HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: He who talks arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:25:21

In article <1992Dec15.214940.133747@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> sdh4@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (SCOTT DYLAN HARDING) writes:
   >Let's do the arithmetic.  500 million tons of waste per year in the
   >U.S. assuming a density of 1.0 comes to 500 million cubic meters.
   >Suppose it is piled 25  meters high.  This comes to 20 million
   >square meters per year, or 20 square kilometers.  The area of the
   >U.S. is 3 million square miles or 23 million square kilometers.
   >It will take a million years to cover the country with trash.
   >
   >If we do nothing special for 100 years, we will use up 1/10,000 th of
   >the country.  100 years from now our descendants will be as much more
   >technologically capable than we are, as we are compared to the people
   >of 100 years ago.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >
   >
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >-----------------------------------------------------------

   He who does too much arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

       Covering 1/10000 of the US in 25 meters of trash will leach chemicals
       into a much, much larger prtion of the water table, perhaps as much as
       1/750 or so.  With so many towns and cities already hurting for fresh
       water, do you think that this is OK?

       Nowhere near 1/10000 of the land in the US is suitable for use as a
       landfill site due to economic, geologic and environmental reasons.  If we
       build landfills in the middle of the Mojave Desert, don't you think the
       money used to transport all those million of tons of trash out there would
       easily pay for the recycling of that same trash?

       Get off the numbers and get real!
   -- 
   -----------------
   Scott Harding
   Lehigh University

No, I don't think the money used transport trash would pay for its
recycling assuming that the minimum wage was paid for the work involved.
However, I haven't done that calculation.

Nevertheless, I have done some relevant calculations with some relevant
numbers, whereas Scott Harding is trying to get by on pure hot air.
Such slogans as "Get off the numbers and get real!" will not convince
anyone of anything, although they might help rally the already convinced.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:15:59 GMT
Subject: Why do they hate us?
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: talk.environment

Chuck Paquette wonders:

>Also, I'm somewhat surprised by the free-enterprise/libertarian
>critique of U.S. environmental organizations.  Most of us compete in
>the marketplace without significant government support or endowments.
>We also tend to emphasize private action and monitoring of government 
>policy.  And most of our active organizational opponents are or 
>represent beneficiaries of government policies and public assets.  Just 
>an added thought.

It's no mystery why these right-wing extremists hate environmentalism. They
hate it for the same reason they hate democracy. If someone wants to enrich
himself by destroying the last old-growth of the Pacific Northwest, for 
example, and the rest of us pass a law to prevent him from doing so, that
is what they call "coercion" -- which they abhor. I.e. in their view,
democracy = coercion. They identify with the guy who wants to enrich himself
at everyone else's (and nature's) expense. They believe, sometimes validly,
more often illusorily, that if there were fewer restraints they would be
among those who would succeed in pushing their way to the hog-trough and
gorging themselves. They think of themselves as very strong, and they hate
it above all else when those whom they think of as weak band together in
democracies to prevent them from riding roughshod over everybody and 
everything.

*Naturally* they hate environmentalism. It's to be expected. It's in the way
of their (real or imagined) self-aggrandizement.

-------------
Alan McGowen
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: gsmith@aldarion.next.nd.edu (george smith)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Organization: University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:08:54 GMT

In article <Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian  
K. Yoder) writes:
> In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym  
Dyer) writes:
> >=\= They also told me about the lengths they go to avoid
> >damaging *any* property during their direct actions.  When
> >they hang banners from smokestacks and such, they even go
> >so far as to ensure that they don't scratch the paint.
> 
> If Greenpeace has such concern for property rights, why do they trespass
> and try to sabotage equipment (say, but plugging up pipes etc.)?  
> 
> >=\= And they told me about yet another rumor:  There are people
> >who don't think that the French secret service blew up a
> >Greenpeace ship, but rather that Greenpeace blew up a French
> >ship!  So much for the big and powerful publicity machine.
> 
> Be that as it may, Greenpeace DOES have a huge publicity machine.  Do  
you
> deny that?
> 


