My bottom line on the topic is very different from Michael’s and I’d be happy to talk about the models I use and the conclusions I’ve come to… but we’re not really talking about that here.

The inexact articulation of the Second Law is actually not as damning as I think Alex tried to make it seem. Michael’s intention was to illustrate the fact that aspects of human society which most consider separate from the models which we scientists try so hard to describe are no different from any other universal system. I applaud his ability to make that step and recognize that humans follow the same rules as all of our experiments.

If the reader is not interested in thermodynamics, move on to the next paragraph. There are really only one and a half scientific points that need clarification. The first is a common misconception; Michael seems well read enough that he probably left it out for stylistic purposes. But it is worth saying that of course it will “seem” that most organisms generate more order than disorder. It is just easier for us to see it. For example, we don’t (can’t, actually) measure all of the energy generated from a combustion reaction that we calculate should be there. So we generally let all that “wasted” energy escape under the radar and take it for granted.

Sorry, still on thermodynamics. Skip one more if you’re not ready to jump in. The other half-point has to do with Michael’s insightful realization that humans produce (seem to, anyway) more disorder than order. The truth is that in any system the universal entropy will increase. Energy may be conserved, but Joule for Joule, entropy wins.

Now to the actual point(s) of the post. I won’t unpack all of the ideas I’ve generated since reading this morning. This isn’t my blog :). But I’ll say that Michael makes a crucial observation that humans are apparently unique in their appearance of generating more disorder than order. I could go for pages on just that.

The other point is what I believe was Michael’s main idea. Sorry it took so long to get around to! I absolutely agree that it is in accordance with nature’s tendencies (lazy as she is) to streamline and make processes more efficient. To this end, humans are special (not unique, however) in our ability to mentally experiment and “evolve” our adaptations without having to wait for generations of failures to die off.

Unfortunately, millions of years of nature’s tinkering are still better than a few billion brains. The most efficient automobile is still nowhere near the energy efficiency of cellular mitochondria. But we learn fast, and Michael has come to a conclusion that I think most would do well to contemplate:

Humans are animals with the amazing ability to evolve much more rapidly and efficiently than other organisms. It is time we put it to better (read: conscious) use and started thinking about the “human” living system instead of the “individual” one.

Sorry if I missed the point of the post as well, but I won’t have friends like Alex using contextually blind science to hit other people with. We have religion for that. :)

I’m interested to see where you go with this, Michael.

While you do not explicitly reference back to the second law, your statements concerning the actions of lifeforms on order/disorder following the butchered quotation of the law certainly implies that you see a logical continuation from one to the other. In fact, you come very close to stating that life violates the second law, which, if you didn’t know, is a favourite canard of the anti-evolution creationist crowd. (For a good time, search “thermodynamics” on talkorigins.org.)

You are free to believe whatsoever you wish, but when you attempt to rationalise it with misunderstood science it makes it difficult to take you seriously.