My initial reaction to professors Nocera and Belcher was one of amazement for both the originality of their ideas as well as the comprehensive scope of their projects. Yet reflecting upon their initial statements and the answers they gave to members of the audience, I see no thought given to the sources of the problems they try to solve. Professor Nocera began his introduction with an assessment of the future energy requirements the world would need in fifty years; his overriding assumption was that the world was indeed headed towards overpopulation, and therefore in his opinion a revolution in science was needed to meet the demand. I would not argue with him over his response to that future need. It is astounding in its simplicity and beautiful for its seeming achievability. However, I wonder what the end result of his and professor Belcher’s research will be. In fifty years we may have learned how to harness the energy of the sun through water, and how to genetically program organisms not only to produce our food, but our batteries and maybe even our walls. The unanswered, and more important, question that I see in their discussion of energy is that of cultural views upon energy use, consumption and production. In fifty years it is quite likely that individuals within the world society will continue to consume energy at their present rate, if not more. While Nocera’s and Belcher’s research may allow the energy demand to be met, the cultural values that ultimately create this demand will not have changed.
Professor Nocera’s figure for future energy requirements – 30 terawatts annually – is based off consumption averages for Equatorial Guinea. Were it for the United States, Nocera predicts demand exceeding 100 terawatts per year. Both are dauntingly high. While science can be well applied to meeting these demands, as Nocera and Belcher have shown, it has thus far unfortunately dictated a system in which more consumption is the norm. The Industrial Revolution is clear evidence of this, in the increased population as well as consumptive habits of the “industrialized” societies (ours being a notable example). Science, for all its ability in solving humanity’s problems, is similarly culpable in creating the many that we face today. In solutions to health problems, we have generated new diseases more effective in their ability to cause widespread deaths. In the creation of technologies meant to ease the burden of life, we have established new dependences and formed new hardships to replace the old. It seems that even with new scientific advances our society still is met with the same number of problems.
By no means should that be seen as a reason to retard or stop either professor’s research. By their scientific merit alone they are worthwhile – learning more about the natural world, and how humans can interact with it, is itself enough reason. In other words, usually used by denigrators: science for science’s sake. The goals of both professors not only lie in responding to a future human need, but in revolutionizing our understanding of the physical world. Their projects demand new thinking from the subatomic to the molecular level. Research like theirs paves the way for future innovation, future discoveries about the nature of matter and energy, that not only will allow humanity to continue its course but to shape global understandings of who we are.
As Daniel Nocera pointed out (and seemed to have a habit of doing), the world is run by politicians, whose focus is not fifty years down the road but one. As a result, problems such as energy consumption and production seem less pressing, and are not given their rightful attention. So too are the root causes of these problems not addressed, overlooked as more “current” crises gain notice. Perhaps, as I noted earlier, professors Nocera’s and Belcher’s research will only relieve one problem while another is created. Fortunately, our society has evolved much since the time when scientific research began shaping the world in the early 19th century. We have enlarged the global conscious and become more aware of the repercussions of our actions both in nearby and distant communities. We still, however, must continue to scrutinize the direction and progress of the global culture of consumption, to understand it more and perhaps augment its debilitating effect on the planet. While I applaud the ingenuity of both researchers in their work and hope to see it achieve fruition, I must emphasize that we should not only focus on methods of consumption but the reasons for doing so. A careful audit of them will reveal perhaps larger dilemmas for the world community to tackle.
“’Energy,’ said William Blake, ‘is Eternal Delight.’ And the scientific prognosticators of our time have begun to speak of eventual opening, for human use, of ‘infinite’ sources of energy. In speaking of the use of energy, then, we are speaking of an issue of religion, whether we like it or not.” – Wendell Berry, 1977
March 2, 2009 at 11:00 pm
You raised a great question about the importance of looking at the underlying cultural assumptions that have brought us to this “energy crisis.” I, too, believe in looking to the roots. But it felt like you twisted sideways every time I thought you were going to step up and call for change. So….(and this goes out to everyone), what might we do to improve “the direction and progress of the global culture of consumption?”
March 5, 2009 at 10:03 pm
“What might we do to improve ‘the direction and progress of the global culture of consumption?’”
There are currently many people with enough wherewithal and resources to make the conscious choice to reduce their consumption to make their contribution towards sustainable living. But they represent a small portion of our population. To figure out how people might be made to change their habits en masse, look back to when such behavioural changes have happened. No significant national or global resource consumption downturn will occur because of consequences years down the line, even if we push it from every imaginable moral stance. Plainly, there needs to be an economic incentive. We usually ration resources due to a drastic price increase. Often, this results from a supply shock, but we clearly can’t wait until we run out of fossil fuels before we try to make a transition in earnest. Large scale economic incentives discouraging fossil fuel burning (taxes) and encouraging renewable energy (subsidies) are the way to go. Name one example where large scale human behaviour changed abruptly without a short-term financial motivation… (anyone)