Gas IS Solar Power!

the sunI have friends who are Hippie Earth Mother types. They tend to have in common a reflexive hate for non-hippie things, such as guns, nuclear power, genetically modified foods and gasoline engines. It’s always something. Many of my programming geek friends have in common a reflexive love of Unix or a hatred of anything Microsoft.

To me, people with reflexive hates — or loves — just seem to beg for teasing, an education that certainty is dangerous, and that it’s good to not take things too seriously. (The education comes from repeatedly whacking someone’s sensitive spot and ducking, so it’s risky work.) Hot buttons one can’t be teased about lead to ugly territory: hurt feelings, broken jaws, bombs. I think it’s important to tease the deadly serious, is what I’m saying.

So I tease my Hippie Earth Mother friends that gasoline is solar power!

Cindy0

Hippie Earth Mother!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an aging hippie myself, and I lean strongly towards the Hippie Earth Mother type! I almost married one — would have married her, she’s the one that got away! And I would have been ever so much happier (and still married) if the one I did marry had a bit of H.E.M. in her.

But I just can’t resist teasing. I think it’s good to be reminded — forcibly if necessary — that life is complicated and doesn’t fit on bumper stickers (or even in blog posts).

For that matter, in a younger life I chased a red-headed H.E.M. for seven years before I realized I was being strung along. (Yes, I can be terribly slow sometimes. Or maybe it’s that the flame of hope burns bright in me.)

geothermal

Geothermal. (Philippines)

There are really only four sources of energy (or five, or three, or maybe three-and-a-half, depending on how you count it). Two (or one, or maybe one-and-a-half) are all but untapped, and one scares the hell out of most people. Three (or whatever) account for only a tiny fraction of the energy we use.

The last source provides the lion’s share of our energy, and that last source is solar (by which I mean solar power in the usual sense plus wind power and plus fossil fuels).

The first three (or whatever — I’ll stop trying to number them) are geothermal, tidal and radiation. I hedge on the number, because geothermal is so closely related to radiation (the Earth’s heat comes from radioactive decay). And while the process is quite different between the two, ultimately both involve using heat to generate electricity.

tidal power

Tidal power. (France)

[The USA generates 0.3% of its power with geothermal, and that amounts to 29% of global production. The leader in self-production is the Philippines, which generates a whopping 27% of its power with geothermal (18% of global production). Tidal power worldwide is a small fraction of geothermal (about 600 megawatts installed capacity versus nearly 11,000 for geothermal.) The two together account for maybe 4% of the world’s electricity. Nuclear power accounts for about 13%.]

The big difference with radiation is that we have to deal directly with the radioactive material. That — rightfully — scares the pants off a lot of people. (For the record, I’m pro nuclear power in theory, but opposed to it practically because of human and corporate greed and corner-cutting. Nuclear power would be great for humanity if it weren’t for human nature.)

solar power

Solar power. (Hong Kong)

Finally there is solar. A vast amount of energy hits the earth every day. (More energy from the sun hits the Earth in an hour than we consume in an entire year!) We harvest a tiny fraction of it directly by capturing and using sunlight in solar power (in the usual sense of the phrase). Some of it we capture through the wind; weather is caused by the sun and the rotation of the earth, so wind power is based on both solar and gravity.

Gasoline is nothing more than solar energy stored a very long time ago. Oil is one heck of a long-lived battery. Actually, there is also some gravitational energy in oil. The weight of the earth over the organic deposits drove the oil-making process. (Incidentally: Oil is not dinosaurs, as some believe. There is some degree of former animals in oil, but it’s mostly ancient plant matter.)

wind power

Wind power. (USA)

So when you burn gas, you’re just releasing sunlight!

Or so I like to tease my H.E.M. friends. “Dudes! (Where’s my car?) My gas engine is, like totally, solar power, man!”

But when you come right down to it, the sun works largely because of the gravity compressing all that nuclear fuel, so all solar power is ultimately gravity power. That seems to boil it down to gravity (solar, wind, tidal) and radiation (which includes geothermal).

Except that the nuclear elements were all made during supernova explosions, which takes us back to solar, but which really takes us back to gravity. In addition to the physics that governs particles, gravity is the driving force of the universe ever since the Big Bang. It brought together galaxies, and it drives the creation of stars.

So, bottom line, all energy is from gravity and its effect on matter.

