Capitalism, Socialism and Interventionism - Open and Closed Systems
Although there have many “isms” to designate the various social systems that have existed throughout history there are basically only three. They are Capitalism, Socialism and Interventionism. All the “isms” can be placed in one of these three categories.
1. Capitalism is an economic concept of civilization that is based on the private ownership and control of the means of production.
2. Socialism is a system of social organization that calls for public (state) ownership of the means of production. The totalitarian state owns everything and everyone’s life.
3. Interventionism is the practice of government interference in the marketplace. The market economy is legally hampered.
I owe the above definitions to Percy L. Greaves’ book “Mises Made Easier.”
We must determine which system is an open system and the most effective for individuals to achieve their dreams and desires.
The Law of Entropy
Since I am not a Physicist I am keeping this simple with a short explanation of how the law of entropy works. Let’s say we’re converting coal into energy to power a steam-driven piston. Most, but not all of it is turned into motion. Some of the energy will be lost.
Also another effect is that eventually the machine wears out from the movement of the piston. So you have the effect of lost energy and the machine eventually breaking down.
The law of entropy also tells that the universe is expanding into a state of increasing disorder or increasing entropy.
The question is: Why does it seem that some things in the universe are tending towards increased order? Doesn’t this violate the laws of entropy (second law of thermodynamics)?
Open Systems
Ilya Prigogine solved and answered the above questions. He discovered order emerges because of the disorder (chaos). Evolution and growth are the inevitable consequences of open systems falling into temporary chaos and then reorganizing at higher levels of functioning.
Open systems take in energy and matter from their environment. They then dissipate the resulting entropy into the system and into the environment. What this means is that the system handles both growth and adversity to reorganize at a higher level.
When any system reaches it limits (threshold), it either becomes chaotic and breaks down-or reorganizes at a higher level. Which route it takes is determined by how efficient and adaptable the system is. An inefficient system collapses in chaos. An efficient system reorganizes at a higher level.
I would like to thank Bill Harris for the above information which was adapted from his book “Thresholds Of The Mind.”
Now let’s discover which social system is an open system that best meets the needs of its men and women.
Socialism
As stated, Socialism is a system where the state owns the means of production. Individuals can only follow the orders of those in charge. Individuals are restricted in the actions they can take to improve their well-being. Instead of the decisions of millions determining the organization of society, only a few make the decisions.
Can you imagine how stifled a system is when only a few people are able to freely use the information that is necessary for successful action? Plus when economic calculation is eliminated a vital source of information for the growth of a society is gone. The compass of successful action is no longer available. There is no gauge of success and failure. The system has closed down. It does not reorganize at a higher level.
It is obvious that Socialism is a closed system. It tends toward chaos and disintegration. People become impoverished and deprived. A few benefit at the expense of everyone else. I could supply you with thousands of pages of economic theory explaining why Socialism is a social system doomed to failure. However I think the facts speak for themselves. It actually did collapse because of its inability to adapt to change.
Socialism can’t and never will work because it is a closed system that quickly stifles and chokes off individual initiative. The impossibility of economic calculation in a purely Socialist system is enough to permanently cripple it. The fact that Socialism prevents the free flow of information dooms it to chaos and eventual collapse.
Interventionism
In a system of Interventionism the government interferes with the market place in order to benefit some at the expense of others. Government officials and do-gooders tell you that they are only trying to improve the efficacy of the marketplace by eliminating injustice. However I think the negative results of their interference show this is absurd.
Economic theory demonstrates that all government intervention in the economy violates economic law and has undesirable consequences. It worsens the situation-even from the point of view of its advocates.
As will be demonstrated, Capitalism is an open system. All interference with it cuts off its “vital force” and moves it closer to the closed system of Socialism.
Interventionism is futile and self defeating because it gradually sabotages the smooth functioning of the system. And it destroys people’s hopes, dreams and ambitions.
All government intervention delays progress, limits the systems adaptability and lower its threshold. The laws of Praxeology (Human Action) demonstrate this. The results are a violation of individual rights, limiting of individual choice, destruction of currency, corruption, wars, etc. Of course as the systems adaptability is hampered so is the individual’s adaptability hampered. As the system threshold is lowered so is the threshold of its individuals.
Once a system of extreme government intervention breaks down, which it must inevitably do, it is usually replaced by something worse. This doesn’t bode well for the Western World. The only reason the fall of communism led to a semi free market renaissance was because of the existence of semi free markets in the Western World. Otherwise is would have crumbled into hopelessness and despair.
Government intervention leads to a breakdown of the system. Since it is a restricted system that finally becomes closed, there is no reorganizing at a higher level. What replaces it is a totalitarian system. This is why countries end up be run by the Stalins, Hitlers, Mussolinis etc..
Of course it is always possible in a democracy that the citizens will rebel against government intervention and demand that their liberty and freedom be restored. The ensuing chaos could then lead to a system of unhampered Capitalism.
Capitalism
In a system of unhampered Capitalism everyone is free to choose. All voluntary exchanges are legal. It is a completely open system. The government only intervenes to protect life, liberty and property. Involuntary exchanges are illegal because these types of anti-social activities interfere with an individual’s freedom of choice. Obviously if someone’s freedom of choice is violated, his opportunities for success in life are limited. As more people’s freedom of choice is restricted the system moves towards being closed. It becomes unable to adapt to change and adversity.
Economic theory conclusively proves that unhampered Capitalism is the only system that can result in the happiness and prosperity that individuals desire. Realizing that the social system of unhampered Capitalism is the only arrangement of society’s activities that constitute an open system, we can come to the conclusion that all other systems will result in the misery, poverty and degradation of the masses.
Only unhampered Capitalism is an open system that can grow and thrive. If it ever does reach a breaking point it will evolve to a much higher state of organization.
Although Karl Marx is considered Capitalism’s greatest enemy, he was correct on one point. A system of pure unhampered Capitalism will lead to a new “utopia”. What must be understood is that the new system would also have to be unhampered for it to evolve into another higher state of organization.
When an open system such as Capitalism finally reaches its threshold what replaces it is vastly superior. Basically it is still be unhampered Capitalism, but at a much higher state of existence. The productivity of labor and the standard of living is so high that what follows is a society based on the spiritual. Production is mental and spiritual.
Imagine this: Instead of having to work 40 to 60 hours a week you only have to work one hour to accomplish the same standard of living. It is almost hard to envision what would follow. What does an incredibly advanced society produce? One thing for certain is that superior spiritual and mental powers are unleashed which results in a standard of living unheard of in our present state of development.
How Depreciation Increases the After-Tax Yields of Real Estate Investment Trusts
Depreciation is a difficult subject in the area of cost accounting for commercial real estate.
Accountants do strive to make their financial statements accurate, and so they must recognize a fundamental principle of the universe that has troubled philosophers for tens of thousands of years. As George Harrison sang years ago, “All Things Must Pass.”
There is nothing permanent in this three-dimensional world of space, time, matter and energy. Just as any Buddhist.
No building will last forever. Even the pyramids of Egypt will someday erode into dust.
Therefore, real estate property owners are allowed to deduct an expense from their gross income, called depreciation, on the theory that every year, the building is being worn down somewhat by the wear and tear of the universe. What physicists call entropy, according to The Third Law of Thermodynamics.
