3 ms·

> life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks I'll be blunt and say that that is just bullshit for quite obvious reasons. Your [1] does not

by Ma8ee 12y ago

> life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks I'll be blunt and say that that is just bullshit for quite obvious reasons. Your [1] does not support the claim.

sitkack 12y ago
Might be better to just point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate
vanderZwan 12y ago
"Obvious reasons" is not a very convincing argument, and and I am quite curious why you are saying that a link that literally states things like: "A human-controlled punching machine is 25 to 35 times more efficient than a laser cutter when producing a standard part" "Fibre laser cutters are more efficient than CO2-laser cutters, but their power consumption is still 10 times larger than that of a slower but equally powerful human-controlled nibbling machine" ... and has tables like: http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a73d849ca8970d-pi http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a73d8... (which is per item, by the way) ... is not supporting the claim that manual labour is more energy efficient for many tasks.
- Ma8ee 12y ago
  A human-controlled punching machine is not a living thing, a human-controlled nibbling machine isn't a living thing. Thus none of the sentences support the notion that "life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks". There might be some manually controlled machines that are more energy efficient than some automatic machines, but that would be a very very different fact, and I don't see any reason to believe that it would hold in general. For example the table you linked to doesn't say how much that is produced per energy unit, which would be the relevant measure, and it doesn't take into account that the operator uses a lot of energy. With your kind of arguing I could show that a hand saw was infinitely more efficient than a chainsaw because the hand saw in itself doesn't use any energy at all and we don't count the operator. A human in standby (resting) consumes about 80W power, and a human that does any kind of work much more than that. Humans use extremely inefficient fuel that takes many times more energy to produce than it makes available to do any kind of work. For most physical work it is easy to find a machine that does the same work using much less energy. In those areas where computers can replace humans they also do the same work using much less energy but also much faster. And then we haven't even taken into account that the human only works for 40 hours per week, need a house that keep her warm and uses a shitload of energy every day just to get back and forth to their workplace.

by Ma8ee 12y ago

> life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks I'll be blunt and say that that is just bullshit for quite obvious reasons. Your [1] does not support the claim.

sitkack 12y ago

Might be better to just point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

vanderZwan 12y ago

"Obvious reasons" is not a very convincing argument, and and I am quite curious why you are saying that a link that literally states things like: "A human-controlled punching machine is 25 to 35 times more efficient than a laser cutter when producing a standard part" "Fibre laser cutters are more efficient than CO2-laser cutters, but their power consumption is still 10 times larger than that of a slower but equally powerful human-controlled nibbling machine" ... and has tables like: http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a73d849ca8970d-pi http://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a73d8... (which is per item, by the way) ... is not supporting the claim that manual labour is more energy efficient for many tasks.

Ma8ee 12y ago
A human-controlled punching machine is not a living thing, a human-controlled nibbling machine isn't a living thing. Thus none of the sentences support the notion that "life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks". There might be some manually controlled machines that are more energy efficient than some automatic machines, but that would be a very very different fact, and I don't see any reason to believe that it would hold in general. For example the table you linked to doesn't say how much that is produced per energy unit, which would be the relevant measure, and it doesn't take into account that the operator uses a lot of energy. With your kind of arguing I could show that a hand saw was infinitely more efficient than a chainsaw because the hand saw in itself doesn't use any energy at all and we don't count the operator. A human in standby (resting) consumes about 80W power, and a human that does any kind of work much more than that. Humans use extremely inefficient fuel that takes many times more energy to produce than it makes available to do any kind of work. For most physical work it is easy to find a machine that does the same work using much less energy. In those areas where computers can replace humans they also do the same work using much less energy but also much faster. And then we haven't even taken into account that the human only works for 40 hours per week, need a house that keep her warm and uses a shitload of energy every day just to get back and forth to their workplace.