|
Google and Sustainability
|
||||||||
|
Sustainability Principle of Energy
|
last update June 2010 Invitation to Google (May 2010) Dear Google
I am writing to
invite you all to join in a call for national and international reviews
of how we use our prime symbols. These are the ones that express and
shape our worldview such as energy, power, electricity, greenhouse,
market, conserve, carbon, science, energy efficiency, warming, cooling,
etc. Typically they are used in the popular discourse of how our
universe works in general and how our climate systems work in
particular. There are also vital symbols such as trace, use,
exponential, conservation principle of energy and atmosphere
that are rarely used in the discourse. This list of
prime symbols is not exclusive, for clearly our uses of symbols such God,
love and compassion also play a powerful role in determining
whether our society is sustained. However the symbols in the above list
are sufficiently potent that their misuse could easily destroy humanity.
For instance, physics explains much better than does economics the
Stockmarket crash and credit collapse of 2008. Perform a search on
“cause” and Google provides pages of fiscal, finance risk management
and similar explanations. The economic explanations fail to provide the
real reason: the popular confusion of the energy symbol with a couple of
forms – mineral oil and gas. Analysis using
physics indicates this confusion of energy with forms is non-science and
thus very high risk. This is because such denial of the real nature of
these potent minerals results in the vast and dangerous undervaluation
of these resources. This undervaluation in turn enables very wasteful
and polluting uses of them. US and similar
systems are thus based on a valuation of about $US20 a barrel or 0.1
cents per man-hour of the energy equivalent. When the price rose to
$US100 the physics of the situation triggered an enormous credit
implosion in such countries. Gross behaviour
patterns remain largely unaltered in the US and similar economies since
2008. Physics suggests there now exists the high probability of a
catastrophic collapse by about 2013 if current trends continue. Google and the
global Green Movement form the most potent agents of degradation of our
prime symbols and thus constitute the greatest threat to humanity at
present. The Green
Movement is most potent because it has privileged status and is accorded
frontline access into our communities and educations systems.
Unfortunately, on balance, it promotes unsustainable uses of our prime
symbols and destroys the communal state of science. Google is most
potent because it dominates global searches on these symbols. Its
algorithms are fundamentally reactive and give greatest credence to
links to agencies and institutions that generate the most unsustainable
uses of these prime symbols. The algorithms have no cognisance of the
physics of reality. They actively discriminate against symbol uses based
on the great principles of physics because in an unsustainable culture
such as ours is these uses are minority, radical and revolutionary. Thus, like the
Green Movement in general, Google works directly against its proclaimed
Green aspirations. Below is a brief
analysis of a sample Google website. The short Google video illustrates
the fundamentally well-meaning and unsustainable nature of the
contemporary corporate ethos. The
Sustainability Principle of Energy suggests our current use of our prime
symbols as a certain recipe for escalating misery for all. However I
believe such an escalation is avoidable. Indeed I believe the review I
invite all at Google to participate in has the potential to bring much
more joy, awe and fun to our lives. This is because our conservation of
our prime symbols is the ultimate source of our wealth and enables us to
reflect the wonders of the universe more truly. I hope you
respond to the invite and welcome all comments and inquiries. You can
see more details of the invitation at http://tinyurl.com/28oxmnh In hope Dave McArthur Analysis
of Google Powermeter video http://weblog.greenpeace.org.nz/climate-change/google-powermeter/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Dx38hzRWDQ SCRIPT “If you cannot measure it you cannot improve
it”. -Lord Kelvin Ed Lu Google
Engineer Ed: “Here
at Google, we think that having energy information, telling you how much
energy you’re using in your house will help you make smart choices and
save energy and money.” Karen Taylor
Program Manager google.org Karen: “Here
at Google we’re building a software tool that will enable you to
monitor your home energy use in real time. I’ve been using an early
version of this software that lets me track my electricity use on my
computer. Seeing this information every day really helps me reduce the
amount of energy wasted in my house.” Russ Mirov Google
Engineer Russ. “Over
the last year, I’ve reduced my energy consumption by about 64%. I’ve
done it without making any significant changes in my lifestyle and
I’ve saved about $3000 so far.” Google “You CAN measure it. You CAN improve it.” ********************* Analysis Psychoanalysis of
this video using the
Sustainability Principle of Energy suggests Google is in
profound denial of stewardship/change and thus puts humanity at greater
risk. In brief the
Sustainability Principle suggests energy is the potential of the
universe(s), which is manifest as constant change/transformation. Power
is the measure of the rate at which this potential is manifest i.e. the
rate of change over time (KWh, Horse Power etc) It also suggests
electricity does not exist, rather a wide range of electrical phenomena
with completely variant properties exist. Thus each phenomenon needs be
associated with a unique symbol if it is to be known. Google’s use of
the “power” symbol, as in “power meter”. This is complete
non-science. Power is a measure and the “meter” symbol
derives from metron, Greek for measure and means an
instrument or apparatus for measuring.
