So this topic is in the "Science and scientific thought" forum. I have been enmeshed in a thinking binge for over two hours this morning that was brought on by a question posted in the 'biochar discussion group' I follow. The question was about finding a cheap and easy method of measuring carbon content in biochars made in 3rd world settings - primarily relating to determining moisture content. There is a veritable thicket of variables related to the qualification and quantification of biochars, and some of the variables are themselves can vary over time, so this problem of figuring out how to characterize carbon content for the purpose of granting some sort of credit to the producer is very complicated.

That got me to thinking about the same issues involved in selling biochar - should the measurement be by weight, or volume? Moisture content accounted for? Additives to the char? End use considerations?

The fact is, virtually everything that humans buy or sell, say or hear, think or do, is adrift in a sea of similar variability and complexity.

What's life like for other organisms? Thinking about soil science (a favorite application for biochar), is the microbe/root hair relationship complicated? Are those life forms beset by having more information than they can process, resulting in extremely difficult decisions? Do they often misuse the knowledge they have and make mistakes that are not in their best interests?

The capper of all this musing was the thought that the metaphor of Adam and Eve being banished from paradise by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge might be about this very thing of humans being super smart, but not wise enough to use those smarts intelligently.

As for 3rd world verification of the quantity of sequesterable carbon in biochar, maybe the whole thing is being overthought, and subjected to a paradigm of inappropriate scale and relativity. Maybe we should ask, what would the microbes and root hairs do?

Bringing this back to topic, how well do we understand the desire to go into space? Is it even rational? One of the standard justifications is to point out all of the great technological advances that the space program has produced. But we seldom question the objective value of those advances in the full context of life on Earth. And we are very often completely unaware of the many externalized costs - a for instance is that the aquifer under the White Sands Missile Range is contaminated with perchlorates from the Apollo mission to put men on the moon. Compare and contrast that to the invention of, say, Teflon. Hmmmm...

You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller