Energy crisis solved! - Now what?

[Boerseun]

Yesterday, the 6th July 2015, humanity finally solved the energy crisis with the invention of a machine that can tap energy straight from vacuum. And lots of it. For free. For ever. And totally pollution free.

 

Imagine such a scenario as the above.

 

I don't want to get into a discussion about how such a wonder-energy source might work, that is not relevant here.

 

My question is:

 

If the above miracle energy source were to be found, where does it leave humanity? What will we do? What will we get up to?

 

If we had free unlimited clean energy available, will humanity achieve real greatness, finally being freed from worrying about securing energy (World War 2, Iraq, all could be termed "Resource Wars")?

 

Or will we all become fat and lazy couch potatoes?

 

What do you think?

 

I think speculating about such a scenario might tell us more about ourselves than we would like to know...

[Pyrotex]

...If we had free unlimited clean energy available, will humanity achieve real greatness, finally being freed from worrying about securing energy?...

I really doubt it would turn out to be an unqualified magic elixir.

 

First off, somebody would try to corner it. I assume these "vacuum generators" would be big enough and complex enough that you couldn't just put one in your pocket, or your car, or your house. So somebody would build them. Like Exxon or BP -- a big, big, powerful, rich company. Maybe 2 or 3 of them. So we would still pay through the nose for energy.

 

Second, we would start wasting energy like crazy. Convert it into gasoline at 5% efficiency rates, to run even BIGGER SUVs and Pickemup Trucks, running at 5 MPG. Smog goes through the roof. Acid rain kills off the northern forests.

 

Third, what happens to energy after you use it? It transforms to heat. All that "free" energy we would be using would all turn into heat and global warming would skyrocket.

 

Four, there would be a global race to have (and use) the most energy. And to use that energy to obtain the most resources, like titanium, magnesium, manganese, copper, tungsten, uranium, et al. These would be converted into war machines at a rate like never before, since the dominant countries have to (a) plan for the contingency that this new energy might not be infinitely available, and (B) avoid having some other country find ways of using more energy to build more war machines than they can.

 

Five, since energy would be almost free, human labor would become worthless. Total global economic collapse.

 

Gosh, Boerseun, this scenario sounds just like what we got today!

:naughty: :doh: :doh: :doh: :eek_big:

[InfiniteNow]

I think people would use it to make more powerful guns to kill each other with and prove that they have the better god.

 

Also, there would probably be a smaller subset of society that became more "farming based" and rural. I'm thinking a step back into a simpler life.

 

But, yeah... bigger more powerful weapons to kill people who believe in a different god for sure. :hihi:

[Buffy]

Gosh, as cynical as you guys sound, I'm hard pressed to come up with an alternative scenario. I'm not sure I wouldn't broaden the definition of "My God" though: are you implying that the Godless Commies in China and Burma wouldn't build really big guns too?

 

I always had trouble with this aspect of the "Star Trek Universe" which is basically exactly what B is describing: that somehow when there was no more scarcity that people would all just get along (well, at least *within* The Federation), when in fact all those scripts basically said that people (and every other species in the Universe) would do everything in their power to destroy their neighbor.

 

Actually even in Star Trek world, there were limits to anti-matter energy: still had scarcity in the form of those dilithium crystals and such, and that kept the mere mortals in much better shape than the Q-continuum of course...

 

More fundamentally, I think that creativity *comes* from scarcity, and if there really were no scarcity, that even if we found a way to be peaceable to one another, we would indeed end up as couch potatoes.

 

Boundless intemperance in nature is a tyranny, :)

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

An interesting proposition, but I think you carry it too far.

 

While "need is the mother of all invention," need is not the mother of creativity, and those creativity genes have long ago become an integral part of our genetic make-up.

 

However, isn't the whole backbone of Boerseun's thread the availability of abundant energy to all? In other words, at what point in his proposal would scarcity come into play?

 

 

Lastly, we're already couch potatoes. Let's get real. :)

 

 

Time to set the alarm so I can go jogging in the morning. :)

[Buffy]

An interesting proposition, but I think you carry it too far.

Trying not to fail you! :cheer:

While "need is the mother of all invention," need is not the mother of creativity, and those creativity genes have long ago become an integral part of our genetic make-up.

I agree! But at the same time, not everyone "is creative." Have you ever read Player Piano? What to do with all those folks that the machines make superfluous but aren't smart enough or creative enough to be very useful? Just keep em busy I guess.

However, isn't the whole backbone of Boerseun's thread the availability of abundant energy to all? In other words, at what point in his proposal would scarcity come into play?

There's two issues here:

• "Available to all?" How's that happen? Most things get invented by folks with money. Not to sound too much like Mike C here, but likely a few folks will hold the keys to the infinite source of energy, at least until the revolution comes and they're all lined up against the wall...The devil is in the details on this one, and human nature being what it is (that's what the "guns" line is all about, right?), somebody's gonna want to keep it from being given to everyone for free.
  