This depreciation expense is often calculated by dividing the total cost of the building by the number of years it’s expected to have a useful life.
If you pay one million dollars for a building, and it’s expected to last 10 years, that’s a straight-line depreciation expense of $100,000 per year.
Notice that $100,000 in cash is not actually paid out of your pocket. Depreciation simply reflects the reality that sooner or later, that building won’t be useful, and so the $1,000,000 you paid will be gone.
Although this is not practical, the ideal would be for you to pay someone $100,000 a year for ten years to build you a new, replacement building.
And when you take the depreciation expense, that is also deducted from the building’s cost basis. So after 10 years, in the above example, that building is officially worth nothing, even though it may still be in great condition in a prosperous neighborhood. If it’s well-maintained and in a good area, it can be useful for an indefinite period.
So one of the big problems is deciding what the useful life span of a commercial building is.
Of course, when we’re talking about shopping malls, we’re assuming their function is to lease space out to retail stores and restaurants, not to act as tourist attractions. So we can rule out multi-thousand year old spans such as represented by the Coliseum of Rome and the ruins of Angkor Wat — which attract tourist money even though they’ve fallen down.
Yet even when we come down the level of commonplace apartment building and shopping strip centers, we just don’t know for sure how long they’ll last. Sure, there’re castles in Europe hundreds of years old — but also stone farm houses where farming families still live.
So it’s entirely possible for a building in a good area to be bought or built, to have the depreciation expense taken on them . . . and 20 or 30 years later they’re now worth far more than you originally paid.
So, in a long-term sense, depreciation reflects something real, but it’s difficult to know just how much of an expense to take every year — without a crystal ball.
For example New York City’s Empire State Building is nearly 80 years old, but would be worth many millions if sold. The World Trade Center’s useful life ended prematurely in a way that couldn’t be predicted.
So when a Real Estate Investment Trust calculates its net income, it is required to apply Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. It will figure out its gross revenues, then subtract its operating expenses, then subtract a substantial figure representing depreciation on the buildings it owns — even though they may in fact have appreciated in value.
Let’s say XYZ REIT had gross revenues of $1,000,000 and operating expenses of $$700,000. That leaves $300,000. Then they deduct another $100,000 for depreciation. That leaves $200,000 as their net operating income.
The law requires them to pay at least 90% of this to their shareholders in the form of dividends. So they must mail out $200,000 X .90 = $180,000 to their investors.
But wait — the $100,000 depreciation expense is a “book entry” only. That is, it’s only on paper.
The $700,000 operating expenses represent cash that left the REIT’s bank account to pay for salaries, repairs, and other necessary expenditures.
Depreciation does not represent a cash payment to anybody. That $100,000 is still sitting in their bank account.
So why not pay it out to their shareholders also?
That’d be $180,000 plus $100,000 = $280,000 available for dividends for shareholders, making them even happier.
Why not, indeed? That’s what many of these companies do — pay out more in dividends that the law requires.
And receiving some dividend payments that represent depreciation should make the shareholders even happier than usual. Here’s why.
The percentage of the dividend checks they receive from real estate investment trusts that represents depreciation is not immediately taxable to shareholders.
Because it represents money that’s available only because the company took a depreciation expense, according to the IRS it’s officially a “return of capital,” not income.
A return of capital is not taxable because it’s not income. But it does reduce the cost basis of your REIT shares.
When is the only time you care about the cost basis of your shares of stock?
When you sell them.
If you don’t sell them . . . you don’t have to ever care.
Let’s say you bought 100 shares of XYZ REIT for $10 each. Your cost basis is $1000.
In the first year got a dollar back for each share, of which 25 cents per share was for depreciation. Which means your cost basis is reduced by .25 X 100 = $25.00.
So your cost basis in those 100 shares is now $975 instead of $1000.
You do have to pay taxes on the dividends, but only on $75, not the full $100.
If next year you decide to sell the shares of stock for $11 each, you’d get a total of $1100. You’d owe capital gains taxes on $125 instead of $100.
In effect, you’re now paying the taxes on that 25 cents per share depreciation in dividend checks you received the year before.
But let’s say you’re smarter than that. You don’t sell your shares of XYZ. You just keep collecting the dividends for as long as you live.
When do you pay taxes on the depreciation percentage? Never.
The implications of this aren’t widely known or understood. Even the best known REIT book writer, Ralph L. Block, doesn’t mention this in his book INVESTING IN REITS until the first Appendix.
The percentage of dividend checks that represent return of capital because of depreciation varies from company to company, and can of course vary over time. Historically, it runs 25% to 30%.
The bottom line for real estate trust shareholders is that — if they never sell their shares — their effective, net after-tax yields are significantly higher than they think. The exact amount depends on their marginal tax rate.
Let’s say that in the above example, your marginal tax rate is 35%.
You’ll owe ordinary taxes of .35 X $75 = $26.25.
You received $100, and paid $26.25 in taxes, leaving you with an after-tax net of $73.75.
Your after-tax net yield on your shares is 7.375%.
If this was an ordinary dividend-paying company in some business besides real estate, you’d have to pay taxes on the entire $100 in dividends, for a total tax owed of $35. For a net of $65. For a net after-tax yield of 6.5%.
Therefore, to figure out the true net, after-tax yield of a REIT, you must multiply its stated yield by (one plus the depreciation percentage X your marginal tax rate).
Thus, in the above example, the apparently yield is 10%. (One dollar in dividends for ten dollars worth of stock).
.10 X (1 + ((.25 X .35)) =
.10 X 1.0875 = 10.875% net after tax yield
Purists would argue that you should use the new cost basis, but my argument is that it’s irrelevant so long as you never sell the stock. In that case, your “practical” cost basis is what you originally paid for it.
So never sell it.
High Protein Diets - Myths, Half-truths and Outright Lies
Without question, protein is the king of all nutrients. It provides the building blocks for enzymes and hormones, enables nerve and brain cells to effectively communicate with one another, and fosters the repair and growth of muscle tissue. Every cell in your body contains protein; life could not go on without it.
The consumption of protein, however, is perhaps the most controversial of all nutritional topics. Unfortunately, many nutrition professionals have not kept abreast of recent research and continue to espouse outmoded theories on the subject. This has led to a host of myths that, in turn, have been taken as gospel by the general public. The following are some of the more common misconceptions about dietary protein intake:
Myth: High protein diets make you fat.
Fact: There is no doubt that eating too much protein will pack on the pounds-but so will eating too many calories from carbs or fat! Weight gain is governed by the law of thermodynamics: if you consume more calories than you expend, you’ll gain weight. Consequently, it’s not protein per se that causes weight gain; it’s an over consumption of calories. No matter what you eat, if you consume too much of it, you’ll ultimately end up getting fat.
In actuality, if you were to eat a meal containing only protein, carbs, or fat, the protein meal would cause the least amount of weight gain. You see, a large percentage of calories from protein are burned off in the digestion process. This is called the thermic effect of food. Of all the macronutrients, protein has the highest thermic effect, burning off approximately 25 percent of protein of the calories consumed . In comparison, only 15 percent of the calories from carbs are burned off in digestion; fat has virtually no thermic effect whatsoever . Thus, all other things being equal, a high protein diet would be less likely to cause fat deposition than either a high carb or high fat diet.
