Global Warming - Forth as answer

[visua...@rocketmail.com]

Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!

Today I got an Editor's Note from "Dr. Dobb's Update": Dealing With All Our Stuff

There it says:
"In 1961, Rolf Landauer theorized that there was a fundamental connection between the processing of information and the production of heat. Just last year, researchers at the University of Augsburg in Germany appear to have proven Landauer's theory. To reset a single bit, they showed, generates a minimum amount of heat; and the point is that this is a fundamental limit set not by the design of devices, but by the nature of information itself. Heat dissipation in computer chips is not merely a matter of mechanics, but is inherent in the processing of information."
Source: http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240154150

Quintessence: Forth is a tool against global warming, thanks to minimizing!
Forth is the programming language which stripped off all unnecessary attachment
and distraction leaving pure logic to work with - and so needs the least energy to run.

DB

[hughag...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 3:21:42 PM UTC-7, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!

If you take into account all of the "heat" that gets generated on comp.lang.forth, we're a major contributor to global warming.

[Steve]

Lol. to both your posts.

As we have not started hundreds of trillion+ devices everywhere
computing model, I am not to worried. when those devices start they
will likely use energy from the environment and a greater use of
optical/quantum eventually, and hardware functions before, in order to
cut power.


Saw an article on silicon dust processors, which goes further.

I suspect the bit heat theory might be flawed, similarly to the energy
loss from travel assumption. Theoretically you could move a craft
through a true space vacuum to an virtually unlimited distance and
reclaim the energy at the end, and then reuse it to travel back. In
affect, you could view the ships location as a bit marker.

Steve.

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <6d2b5778-d3e5-4a63...@googlegroups.com>,

<visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!
>
>Today I got an Editor's Note from "Dr. Dobb's Update": Dealing With All
>Our Stuff
>
>There it says:
>"In 1961, Rolf Landauer theorized that there was a fundamental
>connection between the processing of information and the production of
>heat. Just last year, researchers at the University of Augsburg in
>Germany appear to have proven Landauer's theory. To reset a single bit,
>they showed, generates a minimum amount of heat; and the point is that
>this is a fundamental limit set not by the design of devices, but by the
>nature of information itself. Heat dissipation in computer chips is not
>merely a matter of mechanics, but is inherent in the processing of
>information."
>Source: http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240154150

I've read an article in the Scientific American (a very long time ago)
that seems to imply that calculation is essentially a reversible process,
that can be done using infinitesimal energy. (And probably take a near
infinite time, but that was not clear to me.)
The only way to generate heat is by destroying information, so it seems.
I must say I didn't quite understand it, and the dr Dobbs article appeals
more to my intuition.

>
>Quintessence: Forth is a tool against global warming, thanks to minimizing!
>Forth is the programming language which stripped off all unnecessary attachment
>and distraction leaving pure logic to work with - and so needs the least
>energy to run.
>
>DB

--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[Anton Ertl]

alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>In article <6d2b5778-d3e5-4a63...@googlegroups.com>,
> <visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!
>>
>>Today I got an Editor's Note from "Dr. Dobb's Update": Dealing With All
>>Our Stuff
>>
>>There it says:
>>"In 1961, Rolf Landauer theorized that there was a fundamental
>>connection between the processing of information and the production of
>>heat. Just last year, researchers at the University of Augsburg in
>>Germany appear to have proven Landauer's theory. To reset a single bit,
>>they showed, generates a minimum amount of heat; and the point is that
>>this is a fundamental limit set not by the design of devices, but by the
>>nature of information itself. Heat dissipation in computer chips is not
>>merely a matter of mechanics, but is inherent in the processing of
>>information."
>>Source: http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240154150
>
>I've read an article in the Scientific American (a very long time ago)
>that seems to imply that calculation is essentially a reversible process,
>that can be done using infinitesimal energy. (And probably take a near
>infinite time, but that was not clear to me.)

Yes, if you do your calculations in reversible form, you can perform
them with less energy consumption than Landauer's limit. You still
need some energy to drive this reversible computation in the direction
you want (forward or reverse), and the more energy you spend, the
faster it can go.

Today's computers consume much more than Landauer's limit (I have
heard or seen a factor of 1000 mentioned), and making your computation
reversible does not help energy consumption on current machines, but
people still play with the concept.

There was a course on reversible computing at TU Wien some years ago,
and Gerald Wodni participated, and looked at how the concepts of that
course could be integrated in Forth. One interesting result was that
"OVER +" is reversible (while OVER and + aren't).

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/

[rickman]

On 5/15/2013 6:05 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article<6d2b5778-d3e5-4a63...@googlegroups.com>,
> <visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!
>>
>> Today I got an Editor's Note from "Dr. Dobb's Update": Dealing With All
>> Our Stuff
>>
>> There it says:
>> "In 1961, Rolf Landauer theorized that there was a fundamental
>> connection between the processing of information and the production of
>> heat. Just last year, researchers at the University of Augsburg in
>> Germany appear to have proven Landauer's theory. To reset a single bit,
>> they showed, generates a minimum amount of heat; and the point is that
>> this is a fundamental limit set not by the design of devices, but by the
>> nature of information itself. Heat dissipation in computer chips is not
>> merely a matter of mechanics, but is inherent in the processing of
>> information."
>> Source: http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240154150
>
> I've read an article in the Scientific American (a very long time ago)
> that seems to imply that calculation is essentially a reversible process,
> that can be done using infinitesimal energy. (And probably take a near
> infinite time, but that was not clear to me.)
> The only way to generate heat is by destroying information, so it seems.
> I must say I didn't quite understand it, and the dr Dobbs article appeals
> more to my intuition.

I remember that article. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who didn't
understand it. It has been awhile so I don't remember what it said
exactly, but maybe it was poorly written.

I remember when I started reading Scientific American, it was very hard
for me to read. I remember re-reading some articles two, three and more
times, each time getting deeper into the subject. Over the years it got
easier and easier. Finally it got boring and I quit my subscription.
The initial change I think was due to my improved education as I read
more. But I think the more recent change is just the magazine wanting
to attract a wider audience like one of the "fluff" scientific mags.

Do you still read it?

--

Rick

[rickman]

I don't remember the reversible issue in the article. How does being
irreversible cause a higher energy consumption?

> There was a course on reversible computing at TU Wien some years ago,
> and Gerald Wodni participated, and looked at how the concepts of that
> course could be integrated in Forth. One interesting result was that
> "OVER +" is reversible (while OVER and + aren't).

I remember learning that in general computation does *not* create
information, it actually destroys it, hence is irreversible. When you
perform a computation that clobbers a register, like ADD A,B where the
result goes into B, B is lost and so the action is irreversible. In
Forth + may not be reversible, but I think OVER is, unless you are
considering the state of the unused stack cell to be "information".

But like you say, today's computers are *far* from the theoretical limit
of processing in order to be as fast as practical.

--

Rick

[Anton Ertl]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>I don't remember the reversible issue in the article. How does being
>irreversible cause a higher energy consumption?

By destroying information.

>I remember learning that in general computation does *not* create
>information, it actually destroys it, hence is irreversible. When you
>perform a computation that clobbers a register, like ADD A,B where the
>result goes into B, B is lost and so the action is irreversible. In
>Forth + may not be reversible, but I think OVER is, unless you are
>considering the state of the unused stack cell to be "information".

I don't remember the exact argument; maybe it was this; or maybe it
was that OVER cannot be used as a component in a longer reversible
computation because you then need some irreversible step to get rid of
the additional cell; or maybe something else.

[rickman]

On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't remember the reversible issue in the article. How does being
>> irreversible cause a higher energy consumption?
>
> By destroying information.