• Scarcity of other stuff: In Star Trek land as I pointed out, even "limitless matter-antimatter energy" was limited by necessary precursors, but indeed lets leave that aside as "solved" as in B's scenario. Would there indeed be no other scarcities? Would we really find a way to "manufacture" oil to feed the Hummers that Pyro dreams of, let alone the steel to make them? Would there be enough beach front property for all of us? Materials to build those dream homes? Would all guys look like Matthew Fox, put the toilet seat down and remember my birthday?
  

To really be Utopia, we need more than Energy (that's equitably distributed!) of course: there's lots of stuff left that can be scarce to leave us with all the same conflicts we have today... just one less thing or two...

Lastly, we're already couch potatoes. Let's get real. ;)

 

Time to set the alarm so I can go jogging in the morning. :phones:

Yah, 'cept you n' me, right? I seem to recall that in Logan's Run, everyone was not only beautiful, but they had abs of steel because they worked out all the time (which made it easier to Run, of course!). So given we all got Hummers and can afford to drive them a half-block to the store, are we all gonna be spending 3 hours a day on the progressive machine, perfecting our martial arts skills and scaling The Nose on El Capitan with our bare hands?

 

But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes, feed'st thy light'st flame with self-substantial fuel, making a famine where abundance lies, thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel, :phones:

Buffy

[Boerseun]

Interesting comments, all!

 

@Pyro - Smog and such won't be a problem, this hypothetical energy source is pollution-free. Also, I'm not too interested in debating the nature of the source, let's say it comes in little AA batteries that can power a house forever. Sounds crazy, but the question is more "what will we get up to when we don't have to worry about resources" than "how will this power supply actually work?"

 

@INow - Bigger and better guns is surely a possibility, but most (if not all) wars fought in modern times have been resource wars. Once there's no shortage, will there be a reason for another war, except as purely religious wars? Then a very sound argument can be made that the two main problems in the world is scarcity and religion. Wars wlil be fought over both of them, and very little else. So, as the world campaigns for the alleviation of hunger and poverty as a means to political stability in the World, we should (technically) also campaign for the removal of religion :phones: - with which I fully agree.

 

@Buffy - I'm inclined to agree with you; if we remove scarcity from the equation, what incentive will humans have for getting out of bed? With unlitmited energy, full factory automation across the board will eventually lead to a redundant human race which will live in some sort of a welfare state which will keep them in submission with an endless supply of freely-made goodies. If everything is automated, the only cost will be the initial cost of setting the factory up - from there, everything is free. And the initial factory can be built by robots, removing even that cost. It'll cost you a single robot to convert the world to a paradise of sloth and obesity.

If that were to happen in the face of endless resources (energy, etc.), will the mere "love" of knowledge be enough of an incentive to learn stuff? You won't be remunerated with fantastic wealth for studying rocket science, there will be no reward. A reward is only worth something because others don't have it. You'll simply study rocket science because of an innate love of learning. I know that's what we'll do (we spend time at a science site for no financial gain, after all), but I fear we are in such a minority that we'll have to wade through crowds of fat, overweight, lazy morons in a permanent search for instant gratification just to get to the computer. (oh my God - the world will turn into AMERICA!!!) (Just kidding - couldn't resist :phones:)

 

No, what I'm asking is basically "what's the next horizon?" Our current horizon as a global species is determined by limited resources. We struggle to get a plate of food on everybody's table. We struggle to spread literacy to everybody. We struggle to give everybody a fair deal and a fair chance. The majority of humanity is still living in conditions that prevailed in Europe in Medieval times. Us resource-using plane-flying car-driving literate slightly obese home owners are in the minority, the rest of the world is NOT LIKE US. Humanity's current struggle is for those NOT like us trying to become like us, and us trying to protect our interests in the process.

 

But what would be the next horizon after that one has been crossed?

 

Or, what would happen when all the "have-nots" have become "haves", and there's no resource or energy issues?

 

What will humanity do to bide its time, then?

[Buffy]

Well, not to get all Malthusian or anything, but I think population is the major issue. We have two countervailing forces:

• "Economic Growth" as currently defined basically demands population growth. Even with geometrically increasing productivity (driven of course by all that free energy!), we need more bodies for economies to grow, and without growth, we run into severe dislocations of people and resources resulting in inflation and recession.
  
• Population outstripping resources (even if its just in the short term for you radical free-marketeers who think there are no limits), makes this necessary growth at least painful if not in the long term unsustainable without major changes in lifestyle (those Malibu luxury homes will be 500 story condos and there will be 5 minute rotations on the beach blankets and wave reservations for the surfer dudes).

