[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Evolution

Hi John,

I have to say that I agree with you about the situation in New Orleans (and the rest of southern Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.). I was lucky enough to visit that city and surrounding area for the first time, two years ago. I fell in love with it. So I'm grieving over many different aspects of this, as well. The whole thing is a mess, every which way. The only good that can possibly come out of this horrible disaster is if humanity recognizes, because of it, that we need to make some radical changes, fast. We cannot simply rebuild the same old way, re-organize the same old way, and pretend that we have no effect on the global weather patterns. It's just plain stupid to "mess with the weather". Our utter vulnerability and frailty as individual living organisms becomes all too apparent when faced with that kind of powerful energy.

This whole sorry situation offers our species a serious opportunity to begin the massive task of breaking up the energy "grid" and help each household or neighborhood (or both) develop the means via government assistance, tax-breaks, and/or other encouragement to build the capability for generating at least some of the electricity/energy that we use-- in our homes and businesses. I also think that is is vital such capability for generating energy must be based on "raw materials" which are both renewable AND come to each of us every day, regardless of what human supply chain may be in tatters. That means: Solar (both passive and "active"), wind, geothermal, fuel cells running on the Oxygen and Hydrogen (liberated from electrolized water)...

The geothermal capability to reduce energy demand in all human dwellings, winter and summer alike, is absolutely astonishing. I think it ought to be a requirement in all new-build projects because it's so easy and so bloody cheap to install when digging a foundation. It's much more difficult (and expensive) to retrofit into an existing dwelling (although it pays for itself fast). Utilizing the fact that the temperature of the planet, just a few feet below the surface, is a nearly uniform 50 to 60 degrees F.-- YEAR ROUND; regardless of the temperature of the air above-- could eliminate the need for air-conditioning in much of the world during hot seasons or in hot climates and would scale back the cost of heating in the cold to a small fraction of what we currently require. If geothermal capability is further combined with heat pump technology it's even more astonishing what can be accomplished. A good percentage of a household's hot water needs can be met, even in winter, this way.

But geothermal capabilities and technologies don't do enough all on their own because these technologies do still require energy, in the form of a fan or blower (which is necessary to force air through the buried ductwork/piping) at the very least. So, if we still all rely on a huge interconnected "grid" for our energy needs, we will still be just as vulnerable to anything that threatens, damages, disrupts, or destroys the grid. BUT; if we combine geothermal capabilities with at least some "end-use" energy generation capability... then we protect ourselves. It doesn't take much energy to run a geothermal system so it shouldn't be difficult for each dwelling to produce more than enough. What an amazing world it could be: We wouldn't have to be so fearful of "terrorist attacks" or OPEC or whatever... because we would each have the ability to protect our OWN (and family) life, limb, property, and, therefore, prosperity. Perhaps then countries wouldn't see as much of a need to launch wars against one another, either-- so human societies may become far more stable and peaceful. In the process, we could also drastically reduce the negative human impacts on the planetary system organization (including atmosphere, oceans, soil, etc.). So things like global warming will not get any worse and we can concentrate on learning how to undo the damage we have already done (and, hopefully, prevent ourselves from doubling our population again).

It's long past time for humanity to evolve into a symbiosis with our environment and with each other, as individuals, in my opinion. I like that idea far better than, say, a "collective" or hive-mentality. I don't want to live like an ant in an ant hill. Mutually beneficial individuality; That's the goal I prefer to envision. Do you think George Junior would listen if I wrote him a letter? Why do I doubt it?

Judith
Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Sep 3, 2005, at 4:47 PM, John M wrote:

Judith:
once a change occurs (e.g. by a symbiotic, or even
less intrinsic association) the changed unit cannot
act as it did before the change anymore. So do not
search for the yester day. Evolution is not
reversible, we cannot become australopiteci again.

Please let me stop here, I am in a depression because
of the victimes of the post-Latrinal (Katrinal?) flood
and am in ire for the irresponsibility and
incompetence to blabbermouthingly 'recompensate' the
destroyed lives of people with some money. Is there
some political Viagra against political impotence?

Best wishes

John


--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

I continue to do further research on the presence
(as components of
living cells) of multiple organelles with their own
genetic heritage--
separate from the cell's nuclear DNA. So far, there
are certain
patterns that are emerging. I suspect my father's
musings were correct;
that mitochondria (and chloroplasts) were originally
free-existing
organisms which somehow entered into the interior of
other
free-existing organisms, without being consumed or
consuming. Whether
it was a symbiotic association from the beginning or
not will be
impossible to tell, but it surely is that situation
now. In fact, none
of these parties could be free-existing anymore,
particularly as
regards multi-cellular organisms. There has been too
much migration of
DNA and functionality... one term that came up
repeatedly is the term
"promiscuous DNA" which referred to DNA that
migrated from organelles
to the nucleus of cells. I wonder; early organisms
most likely did not
have DNA at all, but utilized other modes of
"encoding" which are
likely still present in organisms today. Perhaps
this kind of encoding
is the missing link in explaining protein folding?
In any case, I tend
to think that early DNA was capable of passing
around rather freely,
much like prion diseases do even now. There are many
modalities for the
incursion of foreign genetic material and foreign
everything else; in
some ways it's just an extension of being an open
system which
interacts intimately with environment the way
organisms do. Indeed,
organisms encode AND incorporate vast amounts of
their environments
into their own organization, as it is. So this seems
a likely avenue
for those evolutionary entailments my father wrote
about.

Judith


Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science
based on the Relational Complexity Paradigm