Not every environmental group you hear about on the news is Greenpeace.   
Perhaps you were mistaken.  There are other environmental groups more  
violent than GP.  Maybe if you could provide a reference or two?  And yes,  
Greenpeace has a big publicity machine.  They're trying to reach people  
and change peoples' minds about the way we've been living.  Yes,  
Greenpeace says some things that may stretch the bounds of factualism, but  
I put more belief in what they say than what the coporations or  
governments say.  There's first the matter of self interest (not that GP  
has no interest in keeping a good name for themselves) and greed and  
there's the record of who has a longer history of lying.

peace and trees,

george    
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:12:08 GMT

In article <Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>
>>=\= "The above logic?"  Are you perhaps unaware that the French
>>secret service actually did blow up the Rainbow Warrior?  That,
>>my friend, is the well-documented reality.
>
>Indeed, it is true, and they were quite deserving of that kind of treatment
>by the French government.  If Greenpeace really wants to declare war on
>industrial civilization (and that is what they are up to) then they ought to
>expect some resistance.

Since Greenpeace has never killed or injured anyone, one could rightly
wonder why Brian thinks Greenpeace deserves this violence.  With
incidents like this one and others, where logging trucks run over
non-violent logging protesters, it becomes quite clear that it is not
the environmentalists who are the true terrorists.  When non-violent
protesters are injured and murdered by those they protest and then
are labeled as ecoterrorists or econazis, we can see a true
bastardization of the language; the new "politically correct" crowd.
>
>
>--Brian


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:21:40
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1992Dec14.211208.18586@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 14 Dec 92 21:12:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.211208.18586@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
   >In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
   >
   >>=\= "The above logic?"  Are you perhaps unaware that the French
   >>secret service actually did blow up the Rainbow Warrior?  That,
   >>my friend, is the well-documented reality.
   >
   >Indeed, it is true, and they were quite deserving of that kind of treatment
   >by the French government.  If Greenpeace really wants to declare war on
   >industrial civilization (and that is what they are up to) then they ought to
   >expect some resistance.

   Since Greenpeace has never killed or injured anyone, one could rightly

But of course not, any individual or organization that might
kill or injure anyone can be made carefully distinct from
Greenpeace - a lot can be learned from "plausible deniability"
and the dorks in the "Committee to re-elect the President"
who had no more to do with Bush than Sea Shepard has to do
with Greenpeace - right?

*  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	* 


Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Why do they hate us?
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 13:51:24 GMT

In article <88290182@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>It's no mystery why these right-wing extremists hate environmentalism. They
>hate it for the same reason they hate democracy. 

I wouldn't call myself right-wing, nor do I hate democracy (I think).

I abhor environmentalism because it is not based on science, like it 
should be, but rather on faith, guilt, and emotion.

From a scientific standpoint, many environmental groups (GP included) are
a "frightening laughingstock". Their methods rely on fear, guilt, and 
emotion.  Admit it (they themselves do), scaring the shit out of
people is a lot more effective than showing them figures and tables.

Though they might not want to admit it, our standard of living is based on
our technology.  It sounds romantic, but solar cookers aren't going to 
replace a big power plant anytime soon, nor is the world going to become a 
seething pot of fire and brimstone.

>If someone wants to enrich
>himself by destroying the last old-growth of the Pacific Northwest, for 
>example, and the rest of us pass a law to prevent him from doing so, that

I kinda like trees. 

>They think of themselves as very strong, and they hate
>it above all else when those whom they think of as weak band together in
>democracies to prevent them from riding roughshod over everybody and 
>everything.

Wow.
I hate it when a law is passed that is completely without scientific basis
due to public fear. For example, are "nuclear-free" cities allowed to have
hospitals in them? Not according to the law...

>*Naturally* they hate environmentalism. It's to be expected. It's in the way
>of their (real or imagined) self-aggrandizement.

No, I think it's due to the irrationality of the environmentalists.

Tino

followups to talk.environment.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:30:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.135124.1011@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
>In article <88290182@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>>It's no mystery why these right-wing extremists hate environmentalism. They
>>hate it for the same reason they hate democracy. 
>
>I wouldn't call myself right-wing, nor do I hate democracy (I think).
>
>I abhor environmentalism because it is not based on science, like it 
>should be, but rather on faith, guilt, and emotion.