As my Hippie Earth Mother friends would say, “That’s real heavy, man!”

space hippies

Gravity! That’s a heavy topic, man. Really heavy, like!

About Wyrd Smythe

The canonical fool on the hill watching the sunset and the rotation of the planet and thinking what he imagines are large thoughts. View all posts by Wyrd Smythe

45 responses to “Gas IS Solar Power!

  • Hariod Brawn

    . . . intrepid reader fights way through snow flakes. . . ‘fascinating article W.S’. . . . swish, swish . . . ‘didn’t know you were a hippy’ . . . shivering: ‘damn, it’s cold’ . . . gets back on track: ‘you had me giggling with this one’ . . . reaches for umbrella and gloves . . . ‘hippies aren’t usually funny’ . . . looks down beneath desk: ‘damn, are my feet getting wet?’ . . . back to wintry screen ‘at least not intentionally!’ . . . shivers again: ‘let’s get back in the warm’ . . . distracted, yet again‘ooh, that’s weird, look at those snowflakes falling through the bright blue sky in the windmill photo . . .’

    • Wyrd Smythe

      ROFL! Hang in there, Hariod! The snow goes away on January 4th (or 5th… something like that). I was definitely a hippie, although I was one of the youngest in the crowd (being only 10 in the mid-1960s). But I lived in Los Angeles from 1967 to 1984 — not quite the hippie Mecca that San Francisco was, but good enough. Many, many fond memories of those days!

    • rung2diotimasladder

      The snow follows my mouse! AHHHH!

      • Hariod Brawn

        I suspected as much Tina. I told W.S. last week that I thought I’d suddenly developed a neurological disorder. o_O

        And by the way, I live by the dictum: ‘If it’s yellow, let it mellow; if it’s brown, flush it down’. Does that make me an old hippie like W.S.?

      • rung2diotimasladder

        You know, it might, or it might not. If you don’t get into dismantling the toilet flush, it’s probably a guy thing.

        Well, I am definitely a nag. There’s no way I can wiggle out of that. “Flush the toilet! Put the lid down!” I’m this close to putting up one of those obnoxious signs: Be a sweetie and wipe the seatie! Luckily my husband doesn’t mind being the brunt of this as he knows it comes from a domestic drive, which he values. Otherwise he might end up pulling a Jack Nicholson in “About Schmidt”. I’d have a heart attack.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        I’m with Tina on flushing always being necessary. I have a good sense of smell, and I don’t like my place smelling of urine. Now, if I’m drinking enough fluid (of one kind or other 😀 ), and things have reached the (actually always preferable) state of near-water, then maybe not. (The condo I live in, I get free water, and that may affect my view. It definitely leads to very long hot showers!)

        On the other hand I refuse to consider “seat down” as the required default condition. The usual complaint involves the 3 A.M. visit and wet bottom. My response is, if I did a 3 A.M. visit and peed all over the lid because I didn’t bother to check the configuration, I’d never hear the end of it. If I get no slack, neither do you. Check the configuration before use or suffer the consequences! 😛

      • rung2diotimasladder

        I knew this would come up! I just knew it! I even considered being a bit more careful in my description, but then vetoed it for the sake of sticking to the point. But now, here we go:

        Okay, here’s the deal. I realize it’s not fair to insist on having the just seat part down. (Why can’t women put the seat up to have it ready for you fellas?) My thing is that the whole works—the seat and the lid—should be down for aesthetic reasons. Then it’s fair to both sexes as we both have to work equally for our particular needs…and everything looks much prettier when you enter the rest room!

        Now isn’t that a win-win?

      • Wyrd Smythe

        That I definitely would go along with — sounds fair (which is really all I ask) and win-win-win (one win for each person plus a win for the aesthetics). And you did originally say “lid” which I noticed and wondered if you didn’t mean exactly what you actually meant. (I’m just way too used to people not being precise in their words — I shan’t make that mistake with you again!)

        And I tend to agree. When I have company over, the lid is down in hopes that all guests will leave it as they found it.

      • rung2diotimasladder

        Yay! Score one for fairness, minus one for the ever-so-tedious battle of the sexes.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Yes, magical snow powers conferred upon me by the folks at WordPress (bow down before my awesome power, ye minions)! You can read the whole incredible story here.

        My friend Hariod is quite discommoded by the whole thing, and I’m tempted to hibernate and post no more until the power fades in January just to spare him the aggravation. Tempted, but… 👿

      • Hariod Brawn

        Re: toilet issues

        Tina, one can always drop a brick in the cistern.

