Does Matt understand Thermodynamics?

[kev]

The case against:

 

Matt seems to have mistaken the economy for a closed system, which it is not. The inputs fluctuate daily and it is where our economy is derived from. There are constantly new sources of wealth flowing in form new mineral discoveries to emerging technologies and the resources that generate the economy occupy many more dimensions tham simple statistical descriptions of exchanges of temperature and pressure, from the direct mineral and resource inputs like oil, gold and food to the more abstract ones like services, taxation, gambling, dissipation of wealth among growing populations and investments.

 

In a way if you were to cut off all economic inputs and left the economy to simply be an exchange of existing resource, which makes no tangible sense, in a very laisssez faire libertarian regime, I would imagine that wealth would eventually become accumulated by a few and not at all entropic, so even on that level the analogy doesn't work.

 

 

Disclosure: I don't understand them!

[Niall]

I don't claim to know anything much about economics however. But I know it definitely isn't a good analogy

[Tofu]

Well, didn't he claim to get bored of books, read the interesting bits, and make up the rest?

[Furygirl]

Somehow this album isn't seeming so "personal" from what we've surmised in the last couple of days.

 

And I have no clue about thermowhatsits.

[a-museing]

Probably not. Probably a case of him going 'Oooh cool word' again. But maybe it will make more sense soon.

[zer0-1ne]

No, but then maybe he didn't even write that 30 second psychobabble fauxcast. Maybe, it was just for dramatic effect.

[Those Deaf Mutes]

matt is stupid

[Kati]

I don't claim to know anything much about economics however. But I know it definitely isn't a good analogy

 

Bah, don't know how to quote something already quoted. Anyway...

 

Er, did he claim that there is a direct analogy between 2nd law in thermodynamics and economy? I read a bit of that article you posted in the twitter thread, also what I could find of the book that it was referencing, and I thought the idea is that there is a limit to how much we can use natural resources because of 2nd law, and that is why the endless growth is unsustainable. Sure you get an idea of the lyrics (newsread) he tweeted that energy is running out, but I assume it's a bit hard to put an explanation of thermodynamics into a few sentences that preferably rhyme

 

I didn't agree with the acopalyptic vibe (?) of the article. Earth is not a closed system.

 

I presume Matt finds the 2nd law fascinating because it actually says something definite of the whole universe, not just parts of it, i.e. that entropy in the whole universe increases all the time. The problem with that is that there is actually quite a lot of low entropy energy left.

[Kati]

Matt seems to have mistaken the economy for a closed system, which it is not.

 

Now thinking about it, economy is a closed system much more than Earth physically. Didn't you mom tell you that money doesn't grow in trees, or fall from heaven? I think that means we don't get it from space

[jdeboer01]

Money or wealth is not finite. The economy isn't like a game of Monopoly, where there is a set amount of money. I find it amusing when people bash the rich because they're hogging "all the wealth".

[Kati]

Money or wealth is not finite. The economy isn't like a game of Monopoly, where there is a set amount of money. I find it amusing when people bash the rich because they're hogging "all the wealth".

 

Okay, I'm not an expert on economics but I bought a book called Paper money collapse, which I haven't read yet... Anyway the basic idea is that all money systems based on flexible amount of money have collapsed sooner or later. Our western system was tied to gold reserves until sixties, and relatively stable systems like Germany have always sworn on very low inflation. Basically printing money i.e. causing high rate of inflation kills the monetary system.

 

Your statement is typical defense for capitalism, but in practise it seems that wealth does accumulate. For I know historically the levels of income have been brutally unevenly distributed, and the 60's -70's era in western countries when wealth distribution seemed relatively fair, i.e. working class had pretty nice standard of living compared to the rich, was an exception. But I don't think thermodynamics help at all understanding that!

[CarrieB]

Money or wealth is not finite. The economy isn't like a game of Monopoly, where there is a set amount of money. I find it amusing when people bash the rich because they're hogging "all the wealth".

 

Well they could do with spreading it around a bit more whatever the theories.