Moreover, unlike carbs, protein doesn’t stimulate a significant insulin response. Insulin is a storage hormone. While its primary purpose is to neutralize blood sugar, it also is responsible for shuttling fat into adipocytes (fat cells). When carbohydrates are ingested, the pancreas secretes insulin to clear blood sugar from the circulatory system. Depending on the quantities and types of carbs consumed, insulin levels can fluctuate wildly, heightening the possibility of fat storage. Since protein’s effect on insulin secretion is negligible, the potential for fat storage is diminished
What’s more, the consumption of protein tends to increase the production of glucagon, a hormone that opposes the effect of insulin. Since a primary function of glucagon is to signal the body to burn fat for fuel, fat loss, rather than fat gain, tends to be promoted.
Myth: High protein diets are damaging to your kidneys.
Fact: The metabolism of protein entails a complex sequence of events in order for proper assimilation to take place. During digestion, protein is broken down into its component parts, the amino acids (via a process called deamination). A byproduct of this occurrence is the production of ammonia, a toxic substance, in the body. Ammonia, in turn, is rapidly converted into the relatively non-toxic substance urea, which is then transported to the kidneys for excretion.
In theory, a large build-up of urea can overtax the kidneys, impairing their ability to carry out vital functions. This has been supported by studies on people with existing renal disease. It has been well documented that a high protein diet exacerbates uremia (kidney failure) in those on dialysis (i.e. the artificial kidney machine), while a low protein diet helps to alleviate the condition . Proteinuria and other complications also have been observed in this population .
However, there is no evidence that a diet high in protein has any detrimental effects on those with normal renal function. Healthy kidneys are readily able to filter out urea; any excess is simply expelled in the urine. Consider the fact that, over the past century, millions of athletes have consumed large quantities of protein without incident. Surely, if high protein diets caused kidney disease, these athletes would be all on dialysis by now. Yet, in otherwise healthy individuals, not one peer-reviewed journal has documented any renal abnormalities due to an increased intake of protein.
As an aside, it is beneficial to drink ample amounts of fluids when consuming a high protein diet. This helps to flush your system and facilitates the excretion of urea from the body. For best results, a daily intake of at least a gallon of water is recommended, drinking small amounts throughout the day.
Myth: High protein diets result in an inordinate intake of unhealthy saturated fat.
Fact: The majority of Americans get their protein from red meat and dairy products-foods that have a high percentage of saturated fat. High fat protein sources such as bacon, T-bone steaks, hard cheeses, and whole milk are staples of the American diet. What’s more, ketogenic “diet gurus” like Dr. Robert Atkins encourage the consumption of these products, touting them as viable dietary options . Accordingly, high-protein diets have become synonymous with the intake artery-clogging fats.
However, there is no reason that a high protein intake must be derived from cholesterol-laden foods. There are many protein sources that contain little, if any, saturated fat. Skinless chicken breasts, egg whites, and legumes are all excellent, low-fat protein choices. By simply choosing the “right” foods, a high protein diet can be maintained with minimal effect on fat consumption.
In addition, it is important to realize that certain fats, specifically the unsaturated, Omega fatty acids, are actually beneficial to your well being, aiding in the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins and facilitating the production of various hormones, cell membranes and prostaglandins. These “essential” fats cannot be manufactured by the body and hence must be obtained through nutritional means. Cold water fish (such as salmon, mackerel and trout), tofu and peanut butter are protein-based foods that also are terrific sources of essential fats. Their consumption has been shown to have a positive impact on cardiovascular health and reduces the risk of several types of cancers.
Myth: High protein diets are unnecessary for athletes.
Fact: If you believe the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there is no difference in protein requirements between athletes and couch potatoes. This is reflected in the RDA for protein, which is the same for all individuals regardless of their activity levels.
However, contrary to the USDA position, studies have shown that athletes do indeed require more protein than sedentary individuals . When you exercise, protein stores are broken down and used for fuel (via a process called gluconeogenesis). The branched chain amino acids (BCAAs), in particular, are preferentially mobilized as an energy source during intense training, as are alanine and glutamine. It has been shown that when athletes consume a low protein diet (equivalent to the RDA for protein), there is decreased whole body protein synthesis, indicating a catabolism of muscle tissue.
On the other hand, it is imprudent to ingest enormous quantities of protein in hopes that it will improve athletic performance. Bodybuilders often subscribe to this “more is better” philosophy and gorge themselves with protein-rich foods and supplements (one popular bodybuilder claims to ingest as much as 1000 grams of protein a day!). Unfortunately, the body only has the capacity to utilize a limited amount of protein. Once the saturation point is reached, additional protein is of no use to the body and is either used as energy or converted into triglycerides and stored as fat. In general, optimal protein synthesis can be achieved by consuming one gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. Thus, for maximizing strength and performance, a 150-pound person should consume approximately 150 grams of protein per day.
It also is important to realize that, by itself, protein has no effect on muscular gains. Contrary to claims made by various supplement manufacturers, protein powders aren’t magic formulas for building muscle. You can’t expect to simply consume a protein drink, sit back, and watch your muscles grow. This might make good ad copy, but it doesn’t translate into reality. Only through intense strength training can protein be utilized for muscular repair and promote the development of lean muscle tissue.
Revolutionary H-bath - Natural Weight Loss
Many years ago, during my Ph.D. program at Osaka University Medical School, I first heard of the half-body-bath (h-bath). My first impression of the idea to “Put the lower half of the body in warm water until the whole body is warm” was that it was hilarious. How could you warm up your body, while your upper half-body is out of the tub?
I had completely forgotten about it until 2 years ago, I was reminded of the h-bath by a friend, did some investigation on it, and then started the h-bath by myself. I read books about the h-bath and watched TV programs produced in Korea and Japan, and then I learned in detail about the h-bath. The h-bath was started by Dr. Yoshiharu Shindo, Japan, and spread into Korea and China over the years.
After I started the h-bath, first I was surprised at the amount of sweat in only in 20 minutes by putting lower body in the tub. Secondly, I felt my whole body was still warm enough even long after the h-bath (it lasted about 2 hours). I then recommended it to my wife who was suffering from “cold hands and feet”. Guess what! She was able to get rid of “cold hands and feet”, and was able to have good night sleep. Now even my 10-year-old daughter is enjoying the h-bath every night.
What other health benefits did we get from the h-bath practice? I lost 17 lbs in 8 months and also was relieved of shoulder pain I had for more than 15 years. Best of all, is the daily stress management by the h-bath. As mentioned previously, my wife was finally relieved of “cold hands and feet” (Raynaud’s disease), as well as the long-time-suffering of GERD (Gastro Esophageal Reflux Disease), a.k.a. acid reflux. We both gained much more energy than we previously had. Of course, I also did a daily exercise of 30 minutes of walking combined with 30 minutes of the h-bath. I am sure that the h-bath had a synergic effect in my weight loss.
Since I am not an exercise orientated person, like many of you, I knew that both walking and the h-bath were programs I could continue. My daily walking program is not strenuous; rather it is a relaxing slow walk of 30 minutes around the work place or on the treadmill during a lunch break. At night, I did 30 minutes of h-bath everyday. That’s it! I feel much energized now.
I am a scientist, majored in the medical sciences and quite often I couldn’t control the stress from research, discussions, and presentations and so on, until I started the h-bath. I never knew that a bath could be fun. Different from ordinary whole-body-bath, your arms and hands are free, which means you can read a magazine, book etc and fully enjoy the half bath experience.
I want to share the experiences and science of the h-bath with you and recommend the h-bath for healthier you. Best of all, you don’t need to purchase any special equipment for the h-bath, but you should learn proper instructions to start.
What is the half-body-bath (h-bath)?
The main purpose of taking a bath is to sanitize the body. After a bath, we feel relax and relieved of day to day stress. This implies that a bath has a stress relief effect. Fatigue can be relieved when submerging your whole body into the tub-full of hot water. And a bubble bath or few drops of essence oils can also help you to be relaxed. You may have experienced falling asleep while taking a bath, right? Taking a bath is not only good for cleaning purposes, but also for mental health.
The history of submerging-body-bath is older than we think. According to the history records, there was a public bath in Rome, AD 300. The ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes shouted “Eureka, eureka!” when he found the principle of buoyancy (Archimedes’ principle), while he was taking a bath. For a long time, taking a bath meant whole-body-bath (w-bath), which is submerging a body up to the neck. In the early 1980’s, Dr. Yoshiharu Shindo, an ENT clinician, established a revolutionary bathing method, the half-body-bath (h-bath). Dr. Shindo mentions this in his first book, [Remedy for all diseases - controlling the thermodynamics of the body];
“I have been suffering from the “cold hands and feet” especially during the winter, so I used to wear long boots and thick cloths. And, finally came across the thought that what if I warm up the lower-half-body in the bath. It was cold winter, but I tried everyday. I thought that winter is the best time to test the effect of the h-bath, since it is the most severe season for the “cold hands and feet”. After many trial and errors, I concluded that maximum effect can be obtained by using warm water (100-104oF = 38-40oC), which is slightly higher than the body temperature. And keep the water level up to the 3-4 inches above the belly button, and then stay in the water for 20-30 minutes.
I even tried that when I got a common cold. After 20-30 minutes for the h-bath, I started to sweat a lot, and experienced a complete cure from fever & cold the next day. I was also relieved of the shoulder and upper arm pains. They were gone after few months of the h-bath. Of course, a common cold is not the problem anymore. I used take a short nap during the day to have enough energy for the rest of the day, but after continuing the h-bath, I realized I could keep up my activity without a nap. After I investigated the relationship between coldness and diseases, I am assured that the unbalance of the thermodynamics of the body is what causes many diseases. By fixing this heat unbalance by the h-bath, many diseases related to thermal unbalance can be cured naturally. This can be confirmed through the observation of my patients. In combination with conventional medical treatments, the h-bath enhances the cure index in the most of respiratory diseases including common cold”.
Dr. Shindo not only found that the h-bath primarily controlled his “cold hands and feet”, the so called ‘Raynaud’s disease’, but he realized that the h-bath helped to restore the human body naturally by equilibrating body heat.
Blood flow is a prime method of distributing heat evenly throughout the body. Poor blood flow can cause a reduction in the temperature of the extremities, and researchers theorized that poor blood circulation can cause cold hands and feet, subsequently causing other problems such as insomnia. Needless to say, the heart is responsible for the delivering of “warm blood” throughout the body. However, for some reason, it does not go flow through to the end of the body, like the hands and feet. If you take thermography of the whole body, you can see that the heat distribution of the body is not even. The upper body has higher temperature (98.6 oF = 37 oC around the heart), however lower body has comparatively low temperature; especially the temperature of the feet which is below 87.8 oF (31 oC).
Japan was built up from volcanic eruptions, and has many naturally formed hot springs all around the country. So over a long period of time, they developed unique bathing culture. Taking a bath is a daily part of a life in Japan. Paradoxically, on average 10,000 people die in the bath every year. The majority of people who die in the bath are elderly, mainly caused by cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction and cerebral hemorrhage etc. If so, is taking a bath deadly for elderly?
The answer is “it depends on the way of bathing”. A traditional w-bath can produce a lot of stress to the heart, mainly caused by water pressure. Since the whole body is warmed up from the w-bath at the same time the heart is experiencing stress, the heart beat rate and blood pressure rapidly increases and sometimes can cause cardiac or vascular problems. Besides, body heat can hardly be equilibrated since 85 - 90% of your body is submerged in the same temperature, and head is the only place to get the extreme blood stream and excess heat.
However, with an h-bath, the blood circulation increases gradually and reasonably with less stress to the heart and also does not provide the added stress of the water pressure. According to scientists, the h-bath does not significantly increase the blood pressure, shown by measuring cardiograph during the h-bath. The h-bath is comparatively safe, and is hugely effective for blood circulation. However, it doesn’t mean that the h-bath is “totally safe” for elderly and cardiovascular disease patients. Consult your doctor prior to start the h-bath.
The h-bath has spread all around Japan, Korea and China in a short time period. Millions of people continue the h-bath everyday and are accumulating their experiences and pre-scientific data. According to the h-bath people’s network, the h-bath is very effective in weight loss, improving skin health, helps to decrease the discomfort during a woman’s menstrual cycle, and lowers the blood pressure by enhancing the blood circulation in general.
There is no need to purchase expensive equipment for the h-bath. A bathtub and warm water are basically enough. A thermometer, reading materials and a rubber ducky are optional. The rest is continuing the h-bath with consistency and making this part of your daily activity.
Life: The Achilles Heel of Naturalism
Biological requirements for Life
Just how “simple” can a functioning organism get? Microbiologists are the experts in the field. Here is what they say. At minimum, the first living organism must have possessed all of the following:
Something to hold together the energy and the molecules which make the cell function
Something to control movement of materials in and out of the cell
Something that will provide genetic instructions for duplicating itself and issue instructions for building proteins from amino acids
Something that will translate the genetic instructions and assemble the needed proteins
Something which will act as a factory for protein assembly
Something for transporting and storing energy
Something to act as a catalyst for chemical reactions
Something to fill in the cell area which will not impede operations.
These are the bare bone, essential requirements for life. Remove just one of these “somethings” and life will cease. This point cannot be over emphasized: Everyone of these functions, had to be in complete working order from the first instant. Otherwise, life would never have begun at all. A piecemeal or haphazard start will not work.
Bacteria and Blue-Green Algae
Fortunately for us, bacteria and blue-green algae have retained these basic elements without requiring new ones. If evolution has occurred, they haven’t heard of it. They possess:
An outer membrane which holds together energy and molecules that make the cell function, and the membrane controls movement of materials in and out of the cell
DNA, a nucleic acid which contains genetic instructions for making identical copies of itself and issues instructions for building proteins from amino acids
RNA, a nucleic acid which “reads” DNA and assembles proteins
Ribsomes, structural sites which act as factories for assembling proteins
ATP molecules for transporting and storing energy
Enzymes, proteins which act as catalysts for chemical reactions
Cytoplasm, a jelly-like substance that fills the cell wall.
These single-celled organisms are, in fact, what microbiologists describe when they state the essential requirements for life. And they are readily available for study. Here is the most extraordinary fact about bacteria: To produce this “simple” single-celled life form requires a DNA sequence of 3 million nucleotides, all aligned into a very specific order.
Change the order and you damage or destroy the bacteria. Simple? Absolutely not! The very first living microorganism started off as a highly complex and sophisticated form of life.
