Jeremy Rifkin argues that advances in science and technology are accelerating entropy growth and resource depletion, and that we need to return to a labor-based, low-entropy society. However, scientific and technological progress cannot be stopped because of the human desire for knowledge. Rather, new science and technology, such as renewable energy and space solar power, could be the key to solving the energy problem and mitigating entropy growth. Continued advances in science and technology are essential to fundamentally solve the entropy problem.
Jeremy Rifkin, an American economist and futurist, has pointed out that the “rapid increase in entropy” is an important problem that is opposed to the progress of science. In this context, “increasing entropy” means “less and less energy is available”. However, since we are constantly receiving a near-infinite supply of solar energy, there is virtually no reason why entropy should continue to increase. However, we are “overusing” energy, which is why entropy continues to increase.
Advances in science and technology over the past 200 years have accelerated the rate of entropy growth, he argues, and there is a tipping point at which there is no more energy available. So, he argues, we need to put the brakes on the technological advances that are driving entropy growth and return to a labor-intensive, low-entropy society. So, should we really stop advancing science and technology? I think we should, on the contrary, advance science and technology even more.
First, we need to discuss why science and technology continue to advance. Why are we so obsessed with advancing science and technology? Wouldn’t it be an easier option to simply abandon it? The answer is simple: it’s human nature. More specifically, it’s because of our basic human nature: the desire to know. If you think back to the low-entropy societies that lived in the past, why didn’t entropy increase as much as it is now? The reason is that the instinct to survive took precedence over the desire to know. This was a society where the most important thing was to get food and make a living. The desire to address curiosity would only come after survival was assured. But at this time, it was impossible to survive without farming, harvesting grain or raising livestock. Food was the top priority of life. When humans eventually reached a stage of self-sufficiency and a stable food supply, they naturally turned to the desire for knowledge.
It’s virtually impossible to curb human curiosity once the food problem is solved. It’s our most basic nature that other animals don’t have. Even if we revert back to a labor-intensive, low-entropy society, it is clear that no one will suppress the desire for knowledge at that point, when everyone can survive without worry. Even after we return to a low-entropy society, there will still be people all over the planet who will seek scientific and technological advances to fulfill their desire for knowledge.
Science and technology will therefore continue to advance. However, people like Rifkin will still argue for a return to a low-entropy society. According to them, “technological progress” has brought us to the current entropy limit, and if we don’t put the brakes on it, the planet is doomed. So why should science and technology continue to advance under the “status quo”?
Because even if we don’t return to a low-entropy society, it is the advancement of science and technology that can prevent the end of the world. Of course, even without advances in science and technology, we could still have a global energy conservation agreement. Social agreements, such as a carbon tax on carbon dioxide emissions, could be used to reduce wasted energy. However, this is only a way to slow the rate of entropy growth, not a fundamental solution. Unless we completely return to a low-entropy society, entropy will continue to increase, so these social agreements are a “stopgap measure” to buy time for scientific and technological advances.
However, it is the advancement of science and technology that can fundamentally solve the entropy problem. A radical alternative to entropy reduction is the use of renewable energy. This is because renewable energy provides a virtually limitless supply of ‘usable energy’. However, the forms of power generation currently considered renewable, such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy, do not generate enough power to run the world. The transition to more advanced forms of power generation has also reached its limits. Furthermore, according to Rifkin, the cost and energy required to maintain and install renewable energy plants is significant, making renewable energy a viable alternative.
On the surface, it seems like science and technology can’t prevent the planet from running out of energy, and therefore the end of the world. What Rifkin overlooks, however, is that humanity no longer has to limit its development to Earth. We are now interacting with space. We’re still in the early stages of analyzing meteorites, landing on the moon, launching satellites, and exploring the universe with probes, but if science and technology are advanced enough to take us into space, where the possibilities are endless, we could be one step closer to solving the energy problem once and for all.
In fact, “space solar power” is a new alternative that has recently gained traction. Solar panels attached to satellites that can receive the sun’s energy uninterruptedly around the clock are highly energy efficient because they are unencumbered by atmospheric and magnetic fields. More recently, solar tracking technology has been developed to follow the sun to further increase energy efficiency, and wireless power transfer systems are being developed to wirelessly transmit power from satellites to Earth. If this technology is perfected and large solar panels can be installed in space and transmit power back to Earth, the Earth will be able to use solar energy 24 hours a day without worrying about environmental damage. As you can see, advances in science and technology, especially the development of new energy systems, could be a way to fundamentally solve the problem of increasing entropy.
Advances in science and technology are not only a way to fundamentally solve the problem of entropy, but also a way to slow it down. As mentioned earlier, the cause of the rapid increase in entropy is the overconsumption of energy. Energy conservation agreements can help reduce overconsumption, but scientific and technological advances can do more than that. Science and technology can solve the problem of power loss that social agreements cannot. Energy wastage during the transmission of electricity, or electricity that is abandoned at night, cannot be prevented by social agreements alone. But advances in science and technology can. In fact, “smart grids” are intelligent power grids that incorporate information technology into the power system, allowing suppliers and consumers to exchange information to improve energy efficiency, and “energy storage devices” are being developed to store electricity and deliver it when needed. In this way, science and technology can solve energy problems that cannot be solved by social protocols alone and slow the rate of entropy growth.
The advancement of science and technology has been an unstoppable force of nature since humans solved the food problem. However, the problem of increasing entropy with the advancement of science and technology has led to arguments for a return to a labor-intensive, low-entropy society. However, this is not only contrary to the fundamental nature of humanity, but it is also highly unlikely to be realized. It is necessary to adopt some of the ideas of those advocating a return to a low-entropy society to reduce the amount of useless energy wasted and give science time to solve the problem.
While it is true that advances in science and technology have led to the current increase in entropy, it is also true that advances in science and technology are the ones that will ultimately halt the increase in entropy. Therefore, humanity will need to continue to make progress while remaining true to its own nature.