Two possibilities occur. One is that Google refers to a measuring
device that measures measures, which makes no sense in this context. The
second very dangerous possibility is that Google is confusing with power
with a form or forms of energy. In this case it appears the forms are
Bulk-generated electrical products. If so this is a grand denial of
physics and stewardship/change. To say power
is energy, as Google does, is also doubly confusing. This is
non-science because it confuses the measure with the object being
measured. It also denies change because power is the rate or measure of
the change or transformation of energy. In other words, Google denies
transformation. To say power is
one or some of the forms energy can be manifest in, for instance,
Bulk-generated electrical products, is to deny the Conservation
Principle of Energy. It denies the essence of the Principle, which
includes the messages that energy is bounteous as the universe(s),
continually transforms and is manifest in all forms. This denial is
perhaps the most fatal error humans can make for we tend as a
consequence to use those forms as though they are as bounteous as
energy. This is a recipe for misery and Google betrays both its own
mission statement to “do no evil” and the overt objective of this
project of promoting wise uses of resources – sometimes known as
energy efficiency. Ed, Karen and
Russ all reveal similar denial and compound this confusion in their
statements. What is this
energy that Ed speaks of when he speaks of “energy information” and
“energy use”? Is it
information how to grow food and measuring our food consumption? Is it
information of how many of our windows face the sun and how much you can
use sunlight to keep warm? Is it wisdom of the value of insulation and
how to install it correctly? Is it about knowing the volume and
frequency of our breath and the wisdom with which we use it? Or is Ed
associating the energy symbol with a particular group of
Bulk-generated electrical products? Whatever use he might intend Ed is
failing to conserve the potential of the energy symbol – one of
our most vital symbols. The Conservation
Principle of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
In other words energy, by its very nature, is conserved. To suggest, as
Ed does, that human beings can save energy is to suggest the
Conservation Principle does not hold. His suggestion forms the ultimate
denial of the reality of universal change. Humans can only conserve and
save some forms of energy for a finite period. Similarly Karen
equates “home energy use” with “electricity use”. This is
meaningless. Certainly all phenomena can be viewed from an electrical
perspective. Is she speaking of the electrical charges that connect and
bind the atoms of a home? Does she refer to the electrical radiation of
the sunlight in our homes? Or is she just measuring her use of
Bulk-generated electrical products. She does not say so we cannot know. Russ speaks about
his “energy consumption”. Again the Sustainability Principle of
Energy suggests this is evidence of a grand denial of
stewardship/change. Consume
derives the Latin consumere “to use up” and the Conservation
Principle suggests energy is so bounteous it can be considered a
constant. Humans can only transform and consume resources. Even if energy
consumption were possible it is hard to imagine how Russ reduced his
“energy consumption by about 64%” without making any significant
changes in his lifestyle. The majority of people in the world do not use
$3000 of resources such as Bulk-generated electrical products and so
they would have had to cease all heating, cooling, moving and other
activities derived from their use of such products. Implicit in
Russ’s statement is an association of energy efficiency with
deprivation. Most people cannot imagine how they can reduce the
consumption of resources by 64% without a significant loss of their
lifestyle and thus they will tend to default to associations of energy
efficiency with loss and doing without. His statement has to be
understood in our cultural context, which is dominated by very powerful
psychopathic corporations. These corporations first work to ensure
people associate the energy and power symbols with their
products. By this means they can promote the addictive use of the
products. Periodically demand outstrips supply in ways that threaten the
short-term profits of the corporations and put at risk their investment
in addictive behaviour. So they transfer the blame for the situation by
describing the situation as an “energy crisis” or a “power
crisis”. At such times
they also promote campaigns encouraging the consumers of their products
to deprive themselves of the products in the name of “civics” and
“energy efficiency”. Thus the consumers, not the merchant bankers,
pay the costs of short-term supply-demand imbalances while their
addictive behaviour is maintained. The “energy efficiency” symbol is
degraded and associated with “using less energy” and increased
costs. The
Sustainability Principle of Energy suggests energy efficiency is not
about using less or more energy but rather it is about conserving
resources and living in harmony with the flows and balances that sustain
humanity. It is quite possible to, for instance, conserve heating
resources and use more energy by making wise uses of windows as
generators. Conclusion
This video is
unsustainable. It is effectively a commercial for Google and the
merchant bankers who control the production and distribution of
Bulk-generated electrical products. These statements
have to be seen in the context of our Anglo-American culture in which energy,
power and electricity are equated with each other and all are
equated with Bulk-generated electrical products. The advertising
of the merchant bankers promoting the sale of these products is now so
intense and pervasive that it is probable most people in our culture
default to these products when these symbols are used. There is no
indication that Google comprehends that there is a critical difference
between “smart grid systems” (which can easily be Fascist) and
“intelligent grid systems” (which are inherently democratic).
Psychoanalysis of the language of this promotion indicates it contains
powerful elements of the psychosis and psychopathy that enable Fascism.
In practice this is a recipe for wasteful uses of resources and misery
in general. This is not a
personal attack on Google. Analysis of our wider culture using the
Sustainability Principle of Energy indicates this denial of
stewardship/change is endemic, including in Greenpeace – the agency
that brought the video to my attention. There is huge
irony in the Google use and adaption of Lord Kelvin’s quote “If you
cannot measure it you cannot improve it.” There is enormous
wisdom in this quote that perhaps Lord Kelvin may not have been fully
aware of. It describes in essence all that enables the arts, languages,
civics and all we know as civilisation to exist. It is a description of
the learning process that underpins our experience of the state of
science. Ultimately it is a description of the experience of compassion
whereby we learn to connect and communicate in most harmonious way with
the universe(s). As Lord Kelvin also said, “The measure is to know”. I have shown how
this video actively destroys the state of science in our communities by
degrading our prime symbols and their knowledge potential. It evidences
major denial of stewardship/change and promotes an unsustainable
industry that is inherently hostile to intelligent uses of our
electrical potential interests. Perhaps Google is imitating Barack
Obama’s campaign call “Yes we CAN” when it says “You CAN measure
it. You CAN improve it.” Psychoanalysis of
Barack’s use of the energy symbol in his speeches indicates he
too disempowers people. It is also becoming very apparent that he too is
very disempowered and is beholden to a few unsustainable merchant
bankers. They control many of our essential measures and until we
acknowledge this fact we CANNOT improve our use of our electrical
potential or communicate about it in a sustainable way.
|
|
||||||
