PhatPhysiks.com

Todays activities involved a trip from Santa Fe to Las Vegas. This trip passes through the Santa Fe national Forest, and the Pecos Valley. An hour trip in some ways through a lot of nothing, in most ways a journey out of the Santa Fe Mesa to mountains which are always approaching but never seem to arrive, like the mirage on a west texas highway. Going to Las Vegas most of the national park is ahead and to the right. A vista of unspoiled mountains. Occasionally, however, the highway is built through the mountains, and the injury we cause to the earth is very apparent, in the marks of rock torn from the mountain, not by the slow process of erroion, or even the more rapid earthquake, by but human made explosives.

It is these types of observations that makes on ponder the interaction between human and nature. Building these roads through these mountains certainly served a purpose. People do wish to travel. Nothing in nature in permanent. Mountains that are not blown up will eventually decay with air and water. It hits some of us a bit more cruel to cut through a mountain than the apparently featureless south texas hell hole, but there really is no difference. Likewise is it there that big a difference between blowing up a mountain for a road and blowing up a mountain for coal? Some would say yes.

Much of the difficulty in the discussion of the management of the planet
derives from the conflict of those that believe any human action is acceptable and those that believe any human action is unacceptable. While these views are important to define a center, they serve no purpose in a rational discussion.

Homo Sapien Sapien exists, and is every bit an integral part of the planet as any other organism. We have an apparently unique ability to configure the planet to our comfort, which is not a bad thing. I like air conditioning, cars, bicycles, and shoes. There is not a human who depends on a tool,
and the purpose of a tool is amplify force so that we can more effectively change the planet. Cut down a tree, move a rock, build tall structures.

The discussion is then not how to cure the human cancer on the planet, but how to use our unique abilities to insure that we all have a place to live, while minimizing the long term damage that will jeopardize survival. This is much more complex question, which is why so many people move to a simpler fundamentalist view.

For example fission reactors can be a solution. There are technical and political problem, perhaps so difficult that fission is not a good answer. Fusion research is useful, but not if it is promoted as power too cheap to meter, which is one of those things that killed fission. Likewise, promoted an energy source as harmless is simply stupid. History tells us there is no such thing as a free lunch. Windmill kills birds. Damns destroy livelihoods and kill fish. Who knows what the long terms effects of solar are going to be.

Like my drive to Las Vegas, I can appreciate the natural beauty and the determination of us to succeed as a part of nature. Given that we will do what we need to do for food, clothing, shelter, power, the only question is will we let our future be determined by c0unterproductive fundamentalists or a political process based on rational discussion.