        [Be careful how you interpret that. o_O ]

      • Hariod Brawn

        Ha! Wyrd Smythe – “discommoded” get it? Toilet issues? Or am I being slow and it was intentional?

      • Wyrd Smythe

        I’m going to claim it was (because no one can prove otherwise) and it’ll make you think I’m way smarter than I am!

      • rung2diotimasladder

        BAHAHAHA…I didn’t get it either, so Hariod, I hope you find relief in knowing I’m slower than you. Wait. No. Don’t find relief…

      • Hariod Brawn

        Apologies for all this low and undignified toilet talk W.S.; though I think we must blame the mischievous girl from Oklahoma quite frankly. 😡

        One last point: given that the title of this article is ‘Gas is solar power’, then is it not the case that occasionally the sun does indeed shine out of one’s arse?

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Yeah, those country folks… what’s the Warren Zevon lyric about country living? “Shit, piss, jizz and blood.” Both my folks, especially my mom, were country folks — the conversations around our dinner table could turn some folks green (and I don’t mean with envy). Down to earth, as they say.

        Now wait a minute… first you apologize and then bring the conversation down another notch! Got some country in yourself, methinks. 😛

        But you do raise an interesting question about where the sun supposedly does not shine… You may be on to something. (Or on something… 😎 )

        Oh, this whole conversation has really gone someplace, hasn’t it! 😄

      • rung2diotimasladder

        It’s always my fault! Oh well, I’ll take the blame. But y’all can stick it where the sun…shines.

      • Hariod Brawn

        Tina and I are merely trying to lower the tone around here, if not the toilet seat itself. Still, you appear now to have sunk to our level, which is good to see.

        And yes, the apparent contradictoriness in my previous comment was deliberate so as to “bring the conversation down another notch” with a pleasing unexpectedness.

        I don’t know if you Americans use the expression “He thinks the sun shines out of his arse”; though we Brits do:

        http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/think-the-sun-shines-out-of-sb-s-arse-backside

        Perhaps a little contrarily, we also refer to that place “where the sun don’t shine” as being applicable to all. What’s more, and confusingly, we refer to baring that same place as “mooning”. And so we come full circle with the planetary theme of this highfalutin article wot you dun ‘ere.

      • rung2diotimasladder

        Of course, we Americans are a bit more crass and ungrammatical. We prefer to say, “He think his shit don’t stink.”

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Oh, Hariod, I was always down at that level! (One just has ones pretensions, you know, appearances being everything.)

        As Tina has already pointed out, we’re a bit more low-brow and, um, direct in our slang than you elegant Brits.

        I wonder, for nude sunbathers, if in fact the sun does shine everywhere…

        As for the planets and moons… who’ll be the first to mention seventh planet? (The new pronunciation of which doesn’t really seem an improvement.)

      • Hariod Brawn

        Of course! “You’re talking out of seventh planet!” 😄 [Not you W.S. – the impersonal ‘you’]

        Want to go lower? You like science fiction don’t you W.S.? I read an S.F. title once entitled: “Circling Uranus wiping out Klingons” 😮

      • Wyrd Smythe

        [throws hands in air] I surrender! You win!! 😀

  • SelfAwarePatterns

    Interesting post.

    I think a key point to emphasize with oil and gas is that it’s solar energy stored across hundreds of millions of years. And that we’re currently burning through that store at a rate that will deplete it within a few centuries, and that that rate is why its effects on the environment are detrimental.

    Excellent point about the core role of gravity, but I think we have to include the other fundamental forces: electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force.

    • Wyrd Smythe

      Keep in mind I’m in a silly mood this week, and the post is 45.8% tongue-in-cheek, 11.24% plain silliness and whatever is left over may — or may — not be very serious. 😀

      If one were serious, one could certainly make a case for the importance of electromagnetism in power generation, and might be able to make a case for the weak force in nuclear power (although I’m not sure if the forms of radioactive decay the weak force is associated with are the same as used in reactors). What kind of case would you make for the strong force?

      It’s not really even clear to me how strong the case for any of them is as a source of power.

      • SelfAwarePatterns

        Understood and no worries 🙂

        My understanding is that energy released from nuclear fusion is created by the interplay between the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic repulsion between protons. (In the case of a star, after pressure from gravity forced two nucleuses together.)

