From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 19:17:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.114043.13438@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
(Nick Szabo) uses the following phrase a lot:

          And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists of 
	  destroying the economy!

Lets take a little look at this claim.

>In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>	1) doesn't reduce topsoil depth
>
>This assumes we can't make topsoil, or a reasonable substitute (eg
>mineral-rich fertizer).  It would eliminate most farming in the 
>U.S., destroying our #1 export.  
 
Average topsoil depth on 28 WA certified-organic farms has increased
over the last 10 years.

Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1987: $300,000
Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1992: $2,300,000

>>	3) doesn't redirect or restrict more than 1% of water flow
>>		in a given watershed 
>
>We already redirect water all over the place, and we should do it more.
>For example, we can create large amounts of new wetlands -- 

What was wrong with old wetlands ? Did we have a rational reason for
destroying them, or is this all just post-facto rationalisation ?


>Redirecting water for power and farming is critical to our industries.

Hydro-electric plays a limited role in the eastern US.  1% of the
waterflow is sufficient for almost all bioregionally-specific farming,
especially when labor-intensive, small-scale techniques are used. Such
techniques reduce water usage and increase yields - sample plots like
Ecology Action's demonstration farm in Willits, CA. exceed USDA
averages by up to 1000%.

>>	4) doesn't use heavy metals
>>
>>RATIONALE: we do not yet have ecosystems capable of dealing with
>>		most heavy metals in significant quantities.
>
>This would ban over three-fourths of all industrial processes.  And you
>wonder why we accuse environmentalists of destroying the economy!

Perhaps you could tell us exactly which industrial processes would be
so effected. I don't see:

	- textile production
	- steel manufacture
	- timber processing
	- 

to name but 4, as affected by avoidance of heavy metals.

>In fact there are many organisms capable of concentrating and
>removing heavy metals.  

Great. Lets use them.

>>	5) leaves contiguous stretches of any given ecosystem
>>		connected to original (pre-human) neighbors
>>
>>RATIONALE: the strength of ecosystems relies heavily on diversity,
>
>There isn't much evidence that "strength" relies on diversity,
>actually.  

What ? Are you denying the the mechanisms by which, for instance, rice
is capable of surviving repeated attacks of viral infections is rooted
in genetic diversity ? Or that the means by which old growth temperate
rain forests survive fluctutations in climate are rooted in
multi-levelled, multi-organism interactions that rely on the diversity
of the participants ?
	    
	    Nor are many of these ecosystems important enough
>to warrant such distinction.   

I don't presume to be capable of making any such distinction. I agree
with Leopold: "the first rule of tinkering: keep all the parts".
				
				"Any given ecosystem" is a 
>blank check for confiscating farmland, tree farms, industrial
>property, etc.  

How do you manage to interpret "guidelines for sustainability" and the
word "leave" as "a blank check for confiscation" ? Or can you read my
mind, Mr. Szabo ?

Certainly, I'd favor a return of some farmland and urban areas to a
less human-dominated form, but only voluntarily.

>>	6) avoids petrochemicals, in general
>
>Synthetic fibers alone save us from tens of millions of acres of ecologically 
>destructive farmland.   

Which we wouldn't need either if we had a decent population size.
			 
			 They are important components in over 90% of 
>consumer items. 

The most critical (to "standard of living") were made of other things
first. Note also that avoidance of petrochemicals doesn't mean
avoidance of long-chain carbon polymers. Rayon (made from plant
cellulose) as well as Livos plants and oil finishes are examples of
combining the admitted utility of carbon chemistry with more
sustainable technology.
		 
		 For all the research into alternate car fuels, gasoline 
>still comes out #1 in portability and safety.  

A topic which gets debated to death here.

>
>>(7-8 biomass)
>
>These restrictions would, if taken literally, ban all large-scale
>farming and lumbering.  

What *are* you talking about ? I don't see a problem cutting down an
old-growth tree if its going to be used for something that will last
the 500+ years it will take to regrow. I see little evidence of
anything made from trees in the US that is ever intended to last this
long; ergo, I support tree farming to provide for our timber needs. 

So what are you going on about ?

>
>>	9) does not use products whose production uses
>>		more energy than they save, either in terms of
>>		food or existing non-human energy supply.
>
>This doesn't just destroy the economy, it violates the laws
>of physics.

What *are* you talking about ? 

>God forbid that we ever have to live in this eco-hell.

I don't intend ever to force you. Just be aware that the combined
"market forces" of people with world views rather different to my own
"force" me to live in this current "hell" - if such views change, I
expect you to suffer that fate with as little indignation as I am
allowed now (i.e. you can huff and puff on Usenet, but try to do
anything to stop what you believe to be wrong, and you'll be locked
up). And if you doubt that force, try building a house without
electrical outlets every 6ft along the wall or swimming in the
Atlantic Ocean south of Boston.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:50482 talk.abortion:41550