Do we live in a zero-sum1 universe? Well, the answer is yes, no, maybe.
In writing this essay, I was reminded of an episode early on in my second ‘real’ job. Our company sponsored a local university professor, and in return, the professor and perhaps a protégé would give lectures for a day or two at our facility. The theme for the lectures was Eh/pH or Pourbaix diagrams. During the morning lectures, the professor twice uttered “Isn’t God wonderful? He gave us thermodynamics so that we can know the future”. I looked over at my boss, who I happened to know was a fire-spitting atheist. He was seething, but he held his tongue. Anyway, it fell to my boss and I, to take the professor and his protégé to lunch. The protégé was driving and the professor repeated his “Isn’t God wonderful” line. I looked at my boss, and then said, “If that is true, then the Devil gave us kinetics.” Apparently, God was not quite as wonderful in the afternoon.
Let’s deal with the “yes” first. The first law of thermodynamics tells us we don’t get something for nothing. Or more formally2:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can only change form. A particular consequence of this is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change.
So ultimately, what we do is limited, we can’t do more than what we have. Well of course we don’t live in an isolated system. The sun is pouring down on us, giving us solar, wind, hydro, and wave energy. We have stored solar energy in carbon deposits. We have gravitational energy in terms of tidal power. Geothermal energy is stored energy from the fission of uranium and thorium. And of course, we have nuclear energy itself. Used wisely, we have abundant resources; so, in this sense, we are not in a zero-sum existence.
The second law of thermodynamics suggests we are not in a zero-sum game either. But not in a good way. While we never lose energy, it becomes increasingly difficult to reuse it. But we are OK for a good long while yet, whilst the sun lasts. So, there is one view of the “no”.
Another view of the “no” comes from philosopher types who expound on things like emergence, holism, or even synergism.
Emergence: I have expressed my skepticism of this concept in the past. Emergence is not an explanation; at best, it is an observation of some pattern of behaviour in complex systems, at worst, it is an abdication of an explanation.
Synergism: As a chemist, I have come across this phenomenon several times. A great example is that an assembled car is greater than the sum of its parts. Yes, well, perhaps. It does depend on what ‘concept’ you are comparing it to.
Holism: represented by the Aristotelian idea that the whole is greater than its parts. The assembled car can be driven around, but I could take the car apart and sell the pieces for more. Greater than the sum of its parts seems to involve a bit of teleology.
Which would one rather have, 1 kg of zinc sulphide or 670 g of zinc metal and 330 g of elemental sulphur? Zinc sulphide can be used in optoelectronics, scintillators, and perhaps in future semiconductors. Also, if the zinc sulphide (sphalerite) is cheap enough it can be used to make zinc metal and sulphur or sulphuric acid. And in turn, zinc is used in galvanizing, die cast alloys and alloying in general. Is zinc sulphide greater than the sum of its parts? The answer depends on entirely our teleological worldview.
I agree when people work together, we can achieve a lot more than when we work as individuals; usually that is. I also think we have to be careful how we evaluate this “more”. We can cut down more trees. Grow more. We can mine more. Make more. Consume more. I hope this “moreing” is done more efficiently, in that there is less waste, less pollution, less energy used. Let’s hope the moreing comes with a concomitant lessing too.
In a sense, when we cut down forests, burn coal and oil, mine and manufacture inefficiently we are borrowing from the future. In this sense, we may be living in a zero-sum universe. We are OK for a long time, our mortgage can last for millions of years. The Sun gives a fair amount of room to play. Our resources by-and-large have not been stretched yet, but we can see tensions in our world politics.
In short, zero-sum? Yes, no, maybe? Not yet.
1- The term zero-sum can refer to different things: thermodynamic conservation, practical resource competition (as in economics), or even psychological and social dynamics. While I don’t explore all of these in depth, each plays a role in the discussion.
rom's corner 