HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:06:13 -0400 
From: Joshua Alan Knauer <jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
	<AeQQMSO00Uh702PYlt@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul25153146@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: usa

On 25-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
>Josh Knauer, Pompous Apparatchik, takes himself seriously.  It is a
>public service, well worth the bandwidth, to make fun of him and his
>"serious work".  I didn't see in the previous postings any actual
>argument as to why his "serious work" isn't doing more harm than good.

I would hope, John, that you actually will reread the last post that _I_
sent out on the issue.  This is the SECOND time that it has been posted
and very clearly explains why the Mt. Graham site is both sacred
religious ground and environmentally vulnerable.  

On 25-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
>Like all the really fanatical environmentalists he can't imagine any
>harmful impacts from what he does.

Alternative sites that offer the same features that make Mt. Graham so
"attractive" to the "scientists" of the Vatican have been suggested. 
This is not an issue of 'environmentalists out of control' but rather
many different types of groups from all over the country banding
together to protest a wrong that is being done.  If more people were to
sit back and accept what they are told, like you, then harmful projects
such as these and worse would happen without any questions being brought
forth.

I challenge that you, John, are the one that doesn't "imagine any
harmful impacts from what (you do)."  For what you do is NOTHING.  That
is the most harmful form of action that exists.

>Like all the really fanatical environmentalists

Yeah, John... setting up computer information networks to better educate
and inform concerned citizens is REALLY radical!  Uh oh, what will those
~crazy~ kids do next!



Josh Knauer                          *      Box 3085 
Head Administrator for:              *      1000 Morewood Ave.
Student EnviroLink, SEACnet          *      Pittsburgh, PA   15213  USA
and GREEN-L                          *      Phone:  (412) 268-4150  
                                     *                 or 268-2139
Western Pennsylvania                 
Representative for:    
Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)

**All views expressed are mine alone and not those of any group(s) I may
represent**

Clearcut Bush/Quayle '92
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:59:19 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul28125845@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.184749.4618@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>
>
>   Should abolitionists have been required to buy slaves to get them out
>   of slavery?  Can you suggest some rule of thumb for when some moral
>   imperitive gets the force of law?  The "establishment" of a moral
>   imperitive will always be a problem in a society with rules.  I detest
>   the imposition of Christian morality on me by certain Christian groups
>   but have no problem with the imposition of freedom for slaves.  In the
>   hypothetical case where ecocentrism gets strong support from the
>   majority, when can society _impose_ this value on others, as it did
>   when slaves were freed?
>
>When the majority of society is willing to pay the price it takes
>to impose this will. At least that is the operational criterion.
>Slavery was ultimately abolished by force, and arguably the background
>for its abolition was set not by moral evolution but economics (and,
>no, I do not care to advance that argument further, merely note it
>and its implications). Of course this is also a function of how
>strongly the "minority" is willing to resist the impostion of a new
>moral imperative.
>
I believe that the moral imperitive and the economic motive of the
growing industrialists existed side-by-side with the industrialists
probably having greater influence on the internal gears of the govt.
I am mostly interested in hearing from the people who chear the
Nature Conservancy here.  Not that I dislike the NC, I think they
are fine and important.  But there method is only a part of the
answer.
>
>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
>  


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:27:17 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>  Mark Kubiske
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject:    Re: Whole Foods and Coors -- The Thrilling Second Episode

in <JMC.92Jul22125033@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford EDU writes:

>I advocate boycotting Ben and Jerry ice cream.  I don't agree with their
>donating part of their profits to some leftist cause - I forget which.  --

I seem to recall that B&J's contributes a portion of their profits to
alternative utilization of tropical forests - alternative to timber
harvesting - such as commercial sale of fruits and nuts.  I think they even
market a "tropical granola crunch" bar or "trail mix" of sorts.  While I'm
not against timber harvesting, I am against the wholesale destruction of the
rain forest because we have not done our homework on how to manage it on a
sustainable basis (but we're getting there).  Thus any form of resource
utilization which results in suplemental income for the locals, so they
don't have to cut as much timber without really knowing whay they're doing,
I think that's not too bad.

Ben & Jerry's is too damn expensive anyway.  I prefer the "homemade" stuff
we have here at the Penn State Creamery.  You just can't beat a cone of
Peachy Paterno.

Mark

Murphy's first law of thermodynamics: An object in motion will be going the
wrong way; an object at rest will be in the wrong place.

Murphy's second law of thermodynamics: For every action there is an equal
and opposite criticism.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:01:48 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.011657.3102@reed.edu>, sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes...
>People who own things have incentive to think up solutions when the "problem"
>is a threat to their ownership.  The only reason property owners might 
>try to think up environmental solutions is that if they don't, they
>may lose their "property rights," and THAT incentive is provided by the
>threat of government intervention.
> 

Interesting reasoning, but not really true.  The most incentive people
have is to retain the value of the property.  When the government
declares that the puddle in your backyard is a wetland (the standard is
worded something like "if its wet x days per year, its wetland") the
value of your property drops because people are less likely to buy land
that is under severe federal restrictions.  The behavoir of the landowner
now becomes (and many farmers are reportedly doing this) upon noticing an
area is not drying up shortly after rainfall, fill it in or regrade it
before the Feds declare it protected wetlands!  So, the law is now
driving people to destroy wetlands that they were once content to
preserve (or at least ignore).

A private group would, instead, come in and either buy the land or at
least offer the landowner financial incentives to retain the wetlands.
Why would people do that?  Well, if they are interested in protecting the
environment then they should be willing to contribute voluntarily to such
groups right?  But I won't even rely on such "charity".  Ducks Unlimited
is one of the most well funded environmental groups out there and it
obtains its funding out of contributors' self-interest.  In order to hunt
ducks there have to be ducks.  For there to be a healthy duck population,
there have to be wetlands.  Ducks Unlimited doesn't develop hunting
facilities, but bird hunters give it 10s (or is it 100s) of millions of
dollars per year so that waterfowl populations can be maintained/grown.
(An interesting side observation...many large landowners, particularly
farmers, are hunters and have lots of personal interest in preserving the
ecosystem.)
.............................................................................

Hal Berenson	

Home: 71640.3535@compuserve.com
Work: berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com

-- Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's! If
I happen to communicate with you from work rather than home, its just
for convenience (just like asking for a "daytime phone number") and should
not be construed as representing the views of my employer or its
employees, officers, directors, or stockholders. --
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Jul28125208@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Jul28.225408.3575@vexcel.com>
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:54:05

The counter-cultural people in communes are parasitic on the main
culture in the following senses:

1. While of working age, they don't contribute their share to support
the old, the armed forces, aid to dependent children.

2. They probably don't have their share of children to maintain
civilization.

3. They don't deal with their own criminals.

4. If they get sick, they drop back in to the main culture.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 06:39:40 GMT

In article <19106@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) writes:
>* I don't think CO2 property rights are very likely.  That's my
>opinion; the opinion of Tim Freeman is probably different, but they're
>both just opinions.

I personally suspect that they will, in some form, be introduced sometime
within the next two decades.  Consider two currently hot topics:  Tradeable
pollution permits and carbon taxes.  The former shows that the government is
interested in the possibility of property rights for pollution.  The latter
indicates that there is some concern about CO2.  If the pollution permits work
as anticipated, and CO2 comes to be considered a form of pollution, then
tradeable CO2 permits don't seem all that unlikely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<AeQQMSO00Uh702PYlt@andrew.cmu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 25 Jul 92 15:31:46

In article <AeQQMSO00Uh702PYlt@andrew.cmu.edu> Student Enviro-Link <env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

   On 24-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
   user Mike McCants@execu.execu writes:
   >In article Environet writes:
   >>
   >>=> From: DENISE JOINES
   >>=> Subj: MT GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
   >... Junk deleted ...
   >>
   >>You can play a key role ...
   > 
   >I sure hope not.  I hope it's too late now.

   What the fuck is up your ass?  Why are you on this network if all you
   are going to do is make fun of serious issues that are being addressed? 
   Do you have nothing better to do with your life than to sit around on a
   computer and make fun of serious work?

   Get a life.


   Student EnviroLink                 *    Send regular mail to:           

   <env-link@andrew.cmu.edu>          *    SEAC
   Reaching over 300,000              *    Skibo Hall
   environmentalists in 31 countries  *    Carnegie Mellon University
   Josh Knauer, Administrator         *    5000 Forbes Ave.                

   Telephone: (412) 268-4722          *    Pittsburgh, PA 15213  USA
	   or (412) 268-2139          *                                    

   >>If your group puts out a newsletter, please send it to the above
   address!!<<                                                             

Josh Knauer, Pompous Apparatchik, takes himself seriously.  It is a
public service, well worth the bandwidth, to make fun of him and his
"serious work".  I didn't see in the previous postings any actual
argument as to why his "serious work" isn't doing more harm than good.
Like all the really fanatical environmentalists he can't imagine any
harmful impacts from what he does.

He wants to clobber an astronomical observatory.  Why?  Perhaps in the
name of superstition.  It would be truly fitting if it was in the
name of astrology, but we can't have everything.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Please help stop offshore oil
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul10110853@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.155742.14870@vexcel.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:47:38

In article <1992Jul21.155742.14870@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Jul10110853@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >In article <1992Jul10.161020.29932@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> mark@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Mark Webster) writes:
   >
   >OK.  Let everyone remember that the Sierra Club and other environmental
   >organizations make proposals with no thought of their possible harmful
   >effects and are not to be trusted in comparison with oil companies,
   >which are obliged to come up with assessments of the possible harmful
   >effects of their proposals.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >

   It seems to me that the primary responsibility for studying impacts is
   with whoever is requesting a change in the status quo.  In this case,
   it would be those who propose drilling.
   If environmentalists suggest some cleanup procedure for
   some long-standing pollution problem, then they would be obliged to
   study the impacts of the cleanup.
   -- 

		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

Well ok, but I would consider abandoning any long standing practice,
i.e. a way of making a living, as something calling for impact
studies.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 19:06:54 GMT

In article <92204.112350MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu>   Mark Kubiske writes:
>in <1992Jul19.143145.5665@iscsvax.uni.edu> duneman 7484@iscsvax.uni.edu
>writes
>
>>Just a thought to ponder, at least: ...  Looking for ways to make the
>>environmental movement work *before* "it's too late." It is agreed, I'm
>>sure, that the main source of this enviro-horror is the "West's" total
>>absence of CONNECTION to the Earth and it's beauty.  We've ransacked the
>>Earth'sresources for our own material excesses with no thought as to what
>>we were destroying.  Now, who can give us the leadership to guide us
>>through this mess ...  Native peoples.  The indigineous peoples of the
>world - NOT >the conquerors and destroyers.
>
>Several points to respond to here.  I flatly  reject your notion that all of
>the environmental problems in the world today are the result of "western"
>civilization.  Are you suggesting that the countries of the mideast and far
>east are more "environmentally sensitive" than we are?  

I want to resoundingly emphasise Mark's point here. There have been
environmental disasters going on around the globe wherever human
beings are, for as long as we have been farming, and perhaps even
before that. Remember the phrase "The Fertile Crescent" that described
the area around the Tigris & Euphrates rivers ? That area was
practically a desert even before Europe got into the Renaissance, let
alone the Industrial Revolution. It wasn't caused, at least as I have
read, by climate changes, although these certainly happen; it was
caused by a society of peasant farmers and rich autocrats destroying
the irrigation, fauna and topsoil that was there to begin with. The
appendix of David Brin's so-so novel "Earth" has a great paragraph
describing several other cases of historical ecological destruction.

