Certain questions that occurred to me early on have remained with me my whole life. Seeking to answer them has helped crystallized my conceptual understanding of the human world–our economics, industry and politics–and how the human world fits into the larger scheme of things, which in my personal language is the thermodynamic behavior of our planetary system.
Although I have learned only the most rudimentary basics of thermodynamics, I understand that it is among the most stable, well-established branches of physics. Einstein himself stated that (as I recall reading) the premises of the field are so clear and sound that he believed it would never be overturned.
Since I am too lazy or ignorant to explain it all, here is a link to the applicableWikipedia article on thermodynamics.
The second law, which related to entropy, could be stated as saying that systems tend to decay over time, the energy degrades into less available forms, that there can be no perpetual motion, no free lunch.
Against this, the human reality of business that grows and grows and grows: the stock market, real estate prices, the money supply, population, jobs, technology, knowledge.
The first example of the law of entropy that I recall was a demonstration by Mr. Carey–my fifth-grade elementary teacher. He put a drop of perfume on a piece of paper in one corner of the room. In a few minutes, we could smell the perfume everywhere in the room. He then asked us if the perfume might go back to the piece of paper, and if not, why not. He acted as tho this were very significant. I know that I couldn’t see the mystery of it, although I couldn’t explain it either.
As I advanced into my teens, entropy seemed to describe the accumulation of clothes, books and other bric-a-brac on the floor of my room. Mrs. Smith came to clean our house once every two weeks, and so for that day it was our rule that my brother and I had to clean our rooms. My mother wouldn’t have old Mrs. Smith picking up after us. I didn’t know much about her, except that one day she sat down at the purply pink painted upright we had rented for my brother and played with astonishing force: turns out she had played in theaters during the silent movie era. That was the sound track in those days.
Science fiction writer Phillip K. Dick, in a novel that provided the story for the movie Bladerunner, coined a word for this accumulation of stuff, kreplah. Mankind was reduced in number in his bleak vision of the future, animals were rare and so precious that it was cheaper to have an android pet than a real one, yet apartments were in abundance, and they were all filled with junk.
In junior high school science class we received a more rigorous definition of entropy, that it was a measure of the disorder of the system. My brother, five years older than I, told me a definition of entropy that I haven’t seen anywhere since, that it was defined as the number of states immediately available to a system over the total number of states a system could occupy, thus a fraction, and involving the natural logarithm of the quantities. That led to a question ‘how do we decide how many states are available to a system, what the bounds of a system are, and what state the system is in now’ that later combined with items of my religious faith to coalesce into a convincing argument, a kind of mathematical demonstration of the existence of the human soul. Which I will get to, is important, even tho I am no longer convinced of those particular elements of faith.
Another important aspect of the law of entropy was that it only applied to non-living systems. Systems that were tinkered with by people might not necessarily show this constant increase of entropy. For example, our lives can remain beautifully ordered as long as we have a place to dump our garbage.
Around the time I was considering these issues and my partially formed questions, Rene Thom was developing his ideas of catastrophe theory, also called chaos theory, and Prigogine his theories about the spontaneous emergence of order in non-equilibrium systems through which energy flowed.
My clearest formulation of the issue was this: How is it that the sun shining day and night against a barren rocky planet could have caused it to erupt in a carpet of green covering its land areas? Questions of evolution and entropy in one question. Would it happen on other planets? Could it? What would day and night have to do with it? Or tides?
And I had another question: why would the laws of entropy be different depending on whether a person tinkers with the system or not? Our science teachers did their job, presenting the concept of the uncertainty principle, which my brother–a nerdy science guy–also tried to explain to me. The idea that light can be a wave or a particle, that it is affected by your attempt to determine which it is. Or that any attempt to measure a system will somehow perturb the state of that system so that you can never just look at it as it is. You are always disturbing by looking.
We see it in practical ways. That scientists contaminate the landscapes they investigate. Anthropologists affect the behavior of the natives they study. Even space, with its immense and endless vastness, we have polluted with orbiting bits of space junk to such an extent that any astronaut going out on a spacewalk is risking his life, is gambling that he won’t encounter one of the billions of paint chips floating around. Floating paint chips would be harmless enough, except that in space objects might be moving at relative speeds of several miles per second, and with an energy that goes up as the square of the velocity, a paint chip weighing only a couple of grams would have sufficient force to slice through space-age spacesuit fabrics used for bulletproof vests and tire carcasses on earth like a razor through aerogel.