We're still growing our population at geometric rates world wide, and even with free energy, I see having 12 billion bodies, most of whom are poor and disenfranchised as a huge political as well as resource allocation problem that will make the oil crunch look like a tea party.

 

How do we dramatically slow birthrates in the third world when life there is so entirely dependent upon manual labor and popping out as many kids as possible is the only survival tactic? How do we fix that one?

 

We all worry about the population explosion, but we don't worry about it at the right time, :phones:

Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

Boerseun,

 

You seem to be looking for an answer at the "self-actualizing" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Is that a fair assessment?

 

I'm pretty sure you're not searching for answers to real problems on this, nor other reasons why we may struggle. Instead, you're posing to the community a "what if?"

 

Can you confirm, roger Roger, 10-4?

[Boerseun]

Boerseun,

 

You seem to be looking for an answer at the "self-actualizing" level of Maslow's hierarchy. Is that a fair assessment?

 

I'm pretty sure you're not searching for answers to real problems on this, nor other reasons why we may struggle. Instead, you're posing to the community a "what if?"

 

Can you confirm, roger Roger, 10-4?

Basically, yes.

 

If all resource and energy problems are solved, where will that leave the human race? Or are we simply agents of energy distribution, both trophic and non-trophic? Do we have a possible role to play in the universe that has nothing to do with the struggle for survival?

 

Is the actual interplay between poor and rich, the haves and the have-nots, the struggle of the poor to become rich, and the struggle of the rich to maintain and protect their interests, the epitome of humanity?

 

If that is indeed the case, then I think it's a sad state of affairs, indeed.

 

In many First World countries, where the struggle of survival has largely been won, the "dumbing down" of society, together with raging obesity testifies that it might, indeed, be the case. Once you're in no immediate danger of dying from hunger, it seems humanity settles down to a slow simmer of sloth. Obviously, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. But a thousand in a population of millions, is pitifully few, and telling of the average.

 

Basically, what I'm asking, is if there was nothing to worry about, what'll you do? And what will humanity do? No Global Warming, no famine in the Third World, no pending war, no racism, no sexism, no -ism of any kind, where will that leave us? How will we bide our time?

[DougF]

It sounds like a good time to explore space and expand our minds,

 

you have to do something to keep you busy or you will just sit on the porch and waste away. :thumbs_up

[Buffy]

If all resource and energy problems are solved, where will that leave the human race? ... Do we have a possible role to play in the universe that has nothing to do with the struggle for survival?

 

....Once you're in no immediate danger of dying from hunger, it seems humanity settles down to a slow simmer of sloth. Obviously, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. But a thousand in a population of millions, is pitifully few, and telling of the average

 

....How will we bide our time?

 

So going back to my first post above, lack of scarcity may not *inhibit* creativity (that is, be necessary to generate it), but it will lessen its value.

 

There was an intellectually snobbish screed by an art critic in the SF Chronicle last week dismissing Dale Chihuly's amazing glass works because they didn't *mean* anything:

Perhaps dreamy color, glossy surfaces and flamboyant design - the signal qualities of Chihuly's work - should be enough. But in a culture where only intellectual content still distinguishes art from knickknacks, they are not.

Of course I love Chihuly, so I think Mr. Baker is an idiot for his incredibly elitist opinion of what constitutes art, but it does beg the question:

 

If *meaning* is required to create art and there's no conflict, no problems to solve, no causes, no reason for being, then is there any *joy* left in being creative?

 

I'll be a positivist and say that if its pretty, I like it, so maybe there's hope for us! :cheer: :eek:

 

In any case, what is there for people to do if they're not creative? Competition maybe? We could all start playing golf I guess....

 

Painting: The art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather, and exposing them to the critic, :hyper:

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

Great question. I think even with abundance of energy there is still a question of distribution. Lets say that this energy source is used to power the electrical grid. There is still the cost of maintaining the grid to be considered, so the power is not free, but the cost is down considerably.

 

Electric does not help with transportation. With the infrastructure as it is the best solution that I see is using this electric power to produce hydrogen, and then use the hydrogen for most transportation needs. This would require retrofitting current cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc. This gives us the green effect and utilizes the infinite energy source to provide energy when and where it is needed.

 

OK, so all of that is done. The only thing that has really changed is economics. We have reduced the price of things be reducing the energy cost (not eliminated). The overall effect of such a shift in economics would be interesting to track. But it would not solve all of the world issues, it would only change the motivations.

 

And for those who think the oil industry would stop, think again. It would slow down over time, but look at how reliant we are on petroleum by-products. We might like giving up gasoline and diesel, but not plastic!

 

As for other changes. It would not make any more food grow. It would not make supply chains any shorter. It would not improve medicine. It would not change the nature of human beings. But it could give us increased time to focus on those issues, and a new economic model to try and make changes for the better.

 

Bill