Not much information in that reply. How does that use more energy than
reversible calculations?

>> I remember learning that in general computation does *not* create
>> information, it actually destroys it, hence is irreversible. When you
>> perform a computation that clobbers a register, like ADD A,B where the
>> result goes into B, B is lost and so the action is irreversible. In
>> Forth + may not be reversible, but I think OVER is, unless you are
>> considering the state of the unused stack cell to be "information".
>
> I don't remember the exact argument; maybe it was this; or maybe it
> was that OVER cannot be used as a component in a longer reversible
> computation because you then need some irreversible step to get rid of
> the additional cell; or maybe something else.

But... by saying OVER + is reversible (which I'm not sure is true in
this context) it is being used in a longer reversible computation.

Once I'm done with the current work slam, maybe I'll try to dig up the
article. If I can figure out which issue, I have a lot of the old back
issues.

--

Rick

[Anton Ertl]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I don't remember the reversible issue in the article. How does being
>>> irreversible cause a higher energy consumption?
>>
>> By destroying information.
>
>Not much information in that reply. How does that use more energy than
>reversible calculations?

Aparently by increasing entropy:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle>

>But... by saying OVER + is reversible (which I'm not sure is true in
>this context) it is being used in a longer reversible computation.

Then let's call it OVER_+. It's one operation, not generic OVER
followed by generic (irreversible) +.

[rickman]

On 5/15/2013 11:22 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/15/2013 11:08 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I don't remember the reversible issue in the article. How does being
>>>> irreversible cause a higher energy consumption?
>>>
>>> By destroying information.
>>
>> Not much information in that reply. How does that use more energy than
>> reversible calculations?
>
> Aparently by increasing entropy:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle>

Entropy is not the same as energy, in fact, they are only loosely
related. But it has been a long time since I had thermodynamics. Maybe
I'm not remembering it correctly. Energy can theoretically be
transferred and transformed without changing the entropy, but in reality
entropy is always increased by every thing you do. I think that is the
second law if I remember. I guess I didn't learn how "information"
enters into entropy. I have only read a bit about it.

>> But... by saying OVER + is reversible (which I'm not sure is true in
>> this context) it is being used in a longer reversible computation.
>
> Then let's call it OVER_+. It's one operation, not generic OVER
> followed by generic (irreversible) +.

How is OVER_+ reversible exactly? You can recover the data you started
with using OVER -, but is that really the same as saying it is
reversible? If OVER is not reversible, that means any side effects have
to be factored in. OVER can be reversed with a DROP otherwise. But
OVER clobbers a memory location. I suppose OVER_+ would have to be
atomic such as ADD A,B can be reversed by SUB A,B, but I don't think
this is really what the concept is about.

--

Rick

[visua...@rocketmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:42:59 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> Energy can theoretically be transferred and transformed without changing
> the entropy, but in reality entropy is always increased by every thing you do.

If the transformation efficiency would be 100%, entropy wouldn't increase.
But that's barely the case.

On the contrary, normally we always have friction, increasing the entropy.
That's why our Math prof always told us that we will die some day because it is too hot.

Back to the bit energy:

Let's look at it in a practical way. Processing information is connected to changing bits, am I right?

Each bit change needs energy, even with the best MOS technology. To change a bit, a voltage has to be changed, and since there is capacity everywhere, changing a voltage means that a current flows. The product of current and voltage is the energy needed to change this bit, and having a server room, there may be trillions of bits to be changed everytime, and that is not negligible. That's why these server rooms need cooling.

I admit, Forth will only save energy while developing programs, because on runtime I am sure there will be not much difference in power needed for executing. But each reduction in waste will be appreciated.
That's why I am voting for Forth.

DB.

[Bernd Paysan]

rickman wrote:
> How is OVER_+ reversible exactly? You can recover the data you started
> with using OVER -, but is that really the same as saying it is
> reversible?

Yes. The idea of a reversible program is that you can run backwards (with
now doing the reverse operations), and get back to the original state.

> If OVER is not reversible, that means any side effects have
> to be factored in. OVER can be reversed with a DROP otherwise. But
> OVER clobbers a memory location. I suppose OVER_+ would have to be
> atomic such as ADD A,B can be reversed by SUB A,B, but I don't think
> this is really what the concept is about.

The problem here is that this sort of "concept" doesn't transform into real
hardware. And the real hardware needs to do reversible operations, not just
conceptually reversible operations. Which is why clobbering some memory or
registers is not an option.

Some languages make fun of "if" and end it with a "fi". In a reversible
language, this makes perfectly sense: "fi" is a conditional branch when
running backwards. Whether to branch depends on what happened when running
fowards.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

[visua...@rocketmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:00:34 AM UTC-4, Steve wrote:
> As we have not started hundreds of trillion+ devices everywhere

> computing model, I am not too worried.

Others are worried - the cloud computing people, and interesting, they are using virtual machines for a solution - Forth is using a virtual machine, isn't it? Forth may even have been the first virtual machine, despite the hype now about VM:

Energy-Efficient Virtual Machine Consolidation
by Pablo Graubner et al, University of Marburg, Germany

A novel approach to virtual machine (VM) consolidation, based on energy-efficient storage migration and live VM migration, is implemented using Eucalyptus, an open source clone of the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud. Several experiments demonstrate the potential energy savings.

Given rising energy, infrastructure, cooling, and power-supply costs, infrastructure as a service (IaaS) providers hope to increase the energy efficiency of their hardware- and software architectures. This article presents a novel approach to virtual machine (VM) consolidation for saving energy. The approach is based on energy-efficient storage migration and VM live migration and exploits the "lacking energy-proportionality" characteristic of commodity hardware. Eucalyptus, an open source clone of the popular Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, is used to implement the proposed approach. Several short- and long-term experiments demonstrate the potential for energy savings in a productive cloud computing environment. Quality-of-service violations during the consolidation process are also addressed. This article is part of a special issue on cloud computing.

Source:
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/computingnow/content?g=53319&type=article&urlTitle=energy-efficient-virtual-machine-consolidation

[Anton Ertl]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/15/2013 11:22 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>How is OVER_+ reversible exactly? You can recover the data you started
>with using OVER -, but is that really the same as saying it is
>reversible?

Yes, that's the idea. You can run the computation in forward or
reverse direction.

> I suppose OVER_+ would have to be
>atomic such as ADD A,B can be reversed by SUB A,B, but I don't think
>this is really what the concept is about.

It is, at least as far as programming is concerned; you need to
organize your program such that you can input the results, run it in
reverse mode, and can produce the parameters of the program. I dimly
remember that the C-ish language used by the course instructor to show
things allowed "a+=b", but not "c = a+b".

[rickman]

On 5/16/2013 8:53 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/15/2013 11:22 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> How is OVER_+ reversible exactly? You can recover the data you started
>> with using OVER -, but is that really the same as saying it is
>> reversible?
>
> Yes, that's the idea. You can run the computation in forward or
> reverse direction.

But that is not running the computation in the reverse direction, that
is recovering the prior state of the machine by a new computation.

>> I suppose OVER_+ would have to be
>> atomic such as ADD A,B can be reversed by SUB A,B, but I don't think
>> this is really what the concept is about.
>
> It is, at least as far as programming is concerned; you need to
> organize your program such that you can input the results, run it in
> reverse mode, and can produce the parameters of the program. I dimly
> remember that the C-ish language used by the course instructor to show
> things allowed "a+=b", but not "c = a+b".

Exactly, because c = a+b clobbers the data in c which is lost forever.
I guess if the data can be recovered by *any* means, it is not lost, so
maybe OVER + is reversible. The data is changed, but information is not
lost. The same would be true by adding a constant, the constant can be
subtracted to recover the original data. Except that data is clobbered
in the "unseen" registers used to implement the OVER. What value did it
have originally. Even if you don't care, it is information, so it is
lost and the instruction is irreversible no matter what follows it.

So my final conclusion is that OVER_+ is not reversible unless it is
atomic and is actually the same as A <= A + B, not an OVER followed by a +.

--

Rick

[Anton Ertl]

rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/16/2013 8:53 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 5/15/2013 11:22 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> How is OVER_+ reversible exactly? You can recover the data you started
>>> with using OVER -, but is that really the same as saying it is
>>> reversible?
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea. You can run the computation in forward or
>> reverse direction.
>
>But that is not running the computation in the reverse direction, that
>is recovering the prior state of the machine by a new computation.

If you have hardware that supports reversible operations, there is no
difference; there is also no new computation. OVER_+ is an operation
that when run forwards is equivalent to the sequence OVER + in Forth,
but you can run it backwards, and that does something like running
OVER_- forwards.

>So my final conclusion is that OVER_+ is not reversible unless it is
>atomic and is actually the same as A <= A + B, not an OVER followed by a +.

You got it!

[Albert van der Horst]

For a physicist that is a tautology. An irreversible process is defined as
a process that diminishes the free energy in a system, which is what a lay
person would call "consuming energy".

What is remarkable is that most calculations of practical interest
can be done by a reversible process.

>
>--
>
>Rick

[Albert van der Horst]

I quit a long time ago. By the time they expressed power requirements in
units of "hair dryer equivalents", I had had it.
[I calculated it back and was appalled by the energy consumption of US
hair dryers.]

>
>--
>
>Rick

Groetjes Albert

[rickman]

On 5/17/2013 9:23 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
> I quit a long time ago. By the time they expressed power requirements in
> units of "hair dryer equivalents", I had had it.
> [I calculated it back and was appalled by the energy consumption of US
> hair dryers.]

Uh, a hair dryer is a heater. Do you know of a better way of making
heat in a hand held device?

--

Rick

[dirk....@usa.net]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 9:17:23 AM UTC-4, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> What is remarkable is that most calculations of practical interest
> can be done by a reversible process.

Reversing a process doesn't mean to get the energy back which was used in the first place.

Energy saving is still a huge quest, researchers are working on it:
The Quest For Zero Power Logic
Quantum cellular automate (QCA) shows great promise in succeeding CMOS for logic used to fabricate digital integrated circuits. By 2025, it may be the primary means used to fabricate the engines of our electronic devices...
Source: http://electronicdesign.com/analog/quest-zero-power-logic

[Steve]

Albert van der Horst wrote:

> In article <6d2b5778-d3e5-4a63...@googlegroups.com>,
> <visua...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> >Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!
> >
> >Today I got an Editor's Note from "Dr. Dobb's Update": Dealing With All
> >Our Stuff
> >
> >There it says:
> >"In 1961, Rolf Landauer theorized that there was a fundamental
> >connection between the processing of information and the production of
> >heat. Just last year, researchers at the University of Augsburg in
> >Germany appear to have proven Landauer's theory. To reset a single bit,
> >they showed, generates a minimum amount of heat; and the point is that
> >this is a fundamental limit set not by the design of devices, but by the
> >nature of information itself. Heat dissipation in computer chips is not
> >merely a matter of mechanics, but is inherent in the processing of
> >information."
> >Source: http://www.drdobbs.com/article/print?articleId=240154150
>
> I've read an article in the Scientific American (a very long time ago)
> that seems to imply that calculation is essentially a reversible process,
> that can be done using infinitesimal energy. (And probably take a near
> infinite time, but that was not clear to me.)
> The only way to generate heat is by destroying information, so it seems.
> I must say I didn't quite understand it, and the dr Dobbs article appeals
> more to my intuition.

I remember an article in Byte, or one of the electrical engineering
journals, about something like reversing the calculation and
electrical energy through the circuits to reclaim the energy. I
forget, it was around 20 years or more ago, but I didn't pay it too
much attention, because it seemed like it might be an April fools joke
or something. I think it might have gotten me thinking about
reclaiming energy lost in calculation. I came up with a heat
reclamation scheme, that since then somebody else applied to server
farms. But the realty is that the little heat that might be left in
such a scheme, can also, to some extent, be reclaimed, improving the
situation further. I'm looking into some pretty trippy ideas.
However, for ultra low powered versions of misc, these sorts of things
are highly desirable.

Steve.

[Steve]

Information can be defined as position with movement from point a to
point b, and logic paths or interaction, and virtually all the energy
reclaimable. So effectively zero power logic is very possible. I
have a few more steps in my head that remove even the start energy of
these processes mentioned above. Which ultimately means that you
could run a whole simulation of an infinte universe with zero power,
so are we in one, would we be able to tell the difference.

I remember Scientific American, mentioned before, not too difficult to
read in those days. I mostly read New Scientist now, to get more
condensed summary information per issue, and more up to date
information.

Thanks


Steve.

[Steve]

visualfo...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 12:00:34 AM UTC-4, Steve wrote:
> > As we have not started hundreds of trillion+ devices everywhere
> > computing model, I am not too worried.
>
> Others are worried - the cloud computing people, and interesting, they are using virtual machines for a solution - Forth is using a virtual machine, isn't it? Forth may even have been the first virtual machine, despite the hype now about VM:

You are right. I don't give cloud computing too much credible
thought, as it is such a scatter brained notion with the way it is
done today. But the press seemed to want to get excited over every
new thing, so we have cloud computing today that should have gone the
way of the dodo. Cloud computing has some legitimate uses, don't get
me wrong, but should be on the back of the que, not trying to get
front seats.

>
> Energy-Efficient Virtual Machine Consolidation
> by Pablo Graubner et al, University of Marburg, Germany

I'm a but busy to read articles at the moment, but as long as the
scheme is not to reduce energy by off loading processing to a users
machine with much network infrastructure layers in between.

Steve.

[Steve]

Just read the article, this agrees with what I was saying. But they
are saying they have a challenge to create devices in volume. I have
at least two methods that could do this cheaply. I also have an
engineering friend that is supposed to come over to check out my
design proposals for a materials engineer devices. That could be a
third way, but not as cheap.

The layout of these QCA's reminds me of another processing element
design solution I came up with nearly a decade ago.

But in the end QCA might be just a sideline, optical solutions I have
been exploring could vastly out do it. I'm hoping to devise a scheme
for a multifunction device. Others should have their own optical
schemes out before 2025 as well. What the most exciting thing is,
using QCA as the basis for a field programmable device in the short
term. As posted in my misc expansion thread:

http://electronicdesign.com/blog/what-s-next-programmable-logic
http://electronicdesign.com/fpgas/how-put-opencl-fpga

This QCA usage could more closely approach my programmable magnetic
processing idea.

Steve.

[oh2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 1:21:42 AM UTC+3, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> Forth is probably the greenest language - helping to reduce the heat!

A nice marketing story...

The nature of life itself will ensure that humanity will use increasing amounts of energy, until a wall is hit that starts to reduce the population and the energy consumption.

I don't see why human life would behave any differently from other life.
Species grow until the biological resource space is consumed.

Just look what happens when the polar ice caps is melting. There is a race to harvest even more fossile fuels which will heat up the atmosphere.

Some kind of world governement could perhaps fix the population problem, but the consequnces will be ugly for those not chosen to live further.

Anyway, lets hope for the best and in the meantime use The Forth.

Cheers /Mikael

[gavino_himself]

global warming doesnt exist

its just a way for governments to get tax money and hand to cronies

all funds should be refunded to taxpayers

[Elizabeth D. Rather]

Well, that's one political opinion. Scientists who have studied the
evidence disagree.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================