HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:23:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <3601@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <1992Jul29.233204.23999@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>I just would have liked the
>>people who lived there given the chance to make their own decisions
>>when they still could, rather than once they had become intoxicated on
>>the same ideas that most of us are.
>
>So, the problem is that "The West" "forced" our ideas of morality on
>the Third World nations.  And once we did, they liked them so much
>that they became intoxicated on them and could not return to their
>old ways even when they gained nominal independence.  

When I was a young child, I discovered the joys of chocolate. It was
really wonderful, and I would eat it at any opportunity. Fortunately
for me, my parents were around and were aware of some of the problems
(such as vomiting) that excessive consumption of chocolate would
cause. They prevented me from eating chocolate as much as I would have
liked (except on birthdays). 

Nowadays, I live next door to a family with 10 children that seems to
lack this restraint, as well as an living in apparent ignorance of the
role of sleep in the production of growth hormone.

Let me stress that this is not an argument for western paternalism.
However, if you're going to willfully and forcefully export your own
morality and your own political system to other parts of the world,
you should at least have the decency to be aware of the problems it
tends to cause, and take steps to see that those affected do as well
as, if not better, than you did by its usage. The West, in general,
has made pitifully few efforts to do so, and instead has behaved more
like a parent who doesn't understand that excessive sugar, no sleep
and continual TV might make a child happy, but does not make a child
well. 

-- paul
-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
From: hagemann@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Brian Hagemann)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 05:12:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <3590@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>In article <keQjpNi00UhWM2SXEc@andrew.cmu.edu> jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:
>
>>This newsgroup is
>>intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
>>the earth...
>
>NO!  This newsgroup is so that counter-evironmentalists will be able to
>monitor what the ecofreaks are up to.

Mike...  trust me on this one...  us 'ecofreaks' are 'up to' more that you
or Mr. McCarthy will _ever_ know about through a lame newsgroup such as this.

For me, reading this group and the rants of the ultra-right appearing here
nightly is about as useful as AM Talk-Radio.  You know... something to get
the pulse rate up before darkness falls...

Beware.  We Never Sleep.


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 18:47:49 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul27174238@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>The Nature Conservancy has my respect, because they express their
>preference for conserving nature by *buying* the land containing the
>nature they want to preserve.
>
Does this mean that only stationary (or caged) things can be preserved?
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?  I don't have easy answers for these questions
but I do reject what I consider to be simplistic solutions such as
those offered by Libertarians who would draw a hard line after the
human individual, who would have the right to do _anything_ that doesn't
harm another human, but absolutely _nothing_ that impacts another human
in some undesired way.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: /usr/local/lib/news/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:09:50 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.011657.3102@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.213229.4946@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>... It is much
>>easier to say "ban it!", or dump the problem on distant bureacrats,
>>than to think up good solutions to problems.  Libertarians observe
>>that people who own things have the incentive to think of and 
>>implement such solutions.  
>
>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.

Proof by counterexample:

There is a fire in your home. The government will not prosecute you if
you let it burn the house down. Do you

a) Leave your house to burn down because "the problem isn't a threat
   to your ownership"?

b) Stop it before you lose lots of the value of your property.

Most homeowners aren't going to let their next door neighbor pollute
their well, because they don't like the idea of drinking poisoned well
water and being unable to sell their house because no one will want a
home with poisoned well water.

This is the point of the libertarian position: if property rights are
enforced, lots of people suddenly have a direct ability to keep their
own land and water clean, without depending on the good graces of
bureaucrats.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
		  Just say "NO!" to death and taxes.
			 Extropian and Proud.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:03:19 GMT
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <IeQgD0i00iUy41NmQa@andrew.cmu.edu> jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:
>
>I have already posted at least three times:
>
>Mt. Graham is a very important from a biological standpoint being the
>southernmost intact Spruce-Fir forest and is home to at least eighteen
>endemic plant and animal species, including the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel
>(currently listed as "threatened".  Mt. Graham (or Dzil nchaa sm `n) is
>also the most sacred mountain of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

LIES!!!!
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:53:20 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Jul20.143817.21153@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
[commenting to Dr. McCarthy]
>
>The one thing I note about all your proposed solutions to suggested
>long term problems - every solution you come up with involves the use
>of energy to move things around, or to process materials into
>something else. Although I know you are reasonably happy with the idea
>of nuclear energy, it still interests me to note that the major
>increase in energy usage your approach seems to imply. I was always
>taught (probably by imbalanced teachers) that its more ingenious to do
>more with less. You seem content to solve problems by throwing energy
>at them. Does the word "enough" play any role in your vision of the
>future ?