 

The idea of unsustainability, as far as I understand, is that if we keep going as we are, we are likely to run out of natural resources or at least make our world a pretty nasty place to live.

 

Concentration on economic growth above all other considerations encourages indiscriminate use of resources plus practices that cause pollution. This occurs because we place profit and economic growth on a higher pedestal than ecological balance. That is where the link is I think. And it is a definite link.

 

I suppose it really depends on whether or not we believe natural resources are finite. But maybe Matt is complicating it to sex it up a bit? I suppose we will know more when we get more lyrics.

 

This is also quite a simplistic post.

 

I don't know too much about economics, not in depth, or anything about physics for that matter, but I do believe in Green issues, and I also don't accept trickle down theory or economic growth as the be all and end all.

 

Maybe the analogy if there is one is simply the idea of everything ending up in disorder.

[Niall]

I think if it's just talking about oil then he's right.

 

In fact all non-solar energy is eventually going to be bad when humanity's energy consumption reaches a certain point. Almost all of our energy ends up as heat. Even nuclear and some biomass. The only kinds of energy that are truly sustainable are those that do not change to overall entropy of the Earth-Sun system, namely solar and wind, as they are simply altering the path the energy takes into the system rather than adding extra energy to it. Obviously our current nuclear use is a drop in the ocean, especially compared to the greenhouse effect which is a much more immediate concern.

 

But I don't think Matt was alluding to human energy changes over the next century in those regards.

[CarrieB]

Maybe NME are closer to the album theme, that it will be a fictional apocalypse, loosely based on various scientific, economic and ecological theories.

 

http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&p=12342&title=muse_8&more=1&c=1

[Hyper]

Matt understands the basics, most likely, better than an average layman. He was interested in the idea of resources running out since pre-Absolution, if you remember his rants about chickens and saving water

 

re: applying 2nd law to economy - there is a whole notion of thermoeconomics trying to see the connection

 

Quote:

Thermoeconomists maintain that human economic systems can be modeled as thermodynamic systems. Then, based on this premise, theoretical economic analogs of the first and second laws of thermodynamics are developed. In addition, the thermodynamic quantity exergy, i.e. measure of the useful work energy of a system, is one measure of value. In thermodynamics, thermal systems exchange heat, work, and or mass with their surroundings; in this direction, relations between the energy associated with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services can be determined

[Kati]

I think if it's just talking about oil then he's right.

 

In fact all non-solar energy is eventually going to be bad when humanity's energy consumption reaches a certain point. Almost all of our energy ends up as heat. Even nuclear and some biomass. The only kinds of energy that are truly sustainable are those that do not change to overall entropy of the Earth-Sun system, namely solar and wind, as they are simply altering the path the energy takes into the system rather than adding extra energy to it. Obviously our current nuclear use is a drop in the ocean, especially compared to the greenhouse effect which is a much more immediate concern.

 

But I don't think Matt was alluding to human energy changes over the next century in those regards.

 

I guess by oil you mean all fossile energy. But I don't quite get your second paragraph. First, I wouldn't have thought all the energy we use ends up as heat - a lot goes to building (concrete) and stays there. And for I know the Earth does radiate heat to the space, so the energy as heat that we are releasing from fossile sources is not the problem - the problem is that we are changing too rapidly the current relative equilibrium of the thermodynamical, chemical and biological processes on the earth, plus we are polluting it in ways we don't even understand. The greenhouse effect, if I have understood correctly, is more due to changing the equilibrium (the outward radiation is reduced) than about the amount of energy we are releasing... Am I wrong?

 

I also don't know how you are getting to this: The only kinds of energy that are truly sustainable are those that do not change to overall entropy of the Earth-Sun system. Umm, what do we care about the entropy of Sun? There is a lot of available energy in Sun, the fusion reaction is not going to end soon. So I would have thought it is safe to let the entropy in Sun increase. It is doing that no matter what we do btw, it's not that anything that happens on Earth would have an effect on the Sun's activity. So we have the sunshine on Earth in any case, the problem is that we are rapidly using available energy stored during millions of years, it's running out but most importantly it's changing the system where we live and we are not prepared to adjust quickly enough.

