Should science and technology continue to advance (in relation to the regression of low entropy societies)

I have written a personal view on whether the advancement of science and technology can be a fundamental solution to the entropy problem.

 

Jeremy Rifkin, an American economist and renowned critic of the future, cites the “rapid increase in entropy” as an important problem that is counterbalanced by the advancement of science. In this context, “increasing entropy” means “less and less energy is available”. But since we continue to receive near-infinite energy from the sun, there is actually no reason why entropy should continue to increase. However, we are “overusing” energy, so entropy is increasing.
With the development of science and technology over the last 200 years, the rate of increase in entropy has been unstoppable, and he points out that there is a point of limit, where there is no more usable energy. Therefore, he argues that we need to put the brakes on the development of technologies that cause entropy to increase, and return to the low-entropy societies of long ago, where labor was central. So should we really not continue to advance science and technology? I think the more so, the more we should advance science and technology.
But first, we need to discuss why science and technology continue to advance. Why are we so obsessed with advancing science and technology? Couldn’t we just give up on it? The answer is simple: it’s human nature. More specifically, it’s our basic human nature: the desire to know. If we think back to the low-entropy societies we used to live in, why didn’t entropy increase during this time? The reason is that the instinct to survive prevailed over the desire to know. This is a society that prioritized finding food and staying alive. The desire to address curiosity is predicated on the subject being alive. But in this period, it was impossible to survive without farming and harvesting grain, or raising and eating livestock. If you didn’t work for food, you couldn’t get it. Eventually, humans reached a point where they were able to sustainably and safely produce enough food to survive, and when this was sufficiently established, it was natural for them to move on to wanting to satisfy their desire for knowledge.
At this point, once humans have solved the food problem, it’s virtually impossible to stop human curiosity. It’s our most basic nature, something that other animals don’t have. Even if we could revert back to a labor-intensive, low-entropy society, it’s virtually impossible to think that anyone would want to quench their desire for knowledge at a point where everyone can survive without worry. At some point after the return to a low-entropy society, perhaps not too far in the future, there will be people all over the planet who will seek to advance science and technology to satisfy their desire for knowledge.
Science and technology will inevitably continue to advance in this way. But people like Rifkin will still argue for a return to a low-entropy society because, according to them, “technological progress” has brought us to the current entropy threshold, and unless we put the brakes on it, the planet will end. So why should science and technology continue to advance under the “status quo”?
Because there is a way to avoid the end of the world without returning to a low-entropy society, and that is to advance science and technology. Of course, even without advances in science and technology, we could have global energy conservation agreements, for example. It is certainly possible to reduce the amount of useless energy wasted through social agreements such as carbon taxes based on carbon dioxide emissions. However, this is only a way to slow down the rate of entropy growth, not a fundamental solution. Unless we return to a low-entropy society, entropy will inevitably increase, so these social conventions can only “help” to buy us enough time for scientific and technological progress.
On the other hand, it is the advancement of science and technology that can fundamentally solve the entropy problem. A radical alternative to reducing entropy would be to use energy from renewable sources, since they provide a virtually infinite supply of “usable energy”. However, the forms of power generation we call renewable energy – wind, solar, geothermal, and so on – are not sufficient to power the world. The evolution to more advanced forms of power generation has also reached its limits. Furthermore, Rifkin argues that the cost and energy required to maintain and install renewable energy plants is not negligible, making renewable energy a viable alternative.
At first glance, it seems that science and technology can’t prevent the planet from running out of energy, and therefore the end of the world. But what Rifkin overlooks is that we no longer have to limit our development to the Earth. We are now interacting with the universe. We’re still in the early stages of understanding the universe, from analyzing meteorites to taking off and landing on the moon and launching satellites and probes. But when science and technology are advanced enough to allow us to go into space, where the possibilities are endless, we will be one step closer to solving our energy problems.
In fact, “space solar power” is a new alternative that has been gaining traction in recent years. Satellites that receive solar energy “all the time,” 24 hours a day, without interruption, are equipped with solar panels, which are highly efficient at generating energy because there is no atmosphere, including magnetic fields and ozone layers, between the sun and the satellite. Recently, solar tracking technology has been developed to move the plates by tracking the sun to pursue even higher energy generation efficiency. If this technology is completed and a large solar panel can be built in space and transmitted to the Earth using a wireless power transmission system, the Earth will be able to generate solar energy 24 hours a day without worrying about environmental damage. In this way, the development of science and technology, especially the development of new energy systems, can be a fundamental way to solve the problem of increasing entropy.
Advances in science and technology can not only be a fundamental solution to the problem of entropy, but also a way to slow it down. As mentioned in the introduction, the cause of the rapid growth of entropy is the overconsumption of energy. Energy conservation agreements can prevent overconsumption, but advances in science and technology can stop wasting energy where they cannot. What social protocols can’t stop is power leakage. The final form of energy we use is electricity, and the energy that is wasted traveling through transmission lines, the energy that is not used at night when everyone is sleeping, and the energy that is wasted is not something that social agreements can stop. These are problems that can be solved through advances in science and technology. In fact, a “smart grid” is an intelligent power grid that incorporates information technology into the power system, allowing power suppliers and consumers to exchange information to improve energy efficiency. In addition, “energy storage” is a storage device that stores electricity and transmits it when there is a shortage of electricity, and is currently under development. Advances in science and technology can also reduce the rate of entropy growth by solving energy problems that society cannot solve.
Advances in science and technology have been an unstoppable force of nature since humans solved the food problem. However, the increase in entropy that comes with the advancement of science and technology has been pointed out as a problem, and it has been argued that we should stop advancing science and technology and return to a labor-intensive, low-entropy society. However, this is an impractical solution that is fundamentally unacceptable to “humanity”. Of course, it is reasonable to accept some of the arguments of those who advocate a return to a low-entropy society, that we need to make changes to reduce the amount of energy that is wasted. It’s a way to buy time for science to fully address the problem.
It is clear that advances in science and technology have driven the current increase in entropy. However, it is also the advancement of science and technology that can essentially halt this increase, so we must continue to be true to our nature and continue this progress.