[dahart]

Why is this pithier than the video? I’m not entirely sure I see added pedagogical value. Asking the rhetorical question how can there be a shortage of energy sounds a little like someone sort-of intentionally misunderstanding what that phrase “energy shortage” means in any practical economic context. “Energy shortage” is an economics phrase, not a physics phrase. The first law of thermodynamics doesn’t suggest there can’t be energy shortages on earth, because the phrase “energy shortage” is not used to suggest a loss of energy to the universe, energy shortages are all about not having enough specific forms of energy in specific places at specific times [1], and it’s no surprise that we can’t capture dissipated heat, or that a local power system has a maximum limit at any given time, for example.

Something similar could perhaps be said for the video’s approach; “what do we get from the sun?” is an ambiguous question, not necessarily a fair setup to ask a lay person when you have entropy in mind as the answer. We do get energy from the sun, that is a correct answer, and we use some of it before it goes away. But, there is the nice a-ha that all the energy from the sun eventually leaves the earth, right?

[1] “An energy crisis or energy shortage is any significant bottleneck in the supply of energy resources to an economy.“ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_crisis

[JumpCrisscross]

It’s pithy, but in the way of word play. Energy, colloquially, means useful energy. The question collides the conventional and technical definitions to create the illusion of profundity.

[lisper]

Pithy != profound. The intent was to get people to think about the fact that the word "energy" means different things in different contexts, and that the thing that actually has value is not energy but the absense of entropy.

[JumpCrisscross]

> intent was to get people to think about the fact that the word "energy" means different things

But the question posed is weaker at prompting that than the sequence of questions posed by the video. It's a strange response that doesn't add to the discussion.

[lisper]

> But the question posed is weaker at prompting that than the sequence of questions posed by the video.

You really think "what do we get from the sun" is a better prompt? I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree about that.

We get all kinds of things from the sun. Tides. Light. Tans. But there is only one correct answer to why we worry about "energy production" and "energy shortages" when energy is supposedly conserved.

"What do we get from the sun?" has a lot of correct but off-point answers, which makes it IMHO more a prompt for the questioner to exhibit their superior knowledge than a well-designed Socratic question.