Charles Darwin did not have access to an electronic microscope. Consequently, he and his 19th century scientists could not see the intricate structures or the intense activity taking place in the cell. Little wonder Darwin thought the cell was simple. He reasoned if enough chemicals of the right sort were to bump into each other in a “warm little pond,” eventually, life would ensue from one of these chance meetings.
Amino Acids
That theory inspired scientists into a number of experiments. Researchers mixed precise measurements of water, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane; then sparked their concoctions with electric charges or exposed them to ultraviolet light. They did get results. They produced several amino acids, which are the building blocks of life. But that is all they are - building blocks. It is not life itself. In fact, it is nowhere near life.
Biogenesis
The chemical complexities of even the simplest form of life is a chasm over which random combinations of molecules cannot jump. Biologists know it. They have even codified it into law. The principle of biogenesis says that a living organism can originate only from one or two parents of the same kind. A cell comes from a previous cell; life comes from previous life. This rule is universally validated and has no known exceptions.
Law of Entropy
Not only is the “accumulating chemical” explanation for life contrary to the law of biogenesis, it is also at odds with the second law of thermodynamics, also called the law of entropy. We have run across this law before. It’s the law that says everything is running down; organization is deceasing, in general, the whole universe is headed toward an equilibrium where movement will cease.
Against that law, naturalists claim an exception. Instead of dissipating, chemicals of just the right type and quantity congregated and united [on their own initiative?] into ever increasing complex forms until they ultimately formed a living entity. Under normal circumstances, you can see how just the opposite would happen.
Get a glass of water and put in a couple drops of dye. After a few minutes, the whole glass of water becomes evenly colored with scattered atoms of dye. That proves the second law of thermodynamics, but what about the proposed exception?
Naturalist reply, “First we must have the right ingredients for life.” By that they mean the 24 naturally occurring types of atoms which are essential to the formation and development of living organisms. But there are 92 different types of naturally occurring atoms on earth. What do we do the the other 68 atoms?
“Keep them away from the mixture,” say the naturalists. Oh? That makes you wonder who or what in nature had the foresight to keep the 68 “bad” types of atoms away while the 24 “good” atom types frolicked and combined in the naturalist’s broth.
“Second,” say the naturalists, “we need the right proportions of ingredients. Heavy on the hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms; medium on the nitrogen and calcium atoms; and light on the chlorine, iron, magnesium, potassium, silicon, sodium, and sulfur atoms. Hold the aluminum and no helium please!”
How did we happen to get these correct proportions four billion years ago? “Just chance,” claim the naturalists. “Natural selection culled out the other aspiring combinations.”
Oxygen in the Atmosphere
“Third, 3.5 billion years ago, there was no oxygen in the atmosphere to break down chemical combinations,” explain the naturalists. Recently however, geologists have concluded that early earth might well have had oxygen in the atmosphere after all. Oxygen would tend to break down chemical combinations.
Electric Charge or Radiation
Anything else? “Yes, there needs to be a jolt of electricity or perhaps a bit of radiation to jump start the brew.” But if a bolt of lightning hit anywhere near the chemical formation, in all probability, it would destroy the mixture or at least disperse it.
And if the geologists have it right, that is, if the early atmosphere contained oxygen, then planet earth also had an early ozone. We know that the ozone is a protective layer which dramatically reduces the opportunity of random radiation striking and energizing the naturalist’s broth.
Before we proceed, let’s review what we have discovered about life. The naturalist’s chemical combination formula for life is contested by both the laws of biogenesis, which says life comes only from prior life, and by the law of entropy, which says everything including chemicals tend to dissipate over time, not congregate and unite. Other than being basically untenable and contrary to established scientific law, is there anything else wrong with the natural origin of life theory?
Yes, its requirements strain credibility. Consider the following: One way or another 24 different types of the right sort of atoms must accidentally bump into each other in correct proportions no less. At the same time they must somehow completely exclude the other 68 wrong sort of atoms.
Once the chance meeting of the 24 atomically correct molecules takes place, they must stay put until something comes along and zaps them. Not too much of a zap mind you. That would do in the whole chemical concoction.
The alternative explanation is that perhaps an ultraviolet ray found its way through the ancient ozone and landed on the assembled chemicals energizing them into action.
DNA and Proteins
Could it have happened that way? No, probably not. Life requires both DNA and proteins. DNA cannot transfer its genetic information without the assistance of proteins. And proteins cannot be constructed without DNA instructions for manufacturing amino acids. One without the other is useless. We must have DNA and a host of other specialized proteins together and operating in sync before life can function.
The odds are decisively against a chance meeting of chemicals initiating any sort of life. The naturalists know that as well as anybody else. But if no one has been able to come up with a logical explanation for the origin of life, where does that leave the naturalists?
Most of them admit that is a serious problem for their side. Without a scientific solution for life’s inception, the claim that everything can be explained by natural means appears to be dead on arrival.
Here we find the Achilles heel of naturalism. Life’s origins is a riddle for which naturalism has no answer.
Quote of the Day: “A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.” Anthony Flew, British philosopher, at age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake.
Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials. Fourth Edition
Introduction to the Thermodynamics of Materials. Fourth Edition. David R. Onskell. Taylor & Francis Publishing Inc., 29 W. 35th St. New York, NY 10001-2299. 618 pages. 2003. ISBN 1-56032-992-0. $99.95.
Outlining the thermodynamic behavior of materials systems-where a materials system is any assemblage of solids, liquids, and/or gases that occupies space-this book simultaneously demonstrates the underlying principles and the applicability of thermodynamics, both to the behavior of nonmetalKc materials and to the transformation of metallurgy materials. New in this edition is a chapter covering phase diagrams for binary systems in pressure-temperature-composition space. There are also two new appendices, on exact differential equations and on generation of auxiliary functions as Legendre transformations. There is also a CD containing thermodynamic properties of 50 commonly used compounds. This book is aimed primarily at third-year undergraduate students.
Thermochemical and Thermodynamic Properties of Organometallic Compounds
Thermochemical and Thermodynamic Properties of Organometallic Compounds. I.B. Rabinovich, V.P. Nistratov, V.I. Telnoy, and lIT.S. Sheiman. Begell House, 79 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016. 1999. 181 pp. ISBN 156700-124-6. $139.50.
The authors, who are from the chemistry department at the University of Nizhniy Novgorod in Russia, discuss the thermodynamics of organometallic compounds in a three-part monograph. Part 1 contains a description of the principles of chemical thermodvnamics. Part 2, on thermochemical properties, evaluates and discusses the enthalpies of formation of organic compounds of transition and nontransition metals as well as the average enthalpies of breaking the metal-organic ligand chemical bonds, and values are listed. Part 3, on thermodynamic properties consists of descriptions of experimental conditions and tables and plots of experimental data showing temperature dependencies of heat capacities of substances.
On the consistent use of sign convention in thermodynamics
Abstract In thermodynamics, various sign conventions are used for energy transfers in the form of heat and work. Regardless of the sign convention introduced, thermodynamics texts subsequently abandon their established conventions in favor of magnitudes or absolute values. This article illustrates the importance of consistent use of a sign convention throughout a text and applies it to power-producing and power-consuming engineering devices. Additionally, using a selected sign convention, a substantive proof is presented showing why the ratio of energy added/rejected in the form of heat equals the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the energy source/sink, respectively.