I hate blanket statements that stereotype diverse groups into a
common denominator, based on the easiest targets.  Are there no
science used by environmental groups?  I can send you numerous
articles and studies by environmental groups that use "good"
science.  Are there environmental groups as you describe?  Of course.
As there are anti-environmental groups that use similar tactics.
>
>From a scientific standpoint, many environmental groups (GP included) are
>a "frightening laughingstock". Their methods rely on fear, guilt, and 
>emotion.  Admit it (they themselves do), scaring the shit out of
>people is a lot more effective than showing them figures and tables.

When the other side uses similar tactics (as the timber industry does),
some groups feel compelled to use the same tactics.  Is that good?  I
don't know.  Is it better to just give up if many people won't read
tables and graphs?
>
>Though they might not want to admit it, our standard of living is based on
>our technology.  It sounds romantic, but solar cookers aren't going to 
>replace a big power plant anytime soon, nor is the world going to become a 
>seething pot of fire and brimstone.
>
>Wow.
>I hate it when a law is passed that is completely without scientific basis
>due to public fear. For example, are "nuclear-free" cities allowed to have
>hospitals in them? Not according to the law...

I hate it when politically motivated logging quotas are forced on the
Forest Service when scientific studies show that such quotas are not
sustainable and are leading to environmental degradation. I hate it
when supposedly scientifically knowledgable people say global warming
is a myth.  Many environmental concerns are validated by science.
I will be happy to e-mail you technical refs for a variety of
environmental issues.

Your generalizations put you in the same category as the people you
criticize.  Nuclear issues are clearly a weak point for most
environmental groups, but that does not change the fact that they are
strong on many issues.  Even Greenpeace does some good research.  Press
releases will always be a weak point for _any_ advocacy group.  
>
>Tino
>
>followups to talk.environment.

Good.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec15.163012.12647@vexcel.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:57:33

Dingo says Greenpeace does some good research.  I'm curious about
that.  Do they do any research?  Is there a Greenpeace laboratory
somewhere, and are there Greenpeace employees who do scientific
research?  I'm sure they do legal research, i.e. looking for
information and people tending to support their positions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: glowboy@robot.nuceng.ufl.edu (LOUIS ISELIN)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Followup-To: talk.environment
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Nuclear Engineering Sciences - Univ. of Florida
Date: 11 Dec 1992 14:41 EST  

In article <Jym.9Dec1992.1257@naughty-peahen>,
    Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes...

>>> By using the above logic why then didn't the Japanese or
>>> French escorts just put a 135mm shell into the Greenpeace
>>> Who knows maybe the Japanese were getting even for all the
>>> ramming Greenpeace has done to their merchant fishing fleet.
>> It is the Sea Shepherds who ram Japanese trawling ships, and
>> Sea Shepherds split from Greenpeace on the issue of whether
>> such "enforcement" tactics were a good idea.
> 
>=\= And I have already pointed that out.  More than once.
> 
>=\= Because of the persistent Usenet rumors about Greenpeace
>ramming fishing/trawling ships, I contacted them to find out
>if any such incident has ever occurred, even accidentally.
>They told me that it has not.
> 
>=\= They also told me about the lengths they go to avoid
>damaging *any* property during their direct actions.  When
>they hang banners from smokestacks and such, they even go
>so far as to ensure that they don't scratch the paint.
> 
>=\= Considering the sheer volume of uninformed flaming about
>Greenpeace we've been seeing in these forums, I suspect that
>this particular rumor will surface any day now.
>    <_Jym_>

Too bad you only believe Greenpeace and no one else ...

As far as the ramming of Japanese fishing boats, it was televised
on national TV in the US because my wife and I watched it.  The
group who shot the video identified themselves as Greenpeace and
that they were ramming "Japanese fishing veesels using drift nets
in violation of International Law."  They pointed out in the segment
that Japan refused to admit that Greenpeace had rammed their vessels
because they (the Japanese) did not want to admit that the Japanese
vessels were fishing with drift nets.

The clip was shown on some video show like "Totally Real Video"????
or something.