I grew up in an era of scientific technological optimism: the human world faced grave and urgent problems–epidemics, famines, wars–yet somehow the greatest hope was that science and technology would somehow provide abundance for all. And science and technology fluorished in an open society such as the United States was blessed by our founding fathers and our history to possess. Paradoxically, many of our problems–pollution especially–seemed to be caused by science (or the engineering and industry based on science) and each new solution to mankind’s existing problems seemed to bring more of its own.
Over the years more questions crowded into my head. From the third grade I remember wondering why I was born into this epoch of history, and not, for example, during an age when pirates ruled the seas and people lived without electricity or running water.
Later I wondered why politicians always seem to speak the same way. Why are liberal politicians, labor activists and human rights activists always playing catch up? Why do the bad things have to happen before we can reflect and supposedly learn? Aren’t we able to forsee and prevent some catastrophes? And if not, why not?
Why do big machines like tractors and cars have to break down? Can’t we build them so they will last?
Why do we throw away so many things instead of fixing them?
Why with our democratic idealism and willingness to help the rest of the world, with all of our resources, why are our efforts so futile? Why will governments pay thousands of dollars for things that should cost hundreds, for example twenty dollars for a fuse for a spacecraft that I could go into a hardware store and buy for 15 cents. Mr. Carey said it was because that for a spacecraft, we needed to be sure it would function properly.
Why is it that when an earthquake happens somewhere it is so difficult to aid the victims? Why does the TV coverage focus on the drama to save a few tens or hundreds, while tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands are left to their own resources, rags and bits of junk, pieces of corrugated metal, the urgency of escaping the misery of cold and hunger?
Why when the use of antibiotics in livestock makes them ineffective against human diseases are they still used so widely? Why do people take them for viral infections that antibiotics can’t possibly help, such as colds and flu?
Why are we so addicted to the use of agricultural chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers, even tho these deplete the soil of minerals and microorganisms?
Why is it so important to people to wash their cars and mow their lawns? Why don’t we see people on TV who are dirty or poorly dressed or drunk or uncouth–or see them only rarely, briefly, or unknowingly, the escape of a drunken or drugged politician or actor into the spotlight inevitably followed by shameful apologies.
Why are we so concerned about sex appearing in movies and TV yet so unconcerned about violence? Why is violence an issue in videogames, but not in movies?
Why are we unable to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? We can’t we agree to abolish them, or abolish war entirely? Why do the gun factories run day and night, exporting their wares to dangerous groups who seek to disrupt peaceful society?
Are political leaders who seem to be so stupid in the eyes of liberals or conservatives that criticize them really so stupid? Why is it that wisdom that could bring peace and harmony doesn’t ever seem to reach them?
Why do we always depend on and resort to military force? Why does our government attempt to pass laws that clearly contravene the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why do politicians and law enforcement overstep their mandate? Why do prisons have to be violent and cruel? How come it is impossible to legislate the behavior of scientists, what research is safe and what isn’t? And why are these attempts at regulation so often misdirected?
Why must women fight so hard to get access to gynecological health services and birth control? Why does the medical pharmaceutical establishment develop drugs focusing on men and ignoring the effects on and suitability for women?
Why do government and industry representatives always lie when a scandal breaks, minimizing the scope of the disaster and hiding details? Why do governments misrepresent the ways that wars or epidemics develop?
Why do religions have such a hold on people’s imaginations? Why do some people assert that a small group of initiates, the Skull-and-Bones society or the Illuminati or the Jewish bankers secretly rule human society? Do they rule? Who does rule? Does anyone really know what is going on?
Why do the people who seemed most informed are typically disconnected from the process of public decision-making?
Why do we have large prison populations? Why do we have institutionized schooling?
Why do hospitals and medical care work the way they do? Why do surgeons botch surgeries so badly, and doctors prescribe the wrong drugs and pharmacists mistake the presciptions and patients misuse the drugs?
Why do we have such draconian penalties against the use of most mind-altering substances, while allowing several–notably alcohol and tobacco–which are known to be harful and highly addictive? Why do we have a double standard that fighter pilots may be allowed to use one form of speed–amphetamine–while someone in civil society using another form of speed such as crack or ice–loses their job, or has their children taken away from them?