Keywords thermodynamics; sign convention; undergraduate education
Notation
c specific heat, kJ/(kg-K)
m mass, kg
M molecular mass, kg/kmol
p pressure, kPa
Q heat transfer, kJ
R universal gas constant, kJ/(kmol-K)
S entropy, kJ/K
T temperature, K
U internal energy, kJ
V volume, m3
W work, kJ
Subscripts
H high-temperature reservoir
L low-temperature reservoir
v constant volume
Greek symbols
? efficiency
? refrigeration cycle coefficient of performance
? heat pump cycle coefficient of performance
(ProQuest-CSA LLC: … denotes formulae omitted.)
Introduction
Consistency in presentation and use of concepts in any engineering course is important as it will enhance student learning. Most undergraduate thermodynamics texts introduce a sign convention for energy transfers when presenting the concepts of energy transfers in the forms of heat and work. Adopted by many authors [1-4], the most common sign convention used is: energy added to a system in the form of heat is positive, and that added in the form of work is negative. This is abbreviated as HIP to WIN where Heat In is Positive, and Work In is Negative. Callen [5] and Smith [6] adopt another sign convention, for which all energy in is positive and all energy out is negative. Regardless of the convention adopted, once it is presented, the textbook author should adhere to the convention throughout the text.
The purpose of this article is twofold: to promote consistency in sign convention use; and to encourage preciseness in thermodynamics instruction. First, as indicated by Lewins [7], many individuals find the use of sign conventions perplexing. The engineering textbooks listed in the References and Bibliography sections abandon the established sign convention in favor of magnitudes or absolute values. Çengel and Turner [8] consider abandonment of the sign convention to be a ‘relaxed sign convention’. This mid-text change challenges instructors to justify the convention, with which they may or may not agree, and confuses the novice student of thermodynamics. The situation becomes more confusing when the altered sign convention is used in the discussion of performance parameters such as heat engine efficiency and refrigeration and heat pump coefficients of performance.
Second, it is very interesting that Obert [9] says in his preface that ‘it was Prof. Joseph Keenan, the teacher, who aroused interest of the author in thermodynamics (and in preciseness)’. This article attempts to illustrate this preciseness to encourage educators to teach correct and precise thermodynamics.
Example applications of sign conventions in use: Carnot and reverse Carnot cycles
Once a text initially establishes a sign convention for energy transfers, it should follow that convention consistently, to avoid any confusion. One example of the application of a sign convention is in the analysis of the Carnot and reverse Carnot (refrigeration and heat pump) cycles to determine the limiting performance of ideal devices. Reversible processes do not exist in nature; however, Hutchinson [10] offers the view that ‘Reversible processes form an asymptote to Reality’. By using the established sign convention to analyze the Carnot cycle, the equivalence of the heat transfer ratio to the absolute temperature ratio results. Although Van Ness [11] suggests that ‘This is proved in virtually every thermodynamics textbook ever written’, the extensive English-language publications listed in the References and Bibliography sections do not support this statement.
This article offers two analyses of the Carnot cycle and an analysis of the reverse Carnot cycle. Each analysis uses a consistent sign convention that does not incorporate the use of absolute values for energy transfers. The aim is to show that the negative ratio of energy transfer in the form of heat associated with a high-temperature reservoir to a low-temperature reservoir is equivalent to the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the high- and low-temperature reservoirs. This result is expressed as:
… (1)
In these analyses, an ideal gas is used as the working substance, since the performance of devices does not depend on the choice of the working substance. Equation 1 also is written in textbooks without the minus sign, which signifies that the absolute values are used since the absolute temperature ratio is always positive whereas one of the heat terms must be negative.
Carnot cycle analysis 1
Following Zemansky [12], consider a Carnot cycle operating between a hightemperature reservoir (source), T^sub H^, and a low-temperature reservoir (sink), T^sub L^, as shown in Fig. 1. This analysis examines the four processes that comprise the cycle, starting from the very fundamental equations of thermodynamics that students have learned by the time this topic appears. Using a closed system with no shaft work, consider process 1 [arrow right] 2 in Fig. 1, a reversible and adiabatic (isentropic) compression. The first law of thermodynamics states that:
?Q-?W = dU (2)
For an adiabatic process, ?Q = 0 while ?W = pdV due to system boundary work. For an ideal gas, dU = mc^sub v^dT. Upon substitution of these relationships into equation 2 and simplification, one obtains:
-pdV = mc^sub v^dT (3)
The ideal gas equation in its most general format is:
… (4)
Substitution for p from equation 4 into equation 3 results in:
… (5)
Integrating over process 1 [arrow right] 2 and using the source and sink temperatures, T^sub H^ and T^sub L^, respectively, the resulting equation becomes:
… (6)
Considering process 3 [arrow right] 4, another reversible and adiabatic process (isentropic expansion), equation 5 applies, since the same substitutions and assumptions used for process 1 [arrow right] 2 apply in this case. Integrating over process 3 [arrow right] 4 and using the source and sink temperatures, T^sub H^ and T^sub L^, respectively, equation 5 becomes:
… (7)
Equating equations 6 and 7, integrating, and manipulating algebraically yields:
… (8)
Next, consider process 2 [arrow right]3 (reversible, isothermal expansion at T^sub H^). In this case ?Q ? 0, since this process is not adiabatic, ?W = pdV due to system boundary work, and dU = mc^sub v^dT = 0 for an ideal gas undergoing an isothermal process. Substitution of these relationships into equation 2 and integrating over process 2 [arrow right] 3 result in:
… (9)
Substituting for p from equation 4 into equation 9, performing integration between states 2 and 3, and letting Q^sub H^ = Q^sub 23^ result in:
… (10)
Analysis of process 4 [arrow right] 1 (reversible, isothermal compression at T^sub L^) is similar to that of process 2 [arrow right] 3 except the temperature remains constant at T^sub L^, integration occurs from state 4 to state 1, and Q^sub L^ = Q^sub 41^. The resulting equation, similar to equation 10, is:
… (11)
Using equations 10 and 11, the ratio between Q^sub H^ and Q^sub L^ simplifies to:
… (12)
Substituting equation 8 into equation 12 yields the equivalent of equation 1 for a reversible system:
…
Unfortunately, Zemansky [12] does not get to this result but stops at equation 12. Consequently, the intent of this article - to show that the negative ratio of heat addition to a system and heat rejection from the same system is equal to the ratio of the absolute temperatures of the source and the sink thermal reservoirs - is never reached by Zemansky [12].
Carnot cycle analysis 2
The same Carnot cycle analysis result can also be obtained by starting with the first Gibbs equation, which is applicable to any system, any process, and any substance. Written for a single-component system,
TdS = dU + pdV (13)
Referring to Fig. 1, consider the reversible, adiabatic process 1 [arrow right] 2 and apply equation 13. The term TdS is zero for this process and dU = mc^sub v^dT for an ideal gas. Thus, equation 13 reduces to:
-pdV = mc^sub v^dT (3)
Substituting for p using equation 4 and integrating from state 1 to state 2 result in:
… (14)
The analysis of the reversible, adiabatic process 3 [arrow right] 4 is analogous to that of process 1 [arrow right] 2 and results in:
… (15)
Equating equations 14 and 15 and manipulating algebraically results in:
… (16)
Next, consider the reversible, isothermal process 2 [arrow right]3. The reversible heat transfer, Q^sub H^, is the integral of TdS and, thus:
… (17)
For an ideal gas at constant temperature, the change in internal energy is zero. Therefore, equation 17 becomes:
… (18)
Similarly for the reversible, isothermal process 4 [arrow right] 1,
… (19)
Again, for an ideal gas at constant temperature, the change in internal energy is zero. Therefore, equation 19 becomes:
… (20)
The ratio of heat transfers is obtained using equations 18 and 20 as:
… (21)
Substituting equation 16 into equation 21 results in equation 1:
…
Regardless of the analysis applied, the end result is the same, thus alleviating confusion to a certain extent.
Reverse Carnot cycle analysis
The same analysis applies to the reverse Carnot cycle, shown in Fig. 2.
Starting with the first Gibbs equation written for a single-component system, equation 13, and considering the reversible, isothermal process 1 [arrow right] 2 (in Fig. 2) in the reverse Carnot cycle, the reversible heat transfer, Q^sub L^, is the integral of TdS and, thus:
… (22)
For an ideal gas at constant temperature, the change in internal energy is zero. Therefore, equation 22 becomes:
… (23)
Similarly, for the reversible, isothermal process 3 [arrow right]4 in the reverse Carnot cycle,
… (24)
For an ideal gas at constant temperature, the change in internal energy is zero. Therefore, equation 24 becomes:
… (25)
Using equations 23 and 25, the ratio of the heat transfers becomes:
… (26)
Now consider the reversible, adiabatic process 2 [arrow right] 3 and apply equation 13. The term TdS is zero and dU = mc^sub v^dT for an ideal gas. Thus equation 13 reduces to equation 3:
-pdV = mc^sub v^dT (3) Substituting for p from equation 4 into equation 3 and integrating from state 2 to state 3 result in:
… (27)
The analysis of the reversible, adiabatic process 4 [arrow right] 1 is analogous to that of process 2 [arrow right] 3 and results in:
… (28)
Equating equations 27 and 28 and manipulating algebraically result in:
… (29)
Substituting equation 29 into equation 26 results in equation 1:
…
Thus, both the reverse Carnot cycle analysis and Carnot cycle analysis produce equation 1.
Thermodynamics of General Anesthesia
It is known that the action of general anesthetics is proportional to their partition coefficient in lipid membranes (Meyer-Overton rule). This solubility is, however, directly related to the depression of the temperature of the melting transition found close to body temperature in biomembranes. We propose a thermodynamic extension of the Meyer-Overton rule, which is based on free energy changes in the system and thus automatically incorporates the effects of melting point depression. This model accounts for the pressure reversal of anesthesia in a quantitative manner. Further, it explains why inflammation and the addition of divalent cations reduce the effectiveness of anesthesia.
More than 100 years ago. Ham Meyer in Marburg (1) and Charles Ernest Overton in Zurich (2) independently found that the action of general anesthetics is related to their partition coefficient between water and olive oil. Overton performed experiments on tadpoles and recorded the critical drug concentration, ED^sub 50^, at which they stopped swimming. Assuming that the solubility of these anesthetics in olive oil is proportional to that in biomembranes, he suggested that this critical concentration corresponded to a fixed concentration in biomembranes. The Meyer-Overton rule can be expressed as [ED^sub 50^] × P = const, where P is the partition coefficient of the anesthetic drug between membranes and water. Small molecules, as different as nitrous oxide, chloroform, octanol, diethylether, procaine, and even the noble gas xenon, all act as anesthetics. Overton noted that this action is completely unspecific, i.e., dependent only on the solubility of the anesthetic in oil and independent of its chemical nature. Surprisingly, this finding is still valid for general and local anesthetics (2-5) but remains unexplained. Overton concluded that this nonspecific! Iy requires a single mechanism based on physical chemistry and not on the molecular structure of the drugs. Although the close relation between anesthetic effect and solubility in lipids led many scientists to believe that anesthetic action is lipid-related, no model was proposed by Meyer and Overton or by later research. It is known, however, that lipid-melting transitions are lowered in the presence of anesthetics. This has been related to the anesthetic function (6,7).
In the absence of a satisfactory physiological membrane mechanism, many others prefer to view the action of anesthetics as due to specific effects on proteins, e.g., sodium channels or luciferase (8-10). Since anesthetics act on nerves and the Hodgkin-Huxley theory for the action potential is based on the opening and closing of ion channels, it seems natural to attribute the action of anesthetics to interactions with these channels. Some anesthetics show a stereospecificity indicating that the effective anesthetic concentration (ED^sub 50^) is different for the two chiral forms even though the partition coefficient is not affected to the same degree ( 11 ). In this regard, however, we note that lipid molecules are also chiral. While it is widely believed that local anesthetics are sodium channel blockers, a satisfactory general model of how anesthetics act on proteins is again lacking. The action of anesthetics is still mysterious. Some lipid and protein theories on anesthesia are reviewed in the literature (8,12).
The general absence of specificity and the strong correlation between solubility in lipid membranes and anesthetic action seems to speak against specific binding and a protein mechanism. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the action of some proteins is influenced by anesthetics. Data on the influence of anesthetics on luciferase and on Na- and K-channels are summarized in Firestone et al. (13) and suggest that the action of lipids and that of proteins are coupled in some simple manner. Cantor has thus proposed that all membrane-soluble substances alter the lateral pressure in the hydrocarbon region and thereby influence the structure of proteins (14-16). Lee proposed a coupling of protein function to the transition temperature of a lipid annulus at the protein interface ( 17). While such mechanisms may provide a control of protein function, it is nevertheless remarkable that all animals are affected to the same degree by anesthetics, suggesting that anesthetic action is largely independent of the specific protein composition of membranes. (see (2), foreword to the English edition.) In addition to their effect on nerves, anesthetics also change membrane properties such as permeability and/or the hemolysis of erythrocytes (5,13). This indicates the need for a more general view of anesthetic action.
In this article, we focus on a thermodynamic description of general anesthesia based on lipid properties. We recognize that this can seem heretical given the dominance of the ion channel picture. Nevertheless, there are a variety of reasons for considering a macroscopic thermodynamic view. The striking fact that noble gases can act as general anesthetics speaks against specific binding to macromolecules. In particular, the Meyer-Overton rule would require all anesthetics to have exactly the same partition coefficient between lipid membrane and protein binding sites for all relevant proteins. It is difficult to imagine that nature provides binding sites for such a variety of molecules on the same protein in precisely such a manner that binding affinity is independent of chemical nature. (It is unlikely that one protein provides binding sites for all anesthetics. Therefore, if a protein picture was to be maintained one has to abandon a unique mechanism for anesthesia (Keith Miller, Harvard Medical School, private communication, 2006.)) An acceptable description should account for this evident lack of specificity, and this suggests the utility of thermodynamic arguments. Moreover, it is to be emphasized that thermodynamics is not inimical to microscopic (e.g., ion-channel) descriptions of the same phenomena. No one would claim, for example, that the manifest successes of thermodynamics in describing the properties of real gases in any way contradict the tact that they are composed of interacting atoms. Thermodynamics rather recognizes that many macroscopic phenomena are independent of such microscopic details and that a large number of microscopic systems can display features, which are bolh qualitatively and quantitatively susceptible to more generic methods. Precisely the absence of detail means that thermodynamic approaches are often capable of making testable quantitative predictions, which are often inaccessible to or obscured by more microscopic models. Thus, we wish to propose a simple thermodynamic explanation of the MeyerOverton rule based on the well-known physical chemical phenomenon of freezing-point depression. We will show that this picture has the benefit of providing an immediate and intuitive picture for the pressure reversal of anesthesia as a consequence of the pressure-induced elevation of the melting point in lipid membranes and can explain the effects of inflammation and divalent cations on anesthetic action.