        I totally agree on “source” of power. I’m sure you know that no energy is ever created or destroyed, only transformed. So ultimately, there is no “source”, except in the same way that highlands are the “source” of rivers. Most of our energy comes from the sun, but its energy came from the gas cloud it formed in, whose energy came from previous supernovae, whose energies all ultimately came from the big bang. Where the big bang’s energy came from is an open question.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        It occurred to me after I replied that I have some vague sense the weak force might be involved in stellar fusion, but I’d have to review the process again to say for sure. One thing is certain, though: Without gravity, it’s just a cloud of gas. (FWIW: The bosonic forces are included where I wrote: “In addition to the physics that governs particles,…”) The substance and dynamics involved might be akin to water and air in tidal and wind power — key parts of the picture, but not the source of the energy.

        I almost did mention the Big Bang, but there are so many unknowns that it’s hard to factor in. The basic BB theory, AIUI, is that a statistically unforbidden but hugely improbable quantum uncertainty resulted in an instant of unimaginable energy. Inflation blew it up into a universe-sized thing and “dark energy” keeps it expanding. Somehow this vast amount of energy/matter results. (Frankly, some mystical omnipotent being suggesting that “there be light” almost sounds less preposterous. 🙂 )

        I don’t know if you’re familiar with Lawrence M. Krauss’ A Universe from Nothing, but he tries to address what has been a burning question on my (and many other) mind(s) for a long time: where did all this matter/energy come from?

        I read the book twice, parts of it three times… As with many books on physics topics he lays groundwork explaining the underlying physics leading to his explanation. As with many such books, that groundwork is detailed and clear. But when he gets to the thesis of the book, he gets very hand-wavy and vague. He absolutely failed to make his case to me. I still have no real clue why there should be “something” rather than “nothing.”

        The BB presents other problems… if time’s arrow is due to entropy that requires the BB to have extremely low entropy, and accounting for that is a vexation to scientists, too.

        It’s almost odd that such basic knowledge — our very existence and our consciousness — would be so elusive to us.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Nice to know my memory doesn’t have quite as much in common with Swiss cheese as I sometimes think. The proton-proton cycle in fusion involves two hydrogen nuclei fusing and producing deuterium. To do that, one of the protons must convert to a neutron (releasing a positron and neutrino in the process), and it does that via (ta da) a weak interaction.

      • SelfAwarePatterns

        I’ll have to take your word on the weak force proton-neutron conversion, but my impression of the strong force’s involvement with fusion overall comes from the Wikipedia on nuclear fusion (among other sources).
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Overview

        On the big bang, from what I understand, theories about what caused it, such as quantum fluctuations, remain highly speculative (unlike the big bang itself, which is very well evidenced). I haven’t read Krauss’s book, although I’ve definitely heard of it. In truth, I find Krauss somewhat annoying and try to take in his communications in only bite sized chunks.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Yes, the strong force (in its lesser role as “the nuclear force”) is also involved — in binding nucleons together once they’re pushed close enough (plus tunneling). There are quite a few types of fusion — look down at the section titled “Astrophysical reaction chains” for more specifics about the solar form. (The diagram shown in the “Overview” is slightly misleading as I don’t believe tritium is much involved in solar fusion. The first diagram in the lower section shows the solar proton-proton cycle.)

        I share your evaluation of Krauss. One distraction in the book is his repeated riffs on how science is so much better than religion. Given that science gave us the atom bomb (and other stuff) and religion gave us morality (and other stuff), the point is at least debatable and really doesn’t have a place in his book. (He seems aligned with militant atheism — if not anti-theism — and I consider that group just as assholic as I do militant theists.)

      • SelfAwarePatterns

        I’m not sure I’d agree that religion gave us morality, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by “morality”, or “religion”.

        I generally agree with new atheists like Krauss on their metaphysics, but I think they oversell the problems with religion. Most of their identified problems are actually problems of tribalism, traditionalism, or overall groupthink, none of which will go away if religion (however we define that term) disappears. I often point out that I’m much more likely to agree with a liberal believer on a matter of ethics or public policy than I am with, say, an Ayn Rand objectivist, despite the fact that the objectivist and I likely agree about God.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        I’m trying to remember if you and I have ever really discussed morality and ethics. I have a vague memory we might have touched on it early on when I first popped over to your blog? (Maybe I’m thinking of someone else.) But maybe lets defer getting into it for a post that touches on it? (Or we could go looking for a past post to hang the discussion off if you’d like to explore the topic.)

        That’s a very good way to put it regarding the new atheists — we’re pretty closely aligned on that one. In particular we agree that many of their objections are really about human behavior, not religion. (Their objections become even less relevant when talking about spirituality rather than religion.) One key difference is that I think (or hope or wish) their metaphysics (or more accurately the belief there is no metaphysical reality) is wrong. And, as an agnostic with spiritual leanings, I may find them a bit more obnoxious than you do. 🙂

      • SelfAwarePatterns

        No worries on morality.

        On new atheists, I probably do find them less annoying than you, primarily because they aren’t attacking any of my own personal beliefs. My annoyance with them is really on other people’s behalf.

        My attitude about the whole subject can be summed as follows. Non-belief (regardless of whether or not it’s accurate) is an emotionally expensive proposition. It tends to exist much more among economically and politically secure populations, and much less among those whose lives are uncertain. Those of us who can afford it should be careful not to be cruel to those of who can’t.

        That said, I do think the new atheists have helped to make atheism and agnosticism more acceptable in US society. Their political wake leaves room for moderate non-confrontational non-believers to be accepted.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        That’s a good analysis. We can completely agree that the new atheists have been instrumental in, for example, fighting the teaching of creationism as science (which I find utterly appalling). I even tend to align with them regarding overt Christian displays (e.g. The Ten Commandments) in government buildings.

        When some of them oppose benign things like Christmas trees (or even the word “Christmas”), then I think they’re being stupid and silly. And those that opposed the use of those crossed I-beams at the 9/11 site… I’d like to ask them to step outside. (Not because I want to fight them. Because I want to lock the door behind them once they’re out in the freezing cold and snow. 😛 ) Fortunately, most of them have better sense than that. It’s the militants and “anti-s” (of any stripe) that annoy me.

  • dianasschwenk

    Ha! That is real heavy Smitty! Were you talking in circles here or is my head just spinning?
    Diana xo

  • rung2diotimasladder

    This is so hilarious!

    I lived in a hippie household in Albuquerque for a short while. At this point I considered myself something of a hippie in my desire to live a simple life. I played guitar on the streets for money, rent was $50/month and I made that in two hours of playing. So life was pretty easy for me! However, things turned sour.

    One of my housemates dismantled the toilet so you had to lift the top in order to flush. His reasoning was that it discouraged flushing and saved water, and that one should only flush “when absolutely necessary”. He couldn’t understand that I thought it necessary every time. So when arguing went nowhere, I’d fix the toilet, he’d dismantle it, and on and on we went. The house always smelled like urine.

    That was strike one. Strike two was when we got into a big argument about PIRG, the organization he worked for, which he praised all the time to the point of being really obnoxious about it. Finally I had to speak up against it, because I thought it was a fraud and he was being taken for a ride. He didn’t like me too much after that. At this point I was already flicking cigarette butts out the window just to irk everyone. (I didn’t really like doing this, but I felt I needed to do it to remain sane.)

    Strike three was when they—everyone in the house—decided it would be okay to bring some very creepy drug dealers into the house. By that I mean characters who looked like they belonged in Breaking Bad. I was so terrified I locked myself in the basement. This was when I decided it was time to move back to Oklahoma. Bet you can guess the soundtrack for that trip. Here’s a hint: “We don’t smoke marijuana in Muskogee…we don’t get high on LSD.”

    • Wyrd Smythe

      I’m glad you enjoyed it — it was meant to make people smile! (So, you’re an Okie from Muskogee! I was born in NYC and spent almost 20 years in Los Angeles (which I loved, loved, loved), but most of my life I’ve been a Minnesnowtan.)

      I’ve heard stories very similar to yours from so many of my hippie and former-hippie friends. In Minneapolis there’s a kind of dilute enclave of folks whose minds are still firmly in the 1960s. There’s a co-op store and a co-op restaurant, and there are some who literally work for food in one or both places.

      What’s interesting is, despite the “peace and love” ethic, how utterly human the behaviors are. Soap opera and melodrama seem part of the human condition. So many wonderful human ideas are spoiled because of humans! It doesn’t seem to matter whether the group involved is highly trained scientists or poorly educated drop-outs — we are what we are (and our ancient stories suggest it has been ever thus).

