> Unlike fossil fuels, human power can be a clean energy source, and its potential increases as the human population grows.
It's the opposite: Human power cannot feed the 7.5 billion people and growing. You need ammonia and (right now) oil, and lots of it. When we "scaled up" humanity, we left human power long behind as an option for any but a few hundred million. Just the food part alone is impossible.
They then segue into a different question: "if human power can sustain a modern lifestyle", but even then they don't mean modern food requirements, they really just mean "can humans keep the lights on in the one building they are in."
> A human powered student community has enormous potential for a reduction in energy use.
This is a complete misunderstanding of just how much energy gets the people in the Netherlands their... say avocados. Thinking of your energy consumption as lights in your building is so very off.
I recently wrote a counter-point essay to the headline's topic, how technology is now a moral necessity just to keep humanity treading water, and how oil set off a Malthusian time-bomb.
I do believe too many people are the opposite and frantically think about the future, also dependent on the idea of technology and consumption of petroleum derived goods bring them happiness and salvation.
60W is 60J per second. 60J is about the energy it takes to weigh 6kg up one meter.
So basically to keep a 60W light bulb lit, you'd have to raise 6kg one meter high every single second.
No way.
This is basically an art project. Even a basic thought process shows how ridiculous this is: If you're going to use humans just as basic energy input, why not just burn the food directly and use that?
The only good point is the health benefits of such exercise.
As much as we complain about it, modern society also kicks ass compared to anything else.
