"Are you wilfully trying to not see the point I'm making or something?"
No, I'm pointing out that:
1) "Efficiency" isn't the only goal in life. It would be more "efficient" for the entire population to live in barracks and eat some kind of nutritional gruel for every meal, but few would choose to live that way. We do things "inefficiently" for our convenience and pleasure all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that. For instance, I'll bet you have your own computer rather than using a shared computer at the public library, even though that would be more "efficient".
2) It doesn't really matter how "efficient" the conversion of solar energy to carbohydrate is, because it's free. That matters for other energy inputs in the process (e.g., the gas burned in running tractors) but not the sun itself.
> We do things "inefficiently" for our convenience and pleasure all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that
It is when we are discussing the limits of sustainability and growth, and to deny that is the equivalent of sticking your head in the sand.
If you prefer to not think about that and on a personal level keep up the American tradition of wasting tenfold more resources than the rest of the developed world for practically zero gain in quality of life, be my guest, but stay out of conversations about what method of energy production is and isn't sustainable
> It doesn't really matter how "efficient" the conversion of solar energy to carbohydrate is, because it's free.
You are so incredibly blatantly wrong here. It might be free in the sense that nobody owns the sun. It's not free in the sense that we have a limitless supply of it.
In the latter sense, the thermodynamic sense[0], we have a limited amount of solar power to go around. Unless we ever figure out how to build Dyson spheres or something.
Last century's advances are largely built on spending fossil fuels that were basically millions of years worth of stored solar energy, we can't keep wasting more of it forever.
We're on a finite planet, with finite resources, including energy, and an increasing amount of people.
"It is when we are discussing the limits of sustainability and growth"
We aren't anywhere near the "limits of sustainability and growth".
"It might be free in the sense that nobody owns the sun. It's not free in the sense that we have a limitless supply of it."
The sun puts out about 1.2×10^34 joules each year. The Earth's total energy production is about 5x10^20 joules. In other words, the sun puts out 24,000,000,000,000 times our total energy production from all sources.
"Limitless"? No. Effectively limitless for practical purposes? Yes.
"We're on a finite planet, with finite resources, including energy, and an increasing amount of people."
1) We're not limited to one planet.
2) Population growth has slowed or stopped in many countries. The "Soylent Green" fears of the 1970s turned out to be utterly baseless, and there is no evidence that they will ever come to pass.
No, I'm pointing out that:
1) "Efficiency" isn't the only goal in life. It would be more "efficient" for the entire population to live in barracks and eat some kind of nutritional gruel for every meal, but few would choose to live that way. We do things "inefficiently" for our convenience and pleasure all the time, and there is nothing wrong with that. For instance, I'll bet you have your own computer rather than using a shared computer at the public library, even though that would be more "efficient".
2) It doesn't really matter how "efficient" the conversion of solar energy to carbohydrate is, because it's free. That matters for other energy inputs in the process (e.g., the gas burned in running tractors) but not the sun itself.