3 ms·

I'm not sure where that confusion lies. The earlier comment or was talking about the massive reduction in the amount of human labor required to cultivate land

I'm not sure where that confusion lies. The earlier comment or was talking about the massive reduction in the amount of human labor required to cultivate land and the relative productivity of the land. That comparison comes down to amount of work done. Whether that work is done by a human swinging a scythe or a human driving a diesel powered tractor is irrelevant, the work is measured in joules at the end of the day. We have drastically fewer human hours put into farm labor because we found a massive multiplier effect in fossil fuel energy. I'm not sure where solar panels came in, but sure they can also be used to store watts and produce joules of work if that's your preferred source of energy.

Dylan16807 2y ago
The confusion lies in why we would measure the efficiency of human labor in joules per unit of work instead of hours of human effort per unit of work. In particular, if we can make a machine that spends more joules than a human, but reduces the human effort by orders of magnitude, why would that be "horribly unproductive"? Most people would call that amazingly productive. And when they want to broaden the view to consider the inputs too, they're worried about the labor that goes into the inputs, not the joules. (And if the worry is the limited amount of fossil fuels in particular, we can do the same with renewable energy.)
- _heimdall 2y ago
  The point of standardizing on joules of work is to account for externalized costs. You can focus only on human effort, but at what cost? I'm still not sure why renewable are being brought up here. An earlier comment referenced solar, I never mentioned solar or renewables.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It's a silly method of accounting for externalized costs. Joules don't hurt anyone. I only mention renewables because I'm grasping at straws to figure out why joules would matter.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Joules are just a measure of work, and this all started by an attempt to say how productive we are because we need fewer farmers today. My argument is that we only need fewer farmers because we found a cheap source of energy and have been using that to replace farmers. When looking at joules its an attempt to compare something like a human cutting a field with a scythe and a tractor cutting it with an implement. The tractor is way more efficient at cutting it when considering only the human hours of labor cutting the field. But of course it is, a single barrel of oil has way more energy potential and even a small tractor will be run with fuel milage tracked by gallons per hour.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        But we can get joules for free. I really don't understand your use of the term "externalized cost" here.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Farmers were already using the cheapest source of energy, sunlight. Oil came late to the party here after plant matter and coal because it was slightly more convenient not because it has more energy. Back in the day, wood powered tractors beat the fuck out of horses, and horses beat the fuck out of human labor because they could digest cellulose. Oil is just very slightly cheaper. Even today people heat their homes with both wood pellets and oil, meanwhile there’s cheaper alternatives.

Dylan16807 2y ago

The confusion lies in why we would measure the efficiency of human labor in joules per unit of work instead of hours of human effort per unit of work. In particular, if we can make a machine that spends more joules than a human, but reduces the human effort by orders of magnitude, why would that be "horribly unproductive"? Most people would call that amazingly productive. And when they want to broaden the view to consider the inputs too, they're worried about the labor that goes into the inputs, not the joules. (And if the worry is the limited amount of fossil fuels in particular, we can do the same with renewable energy.)

_heimdall 2y ago
The point of standardizing on joules of work is to account for externalized costs. You can focus only on human effort, but at what cost? I'm still not sure why renewable are being brought up here. An earlier comment referenced solar, I never mentioned solar or renewables.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's a silly method of accounting for externalized costs. Joules don't hurt anyone. I only mention renewables because I'm grasping at straws to figure out why joules would matter.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Joules are just a measure of work, and this all started by an attempt to say how productive we are because we need fewer farmers today. My argument is that we only need fewer farmers because we found a cheap source of energy and have been using that to replace farmers. When looking at joules its an attempt to compare something like a human cutting a field with a scythe and a tractor cutting it with an implement. The tractor is way more efficient at cutting it when considering only the human hours of labor cutting the field. But of course it is, a single barrel of oil has way more energy potential and even a small tractor will be run with fuel milage tracked by gallons per hour.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      But we can get joules for free. I really don't understand your use of the term "externalized cost" here.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Farmers were already using the cheapest source of energy, sunlight. Oil came late to the party here after plant matter and coal because it was slightly more convenient not because it has more energy. Back in the day, wood powered tractors beat the fuck out of horses, and horses beat the fuck out of human labor because they could digest cellulose. Oil is just very slightly cheaper. Even today people heat their homes with both wood pellets and oil, meanwhile there’s cheaper alternatives.