Why can’t an institution provide as good quality care as a home?
Why do millions suffer from poor decisions of medical providers every year, yet people continue to trust and go to them? Why are auto mechanics so untrustworthy? Why are used car salesmen untrustworthy?
The list goes on and on, and I find myself infected with a desire to have a single explanation to integrate all of these issues–and others relating to spiritual advancement, personal learning, professional satisfaction and even sexual fulfillment.
My longtime friend Dave McLane, who’s motto is “Anything worth doing is worth overdoing,” Dave with whom I had many hours of discussion and probably hundreds of pages worth of email debates, is a spiritual techno-adept artist who says all questions in life are interlinked, their issues and solutions cannot be separated. He calls it The Subject(tm). All discussions eventually relate to The Subject.
How come science tends to deny miracles and religious experiences? Why do cars and other apparently innanimate mechanisms sometimes seem to be so stubborn, twisted. For example a car is a lemon: no matter if you replace every single part of the engine and suspension, it still won’t run right? Why do such machines someimes respond to encouragement or an old TV to a bang on the case near the channel selector?
I find myself today, tho I be struggling against the dark shadows of childhood traumas, to feel myself in proximity if not possession of a shining orb of certainty about the forces that guide the direction of the world, the nature of the mysteriously apparent “inevitability” of the confusing aggregate movement we call “progress.”
What are roads, and why are they important? Why is air travel so important? Why must people have their own house, car, washing machine and a computer that is personal to them, a personal computer?
Why will a person buy a new computer to replace a virus and spyware infected one when the old one can be restored by simply re-installing the operating system from a CD?
Since it isn’t fair to end this article with question marks, let me show an example that suggests that human behavior, thought to be voluntary and of free will, may in fact be subject to external influences in ways that our aggregate behavior is as predictable as that of electrons flowing in the filament of alightbulb or toaster.
If I draw a picture of a person, and she is without legs, someone might wonder why the legs aren’t shown. Aren’t they there? Are they unimportant? Am I, the artist, unconscious of them?
More questions. Well let’s look at the electrons that happen to be going through the filament releasing light and heat, ignoring the “legs” that is the source and sink of the electrons, which might be generator hundreds or maybe even thousands of miles away?
Why are government and industry leaders responsible for vast damage to society through eggregious mistakes that kill thousands let off scott-free or with a slap on the wrist, while a person who kills one other with a knife or gun spends their life in jail?
Look, using Monsanto’s Mighty Microscope (if you remember the Disneyland ride of that name) inside the wire. Electrons are rushing here and there, bumping into atoms and causing them to jiggle so much that they emit light and heat. On looking closer, we see that the electrons are going every which way. No flow at all is discernible. No flow at all is discernable. The variations in direction are dramatic. Only when we back off and look across a cross-section of the wire, and count the electrons crossing our imaginary slice section, how many crossing this way and how many that way over the course of a 1/60th of a second do we see that there are a million crossings one way and only 990,000 the other way. It is statistical measures that tell us there is a flow. We think of the voltage as a pressure pushing the electrons around, but looking at individual electrons we can find no sign of this at all! Each electron is completely free, unpredictable, creative, enjoying a whole universe of possibilities. So are all its neighbors. It is confusion, pandemonium, chaos. Yet from the effects we see on a larger scale, we conclude that a force field is present, an electric field that simply cannot be felt at the level of individuals is inarguably driving the aggregate.
Are there force fields that guide human behavior in an analogous way? Can we apply quantum principles of uncertainty, tunneling and entanglement to macro activity at a human scale? Could a single photon affect the course of humanity?
I will say here that I believe, Yes, there are fields of force that govern aggregate human behavior, and that can drive this behavior, circumventing even the most draconian and zealously enforced laws. When we recognize the forces that drive humanity, we can save our energy by choosing not to fight against the cascading river or exploding volcano.
Except that it is the optimism of the human to oppose and overcome even that which on a large scale appears to be inevitable. It is inevitable, and yet individuals’ enthusiasm and dedication make a differernce. Humanity and hope can prevail in at aleast a corner of the picture, dikes can keep the ocean waters out of the Netherlands. So the inevitability that I explain and argue for here, can still be reversed in small islands, if not in the totality. So my argument can be wrong while still being right. I think that is a sign of any great truth: it transcends questions of right or wrong.