I can't speak for Dr. McCarthy, but I certainly find the word "enough"
cropping up in my vocabulary. I've had "enough" of Greenhype's political
posturing and ignorant ravings. I consider current nuclear reactors 
good "enough" to continue to operate. I consider the follow on designs
of passively safe nuclear systems more than good "enough" to encourage
their construction. I find most "alternative" energy systems *not* 
good "enough" to promote their use.

From the mastery of fire to the tapping of the atom, man's quest for
"enough" energy to modify his environment has been ongoing. As a result,
man's lifespan and quality of life have increased from a brutish existance
spanning perhaps 30 years, if he survived childbirth, to it's present seventy
some odd years of sheltered, air conditioned, well fed, relative comfort. 
I don't think that's "enough", but it's a damn good start.

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

Seems you like brute force to solve your problems rather than a bit
of finese.

Gary
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Relative honesty
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:48:13 GMT
	<1fG702O417e201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
	<JYM.92Jun27211929@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Jun29.193510.29183@pmafire.inel.gov>
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: russ@pmafire.inel.gov's message of 29 Jun 92 19:35:10 GMT

> Mr. Dyer should be commended for his candour; many of the
> anti-nuclear folks are still promulgating the notion the
> the production of electrical power by nuclear energy cannot
> be profitable.

=+= This just shows (once again) that you aren't listening to
what the anti-nuclear folks are actually saying.  I have never
met anyone in the anti-nuclear movement who wasn't aware that
people were reaping enormous profits from nuclear power.

=+= Of course, this is only true because of such things as
massive government subsidies, various tax breaks given as
incentives for building nuclear power plants, utility regu-
latory bodies whose duties include *guaranteeing* a profit
for utilities, and a total lack of accountability for any
mishaps or long-term problems.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:31:26 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Jul27185132@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>   real. This brings me to another question: why, when speaking of how some native
>   people's found a close balance between themselves and nature, is it pointed out
>   that they had all these diseases and only lived to be 50 and had very hard 
>   lives... ?? Really now, tell me, do we really think that our QUALITY of life 
>   has become so beautiful that "it was worth it?" I see SO much psychological and
>   other damage BEACUSE of this lifestyle we've created. STRESS.....!! Sure, we
>   live to be 100 -- unable to walk, talk and in a old folks home. Great. 
>
>Yes. It is great. Try the alternative someday. 
>Remember that humans tend to scale crisis on a relative
>scale, as major problems are resolved, lesser problems appear
>more important - stress is quite frankly a trivial problem when
>compared to hunger, and worrying about it is a luxury only
>afforded by the sated.

From your perspective.  There still is a small minority in western
culture (and I think its growing) who are willing to accept a
significant decrease in material standard of living to get out of
the "rat-race" and all its stresses and pressures.  While starvation
will never be a trivial problem, I am not aware that it was significant
in native American societies, and we still have some in our society.

The emphasis on success, wealth, achievement, etc. that exists in most
western (and plenty of other) cultures is not true of all cultures.
Out technology gives us a clear physical, but not moral,
hegemony over other cultures.

The decision on which culture is "better" is clearly relative, and most
people will have a subjective opinion on this.  I would leave a final
determination of this to a distant historian.
>
>*  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)
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 28 Jul 92 18:34:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1992Jul28.051237.6982@ucunix.san.uc.edu> hagemann@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Brian Hagemann) writes:
>
>Mike...  trust me on this one...  us 'ecofreaks' are 'up to' more that you
>or Mr. McCarthy will _ever_ know about through a lame newsgroup such as this.

This comment reads like you took my comment seriously.

>Beware.  We Never Sleep.

I've never known a human that didn't sleep.  Are you a human?
Xref: sparky talk.environment:3066 sci.environment:10318
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Definition of terrorism
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: talk.environment
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Jul24.155311.2004@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
>	5. The Libertarian Party which says the country will go to hell
>	   if we don't elect them.

One small correction: The Libertarian Party does not say the country will go
to hell if they are not elected.  They say that if they are not elected, this
country will be hellish.  A small but important difference.  As always, you
have the right to go to hell if you really want, just don't drag the rest of
us along with you.

:)

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com) No, I don't speak for Cabletron.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daily I'd go over to Congress - that grand old benevolent national asylum - and
report on the inmates there.  Never seen a body of men with tongues more handy,
or information more uncertain.  If one of those men had been present when the
Deity was on the point of saying "Let there be light" we never would've had it.
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 14:40:03 GMT
	<JMC.92Jul25225348@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<IeQgD0i00iUy41NmQa@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul26090943@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

I should add, so that Josh Knauer will not inadvertently
deviate from the party line, that in connection with a previous 
thread, the environmentalists indignantly rejected the idea
that they owe the public any mention of possible negative
aspects of their proposals.  The only argument offered was
that they always propose doing nothing, and it is up to the
people proposing doing something to evaluate its negative
impacts.  [Thus it is not up to Nader to mention the number
of children who might be killed through the non-use of
microwave ovens.]

That's all very well, but anyone who is not committed to
an environmentalist organization should remember that
environmentalist proposals are made without any analysis
of possible negative effects [at least not any that they
are willing to let the public look at].  Also any science
cited is likely to be selected to support their proposals,
i.e. is lawyers' science.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2891 alt.politics.marrou:121
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 22 Jul 92 17:01:32 GMT
	<1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> <1992Jul21.213229.4946@techbook.com>
	<1992Jul22.011657.3102@reed.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

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.

If you're right, then how did anyone solve any problems before the
government existed?  If you assume that people are always going to do
the wrong thing, then you should assume that people working for the
government are always going to do the wrong thing to.  Government
intervention doesn't make the situation better.

You say "only" because you are lacking in imagination.  People have an
incentive to think up solutions when the problem will decrease the
value of a resource they own.

The threat of government intervention reduces how long people are
willing to plan ahead, because it is so unprincipled and arbitrary.
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: ihodge@leibniz.waterloo.edu (Ian Hodge)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:32:13 GMT

In article <rdippold.711918245@cancun>, rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
> >ecosystem, extinct?  And what if it is the result of process which results
> >in an economic gain that is greater than the economic loss due to the
> >environmental damage?  An example of such "poisoning" might be the
> >logging of old-growth.  In such a case, classic Libertarian solutions
> >do not protect the environment.
> 
> Old-growth logging is as profitable as it is because the government
> subsidizes it big time.  They sell the rights to it at far under
> market price, they build roads for the companies to get to the timber
> (more miles of roads than the interstate highway system), and does
> anything else they need.  They do all the hard work, then the logging
> companies move in and just do the logging, and sell at a huge profit.

Yes!

At least in Canada, besides the fact that the logging companies get
cheap use of the land, the main point is - they don't own it.  The 
forestry companies have no incentive to do anything other then get
as much out of the land as they can, at as little cost.  If forestry companies
had to obtain property rights to the land, that would probably mean the
end to clear cutting.  

In Canada, the government apparently encourages clear cutting so that
forestry companies will be sure to cut down more marginal trees so that
forestry companies will have more waste for pulp mills.  This is of
course to the dubious social goals of maintaining a healthy
pulp industry and the jobs and money that go with it.

At the same time, government financed recycling programs are filling 
the market with old newspapers resulting in depressed pulp prices.  
The government is ruining the environment and encouraging increased
consumption through its policies and blowing all sorts of public 
money in the process.

I don't know many of the details but in south-east asia, governments
there encourage exploitation of the rain forests by forestry companies
by allowing them to ignore property rights of native populations.

Government intervention is clearly the cause of most the criminal
overexploitation of this resource.  I think that classic libertarian
solutions would at least be an improvement over the current government
'solutions' to environmental management.

Ian Hodge

ihodge@descartes.uwaterloo.ca

'kill the social charter'
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:27:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.075320.11055@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>From the mastery of fire to the tapping of the atom, man's quest for
>"enough" energy to modify his environment has been ongoing. As a result,
>man's lifespan and quality of life have increased from a brutish existance
>spanning perhaps 30 years, if he survived childbirth, to it's present seventy
>some odd years of sheltered, air conditioned, well fed, relative comfort. 
>I don't think that's "enough", but it's a damn good start.

If you don't think thats enough, could you perhaps explain one, two or all
of the three things:

	1) what will be enough ?
	2) why people who have whatever you imagine to "enough" will
		agree with you ?
	3) if you don't think that "enough" can be described, 
		whether or not you agree that general optimism
		about the future is all that supports the morality
		of a lifestyle predicated on expansion ?

My answers follow:

1) Enough:

	I think that enough could be defined by the amount of
resources we can extract from ecosystems without affecting the roles
of their other participants. Clearly, this assumes that there *is* an
excess capacity in existing (or rather, pre-human) ecosystems, rather
than these systems being delicately balanced around carrying capacity.
I don't know if this assumption is true, but would like to know. 

2) Continuation:

	I think that only something equivalent to religion can work to
ensure the long term survival of a meme like "enough". In this
category, I include science and mythologies, which share with religion
the capacity to cast simple versions of complex truths into a form
where (some) people can understand them. If we had a population that
understood ecology the way they currently understand the Bible, the
Quran and the Tora, I suspect our behaviour, short and long term,
would be quite different. This is not because ecology *is* a religion,
but because the framework of religion, regardless of its content, is
critical in ensuring the longevity of its ideas. The hard part is to
avoid the cartoonism that characterizes so many established religions,
whilst using the form of didactic stories, question-and-answer, and
clearly stated moral platforms.

3) n/a

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

Xref: sparky talk.environment:2924 sci.environment:9869 alt.politics.marrou:143