Note on the Relation Between Energic Systems and LTV in Political Economy (or, Suggestions Towards an Anti-Humanist Humanism)
Only a proportion of inputs actually stays in a system, and a local/particularized system can't accept just any input if that system is to exhibit any level of resistance to change. This means the waste in a (local/particularized) system, or a surplus produced in a (local/particualrized) system, can never directly re-enter that system. This means there is an asymmetry between the conditions of production and consumption: while consumption for a local/particularized system is also local/particularized (so that it can only apply over a limited portion/ratio of the global system), production for a local/particularized system is indiscriminately global/universalized or local/particularized. Put in other terms, consumption is discriminate about the concrete instantiation of energy, while production is not. This means that different energy-systems are not primarily compatible or overlapping except as a function of this difference.
If this difference is essential, then the tendencies of different local and particular energy systems should be seen as divergent, not convergent, which means these different systems can be at least provisionally understood as approximating distinct ends. Their apparent harmony is just a result of the fact that this divergence of ends is already internal to the tendency of all systems (if production is indiscriminate in regards to the way energy is harnessed, then production must already act as or within a tapestry of possibilities [production is universal, in the sense that anything could be anything, but at a price--i.e., a chicken can be a human, but at a huge price], yet this means production must admit some impossibility [i.e., production is particular, in the sense that its undertaking fails to express all such possibilities--it must find itself in particular and competing activities, i.e. a chicken can't simultaneously be a human]). The latter fact is more fundamental, though. Without this, there's no reason for the competition amongst possible activities to result in a diverse tapestry of ecology (interrelated activities).
That's why humanity (or, an anthropic local/particularized system) cannot avoid catastrophe by identifying with or seeing its identity in microbes or trees, such that its preservation is the same as the preservation of other things or distinctive activities, especially when the global/universalized system has self-destruction latent in it. But also doesn't just mean catastrophe is avoided by sweeping the Earth in fire. There are trends worth preserving, and others not. But this is relative to the local/particularized system, that may exhibit more or less a resistance to change the same time as it has a growth imperative. So which does humanity want to produce: its self-destruction (by proxy), or its perpetuation? Either way, the response comes from a position of self-concern, and thus a self-positing within a background condition of relative possibility. That's what value is--a self-positing, or put another way, the penetration of waste into some other field of production (the divergent ejection of some possible end). That's what value is--a self-positing, or put another way, the penetration of waste into some sort of production as an input (put yet another way, the divergent ejection of some possible end [e.g., in simultaneity, a human cannot be a car, but a human can make a car]).