Re: philosophical curiosity in a long summer afternoon

["Scott D. Kniffin" <Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Brian, Brian, Brian,

>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.

Pick up a physics text and read it again like I just did.  I defy you to
show me a true Carnot cycle.  Even if entropy is reversed localy, the
exchange comes at a price elsewhere.  Don't play the reverse of the
creationist second law explanation to me.  

>
>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?
>

Yes my response was directed at the original poster.  Perhaps I snipped too
much of the previous ramblings for my own good.  Sorry about that.

>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.
>

How you go from manic ramblings about the moral implications of using atoms
because they come from a supernova to coffe beans is really mistifying,
besides, I don't drink coffee.  I prefer to exploit tea leaf and coco
growers anyway.  You want the ethical implications of using non-renewable
resources?  How about the tons of coal burned each minute of each day?  You
can build a breeder reactor to make more fuel than you use, thus
effectively a "renewable resource."  If your so damned worried about future
generations, go solve the fusion problem and then we'll have to worry what
runs out first, the water or the sun.  

In case this fact has eluded several, my musings, ramblings and comments
are (unless answering a serious and direct question) intended as humorous
and frequently are relativly acidic.  This acidity is due in large part to
the incredible hodge-podge of religious and ethinc backgrounds in my family
that brings the "global village" concept down to the micro scale.  By
virtue of the crap that people spread about other cultures and how we
aren't supposed to like them for this reason or these others for that
reason, I should have imploded into a singularity and formed a mini black
hole out of self-hate at the moment of my birth.  Unlucky/lucky you
depending on your perspective.  

Franz was right, humor is hard to get in this medium.  And my thanks to
Ruth, I love Art Buchwald.  Please be cautious of the freshly etched
titanium (Humor Alert: This is a self-referential tie-in to my comment
about the acidity of my humor!  Perhaps I'll have to employ these alerts on
a routine basis now.) and have a pleasant day.  

Scott Kniffin

mailto:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov
RSO, Unisys Corp. @ Lanham, MD
CHO, Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA, Greenbelt, MD

The opinions expressed here are my own.  They do not necessarily represent
the views of Unisys Corporation or NASA.  This information has not been
reviewed by my employer or supervisor.