 

Hmm. After writing this I'm starting to think the 2nd Law has nothing to do with the current climate change problems we have, and Matt has no idea what he is talking about. I don't quite understand how I got here

[EXOPOLITICIAN]

It's at this stage I regret having accepted a place at uni doing economics.

[jdeboer01]

Your statement is typical defense for capitalism, but in practise it seems that wealth does accumulate. For I know historically the levels of income have been brutally unevenly distributed, and the 60's -70's era in western countries when wealth distribution seemed relatively fair, i.e. working class had pretty nice standard of living compared to the rich, was an exception. But I don't think thermodynamics help at all understanding that!

 

I'm no economic expert either. But I do know that there is not a finite amount of demand and creating a product for which there is demand has infinite possibilities. For example, artists, take Muse for example, created their wealth by writing songs for which there is a demand. All of the people they employ, both directly and indirectly, benefit from the their creation of music -- from the people who design and make instruments, to the vendors at the show facilities.

 

When someone is "extremely wealthy", they rarely keep their assets liquid. That money gets invested, usually in businesses, in hopes that the value of that asset will go up. In the investing of millions, that wealth is not being hoarded. It's creating jobs indirectly.

 

I know it's complex, but I don't believe that it's a zero-sum game. I don't believe that whatever top earners make comes at the expense of lesser earners.

[Hyper]

For example, artists, take Muse for example, created their wealth by writing songs for which there is a demand...

 

So the same article Kati refers to disagrees with the idea that the only limited resource is the brain power. I tend to think, however, that human creativity is limitless, as long as there are people to come up with the solutions. At the same time, demographic growth is not endless and there are forecasts that by 2050 it will stop, resulting in the scarcity of human resources.

[Seaking]

I think if it's just talking about oil then he's right.

 

In fact all non-solar energy is eventually going to be bad when humanity's energy consumption reaches a certain point. Almost all of our energy ends up as heat. Even nuclear and some biomass. The only kinds of energy that are truly sustainable are those that do not change to overall entropy of the Earth-Sun system, namely solar and wind, as they are simply altering the path the energy takes into the system rather than adding extra energy to it. Obviously our current nuclear use is a drop in the ocean, especially compared to the greenhouse effect which is a much more immediate concern.

 

But I don't think Matt was alluding to human energy changes over the next century in those regards.

 

It seemed to me to just be bash on capitalism and production based on want and not need. "An economy based on endless growth is SDUGHSIUDHFDIs Unsustainable" Clearly Matt wants us to turn into a Marxist regime.

[CarrieB]

I wonder if Matt conflated two theories which were intended to be discussed separately.

 

In any case, even if the themes don't stand up to academic scrutiny, the music sounds like it will be awesome.

 

And as for capitalism, whatever the right wing economists say, there is lots of evidence that, uncontrolled, it ends up with the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, despite some benefits, such as work being provided etc. Globalisation and competition means that the workers get more and more squeezed.

[Niall]

It seemed to me to just be bash on capitalism and production based on want and not need. "An economy based on endless growth is SDUGHSIUDHFDIs Unsustainable" Clearly Matt wants us to turn into a Marxist regime.

 

I'd buy that if the man wasn't so filthy rich himself houses in Lake Como can't come cheap.

[Chocolate E. Clare]

I think it's a case of "It sounds sciencey!"

"Does it make any sense?"

"probably not, but it SOUNDS sciencey!"

 

i can't claim to know enough about either economics or thermodynamics though

[Hat]

I think it's a case of "It sounds sciencey!"

"Does it make any sense?"

"probably not, but it SOUNDS sciencey!"

Moffat Bellamy?

[Seaking]

I don't think Bellamy is particularly smart nor stupid (not that I can really know) but I think everyone in the world knows that an economy based off of endless growth is unsustainable. That is unless Gingrich's plan for moon/mars colonization go through.