      Your story also reminds me of another human constant. It’s expressed in the Yeats poem, The Second Coming:

      “Turning and turning in the widening gyre
      The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
      Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;”

      Ya gotta love the truth of poetry! 🙂

      I’ll see your Merle Haggard and raise you a Country Joe (and some fish): “Roll another one Just like the other one…” 😎

      • rung2diotimasladder

        Ha! I actually liked it when people Bogarted the joint so I didn’t get too messed up. As it always turned out, I’d take a hit, get messed up instantly, then they’d keep passing it to me and I was already to messed up to even know how to say “no”. Oh, I’m definitely the Merle Haggard type. I don’t particularly enjoy feeling too stupid to talk. Life does that well enough for me! 🙂

        Oh human beings! This reminds me of the story of two communities in New Harmony, Indiana. The first was a religious group known as the Harmonists, whose leader was George Rapp. Whatever Rapp said, that’s how things went. They were a prosperous community, so prosperous that Rapp decided they needed to move out of there and start over before they got too smug in their worldliness.

        Robert Owen purchased the place and renamed it New Harmony. As a social reformer, he intended to make it into an intellectual community of scientists and free thinkers. This Owenite community ended in failure after a short period of time. These free thinkers freely clashed with one another and the community dissolved.

        Today there’s a lovely Inn in New Harmony with beautiful gardens and a labyrinth. I believe the Inn and museum are (or were) run by a descendant of Owen and if I remember correctly, she sympathized with the original Harmonists. In any case, if you ever find yourself in that area, it’s definitely worth checking out. There’s one garden that’s absolutely spectacular. They trained these massive trees to grow in a dome shape so that when you walk in, the sun comes through the branches and gives the overall feel of a cathedral. In the center is a serene fountain, just under a break in the tops of the trees so the sunlight comes streaming down on it in a beam.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Sounds lovely! (Although, honestly, I’m more the untamed wilderness than a cultivated garden and that metaphorically extends to my personality as well as my taste in the outdoors. In many regards I’m more in favor of chaos than order.)

        That’s an excellent story — almost Yin-Yang in its nature! It shows the tension between the benefits and consequences of “my way or the highway” and “intellectual laissez faire” approaches. Now, as I just said, I’m prone to liking some chaos in life, but there’s no denying the power of organization and cohesiveness (lessons I wish the Democrats would learn). The tradeoff, obviously, is the restrictions of thought and behavior. The whole point of Yin-Yang (to me) is that both poles are required — life is a blend of tensions.

        One problem is that, for every George Rapp, there’s a Charles Mason or Jim Jones. To some degree this touches on what I was saying on your blog about my feelings regarding idealism. The world in our heads can go to some strange places, and I don’t trust the “reality” of anyone’s internal reality (including mine). My definition of sanity is the degree to which ones mental model matches the external world.

        That said, with a clear-headed leader with “pure” (for lack of a better term) motives, amazing things can be accomplished.

      • rung2diotimasladder

        I’m sure neither of us would fit in to the George Rapp society. It’s kind of like looking down on an ant hill—we can enjoy the beauty of cohesion from afar. Taking orders is not my cup of tea.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        For short periods of time, or to accomplish a specific goal, fine, but as a life-style? No way!! (Part of my primary ethic in life involves finding my own way through it.) I used to do a lot of work with amateur theatre, for example, and there’s a strong hierarchy from the director on down. Nor would I have minded a short stretch in the military to serve my country (for me that would have meant Vietnam, and my parents were categorically opposed to my signing up, and I was never drafted, so I didn’t).

        But I just couldn’t live my entire life like that, no way!

      • rung2diotimasladder

        I’m not sure I could handle it even for short periods of time. I suppose I could so long as I’m given some freedom to think for myself. I’ll have to hit rock bottom before I let someone else take over for me. But I do see some value in it and I can see how it would be very powerful.

      • Wyrd Smythe

        Tons of freedom! You can paint that scenery using up-and-down motions or back-and-forth motions. Totally up to you! 🙂

        With project- or goal-oriented organizations there is probably more freedom of thought and action (to one degree or another) than for life-style organizations that often try to shape how its members think and feel (ugh to that!).

        It’s likely the fundamental difference between life and work.

  • reocochran

    I am smiling and I know sometimes I am as ‘spacey’ as the Hippie Earth Mother… oh well! I try hard, W.S. to get science and did just put into my drafts a researched article with ‘greener choices’ and healthy ones, too. Will put out when it is the appropriate (meaning ‘lazy’ day while I don’t feel like writing or sharing…)

And what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: