Which would you rather be: a lightbulb or a firefly?
Yes, The Jenius is asking a loony question...for a reason.
Now let's say you choose to be a lightbulb because you can't stand being a bug. That's cool. On the other hand, say you choose being a firefly because they are alive, versus being an inanimate piece of glass and metal. Cool too.
Let me narrow down the question a bit by tossing out these facts:
*** The average lightbulb converts 10% of the supplied energy into light; the rest is generated as heat.
*** The firefly converts 100% of the supplied energy into light.
Okay, now which would you rather be: a lightbulb or a firefly?
It seems to me that, in terms of efficiency, a firefly is a much better choice. Sure, its light might not shine as powerfully as that of a lightbulb, but rating 100% in anything is a remarkable achievement. And when you toss in the reason for a firefly's glowing light--communication--you have an even stronger argument in favor of the lightning bug.
The designed, engineered, hyper-processed, manufactured-billions-of-times-a-year lightbulb is still 10 times less efficient than a firefly at its basic function (casting light.) Metaphor? You know Me so well.
Organic processes, those developed from within, are far more effective and efficient--in the long run--than planned processes, those developed from without. To save Us both time and cut the metaphor to the point: We should be developing Our own processes, in the light of goals We wish to achieve.
Fireflies are 100% efficient because they have to be. It's a matter of choice...or mere survival. I'd rather see it as choice, but it ultimately doesn't matter. Either We improve Our processes--in all aspects of socioeconomic issues--or We continue Our gasping dependency on outside "energy," achieving barely 10% of Our potential.
Metaphor again. And you know what The Jenius means.
The Jenius Has Spoken.