Why washing-machines are the well-spring of civilization

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

In his talk The Magic Washing-Machine Swedish Professor Hans Rosling touches on an idea that is often glossed over discussions of poverty or environmental policy.

The idea that energy is wealth.

Cheap and plentiful energy (the strictly-scientific types would actually call it "power") is what allows industrialized nations to enjoy the standard of living that they do. Without the crop yields made possible by tractors and mechanical harvesting equipment the vast majority of people on this planet would starve. Without Natural gas people in northern latitudes would be clear-cutting the forests simply to keep from freezing. The level of medical care that so many people consider to be "basic" would utterly cease to exist without copious amounts of electricity. Simply put, life without energy is brutal and short.

As such I would propose that the simplest and most direct way to mitigate poverty is to promote increased energy production and consumption. Data from the World Health Organization would seem to to support this claim. It shows a strong correlation between energy use per-capita and health factors such as infant mortality or average life-span. (click here for graphs and spreadsheets) Almost without fail, the more energy a society or demographic has available per person, the healthier those people are likely to be.

This poses a problem for some people.

First there are those who view wealth as a zero-sum game. In their eyes in order for one to gain, another must loose. They focus on things like "surplus value" and "income inequality" without realising that their theory has been torpedoed by reality. If even the poorest members of a society have a decent shot at a long and healthy life, does poverty even constitute a threat? Just be thankful that you have "First wold Problems".

Secondly there are those who seek to restrict energy availability or raise prices as part of their socio-political agenda. Whether it was intentional or not they have effectively declared themselves to be anti-humanist/pro-poverty.

Now as Human-beings all have basic needs (food, warmth, hygiene, etc...) and in developing nations people must spend signifigant time and effort ensuring that these basic needs are met. In iindustrialized societies machinery does much of that work for us, giving us the time to pursue educational goals, indulge in artistic expression, or simply harass people via the internet.

As Professor Rosling illustrates in his story, the hours spent "doing laundry" are hours not spent raising one's children...

...and that's why washing-machines are the well-spring of civilization.

Comments

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

"(the strictly-scientific types would actually call it "power")"

Nope, Energy is more correct. Power is just Energy over some period of time. It's Energy that is at the root of things, though, and it is a zero-sum game; it's conserved.

"Secondly there are those who seek to restrict energy availability or raise prices as part of their socio-political agenda."

Yes, big oil. Big Alternatives are coming, though.

(sorry bout the multiple corrections...

[spaz-own-joo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, come to think of it, thermodynamics is really the biggest zero-sum game in town, ain't it?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"Secondly there are those who seek to restrict energy availability or raise prices as part of their socio-political agenda."

Yes, big oil. Big Alternatives are coming, though.

If you think the oil companies are th only ones playing that game, you're a fool. (http://youtu.be/HlTxGHn4sH4)

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Typically when a person uses the "wealth" term, as in economics, and they say that it's not a zero sum game, they' argue against my next point, but if you want to say that Energy is Wealth, then the definitions are changed.

I've thought before, on seeing someone talk about the explosion of wealth over the last hundred years or so, that it's really the explosion of Energy that we're talking about, and not some human construct like money, or commerce, or whatever. It's Energy that's at the root of all these things, provided by incredibly cheap oil and exponentially increasing knowledge of how to unlock it's value (to support food production, commerce, etc.)

Energy is a zero sum game, though, at least universally, it's definitely conserved, and you can't just create it because you need it, you can only unlock it by physical processes where it can be found to be available.

There is no economy without Energy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The sun dumps enough energy on the Earth every day to power everything we'd ever made and will continue to do so for billions of years.

Unlocking it is just a matter of time and labor... and gov't regulations.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Energy is a zero sum game, though, at least universally, it's definitely conserved, and you can't just create it because you need it, you can only unlock it by physical processes where it can be found to be available.

Hense the engineering student quibble about "energy" vs. "power".

The amount of chemical, and thermal energy available on Earth alone is vast enough to be functionally infinite on any meaningful human scale.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

on seeing someone talk about the explosion of wealth over the last hundred years or so, that it's really the explosion of Energy that we're talking about, and not some human construct like money, or commerce, or whatever.

Computing power, data storage, internet, cell phone networks, ....
Those things require energy, but...

[surferelf.livejournal.com]

Energy is a zero sum game, though, at least universally, it's definitely conserved, and you can't just create it because you need it, you can only unlock it by physical processes where it can be found to be available.

You silly! Don't you know that Daniel Yergin promised us that as long as there is demand the invisible hand will create more oil?

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Washing machines are the defining symbol of how and why civilization is so wasteful, actually. I could spend an hour hand cleaning my clothes and have cleaner clothes than what comes out of the mishy-mashy, half-assed mechanical job of a washing machine. I know, I've had do it in the field lots of times. Hand washed clothes are spanking clean. Machine washed clothes are warmed over, rubbed around, sort-of slapped with some soap and water attempts at "cleanliness".

That washing machine takes a dozen engineers, a dozen drivers, a dozen sales-people and a dozen customers to make it exist.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So I take it you suscribe to the old "automation destroys jobs" fallacy?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Alternately hand-wash your clothes or pay somebody else to do it for you. You too can be a "Job creator"!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I could spend an hour hand cleaning my clothes and have cleaner clothes than what comes out of the mishy-mashy, half-assed mechanical job of a washing machine.

There's reasons for that.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/17/green-isnt-clean-in-the-laundry-room/
http://eetweb.com/editorial/avoiding-washing-machines-dont-wash-syndrome-0711/
http://mises.org/daily/5267/Why-Everything-Is-Dirtier

And you might just want some advice on how to wash clothes:
http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_c/c-503.html

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I thought his name sounded familiar. He's the guy the speaker in one of the previous TED talks you posted (Tim Harford) critiqued as being one who reduced beyond reason, complex systems into easy-to-read charts and graphs.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

He does have tendancy to do that.

But I thought the his point about energy consumption as a class differentiation technique was a good one.

[il-mio-gufo.livejournal.com]

...the simplest and most direct way to mitigate poverty is to promote increased energy production and consumption.

if this is the bottom line, then i suppose you are on to something here.

[the-s3ntinel.livejournal.com]

>First there are those who...

>Secondly there are those who...

What about people who think humanity is exhausting natural resources faster than they can be replenished, degrading the natural environment, and thereby endangering the health and prosperity of our successors. Such people have no objection to energy use per se, but we don't want to have to steal from our grandchildren in order to be rich in the present.

In your mind, are these people just pretending to believe that as cover for their "socio-political agenda"? And must they also believe that wealth is a 'zero-sum game'?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

At best they're just ignorant.

At worst they've made a concious descision to care more about whales, polar bears, spotted owls etc... more than their fellow human beings.

Iceland

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The only reason Iceland was able to tell everyone to fuck off is because the're more or less energy independent. Threats like they'll turn them into Cuba of the north and refuse trading with them fell short. They have enough geo-thermal heat and power to be independent.

Re: Iceland

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

I thought it was because no one could understand them?

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

It is power, and in effect Russia's expanding energy empire is going to own all of Europe in the future. What will the US own... Mexico? Canada?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Utah.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This to me seems to indicate the problem is more that the specific patterns of prosperity seen in rich societies are hard to translate into poor ones, as the need to provide the same amount of energy for poor countries that's used in say, the USA, would break the planet's ability to sustain a technological civilization.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

as the need to provide the same amount of energy for poor countries that's used in say, the USA, would break the planet's ability to sustain a technological civilization.

I am not convinced that this is really the case.

There are still a lot of un-tapped energy reserves on Earth's surface and advances in technology will only give us more.

[lions-wings.livejournal.com]

Yes, people need to have power to live comfortably, and it's probably ecologically cheaper to connect many homes to natural gas than to let them use wood-burning stoves.

But energy isn't an unmixed blessing, and many poor people either benefit less or pay more than the rest of society. That's where the source of energy we're talking about becomes crucial.

(I am a bit of an energy geek. Potential tl;dr ahead.)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Potential tl;dr ahead

I'd be interested in reading that.