, having grandiose dreams for humanity’s future, is the extremely simple and mundane observation that the available matter and free energy in our general vicinity is far larger than what we have utilized of it thus far. The incoming solar energy is about a million times greater than global energy consumption, and the available hydrothermal energy to be extracted from the energy gradient between the mantle and the upper crust is many times that. These energy sources far exceed that available from all fossil fuels, uranium, and thorium combined. In the long run (less than a century?), solar and hydrothermal will become our primary energy sources, simply because nothing else will be able to meet our exponentially growing demand.
The biosphere contains just two trillion tonnes of carbon, but the oceans contain about 36 trillion tonnes of carbon (mostly as bicarbonate ion), and several trillion tonnes of additional carbon exist as fossil matter, including the leftovers from the catastrophic Azolla event 49 million years ago. Retrieving oceanic carbon and reintroducing it to the organic biosphere could allow us to reestablish beautiful forests over much of the surface of the planet. Historically, tropical forests extended to within 40 degrees of the equator, subtropical forests to 60, and other forests to the poles. Palm trees and turtles thrived at the North Pole. Our current ice, grass, and desert-covered Earth is a geophysical abnormality caused by an Ice Age that began 23 million years ago when Antarctica split from South America, permitting the creation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and leading to an “Icebox Earth” with glaciated poles. We have had greener ages, and we can bring them back with technology, particularly organic and inorganic self-replicating agents.
Though most environmentalists center their efforts around preserving currently existing biodiversity, forward-looking environmentalists should look towards not just preserving the already existing biodiversity, by setting environmental conditions conducive to the development of millions of new species and a planet covered in luxuriant foliage. By using vertical farming, which will be demonstrated as proof-of-concept within years, and closed-cycle manufacturing, we can minimize our footprint and sustain upwards of 100 billion people with negligible environmental impact. The current impression that the planet is overpopulated is a selection effect resulting from people living in crowded cities, concentrated by technological and economic necessity. Decentralized manufacturing and high-resolution virtual communication will allow a more evenly distributed populace.
Some, like environmentalist Bill McKibben — have said “Enough”, enough technology, enough life, enough progress. Unsurprisingly, I disagree. Looking back from the perspective of a world more than 20 times lusher and Nature-filled than today, with more than 20 times more people distributed evenly across huge tracts of land now practically empty, it will be hard to say, “we should have stopped when we were just at 5% of this potential”. There have been other times in history with just 5% of the biomass and life of today — immediately after major mass extinctions. If today’s world is “enough”, then why stop there? Why not revert back to a world with even less biodiversity and biomass? It would be a surprising coincidence if the current biomass is just right, rather than too little or too much. Those arguing otherwise are just products of their environment — the glacier, desert, and steppe-covered poverty of the Late Cenozoic.
18 Responses to “The Available Matter and Energy”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

November 19th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Welcome back! :)
November 20th, 2008 at 12:56 am
“Those arguing otherwise are just products of their environment.”
I am disheartened by these types of folks over and over. I try to give people more credit but am disappointed when they prove to me its an unfounded attribution. for instance, they can’t think of anything but the terminator when you say singularity. What you say here is logically/scientifically sound, yet these types continually argue against it.
I’m also the guy who talked about everything being outside of our control in another post. I think you should write a blog about that. It is a very important and real concept. I have heard you say “no free-will” here and there, but I would like to know your exact viewpoint on this issue. We are controlled by physics. We are controlled by genes and memes. Where is there room to believe we are active agents. Although I would say we are motivated by our wants and desires(which we have no control over).
The funny thing about all this is that I think the singularity and transhumanism centered philosophy is where all logical and rational people should end up. Its weird to be exactly where a free person would be especially if I am not free. This leads me to believe that all notions of personal identity will disintegrate once everyone accepts objective truths(science). We will be like the borg. A giant hedonistic borg entity. I have a feeling you follow my thought process here. If not, please respond and I will elaborate.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:33 am
Yeah, welcome back.
I hate these idiots who tell us to stop technology. It’s not technology that causes the problems it’s simply greed. Like you say, technology will solve the problems. It may even solve greed itself.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:00 am
For a transhumanist perspective, this is rather conservative - though perhaps you deliberately optimized for a low-future-shock text.
Regardless, I feel the need to point out that if we’re serious about making effective use of resources, this plan doesn’t go anywhere near far enough.
By far the biggest storage of energy in the solar system is the local sun. Everything else is negligible by comparison; the only reason other energy sources may be interesting is for being easier to harvest. Our sun is currently burning through its stored energy at an atrocious rate, radiating vast amounts uselessly into interstellar space. From a conservation perspective, our first priority should be to shut down nuclear fusion in the sun, or, should we prove unable to do to do so in a reasonable timeframe, build structures to capture and store the radiated energy (think dyson-sphere-like design).
