I am an experimental physicist who works as an engineer. That is so unusual that probably 80% of my fellow experimental physicists do the same. Or is it more like 90%?

I am not an aircraft expert but in my recollection the survivors of Flight 232 had an incredible amount of luck that the aircraft had lost almost all control BUT the engine power steering, that the pilot figured out that he could control the attitude of the aircraft BEFORE it went into an unrecoverable aerodynamic state and that the enormously talented crew managed to use whatever control they had left to land the plane in a somewhat controlled manner. As far as I know this kind of accident typically ends in a call for help and then a crash which takes the lives of all passengers and crew. But what does this accident which claimed the lives of 111 people have to do with ingenuity? And why does what follows in the contents of "The Ingenuity Gap" sound so much like a self-help book? I quote:

"How Are We Changing Our Relationship to the World?

* Careening Into the Future
* Our New World
* The Big I

Two: Do We Need More Ingenuity to Solve the Problems of the Future?

* Complexities
* An Angry Beast
* Glimpsing the Abyss
* Unknown Unknowns

Three: Can We Supply the Ingenuity We Need?

* Brains and Ingenuity
* Ingenuity and Wealth
* Techno-Hubris
* White-Hot Landscapes

Four: What Does the Ingenuity Gap Mean for Our Future?

* Vegas
* Patna"

Does that sound like a book I HAVE to read? Not to me... I am sorry.

"I still want to see those credentials that I asked for earlier. "

PhD in experimental particle physics. That is as much as I will give you. You can believe it or not. It does not matter to either me or reality because I don't have to lie about who I am. I also don't have to tell more. You can judge me by my writing. That is better than to judge me by a piece of paper from a university that sits in one of my folders at home and collects dust.

"Ok. I get your lesson for today. If the temp goes to 0 kelvin then people freeze. Gotcha. I now know thermodynamics. "

It looks like you didn't get it. The problem with applying thermodynamics to anything but thermodynamic systems (of which there are fewer than you think) is that you need something like physical temperature, pressure, magnetic field etc.. These have to be differentiable variables. Then you need a system that has a state that uniquely depends on some of these variables and which, again, is characterized by differentiable functions. In more theoretical terms, the system needs to have a description that is a locally differentiable manifold in a higher dimensional space. Thermodynamic properties are then derived from moving along this manifold, looking at differential forms and non-integrable variables (like entropy). To use terms from classical thermodynamics makes NO SENSE whatsoever if you are missing these ingredients.

"If you go out on the highway and all you can see is stalled cars and lots of hand waving you can bet that PO has arrived."

It does take formulas to figure out how to make engines with higher efficiency to avoid that situation. It does take formulas to build wind turbines and solar cells. Formulas are very helpful if you are trying to figure out how much energy we can use per person in a world with 10 billion people and limited GW. I am sorry, but there is nothing wrong with applying sound science to problem solving. It's actually quite fun.

"Its not rocket science. Its black sticky stuff in the ground and
when we can't pull it out anymore for whatever reason we are in trouble..."

Why do you need to jump to these conclusions? Why can't you say that

"Currently we depend on hydrocarbons too much and we know that we can't do that forever. We need to find other ways to power our cars and other infrastructure. The problem is to find those ways. It is not about running around like headless chickens."

What is wrong with that? Is it too hard to figure out? Is running around like a headless chicken easier? Does it look more attractive? Not in my world.