The point is that the behaviour of *human beings*, not "western" human
beings, is a problem. I hope that it might also become part of the
answer.

-- paul

-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,ca.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: Rhone-Poulenc Must Stop Playing WIth Fire
Date: 22 Jul 1992 09:21:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
	<1992Jul21.002704.20545@hsv3.lsil.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

>> ENVIRONMENTALISTS: RHONE-POULENC MUST STOP PLAYING WITH FIRE   
> First salt, now this.  What's next, the wheel?

=o= Har har har de har.  Given Rhone-Poulec's track record (you
know, the actual *substance* of the press release -- not that
you seem too interested in substance, given the nonsense about
salt), I'd say they're not too competent at handling fire, much
less the higher technologies.

=o= Would you let a baby play with matches?
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: What, if anything, is a wetland? (WAS Re: Why Bush does not want to sign at Rio?
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 22:50:11 GMT

In article <TSF.92Jul22125430@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.192627.22543@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>   Then I must explicitly widen my scope: I don't think that you should
>   be able to own materials, only that part of an object which represents
>   human effort. 
>
>Okay, so in the case of the plastic in my keyboard, CMU owns the labor
>that went into making the keyboard from the oil, but "the community"
>owns the atoms that originally came from the oil.  If the scheme with
>the land continues to hold, then the oil has only been leased from the
>community.  When the lease expires, the keyboard will have to somehow
>be converted back into oil and pumped back into the oil well?  I'm
>pretty lost here.

Let me try to help. You're jumping too far ahead, and taking a wrong
turn. The point is *not* that no changes to the material resources are
allowed to remain after the "lease" on them runs out (you die, for
instance). The point *is* that such changes as remain have to be those
agreed by the community to either:

	1) have no effect on your neighbours, far and wide
	or
	2) be considered to have beneficial effects by those affected.

So, if making the keyboard is an act of zero impact, you can do
whatever it as much as you like. If not, you'd better get those
affected to agree to it. 

Not much different from now, except that making this explicit, instead
of giving more legal carte blanche on the basis of ownership, would
perhaps lead to more attention being given to these considerations.
The two critical differences I would look for are

	(i) identifying those affected more accurately (which in turn
		implies identifying the effects of actions more accurately)
       (ii) being more just in seeking their approval. "Just"
		in this case simply means literal democracy - one person,
		one vote, the rich not getting more of a say than the poor
		in whether or not some action is a good one.

>I have to admit I haven't read the author you pointed me to.  I did
>save it away though, and if your viewpoint starts to look reasonable
>to me I'll go read.

George doesn't take this as far as I am, but he did originate (or
codify) the land lease idea. Some claim that attempts to put his ideas
into practice (such as various land trusts here and there) have
demonstrated that they won't work; others claim just the opposite. I
don't know, but it is an interesting idea without a lot of evidence
one way or the other.

-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Definition of terrorism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:53:11 GMT

A general definition of terror is to coerce with fear.  A secondary
definition in my dictionary includes the violence and physical threats.
I believe the second definition usually applies to those who are labeled
terrorists.  However, one could use the first definition and still be
correct.  The fact is that the use of fear to coerce votes and money is
totally commonplace among all ideologies in the U.S.  I nominate the
following for terrorists in the U.S.:

	1. Some nuclear proponents who say the only option to nuclear power
	   is filthy coal or brownouts.

	2. George Bush for his Willy Horton campaign.

	3. The pope who says I will go to hell if I don't live my life
	   the way he says (even though I am Jewish).

	4. Bill Clinton who says the country may go to hell if we don't
	   elect him.

	5. The Libertarian Party which says the country will go to hell
	   if we don't elect them.

	6. The Green Party which says the country will go to hell if we
	   don't follow their plan.

	7. Some unnamed sage who says I will go blind if I masturbate.

Anyone have any others?

Note that my dictionary does not indicate that the fear must be based
on a false threat.  Does anyone know if 7 is true?
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment