HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: beast@netcom.com (J. Kintscher)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:55:48 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct13214007@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>There is plenty of evidence of old ways being maintained by people
>who would benefit from switching to something new.
>
>Why do do few people use push button combination locks on their
>front doors?  They are much more convenient than keys.

Push button locks cost more. :)  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<JMC.92Oct7225619@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54515@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:35:59

Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil
sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Oct14193800@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Victor gives references but refrains from giving us an atomic weight.
>Did he read either of his references?

What's with the bibliophobia exhibited by you anti-environmentalists? Carl
said he couldn't find a definition of "heavy metals", I gave him a
pointer.

>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

He who refuses to learn recursive function theory is doomed to
misunderstand computation
              --- R. L. Goodstein (attributed)

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:57 PDT
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466601783:cdp:1466601800:000:770
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Oct 11 06:57:00 1992


Also, wind has a very different face in, say, the UK than it
does in the US.  In the UK, National Power, one of the two
giant private utilities created by the recent breakup of the
state Central Electricity Generating Board, has formed National
Wind Power, a joint venture with British Aerospace and Taylor
Woodrow Construction, a heavyweight A&E company.  They have
one small windfarm almost finished and a series of others
in various stages of planning.

There are several fair-sized companies heavily involved with
windpower in Europe -- Aeritalia, the UK's Sir Robert McAlpine
group, HSW (a shipbuilder) in Germany.  We are going to see a
lot of wind development in Europe during the rest of this
decade, even though everyone is still proceeding rather slowly.

Tom
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:06:57 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <-1366948678snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
=
=In article <JMC.92Oct11101741@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
=
= > I often happens that all the above factors are present and still
= > no-one in a position to make the innovation does so.  People are
= > often just stuck in their old ways.
=
=What makes them "stuck", do you think? What evidence do you present in
=support of this proposition.

Tradition for one thing.  "Because it's always been done this way," is the
usual explanation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
From: shekar@sysoffice.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Chandrashekar)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Pesticide use in lawn maintenance
Keywords: lawn, pesticide, turf, maintenacne
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:38:39 GMT
Reply-To: shekar@sysoffice.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: U of Waterloo, Dept. of Systems Design

I am interested in knowing about any studies, reports, etc. on turf management
using environmentally appropriate methods.  We are hoping to institute a
program at the University of Waterloo campus which decreases the use of 
pesticides or totally eliminates their use. 

Please respond by e-mail since I rarely read this news group.  Thank you for
your time and effort.  Cheers.

Professor M. Chandrashekar
Department of Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
N2L 3G1

Phone 519 888 4644
Fax   519 746 4791
email shekar@sysoffice.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 06:00:08 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <KETIL.92Oct10213212@apal.ii.uib.no> ketil@ii.uib.no writes:

 > What's stopping you?  Go ahead, by all means, grow your own food, sew
 > your own clothes, etc.  From 'as scratch' as you like.  As for me,
 > I'll use the stores.

Nothing is stopping him, and nowhere is there any suggestion that
anyone is attempting to. What is being stopped here is reasonable and
intelligent discussion of options which might again reasonably be
available in a democracy.

What is being stopped here is access to debate toward formulating
policy which might allow those options to be exercised.

 > I don't agree at all.  It used to be more like that earlier, didn't
 > it?  I'm sure the stone-age man thought a lot about that, sitting in
 > his cave at midwinter, frozen to the bone, barely anything to eat:
 > 'Yup.  It's all my own fault.  No reason to go plunder the neighbors'

It is not "stone-age man" plundering their neighbours, it is stone-age
mentality simply no longer using rocks and spears, but the latest high
technology weaponry. The only other difference is that those still
holding those weapons are fat and sleak with massive resources at
their disposal, still plundering ever more impoverished nations. But
the primitive mentality behind those weapons remains.

If you want to argue about who is still plundering who, why not do a
cash flow analysis on American salaries? It is not at all difficult to
monitor the flow of wealth from the impoverished and "undeveloped"
countries into the bank accounts of those holding the greatest arms
inventories.

While you are at it, why not include your own American farmers in the
model and show who receives what percentage of what commodity retail
prices, and who still has to pay top dollar for fuel and machinery?

You only need to gather the further evidence on who is holding the
weapons and who is holding the ploughs to settle the question of
sustainability. You might also wonder why discussion on sustainable
lifestyles is bogged down by such hysterical ravings as are found
here in this group.

 > Sorry if I sound harsh, but specialization is very, very basic in our
 > society, and I think that's the way it *has* to be

You don't sound harsh, mate. You only sound stupid. What do you find
so threatening about people wanting to live a little closer to the land,
to living a less specialised and a more self-sufficient and fulfilling
lifestyle, and wanting access to discussion on what interests them?

Do you perhaps see discussion as the end of civilisation or something?

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:03:43 GMT


Oh well, there goes the grind-rocks-into-topsoil idea...


:-)


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:32:53 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Oct13215811@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>I don't propose any new incentives.  It is merely that once the
>transportation costs are faced, there will be an incentive to
>conserve deep topsoil in river valleys, because an excess can be sold
>to improve nearby uplands.

i.e if the relative costs of dirt and trucks were reversed, the economics
of trucking dirt would be better. Is there some new frontier of
transportation technology that we don't know aobut yet here on the
East Coast?



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: rlucas@bvsd.co.edu (Richard Lucas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:11:47 GMT
Organization: Boulder Valley School District

In article <1992Oct12.094819.2999@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>There is
>little effort by government to preserve works of art, and there is
>no need for radical change in civilization to preserve works of
>art.  The same is true, I submit, concerning the preservation of
>ecosystems.
 
     Nonsense. Our economic systems still depend on raw materials provided
by nature, which pretty much by definition means material found in
ecosystems. There are therefore demands placed on ecosystems that are
hardly comparable to those placed on art. If art provided the same sort of
raw materials that ecosystems do, then there might be the "radical change"
for preservation we see extended towards ecosystems. Your examples aren't
parallel enough to justify your conclusion. 

Rick Lucas
Debate Coach, Fairview HS, Boulder, CO
Teaching others to argue almost anything with almost anyone.
(Statistically insignificant chance of my opinions being shared by any
current or former employers.)
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Nature's Rights and Muddled Dietz
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:36:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1466601805@igc.apc.org> Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.apc.org> writes:

> My argument was not based on a "formal similarity" -- which is 
> merely a restatement of Sigurdsson's original "slippery-slope" 
> objection. I've offered plenty of positive reasons for attaching 
> moral standing to ecosystems beyond mere "formal similarity". 
> Evidently Dietz didn't notice them.

No, I just found them singularly unconvincing.  I find plenty of
reason for agreeing that damage to ecosystems is bad if this (in some
way) harms people.  But assigning moral standing to ecosystems
themselves, apart from human interests (broadly defined)?  There's no
way to convince me of that -- because any such argument will
inevitably depend on assumptions with which I, as an anthropocentric,
cannot agree.

Operationally, I'm not sure there is all that much difference between
these positions anyway.  I, as an anthropocentric, might feel the
value you assign to an ecosystem to be eccentric, but I would have to
admit that you *do* assign that value, even if I do not share it, and
that your feelings have weight.  And, if we were to agree that
there is risk of harm to people in damaging an ecosystem, would we not
agree that this is bad?

One things that annoys me is the confusion of factual and ethical
claims.  To me, "damaging an ecosystem will harm the health or
prosperity of people" is a factual claim that is subject to objective
study.  Elevating this claim to the status of dogma and attacking its
critics on ethical grounds is disturbing.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:53:16 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <54871@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Victor, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the fact that you have
>>convenient access to a journal doesn't mean that everyone has convenient access
>>to one.  You claim that the articles contain definitions, but are too
>
>Caltech has no library? Maybe you should ask someone how to find it.

Caltech does, indeed have a library.  What they don't have is any large group
of people doing research in toxicology.  In case it hasn't occurred to you,
libraries don't generally waste money subscribing to journals that their
patrons aren't going to use.

>The reference librarian (generally sits behind a big desk near the
>library entrance) may be able to help you out. 

Not if the library doesn't happen to carry the journals. Oh, I suppose I COULD
pay the exhorbitant charge to get them on interlibrary loan, but since you
claim to know what you're talking about, why not just post the definition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:05:28 GMT

In article <54693@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.185041.8730@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <STEINLY.92Oct13110520@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>As far as dogma goes, I claim that anthropocentrism is the
>>current dogma.  Economic growth (especially in physical throughput)
>>is the dogma.  Ecocentrists and supporters of sustainability are
>>challenging dogma, not creating it.  With this in mind, there
>>certainly is an enormous resistence to re-evaluation of dogma.
>>Any economist who dares challenge the dogma of infinite growth
>>is quickly ostracized.
>
>Anthropocenterism is not equivalent to econo-centrism. One does not
>have to believe that trees have souls or that rocks have rights in order
>to believe that turning forests into tree farms and highways can have a
>negative impact on human life.
>
>Econo-centrism is an example of a common error of  confusing quantification
>with exactitude. 
>
>-- 
>
>
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>

I presume that econo-centrism is what I called the dogma of
economic growth.  Although they are not equal I think that believing
the dogma of growth requires anthropocentrism.  The opposite, though,
is not generally true.  Proponents of a sustainable economy are not
necessarily (or generally) ecocentrists.

If one opposes turning forests into tree farms _solely_ because of
impacts on humans, this neither conflicts with anthropocentrism
nor econo-centrism.  One need not be an ecocentric to be an
"environmentalist".
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct15174016@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct16.153552.22498@vexcel.com>
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:31:59

In article <1992Oct16.153552.22498@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct15174016@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >dean@vexcel says:
   >
   >However, if people work
   >>   more hours, whether they want to or not, and if productivity
   >>   continues to increase, then we _will_ have more people without
   >>   work to do, and this unemployment will be structural, not the
   >>   result of business cycles.
   >
   >Not if people want more goods and services.  The first approximation
   >to the results that will follow is obtained by looking at how people
   >with greater than average incomes spend their money as compared to
   >people with lower incomes.  Typically, the income has to get to several
   >times present average American incomes before people take shorter
   >work weeks.  Indeed for many people longer vacations, time off for
   >personal business and earlier retirement take higher priority.
   >
   Ah  - now we move back to sustainability issues.   Even if we assume
   ZPG, more productivity without more unemployment and the
   corresponding increased _goods_ and services leads to
   nonsustainable consumption _unless_ you can show that these _goods_
   are "virtual" goods (sorry for the computerese) and that they are
   not correlated with increased _physical_ throughput.

   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
 
		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

Doubtless, some of them are virtual goods.  The rich don't eat more,
and their more expensive cars don't involve increased metal in
proportion to their increased prices.  They consume more services,
e.g. travel related.

However, increased physical throughput is also quite affordable.
Remember Ehrlich's intellectual catastrophe over metal prices.
Do you have in mind some material throughput that you think cannot
be increased without harm?  There are some, perhaps, but there are
also substitutes.

By the way, the affordablity of nuclear energy is demonstrated by
the fact that the French afforded it.  They went from generating
very little of their electricity from nuclear to 75 percent between
1973 and the late 1980s.  It was a very big investment, but the
French standard of living remained among the highest in Europe
throughout that period.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Oct14143333@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:05:37

In article <STEINLY.92Oct14143333@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

   In article <-1366845887snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

      In article <1bel61INNqi7@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

       > Tradition for one thing.  "Because it's always been done this way," is the
       > usual explanation.

      Perhaps because traditional methods, having been tried and tested over
      so many generations, actually work so well . . .

   Is that a general rule, mate?
   Have you applied it to the fertile crescent or the granary's of the
   Roman Empire?

      I do not regard your pitiful ignorance a virtue, mate. You are merely
      stupid and I have no respect for the crap you post to this group.

   My, temper, temper.

   *  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
   *  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
   *  Some people think they're really clever			*
   *  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 


Steinn, you are mistaken about this being a case of temper.  Rudeness
seems to be a traditional way to post to newsgroups among people
from Perth.  Gil Hardwick should be introduced to John Wojdylo
who posts on rec.arts.books from the mathematics department of
the University of Western Australia.  Wojdylo could teach him
a greater variety of much ruder names to call people he disagrees with.
None of this "mate" for him.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 01:04:37 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <STEINLY.92Oct13115213@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu writes:

 > That still leaves casual violence, and plenty of it, either way you're dead.

What casual violence? Please cite documented cases with reference to
specific nations that correlations can be established in support of
your argument.

 > Yet the same hills produce some of the fiercest fighters in the world
 > when provided with the resources and incentive.

No more or less than fighters from anywhere else, but still no data to
establish a positive correlation between poverty and violence.

 > So what. If I wanted to I could buy several cows, this would boost my
 > living standard immensely by some measures. By my measure it would
 > severly reduce my living standard. Is the other way better?

Your unanswerable relativism is insipid and pathetic.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc