Yes; it's a type of nonsense called "science." I trust you'll be familiar with it one day.
Here's some more "science nonsense" for you.Hydrogen isn't free.
No, it's not science.Yes; it's a type of nonsense called "science." I trust you'll be familiar with it one day.
So what. It costs money to get it, store it, distribute it, use it.Here's some more "science nonsense" for you.
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, constituting approximately 73% to 75% of all normal matter by mass."
The second law of thermodynamics? You'll find it is.
Of course! And that's my point. You won't find any element in the universe more "sustainable." And yet, it's still going to have some costs, and cause some entropy...there's no getting away from it. The idea that anything can be truly "sustainable" is simply a myth. The only thing you can change is how fast the process of decay happens -- not whether or not it does.So what. It costs money to get it, store it, distribute it, use it.Here's some more "science nonsense" for you.
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, constituting approximately 73% to 75% of all normal matter by mass."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamicsThe second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal empirical observation concerning heat and energy interconversions. A simple statement of the law is that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter (or 'downhill' in terms of the temperature gradient). Another statement is: "Not all heat can be converted into work in a cyclic process."
More nonsense. "Elements" have nothing to do with sustainability.You won't find any element in the universe more "sustainable."
If the earth remains sustainable until the sun goes nova ... that's adequate.The idea that anything can be truly "sustainable" is simply a myth. The only thing you can change is how fast the process of decay happens -- not whether or not it does.
The nonsense was yours, and happened because you read the wrong part of the definition, or couldn't understand the implications. But I'll give you something you can't miss.phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 6:01 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_la ... modynamicsThe second law of thermodynamics is a physical law based on universal empirical observation concerning heat and energy interconversions. A simple statement of the law is that heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder regions of matter (or 'downhill' in terms of the temperature gradient). Another statement is: "Not all heat can be converted into work in a cyclic process."
How does that relate to the nonsense that you posted?
"...natural processes are irreversible and move toward equilibrium,..." You can't "sustain" a natural system. They are always subject to thermodynamics, which means they are inevitably becoming more disordered and heading toward a state where there is no further order in them.
You don't notice that new life is continually being created?You can see this in all kinds of things. For instance, buy anything new: say, a car. Leave it somewhere for two years. Heck, even put it in storage. But leave it alone. When you come back, is it better or worse than when you left it? Did it "renew," or "sustain," or just get older and start to decline?
There's truth in your response, but his response is completely correct and yours is straw-man. He said reduce, you end with 'no stopping'.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 5:06 pmThat isn't true. All they can do is make the rate of entropy go slower or faster. There's no stopping entropy.
That's merely at the macro level, and turns out to hide a deeper fact at the micro level: that there is such a thing as "genetic entropy," as well.phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 8:09 pmYou don't notice that new life is continually being created?You can see this in all kinds of things. For instance, buy anything new: say, a car. Leave it somewhere for two years. Heck, even put it in storage. But leave it alone. When you come back, is it better or worse than when you left it? Did it "renew," or "sustain," or just get older and start to decline?
In billions of years, yes. But the earth is not an isolated system. We get energy from the sun. At the universe level, nothing we can do. But in human terms, sustainablity has a great deal of meaning. We could choose policies and practices that would lead to problems very quickly. Or choose better ones.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 8:02 pm"...natural processes are irreversible and move toward equilibrium,..." You can't "sustain" a natural system. They are always subject to thermodynamics, which means they are inevitably becoming more disordered and heading toward a state where there is no further order in them.
You can see this in all kinds of things. For instance, buy anything new: say, a car. Leave it somewhere for two years. Heck, even put it in storage. But leave it alone. When you come back, is it better or worse than when you left it? Did it "renew," or "sustain," or just get older and start to decline?
You know the answer already; you observe it every day. The world is inevitably "running down," so to speak, tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and nothing you can do can stop it, reverse it, or make it stable. Stable is just not how the world is.
"Sustainability" is thus an illusion. What it would really be is only superficially slowing the possible rate of decline, not actually "sustaining" anything.
You're missing the point.
The Sun is also entropic. And its relation to the earth is not regenerative, but also entropic. If you doubt that, go sun tan on a summer day for three or four hours. See afterward if the Sun has rendered your skin "sustainable."Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 8:24 pmIn billions of years, yes. But the earth is not an isolated system. We get energy from the sun.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 25, 2026 8:02 pm"...natural processes are irreversible and move toward equilibrium,..." You can't "sustain" a natural system. They are always subject to thermodynamics, which means they are inevitably becoming more disordered and heading toward a state where there is no further order in them.
You can see this in all kinds of things. For instance, buy anything new: say, a car. Leave it somewhere for two years. Heck, even put it in storage. But leave it alone. When you come back, is it better or worse than when you left it? Did it "renew," or "sustain," or just get older and start to decline?
You know the answer already; you observe it every day. The world is inevitably "running down," so to speak, tending from a state of higher order to one of lower order, and nothing you can do can stop it, reverse it, or make it stable. Stable is just not how the world is.
"Sustainability" is thus an illusion. What it would really be is only superficially slowing the possible rate of decline, not actually "sustaining" anything.