Three Laws of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Production
The paper takes issue with Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy law) and its relevance to the economics of production. The paper concurs with experts on thermodynamics that Georgescu-Roegen has committed a major error. Namely, Georgescu-Roegen’s notion of “material entropy,” which he christened as the “fourth law of thermodynamics,” is unfounded. Of more importance, Georgescu-Roegen’s purported law, as the application of the second law to the realm of matter, is a grave conceptual blunder.
The paper argues that the first law (conservation law) is the more relevant law of thermodynamics if one wants to account for production costs. Interestingly, the much neglected third law of thermodynamics, rather than the second, should be the one to act as the proper analogy to the nature of production.
Despite the shortcoming of Georgescu-Roegen’s concept of material entropy, his distinction between funds and stocks is useful. Stocks-such as oil or mineral deposits-provide flows which necessarily entail the diminishing of the stocks. Funds-such as lakes and forests-provide services which are renewable if the funds are exploited at sustainable rates. With the help of the concepts of production cost and funds, Georgescu-Roegen’s thesis about the impossibility of full recycling can be affirmed-but without reference to the entropy law or Georgescu-Roegen’s version ofthat law, what he calls the “fourth law of thermodynamics.” In the end, the paper shows that the impossibility of full recycling of matter parallels the basic insight of the third law with regard to energy.
To show this, the paper advances the centrality of institutions and technology, what is coined here the “technological/institutional regime of production” or, in short, the regime of production. The regime is a more-or-less coherent bundle of fundamental institutions and basic technologies that inform everyday productive activities (see Khalil 1995a and 1997). The paper is critical of Georgescu-Roegen’s “material entropy” on the basis that it defines resources independently of the regime of production. As Clarence Ayres (1941), Wesley Mitchell (1941), and Erich Zimmermann (1951) argued, resources are not given but rather created by active agents. John Dewey and Arthur Bentley (1973; see Khalil 2003) provided a philosophical framework, the “transactional view,” which substantiates the Ayres/Mitchell/Zimmermann thesis. Namely, resources do not exist independently of the active knower. What is a resource depends on the transaction between the knower and the object of knowing, the environment.
However, regimes of production are never static. While they are capable of creating more resources with innovations, there is no guarantee that innovations and the creation of resources will continue at a steady rate. A regime of production, which acts as a fund, may face increasing costs of production as the flow of innovations falls behind the rate of exhaustion of stocks. Any particular regime is highly entrenched either because of high transaction costs or because of the path-dependent (inertia) character of innovations. The inflexibility of regimes of production in the face of declining resource stocks and innovation rates allows pressures to build up. Such a scenario may provide an endogenous account of the discontinuous development of technological/institutional regimes-whose investigation is left for further research.
The second law of thermodynamics is deceptively an attractive tool to discuss the hypothesis of degradation of the environment. The second law seems pliable enough to be stretched in different directions to dress up some divergent approaches to the economics of environmental resources. The entropy law simply states that an isolated system, consisting of segmented but connected domains, tends toward equilibrium. The domains can be made up of different kinds of gases or consist of the same kind of gas but with temperature or pressure differences. Thermodynamic equilibrium, known as the production of maximum entropy, involves the vanishing of differences among the domains.
It would take a whole volume to survey the manner in which economists and other social scientists have employed this law in divergent and confusing ways. The paper rather limits itself to theoretical clarifications and their ramifications with regard to the degradation of environmental resources. It proposes two theses, one positive and the other critical. Concerning the positive thesis, the paper argues that the first law of thermodynamics (i.e., the law of conservation) has immediate relevance to the theory of production and the issue of environmental degradation. This is not a novel conclusion. Many economists have reached the same result (e.g., Ayres and Kneese 1969; Kneese, Ayres and d’Arge 1970; Ayres 1978; Ayres and Miller 1980; Kneese 1989; Ayres 1993; Duchin and Lange 1994). However, this paper reaches this conclusion by relating the degradation of resources to the theory of production via the well-known distinction advanced by Georgescu-Roegen (1970, 1971, 1977, 1979, 1981) between funds and stocks.
Concerning the critical thesis and contrary to Georgescu-Roegen’s central claim, the paper maintains that the second law of thermodynamics has only a marginal relevance to the theory of production and the degradation of resources. Other physicists and economists have discredited Georgescu-Roegen’s “fourth law of thermodynamics,” which invents the concept “material entropy” (e.g., Auer 1977; Ayres and Nair 1984; Young 1991 and 1994; Mayumi 1993; Bianciardi et al. 1993). This paper, however, reaches its conclusion via the distinction between microscopic fluctuations and macroscopic states. The distinction hopefully sheds new insights on the economics of resources in general. One such insight highlights the static character of the entropy law, which economists sometimes confuse with the dynamic version of the law. Such a version is mostly associated with Ilya Prigogine’s (1980) work on far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics.
This paper ignores the economic resources literature which applies Prigogine’s work or, in general, which tries to link the entropy law to nonergodic dynamics arising from positive feedback (e.g., Perrings 1987; Faber and Proops 1990; O’Connor 1991; passim Burley and Foster 1994; cf. Khalil 1994a and 1995b). The literature focuses on the economics of self-feeding mechanisms, auto-dynamics, discontinuous patterns of regional development, multiple equilibria, discontinuous business cycles, and so on. Such an aspect of the entropy law has also been used by ecologists such as T. F. H. Alien and T. B. Starr (1982). Autocatalytic dynamics has been extended into economics indifferent directions by authors such as, inter alios, Kenneth Boulding (1978), Peter Alien (1988), Chuck Dyke (in Weber et al. 1988, in Burley and Foster 1994) Michael Radzicki (1990), James Buchanan and Viktor Vanberg (1991), John Foster (1993), and, most comprehensively, Barkley Rosser (1991).
This paper ignores the issue of positive feedback because it raises problems separate from the one pursued here, production theory in relation to environmental resources. The environmental aspect of production/consumption raises the question of how to model the dependency of a complex organization as a unified purposeful agent on the influx of matter/energy from the environment. In contrast, non-equilibrium, positive feedback is about the specificity on how to model the influx. It is true that nonlinear, dynamic models involve environmental degradation. The point is that using nonlinear techniques borrowed from thermodynamics is about the relevance of the techniques, not the relevance of the laws of thermodynamics.
Section one provides an overview. The second and third sections deal with the entropy law in connection to production/consumption activities: While section two discusses the entropy law with regard to material flow, section three handles the entropy law in relation to energy flow. section four argues that Georgescu-Roegen’s thesis about the impossibility of complete recycling can be salvaged if related to the conception of technology and institutions as “funds” in Georgescu-Roegen’s sense of the term.