i haven't updated for a long time it seems!

you know why?

because when i use to go online, this was my sequence of websites i visited:
blogger --> gmail --> school email --> friendster --> reuters

now it's
facebook --> gmail --> facebook --> reuters

STUPID facebook. haha

----------------

Economic Growth and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Frederick Soddy (1877-1956) was a pioneer atomic scientist who received the Nobel Prize in 1921. He was deeply concerned about atomic power: "If the discovery were made tomorrow" he wrote in 1926 "there is not a nation that would not throw itself heart and soul into the task of applying it to war". The Royal Society ridiculed him for criticizing new advances in science. He in turn criticized the Royal Society's comofrtable view that scientists have no responsibility for the uses to which science is put.

Soddy considered that the economic system contained built-in elements for conflict and the destruction of Nature once science gave the power, so he applied scientific thought to economics. He was then ridiculed by economists.

Try this: A sack of grain is real and can be considered as 'wealth'. But it reduces. It rots or is eaten by weevils and gradually turns to dust - that is the second law of thermodynamics. But if you talk about 'minus' one sack of grain you are using a mathematical concept: it is the Virtual (e.g. conceptual Wealth, or debt, and it can grow ad infinitum.) Soddy said that the ruling passion of economists and politicians is to convert wealth that perishes into Virtual Wealth (debt) that continuously grows.

So economists have turned the world on its head: you can store their money and it grows, but if you store something real, like a coat, it decays and gradually loses value. They insist on making the real world of matter, which decays, conform to the purely mathematical concept of growth and compound interest. This is logical nonsense which can only lead to catastrophe in nature and the breakdown of society. To illustrate the absurdity of compound interest Soddy pointed out that if Christ had invested £1 in our economic system it would now be worth £1,000 billion billion billion billion billion. He said in the 1920s that the result of this non-scientific thinking can only be debt cancellation, revolution or war.

He referred to dvelopment since the Industrial Revolution as the 'flamboyant period' of history, when humans are using up the capital stock of coal. This can only be a passing phase, after whcih we must live 'by sunshine' - which has a maximum rate of flow. Therefore there is a limit to growth. Looking back after 75 years, has he been proved right?

Answer A:
Economists might say: "He was an amateur who knew little about our discipline. There has been steady economic grwoth, wealth has multiplied and our standard of living has increased out of all recognition; our scientific achilevements have been spectacular and the whole world is now open to markets, communication and tourism. Through our wealth we have gained the knowledge to deal with whatever problems of health and the environment that may arise. There are, admittedly, still pockets of need but the way to fill them is to ensure further economic growth."

Answer B:
Soddy might have replied: "The Wealth of Nature (real wealth) has been eroded. All our gadgets await the ravages of entropy. We have already passed the limit of growth; furhter economic growth may remove nature's life-support systems entirely. Individual problems with h ealth and the environment will be swamped by general degradation. Virtual Wealth, concentrated in private hands in only a part of the world, has now reached levels that even Soddy could not have imagined and will lead to conflict and the breakdown of society. Economists have created a make-believe world that has nothign to do with teh real world. To aim at further economic growth is suicidal."

Which one is closer to the truth? Take your pick.