Re: philosophical curiosity in a long summer afternoon

[Brian_Gaulke@hc-sc.gc.ca]

Brian Gaulke
07/27/98 01:53 PM

On 7/27/98 Scott Kniffin wrote:

"Good grief, the entropy of the universe is always increasing.  Remember
the
laws of thermodynamics?
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't even quit the game.
If we have to worry about the moral implications about using atoms in the
planet for our needs, we might just as well kill ourselves and every other
living thing on the planet out of respect for the universe for uselessly
wasting energy.  This ranks up there with people who feel that baking bread
is genocide because of the billions of yeast cells that die in the cooking
process.  (I am not making that up, I know one of these people.)  You want
a philosophical debate?  How about, is it fair of me to subject my
co-workers to more of my gastrointestinal distress brought on by eating
questionable fast food during my conference last week by consuming more
fast food today, or should I simply eat an entire loaf of whole wheat bread
to spare them and kill some yeasts for the shear pleasure of it?"
A.   I wasn't talking about the universe, and neither was the original
poster.  When talking only about the earth, which is not an isolated
system, it isn't true that entropy always increases.  We wouldn't be here
discussing this if entropy were always increasing in any system, no matter
how defined.

B.   How can a simple factual statement provoke such a heated response?  I
said nothing at all about moral or philosophical implications.  Or was your
remark directed at the original poster?

C.   The ethical/moral/philosophical issue raised, in my opinion, has
nothing to do with "respect for the universe."  It has to do primarily with
ethical treatment of current and future generations of human beings.  To
make it harder on someone else so that you have it easier is unethical,
whether that involves buying coffee beans from large corporations who
exploit local workers, or rapidly depleting a non-renewable resource so
future generations will not have the benefit of it.  From this perspective,
the issue originally raised is certainly valid.