The next priority should be to send out expeditions to neighboring solar systems at maximum possible speed, to do the same in other solar systems. We don’t necessarily need to *do* anything much with the energy in the near future, just putting it into permanent storage would be vastly better than letting stars continue to burn through it uselessly.
Similarly, expanding physical bisosphere to allow natural selection to produce new species is very inefficient.
Natural selection is bloody inefficient and bloody bloody. If we really want new species around, we’d be much better off leaving the design to intelligent entities. The design process will both be vastly more efficient than natural selection, and (if we chose to optimize for it) a lot less cruel to the creatures involved.
However, imo right now dealing with looming existential risks should take higher priority than designing fun new species or even shutting down stars.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
It is so hard to impress upon average people even the implications of Moore’s law in terms of games an order of magnitude more complex than WoW. Don’t even try inferring between Moore’s law, the number of processors in the human brain, reverse engineering the brain and what implications THAT might have. It’ll be glassy eye zone from here to mid-west USA.
The above article is true, according to every fiber of my being. If I insist, the likes of Dale C. will laugh me out of court playing “bad religion” really loudly as a theme soundtrack.
What can I do other than shrug and sigh? Is H+ a faith based persuasion - unfalsifiable as thetans?
I’d love being smug for a change. But I may not get to that point in time, let alone benefit from it. It’s all so bloody disheartening. The penthouse party I was invited to this morning has been called off because the pets all had flu. Will I miss the spectacle and the consummate gloating altogether? Will I be left begging for scraps waiting till the sun rises, barely making it to a faint glimmer in the east that would barely impress Lestat?
November 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
A page with calculations of all energy sources on earth irregardless of technical readiness.
The units are 10**21 ergs
Worldwide fossil-fuel resources (oil, natural gas, coal, shale oil, oil from tar sands, etc.)
20,000,000,000 ergs
Hydrothermal energy stored to depth of 10 k worldwide (this supply is partially renewable)
400,000,000 ergs
Worldwide wind energy
20,000,000,000 ergs/year
Geothermal energy (outward flow of heat from the earth’s core)
8,000,000 ergs/year
Worldwide uranium used in water-moderated fission reactors
20,000,000 ergs
Solar energy at the outer boundary of earths atmosphere
50,000,000,000 ergs/year
Tidal energy
1,000,000 ergs/year
Fusion energy from Li-6 in 1.5*1018 m3 of water
2,000,000,000 ergs
Fusion energy from 1.5*1018m3 water
100,000,000,000,000,000 ergs
Breeder reactors (including the use of thorium and U-233)
400,000,000,000 ergs
Hydrothermal energy stored to a depth of 3 km worldwide
80,000,000 ergs
November 20th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
kilowatthours (kWh) x 36,000,000,000,000 = ergs
So the 10**21 ergs is 2.7*10**7 kwh
World fossil fuels
5*10**17 kwh
Solar hitting atmosphere
12.5*10**17 kwh/year
I am not sure how some of the numbers above are obtained. I doubt that they are going after all the uranium and thorium in the crust or even in the ocean.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
michael:
what I would really like is the biggest, best, and brightest future — one that would be all-inclusive
I don’t even pretend to guess how we will get there; but along the way, some show some light on the path
thanx
November 21st, 2008 at 2:49 am
The world right now is doing a lot of unsustainable things. Low-impact, sustainable alternatives are developing. But so are a lot of new high-impact possibilities, like artificial life and artificial intelligence, and the longer run implies the material possibility of engineering on astronomical scales.
The reforested and highly populated planet described does not seem very relevant either for environmentalism or for transhumanism. A thoughtful environmentalist might admit that a human civilization which had achieved sustainability would indeed have to make value judgements about which planetary climatic regime to prefer, since several have existed and none are eternally stable. But they will also say that in the world we have, with its scarcities, habitat destruction, booming human populations, such a scenario is hypothetical to the point of irrelevance (though some of the featured ideas might be relevant to reining in the present destruction). Let’s turn the existing unsustainable trends to something visibly sustainable, they might say, and then we can revisit this scenario.
As for transhumanism? The great problem is, first of all, what to do about all those emerging powers, which could destroy Forestopia just as easily as they could the existing world; and then, looking beyond that, the next problem is, how *should* those powers be used? In that context, as Sebastian said, the Forestopia scenario seems mostly to be a statement about what *could* be done, and a deliberately low-key one. “Hey greens! You shouldn’t fear us robot-swarm, mind-uploading, planet-dismantling transhumanists! Look at this vision of a leafy green Neo-Carboniferous world that we’ve conjured for you!” It says nothing about, say, how we meet the WMD-fabber-on-every-desktop problem without outright relinquishment, not does it really tackle the question of whether having as many trees and human beings as possible still looks like a good thing, when you have truly godlike power and insight.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:43 am
we may decide that planets aren’t that great anymore; why should we stay in one place, when we could, in theory, go anywhere we want and do almost everything imaginable?
planets, bodies, and worldviews will not be recognized in just one hundred years, much less the staggering vistas beyond that
post-humans will keep evolving, acclerating along as they move into the future fantastic
and, baselines, as they are referred to, may have it better than ever
in potential, it’s all good for everyone
November 21st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Michael . . .
I generally agree with much of what you have to say. But I have a comment and a crucial question:
Most of the new, accelerating technology is driven by scientists who have elevated their field to the status of a religion and owned by a powerful few who will control how it is used. You yourself have elsewhere have argued well for caution and humanistic morality.
The question, therefore, is, “who chooses”? Mankind has proven more adept at turning technology against itself than at devoting it truly to the common good.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Yes indeed: Welcome back, Michael.
Ongoing *ephemeralization* (the accomplishing of more utility-functional tasks/operations with ever less grams of mass, ergs of energy, and units-of-time per particular techno-function) implies real income to not only continue to increase, but to start doing so, along with everything else, (super)exponentially. Can the social ecology (positional goods, public-goods, rent-seeking, monopoly-seeking, keep-up-with-the-Jones utility function[s], etc.) stand it? Probably. We’re a resilient species. Indeed, we can expect more radical changes in the planetary social ecology in the next 20 yrs (+/- 5) than have occurred over the last 20K yrs (with a tip of the hat to the late great Ken Boulding, who was off by a decade or two or three…)
Our Main Concerns for the nonce:
1. Power Structures
2. Human Extinction possibilities
3. The inter-relation of 1 & 2
(See the works of Boulding and Warren Samuels…)
Ciao… ;)
November 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
[…] Michael Anissimov recently writes about the vast quantities of matter and energy in our grasp that dwarfs what we have in fossil fuels: Part of the rationale for being a “transhumanist”, or, more broadly, having grandiose dreams […]
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Michael, it’s nice to see you back to blogging.
Let’s not confuse sustainability with sustainable growth (in terms of our evolving values, emphasizing those values which tend to be conserved because they tend to work.)
Toward an increasingly fractal future, not especially “green”, nor full of the shiniest of spaceships, but rather, one that supports ongoing growth.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Though most environmentalists center their efforts around preserving currently existing biodiversity, forward-looking environmentalists should look towards not just preserving the already existing biodiversity
I would also argue that the future will require a certain degree of selectivity. Nature is not a harmonious, wonderful place where all species fit within their nitch; it is a brutal competition for survival, and often hurting one species helps another.
In the future, we might need to choose just what species we want around and which ones are to survive.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
The current impression that the planet is overpopulated is a selection effect resulting from people living in crowded cities, concentrated by technological and economic necessity.
You’ll be interested to know that less then 6% of the United States is currently used by large scale communities.
Overpopulation is largely hogposh. And largely economically unviable (notice I said largely.)
November 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
I agree with Sebastian’s comment about nature being There’s an enormous amount of suffering is endured by small animals in the wild with short lifespans, most of which die before maturity.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
While we have anything like the current technology we don’t want any significant changes in the climate. A temperature increase of a few degrees will raise ocean levels, flooding a lot of land that is currently used for agriculture, and spreading swamps around larger areas of the world.
With better technology we could control insects such as mosquitoes or the diseases that they spread so that increased amounts of swamp land don’t provide a threat to humans. We could adapt food crops to grow with lower quality soil, in swamps, or with higher levels of salt. But for the moment any increase in sea levels will involve dramatic political changes which will be bad for us in many ways. Currently a mind-boggling amount of money is spent on “terrorist” threats and almost nothing is spent on extinction threats. Destroying the governments in many developing countries (which is what happens when the food runs out) will divert even more money to “terrorism” and away from projects that we desire.
Also there is the issue of hostile parties getting hold of nano-tech (or other similar new developments). It would be good if the factors which incite people to terrorist acts could decrease between now and the time when such technologies become viable, but if the climate change continues the probability of new and dangerous technologies being acquired by the wrong people will increase.
Once we have the ability to recreate the environment as we wish then we can have a discussion about how we might like it (based on the latest scientific research available at that time). But for the moment we really want to keep the environment as it is and we want to maintain and strengthen existing political structures.
As for extinctions of species, until we get a gene library of all species that is backed up well (IE copies under the control of different entities all around the world) we want to prevent extinction as much as possible. When designing anything the first thing you want to do is investigate previous designs and see which features you can use. I think it’s reasonable to assume that we will design life forms in the future for a variety of reasons. The database of evolved life forms is a vital resource that can be used to assist in such work and we should try to avoid losing it.
Also until we solve all medical problems we need to continue to rely on existing plants and animals in medical research. So it would be good to maintain bio-diversity for that reason too.
While we are at it we should be trying to recover the DNA of extinct animals to recreate lost species (like in the movie “Jurassic Park”). I think that there is a lot of value to be found in the DNA of lost species and we should be making the most of any opportunities to recover DNA.