Imagine being a politician today. Or actual any day. While you may have visions of power and control, I see a person who has anything but. Rather, I see a person who is trying to build consensus amongst voters and constituents so as to define a better direction. That is, they aim to choose a future rather than have the future choose. While so many seem to have wonderful ideals, the desire of the populace seems to be for greater ease and luxury no matter what the cost. And politicians have usually acknowledged this.

Now what does a politician do if the status quo looks ugly? If ease and luxury might be only temporary? A simple metric is the human population. This metric continues to increase exponentially. This is no surprise as humans have pretty well eliminated all natural predators. Our numbers will keep rising. Unless we acknowledge that there may be too many people, they will rise. And we may decide to act. But how many is too many? And what actions would a politician allow to change the status quo?

Another metric is the consumption of non-renewable resources. The consumption continues to increase for the simple reason that the number of people keeps increasing. If the effects of the consumption were negligible then there’s no problem. But there are effects. The greatest being called ‘climate change’. That is, exhaust from oxidation of non-renewables is changing the atmosphere. Which changes the weather. Yet our lifestyles rely upon non-renewable resources. Thus, we’d have to lower our lifestyles, our luxury, to reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources. Would a politician be able to build consensus to reduce lifestyles?

In simple words, with the acknowledgement that the status quo is untenable, a politician needs to enact change. They need to convince the populace, who hold the real power, that change is needed. And they need to introduce a tenable option. Without this, a politician is simply along for the ride. And their visions of power and control are illusory, briefly held in time.

A Freeze


One of the worst jobs imagined is to work in the sewers of a city. All the detritus and waste of a civilization get flushed into them. Flushed to another problem for another time and place.

Sometimes though, things don’t get through. Such is the so-called ‘Fatberg‘. A congealed lump of mostly fat. Lodged in sewers throughout the world. A prime example is the Whitechapel Fatberg at 250-metres-long and 140 tonnes mass.

Fatbergs begin as waste. Material deemed worthless by the owner. Yet the Whitechapel Fatberg was successfully, partially turned into biodiesel (35MJ/L). A practical source of controlled energy. So what was once thought of as waste became an energy source.

Can our civilization afford to be cavalier about energy usage? Can our civilization afford to be cavalier about resource usage? We’re effectively living within a closed system. A finite supply of everything. Will our civilization be marked by how we flushed good things away?

Yellow Vests

Pleasure is sitting comfortably in a safe, secure environment. Perhaps warmly enveloped in the folds of a large old chair, book in hand, tea on the side table. Current needs and wants are satisfied. Nothing threatens. The future is not a concern.

But what do you do when the future doesn’t look fine? Such a view may ruin any blissful day.

Recently, many residents in France reacted violently to a proposed change. The change could be argued as a move to cleaner energy. Or a change for competitiveness. The government proposed an increase in fuel tax amongst other things. The result would have been workers having to work harder and perhaps have less to no time to sit and enjoy life. The workers thought the government too focused on the future ‘end of the world’ while they worried about the ‘end of the month’. So, they donned yellow vests and demonstrated over all the streets of France.

Could a root cause of this insecurity be France’s complete lack of non-renewable energy resources? The country’s current accounts show a strong negative value for energy. And given the maturity of the nation, it’s understandable that France has moved nearly totally to a service economy. Perhaps a service economy is insufficient to keep the whole population safely sipping tea while ensconced in a chair.

Wearing a yellow vest and demonstrating certainly will sensationalize the workers’ concerns. But what does this mean in general? Will countries that are limited to a service economy also be limited in the lifestyles of the populace? Can we build a better future while holding onto the past? Or, do we have to get out of the chair, take a gamble and begin something new?



The average human has an incredible memory. A simple sniff might trigger a reminiscence dating back decades. Perhaps of your mother setting a hot apple pie on the window sill to let it cool. We learnt about memory tricks during school. Memorizing large quantities of data to regurgitate on exam day. Eventually, later in life, our memory fades. Fewer details appear. Instead our memory provides vague stimulation to goodness and pleasure.

Then along comes computers. Computers keep our memories. Vast quantities of childhood photographs and videos. No longer do we need memorize data. It gets thrown at our eyes by the megabyte-full. Some is online. One video storage service has over 216,000 years worth of video. Some is off-line. In your personal computer. Totaling both these amounts comes to over 5 zettabytes; that’s 21 zeros. We don’t need our memories anymore. We can use computer storage to revisit any time from our past. Nothing will fade from our memories.

Do we need all these memories? Let’s consider. Not so long ago, in hunter gatherer days, humans had an average life expectancy of 33 years. At that age we were still learning; there wasn’t much to forget. Lifestyles improved and we quickly achieved longer lives. Now, the world average life expectancy is about 72 years. Many places, with high GDPs, have values above 80 years. And higher GDP means greater technology. Technology that places a commensurate higher demand on energy to create storage media, to record data and to replay. Over and over again. To what avail have we replaced our biological memory?


I, Not Robot

Humans are tough. Slow to start. But when we get going; we keep going. In an endurance race, we can outrun horses. And most other land animals. We can do this regularly, often ably winning one day after another for a very long time. It seems that the human body has wonderfully adapted to the Earth in a way that makes us so successful.

And humans are great thinkers. We’ve invented and promoted machines. Using controlled sources of energy, we control machines to our great advantage. They carry us in the air, drill us holes through mountains and provide us views of the surface of other planets. But they, like humans, need energy.

Will robots replace humans? Or do we still have the advantage? A small, wheeled robot used to explore a room might start with an energy content of 10Wh/kg. A purpose built electric car begins with an energy content of about 2500Wh/kg. An adult human with an energy usage of 10.5MJ/day and the ability to live for 30 days without eating has an energy content of about 1500Wh/kg. From this, it seems that humans are closing in upon a mechanical replacement.

However, the biggest difference is that humans can obtain energy from a vast assortment of readily available foodstuffs. As long as the food remains available, humans can function. Robots on the other hand require very clean potential power. Usually in the form of electric current from batteries. If humans maintain control over this power then we won’t be replaced by robots. In the future, if there’s a shortage of mechanical energy, will humans still be tough enough for whatever opponent ¬†they encounter?