Brilliant perspective, Peter. It's reassuring to know that there are other like minded people who care about sustainability, and the future of all life on Earth.
Good essay about bioeng for people that don't follow science and innovation.
now, i'm gonna shift into critique mode a bit:
- as a former LSS blackbelt process engineer at an F100 company, i'm very aware of how unaware we are of interdependencies between assets, functions, and problems. the first thing a good process engineer does is define scope - narrowly define the opportunity. how many times have i seen a "fix" here have unexpected consequences somewhere else... worse, how many problems popped up that were caused by a process change and we don't know it, or we attribute it to another force. wow. this is all for an isolated process in a company. now, apply that to nature... whoa!! may i be the antagonist please...
As i wrote above, very good recap of bioeng.
- i'm really picky about words. they have meaning and the abuse of word meaning has increased faster than innovation the past 20 years. so, with that set up, the earth is "sustainable". we cannot destroy the earth. on the other hand, we might be able to make it uninhabitable... i know, i know. but words matter. no doctor ever saved a life. the best they can do is delay death... words matter.
Did i give you credit for a very good essay on bioeng? i should. very nice work.
now back to being picky...
- for decades now we (encouraged by scientists) have been convinced that the answer to understanding life and existence is found in detail. molecules, atoms, atomic particles, subatomic particles... bodies, cells, dna, genes...
- truth is, the key is the interaction of all these small things. and that is so far beyond us that it is hard to imagine when it won't be beyond our intelligence. for example, some physicists know that atoms are interacting with each other in a way we can semi-predict, but using "connections" we cannot detect... now of course, this is controversial, but experiments have proven this to be true. further, when it comes to dna, you can't just pick a gene and change it to get most results. we are discovering that many attributes of our bodies and our bodily processes involve many genes. but which genes? how are the connected? is there a time sequence required? are there weighting factors that must have the right amount of impact? are there loops? yikes.
it seems to me, we are a long way from a lot of changes people imagine. not that it takes away from bioeng foods or materials. we are advancing in those areas as you note.
what a good essay. well done.
one last picky quirk...
- climate has always changed, and it always will. it is important to me to be clear about such things. we can mitigate and prevent human contribution to climate change. no doubt. though it is more complex than any process in a huge company. that isn't including varying and conflicting philosophical, geopolitical, and political views. it is hard to find all the data. and most of the information we are fed is the output of models. MODELS ARE NOT REALITY. they are SIMPLIFIED views of reality. very powerful. but often flawed.
models designed to represent huge complex systems (aka the earth's atmosphere) are sketchy at best. one small error can get magnified numerous times resulting it poor results. but we can't even tell they are poor results until after the fact.
one reason i got an MS in AI/ML was to be able to read scientific reports - especially the climate models. the models use assumptions pulled and interpreted from prior scientific findings, that used assumptions pulled and interpreted from prior scientific findings, and so on. many layers of assumptions. one error, small, applied to the model that represents forces as vast as atmosphere, oceans, and land masses results in reliability issues. that's my spiel.
good essay for recapping what's happening in bioeng (that we can intellectually consume).
disappointing to see a decline in comments from other readers...
Brilliant perspective, Peter. It's reassuring to know that there are other like minded people who care about sustainability, and the future of all life on Earth.
always great stuff, Peter
Solar is cheapest only when the sun shines. Add costs of intermittancy, balancing, grid connection, and more, and natgas still comes out cheaper.
for many years to come. unless cold fusion unfolds.
Good essay about bioeng for people that don't follow science and innovation.
now, i'm gonna shift into critique mode a bit:
- as a former LSS blackbelt process engineer at an F100 company, i'm very aware of how unaware we are of interdependencies between assets, functions, and problems. the first thing a good process engineer does is define scope - narrowly define the opportunity. how many times have i seen a "fix" here have unexpected consequences somewhere else... worse, how many problems popped up that were caused by a process change and we don't know it, or we attribute it to another force. wow. this is all for an isolated process in a company. now, apply that to nature... whoa!! may i be the antagonist please...
As i wrote above, very good recap of bioeng.
- i'm really picky about words. they have meaning and the abuse of word meaning has increased faster than innovation the past 20 years. so, with that set up, the earth is "sustainable". we cannot destroy the earth. on the other hand, we might be able to make it uninhabitable... i know, i know. but words matter. no doctor ever saved a life. the best they can do is delay death... words matter.
Did i give you credit for a very good essay on bioeng? i should. very nice work.
now back to being picky...
- for decades now we (encouraged by scientists) have been convinced that the answer to understanding life and existence is found in detail. molecules, atoms, atomic particles, subatomic particles... bodies, cells, dna, genes...
- truth is, the key is the interaction of all these small things. and that is so far beyond us that it is hard to imagine when it won't be beyond our intelligence. for example, some physicists know that atoms are interacting with each other in a way we can semi-predict, but using "connections" we cannot detect... now of course, this is controversial, but experiments have proven this to be true. further, when it comes to dna, you can't just pick a gene and change it to get most results. we are discovering that many attributes of our bodies and our bodily processes involve many genes. but which genes? how are the connected? is there a time sequence required? are there weighting factors that must have the right amount of impact? are there loops? yikes.
it seems to me, we are a long way from a lot of changes people imagine. not that it takes away from bioeng foods or materials. we are advancing in those areas as you note.
what a good essay. well done.
one last picky quirk...
- climate has always changed, and it always will. it is important to me to be clear about such things. we can mitigate and prevent human contribution to climate change. no doubt. though it is more complex than any process in a huge company. that isn't including varying and conflicting philosophical, geopolitical, and political views. it is hard to find all the data. and most of the information we are fed is the output of models. MODELS ARE NOT REALITY. they are SIMPLIFIED views of reality. very powerful. but often flawed.
models designed to represent huge complex systems (aka the earth's atmosphere) are sketchy at best. one small error can get magnified numerous times resulting it poor results. but we can't even tell they are poor results until after the fact.
one reason i got an MS in AI/ML was to be able to read scientific reports - especially the climate models. the models use assumptions pulled and interpreted from prior scientific findings, that used assumptions pulled and interpreted from prior scientific findings, and so on. many layers of assumptions. one error, small, applied to the model that represents forces as vast as atmosphere, oceans, and land masses results in reliability issues. that's my spiel.
good essay for recapping what's happening in bioeng (that we can intellectually consume).
disappointing to see a decline in comments from other readers...