I just got out of this weeks Atomic, Molecular, and Optical physic seminar; often the seminar deals with topics directly related to AMO physics (obviously), though we do usually have one or more out-of-department, out-of-field speakers each semester. Today was such a day, and we welcomed Professor Michael Webber of the Mechanical Engineering department. Professor Webber came to speak to us a bit about alternative energies technologies, a fascinating topic to be sure. He certainly gave a good talk--focusing largely on the technological hurdles which must be overcome for a number of potential energy sources. The talk itself was somewhat controversial--there was plenty of lively discussion and argument during the seminar and its question and answer session. Much of the argument centered on the use of wind energy (we've had another talk here recently in which the professor argued that wind is not the final answer, and that it is not a very effective solution for much of Texas in general).

Lost in the argument over the more "technical" aspects of the talk were a few points which were mostly meant to slip between the cracks. First, he argued that there is likely not going to be any particular technical solution to the energy problem in the near future. As evidence, he cites that the last two major breaks-through in energy technology were the development of catalytic separation and the development of nuclear power--both of which were used by the Allies to defeat the Axis in the second World War. Yes, he acknowledged that these are breaks-through as opposed to minor improvements; most of our energy technologies have been making minor improvements over time since their inception (engines, for example, improve with an efficiency rate of about 1% per year).

His argument, then, is that we cannot count on another break-through to solve the energy crisis for us, yet that is exactly what most Americans are doing. This statement is itself somewhat controversial, since breaks-through and human ingenuity have almost always solved resource problems in the past. Any number of resources which seemed to be dwindling in the past have been replaced by more abundant or more efficient ones. Take, for example, the demand for copper which seemed sure to deplete the copper supply in the 1980s. It was a sure enough bet that there would be a severe shortage of copper that no less a prophet of global environmental doom than Paul Ehrlich was willing to take a gamble on the increase of its value. Ehrlich lost that bet, because scientists and engineers developed and then commercialized fiber optics as the predominant communications technology, thus alleviating the need for copper.

As has been mentioned by such folks as John C Wright, any number of things which are now resources may become obsolete, and any number of things which are currently useless to us may with minor technological advances become resources.

"It is human ingenuity which makes something a resource. A relatively minor technical advance would make shale oil a resource: currently it is not. A relatively minor technical advance would made geothermal heat a resource: currently it is not. A relatively minor technical advance, or perhaps merely getting the environmentalists to shut up, would make sunlight a resource (fun fact: whenever someone tries to build a solar energy farm, the environmentalists sue them)."

The same is true for nuclear power, which is not being utilized to its full extent in the United States. We have the technology to use it, and a few relatively minor advances would make the waste storage problem go away.

As Mr Wright notes, the "energy problem" could have any number of solutions, some of which are most certainly technological. But, as he also notes, there have been a long long of "Academics" and other members of the intelligentsia--from Malthus And Simon to Ehrlich, Holdren, and indeed a number of current environmentalists--who would see a different solution. Professor Webber perhaps hinted at it when he listed what he saw as the three problems without technological solutions: energy, environment, and population boom. And as Mr Thomas Peters of The American Papist has noted on a few occasions, the solution is always "fewer people."

Professor Webber did indeed hint at this himself today when noting that a part of the solution will be behavioral changes in the population. Sure, conservation will help, he said, but at this rate, its only delaying the inevitable. This, after mentioning the above three problems. He begins by suggesting, innocuously enough, that we ought to use less resources in general and energy in particular. I agree that conservation is certainly a good thing--my own apartment is only air conditioned for a part of the evening each day, only when it's hot outside (I don't heat it much in the winter unless I have company), and all of the lights are usually off; indeed, I have placed heavy curtains on the windows to help keep the place cool (this does work, by the way, as it blocks out the sun which is what normally causes the place to heat up).

I agree with those who believe in conservation, but not at the price of human lives. There is plenty we can do without contracepting, aborting, or otherwise eliminating the future generation. And there is plenty which can be done without wiping out half of the population due to starvation (e.g. because we use up a large part of what should be the food supply to make biofuels which are not efficient in the first place) and disease (e.g. malaria, thanks to the DDT bans). Finally, it would be a mistake to bet against human ingenuity. If it appears that we haven't made any "real" progress in the field of energy, it is only because we have yet to bring many of our resources to bear: be they financial, political, or mental.