Louis Iselin, PhD candidate
UFla. Nuclear Engineering Sciences
DOE Health Physics Fellow
From: co940@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nicholas E. Damato)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: HELP! ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL BLITZ!!!
Date: 13 Dec 1992 20:45:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hello folks, anyone out there have my problem?
ENVIRONMENTAL JUNK MAIL!
My #1 Junk mail problem is environmental groups sending me crap
and begging for donation. I started saving the stuff and I have       
almost a grocery bag full in a little less than a year!
yes they all seem to use recyclable paper, but it is still paper.
paper that could be used for something else and save a few trees.
 
I've been in one or two env. orgs. in my life, as well as had a
few subscriptions to env. mags (i.e. audobon, Garbage, etc.)
but i coninially get all sorts of crap from all sorts of groups.
I've got 11 (ELEVEN) primary groups who have tergeted me If i
gave them each $50 that would add up to a sizable chunk, approx
25% of which will probably go into more mailing,
 
what can we do? is there some other way these people can get
money and memebers without contributing to pollution themselves?
 
If anyone has any ideas let me know,
 
lets start a group, "Citizens against Junk Mail"
---> I'll start mailing out info packets tomorrow!!!
 
ned.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:36:50 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <JMC.92Dec15225956@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The seagulls feasting off the dump don't count.

Not only are rtificial food sources for gulls usually of no conservation value,
they can create conservation problems.  For example, in several places such
sources have drastically increases nest predation at nearby tern breeding
colonies forcing expensive gull control programs to be instituted.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 02:26:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.210019.18473@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>Do you believe that waste incinerators meet the four-9's 
>(99.99% incineration) requirement?  If so, why?

Coal plants don't. 

I'm suggesting incinerators could reduce the amount of waste that needs
to be buried while providing nominal electrical output.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Recycling Myth
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:57:44 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec13151356@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Calculations of how much waste the U.S. generates per year show that
>there is plenty of room for landfills for many thousands of years.
>Picking through the trash costs labor - in almost every case more
>labor than the value generated by the separation.  Where the separation
>paid off, it was already done before politics and self-righteousness
>entered the scene.  Forcing people to do uneconomical recycling
>impoverishes the country - not very much perhaps but some.

And what land area is used for this calculation?  Lands that you
consider worthless?  Your backyard?  Mine?  Are we to _force_ people
to have landfills  near their homes so that other people have the
_freedom_ to be wasteful?
>
>--
>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
From: "Michael Smith" <p00004@psilink.com>
Subject: Re: Ticket America-- Negative Nonsense
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:33:32 GMT
X-Mailer: PSILink-DOS (3.3)

>In article <Bz5nC6.E2D@world.std.com> rjk@world.std.com (robert j kolker) writes:
[inter multa, multa alia]
>> The eco/phreaks are a singularly uncreative bunch.
>>They attack the capitalist system (for they are socialists and Luddites)

Socialists *and* Luddites? This is novel. I was under the impression 
that socialists placed a rather high value on the industrial proletariat 
(don't anybody have a coronary about the use of forbidden words here; 
since we're talking about socialists, this is the appropriate 
vocabulary). Indeed, old Dr. Marx thought that the progress of technology 
was a precondition for his vision of human liberation. 

Don't these folks ever get tired of this lame, threadbare McCarthyism? 
(I'm referring to the late Senator, not the well-known 
arithmetician.) 

--Michael Smith

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Greenpeace, Countries' Alleged Non-Violence, Ramming of Boats
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<Bz55Bq.4y2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1992Dec14.211208.18586@vexcel.com>
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:15:16

It is the strategy of Greenpeace and similar organizations to provoke
violence.  They would prefer to be totally innocent victims, beaten
up by evil corporations and governments taking exception to their
merely distributing literature critical of obviously harmful activities.
Unfortunately for them, this doesn't work too well.  It is rarely
possible to provoke violence and the resultant publicity just by
distributing literature.

Therefore, higher levels of brinkmanship are required, and for this,
creativity is involved.

For example, the Chicago police in 1968 were instructed not to
respond to provocation, but the SDS found a new tactic of throwing
baggies full of shit at the police - just a peaceful protest of course -
and succeeded in getting themselves attacked in what they got
to call a police riot.

Something where it is Greenpeace's word against the governments and
corporations is useful, as it is with the ship incidents.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.