HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Tue, 21 Jul 92 19:26:27 GMT

In article <TSF.92Jul21100849@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.195908.4422@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>Each object (with the exception of intangible things like patents)
>consists of some amount of human effort combined with some amount of
>material that originally came from the Earth.  The current
>configuration of a piece of land also depends on some amount of human
>effort combined with whatever nature did.  I can see quantitative
>differences but not qualitative ones.

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. For the majority of objects that most people are
interested in, that represents the vast majority of the object anyway.
In a few rare cases, such a people who collect rough hewn logs,
unfinished crystals and so forth, there's still plenty of labor
involved in moving/excavating/finding such objects, enough to attach
the high price that such objects normally command. 

The point is simply that you are entitled own the results of your
labor, be they direct or the consequence of trading with others. You
are not, IMHO, entitled to own land, or the materials derived from it,
A community interested in a reasonably comfortable life is certainly
going to allow individuals to take such material and apply their labor
to it; my claim is merely that such effort doesn't confer ownership of
the material itself. The indistinguishability or rather, the
inseparability of the labor from the object ensures that such a
postition doesn't imply much change for now. The implications only
have practical impact when it comes to using land that is currently
unused by humans for economic purposes, since the right to do so needs
to be granted by a community (as is true now) - the notion that the
person so granted doesn't own the land, but instead is using it in the
best currently known way changes some of the obligations and freedoms
attached to its use.

No doubt someone will find a way to show me the inherent
contradictions of such a position. Please do.

-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer
From: Carrying Capacity Network <ccn@igc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: 30 Jul 92 13:29 PDT
Subject: Re: Environmental Database
Nf-ID: #R:BroxJK.GJ2@brunel.ac.uk:-121998839:cdp:1483100110:000:1507
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ccn    Jul 30 13:29:00 1992


Barry,

Environmental information of the type you are seeking is indeed
spread far and wide, and compiling the ultimate environmental
database would be a Herculean task.  Even the EPA does not have a
single database of environmental statistics for the U.S.  They do,
however, have some subject-specific databases that you may have
access to, the most obvious being the Toxic Release Inventory.  

The United Nations Environment Programme releases subject-specific
studies containing lots of quantitative data, as does the OECD.  

The best compilation of tabular data on the environment that I know
of is World Resources Institute's biannual _World Resources_ report.

I recently saw a brochure for an educational package of health,
economic, environmental, and demographic data on CD for
Macintosh.  It is based on HyperCard, and allows students to select 
sets of data and constructs tables, graphs, and charts all within one 
software environment.  It is called PEMD Discovery and is sold by PEMD
Education Group, 707-894-3668 (US).

For periodicals, there is a hard-copy index at most libraries called 
something like "Environmental Abstracts."  The University of 
California Santa Barbara has an Environmental Periodicals Bibliography 
project; searches can be requested by e-mail and for a fee they will 
search their extensive CD-rom library.

Good luck,

Steve Coffee
Carrying Capacity Network

BY THE WAYthex"~1 addre~rss for the sanata barabara people would be
iasb@igc.org

sorry for the static.

Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 26 Jul 92 14:37:31

In article <keQjpNi00UhWM2SXEc@andrew.cmu.edu> Joshua Alan Knauer <jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

   On 26-Jul-92 in Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTI..
   Lord John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf speaks for all:

   >point - that the environmentalists, just as much as business
   >and government, owe the public impact statements about their
   >proposals that would include negative impacts.  For this reason,

   These full impact statements are all available through the number
   previously listed.  

   John-  "We" (whoever that is) owe nothing to you.  This newsgroup is
   intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
   the earth in the hands of the "let's wait and see" people like you.  

   I also wonder what the other people on this newsgroup feel. John seems
   to feel that he speaks for the masses, I sincerely hope that not all of
   the people on the net are similar in thought to him.

   Josh Knauer

   ------------=================----------------
   On 26-Jul-92 in Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTI..
   user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

   He who does only math is bound to speak nonesense.
   ------------=================----------------

Hmm.  Josh Knauer says "This newsgroup is
   intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
   the earth in the hands of the "let's wait and see" people like you."

I don't think the history of the postings on the newsgroup suggests
that it is for people who are "concerned" in the manner Knauer says.
I don't think any environmentalist has previously suggested
restrictions on who should post - excepting occasional outbursts
calling people assholes who dissent from certain orthodox views.

However, I'm open-minded.  What are Knauer's and other
environmentalists' criteria for who may appropriately post to this
newsgroup and what they may appropriately say?

On the issue I raised, Knauer tells us

     These full impact statements are all available through the
     number previously listed.

I must admit I'm surprised.  Are there really impact statements
listing possible negative impacts of what the environmentalists
propose?  I'd be impressed  I wonder if Knauer would do us the
favor of posting one or two of them.
--
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: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 21:13:03 GMT

In article <3595@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Wow, what a neat proposal.  Let's have a UN body that is responsible
>to no electorate (but to the "votes" of the "East"?) make our
>economic and political decisions.  Not much point in having a
>presidential election, is there?

Welcome to the Third World Mr. McCants. I would hope your sense of
empathy for the lives of many citizens of most of the world would be
heightened by sharing in the experience of powerlessness. In case its
not obvious, substitute "East" with "West" in the above, and position
yourself in India or elsewhere. Yeah, its a gross simplification, but
it carries a subtle truth.

-- paul




-- 
"Fun" is a word invented by advertising executives to sell soft drinks.
 The freedom of the highway beckons ... blue jeans, fast cars, young women
 Every man is an island
 And the tide is coming in"              Jah Wobble, "Every man is an island"
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Junk mail
Date: 25 Jul 92 08:03:30 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <TSF.92Jul20143225@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
>In article <92202.095927MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>   I suspect that the smaller firms are the
>   ones who benefit most from this program, thus competition is stimulated as
>   well.  
>
>No.  The subsidy is n cents per item of junk mail.  Each business
>benefits in proportion to the amount of mail it generates.  Big
>businesses generate more mail, thus the benefit they receive has a
>greater dollar value.
>
>I haven't any idea where your suspicion came from.  "Benefiting
>smaller firms" and "stimulating competition" are very different
>things.  Competition is where a businesses' success depends on what it
>does, not upon its size or upon other irrelevant factors.

You misunderstand. A small business has fewer cents to spend on advertising
than a large company. By subsidizing junk mail, the government allows the
small company to advertise in a way it could not if it had to pay the full
cost. Large companies can afford to advertise any way they like. Advertising
is a proven method of increasing sales. By allowing the small company to
play in the same league as the large company, junk mail increases the
competition in the marketplace. Competition is generally viewed as being
good for the public because it fosters lower prices and higher quality.
Therefore, government subsidy of junk mail increases the public good.
Whether it's the most cost effective method of doing so is another
question. We in radio and television like to say it is not. Our cost
per thousand is lower than even junk mail. Of course we can't offer the
small business a government subsidized rate.

Gary
>--
>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.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:48:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <deleted> (Josh Knauer) writes:

>I also wonder what the other people on this newsgroup feel.
                                        ^^^^
How 'bout a different newsgroup?

I dare you to post these lies in sci.astro!

Does your negative impact statement include the millions already
spent on the project?

How come it took you ten years to find a native american that claims
this mountain is sacred?
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2925 sci.environment:9876 alt.politics.marrou:146
From: deg@rustin ( Don Gillespie)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 23 Jul 92 18:38:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies

In article <spears.47@bobcat.lmc.edu> spears@bobcat.lmc.edu (Gene Spears) writes:
>While I second the vote for the Nature Conservancy as one of the most 
>successful of environmental organizations, I bet the staff of TNC would 
>agree that their organization would be almost unworkable WITHOUT the help of 
>state and governmental agencies to manage and protect the land after they 
>have acquired it.  In almost every instance of land purchase that I've read 
>about (and I'm a member), TNC donates the land to some governmental agency 
>with stipulations about how the land may be used.  Without this option, TNC 
>would have to devote a large portion of its budget to property upkeep and 
>protection, and be a far less effective organization than they are today.  I 
>don't know about Ducks Unlimited, but I bet they work the same way.
>

Actually, the TNC achieves a lot of its success by "selling" land to
governments (primarily the Feds).  If you look at their financial
statements, income from the sale of land to governments is about 150%
of the income from member donations. Sorry I don't have the figures handy.

Although I'm a strong supporter of TNC, the preserve system that they've
established is incredibly small compared the amount of public land in
the United States.  Their preserve system is only around 1,000,000 acres.
(does anyone have exact figures?).

If a Libertarian government were suddenly to sell off all the public lands,
outfits like TNC and DU would be able to purchase only a tiny percentage.
While Libertarianism has some good principles on which its based, (like
Communism does), it takes a lot more than a few principles to operate 
a government or a civilization.




-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
				Don Gillespie	
				U S WEST Advanced Technologies
				deg@advtech.uswest.com
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Junk mail
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>Regarding your explanation, as to how Reagan affected the volume of junk
>mail, I stated that I don't doubt its value.  Nevertheless,
>
><JMC.92Jul15175029@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> John McCarthy Writes:
>
>>I think Paul Barton-Davis is mistaken in saying that every class of mail
>>paid for itself before Reagan.  I remember the issue of subsidized junk
>>mail from at least the 1960s. ...
>
>So I guess your reply to my original question (How did Reagan increase junk
>mail) may not be as credible as you would have me believe.

The information about the accounting changes affecting junk
mail costs and mailing list maintenance by the US Postal
Service come originally from a posting by Cameron Spitzer.

   * Mr. Spitzer cites a his own conversation with a former
     Postmaster-General as the ultimate source of this
     information

   * Prof. McCarthy cites his own vague recollections of
     junk mail costs having been an issue for years.

I know which source I find more credible.


---
Joel Hanes
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
From: kalafut@emunix.emich.edu (Gerald Allen Kalafut)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Keywords:  DUCKS!!
Organization: Eastern Miskatonic Looniversity
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 23:19:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.161517.26110@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> berenson@cookie.enet.dec.com (Hal Berenson) writes:
>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.

Ducks Unlimited is pretty cool.

I used to be a member back in my duck hunting days, but dropped my
subscription when I stopped hunting.  Thanks for reminding me about
them.  I was really young when I was a member so I wasn't aware of
their wetland grabbing.  I think I'm going to go resubscribe.  :^)

( I just like feeding the ducks now...whee!! )
-- 
   _-_____________________________________/--------------------------\
  / "TAYSTE THE KISS OF ETIRNAL SLACK" /-<  kalafut@emunix.emich.edu  >= 
(<-------------------------------------\_/\__________________________/
  > "I'm in the midst of a trauma, leave a message. Call you back."-/  chuga
 /  /----\     --Jane's Addiction /----\____/----\___/----\___/----\ chuga
/---\____/------------------------\____/----\____/---\____/---\____/    chuga
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 22 Jul 92 02:56:59 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <19106@ector.cs.purdue.edu> sjc@cs.purdue.EDU writes:

   }} In article <TSF.92Jul20135713@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy    Freeman) writes:
   }} 
   }} 2. The forest is useful because it consumes CO2.  If the greenhouse
   }}    effect doesn't solve itself somehow, we'll eventually need to have    property
   }}    rights to CO2 consumption and production.  People will have to pay
   }}    if they discharge CO2 into the air and they will get paid
   }}    if they consume CO2 from the air.  The price would fluctuate as
   }}    necessary to ensure no net CO2 production. The forest would be a
   }}    big moneymaker for the businessman.

   If we had the libertarian system in place today, how many businessmen
   would hold onto old-growth forests because they might someday provide
   a monetary gain because they consume CO2?  They can sell the lumber,
   today, and make mucho bucks, or they can hold onto it in the hopes
   that future societal changes implement CO2 property rights, and that
   under that future system they can make money off their forests.

Yes, Steve, this is a problem.  If people want to borrow your capital
worse than they want your trees, then the most profit comes from
liquidating the trees.  This is true even if the forest might be
managed profitably forever.

I suspect, however, that in a free market, people would have a
clearer choice between wanting capital and wanting trees.  As our
government is currently run, its actions make these choices hard.

If you're concerned about this, then pay the forest owner to write a
deed restriction saying that he must manage his forests in a
sustainable manner.

I have come to libertarianism because I have asked myself "How many
laws are worth enforcing by violent means".  After prayerful
consideration inside Quaker Meeting and outside, my answer is "Not many".

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>  I'm proud to be a humble Quaker!
Crynwr Software            Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.               315-268-1925 Voice   [ if mail bounces, forward it ]
Potsdam, NY 13676          315-268-9201 FAX     [ to uuadmin@uu.psi.com.      ]
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2864 sci.environment:9671
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:55:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: U.TSF.92Jul21105509
	<1992Jul20.192034.2963@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<TSF.92Jul20175519@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Jul20.233351.12371@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul20.233351.12371@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

   >   What is it about those who will be able to buy this land
   >   that makes them special, special enough that they are able to profit
   >   from what was once unowned land ?
   >
   >The fact that they had the money to buy it, and chose to spend it that
   >way.  It's called investment.

   So, my agreement that Paul Hawken imports decent tools, or that Acme
   Hardware Inc. has the cheapest line in kitchen equipment now signals
   my consent that such Mr. Hawken and Mr. Acme should be the ones to buy
   up once-unowned land ? 

Oops, we're talking past each other.  There are two issues:

1. How is ownership determined originally?

2. How is ownership transferred?

Your question alluded to both of these.  I assumed #1 was an
irrelevant piece of history, so I talked about #2.  Now from your
response it seems that you are indeed interested in #1.

If the land is unowned, then either it is unused, or it is a commons
subject to the usual tragedy of the commons.  *Any* procedure for
assigning owners is better than leaving it unowned, once there are
people who want to use it.  Homesteading seems as reasonable to me as
anything else. 

   ...Interesting paragraph about german forests deleted...

   I can't cite a reference on this right now; I can look it up if you
   would like. I seem to recall coming across this in Science or Nature
   about 3 or 4 years ago.

I made a stab at finding it in my local library, and missed.  I would
like the reference, it sounds interesting.

   >I don't want to arbitrarily give rights away because then I'm limiting
   >myself for no reason.  

   Why ? The reason would presumably be that you believed the trees have
   rights. You might come to this conclusion by way of a morality that
   sought to derive as much as possible from biology. Or you might not.

The issue was, how do we decide what rights trees have?  If we allow
presuppositions about the rights of the trees to determine our answer,
then the argument is circular.

Tim
--
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.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:30:41 EDT
From: <MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu> (Mark Kubiske)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: forest Biodiversity and Clearcutting Act

jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J.  Hanes) writes:

>The most important single factor in national forest management policy, the
>total cut on public lands, is not in the hands of foresters.  The harvest
>is mandated by Congress, and the Forest Service is then tasked to come up
>with a plan to meet this goal.

Exactly.  The total cut should be dictated by market demands and ecological
principal.  While Congress may take market trends into account, we all know
how effective they are at predicting the country's economic future.

>Responsible foresters in the USFS have for years protested that the
>mandated cut greatly exceeds the sustainable, or even the responsible
>harvest in many districts.

That's also one of the reasons timber sales on federal lands are so cheap
and the USFS can't break even from them, unlike many states.  As far as I
know, the only national forest to come out ahead each year is the Allegheny
in PA, and that's because of the high quality black cherry harvested there.

>Alas, the Congressional delegations from timber industry states seem to
>agree with the timber industry lobbyists that short-term profits for timber
>companies cutting on public lands override all other concerns, including
>the opinions of the foresters employed by the government to manage this
>resource.

I don't think there's any question as to *why* some congressmen cowtow to
the timber industry lobby.  I also don't think you can dump
all the blame on the timber industry per se.  Arguably, they're looking out
for their own best interest.  Problem is once again, its the bean counters
who instruct the lobbiests, not the land managers.  Concequently, the rest
of the country picks up the tab for deficit timber sales and the USFS gets
the rap.

What this ammounts to is a government subsidy to the loggers in the form of
deficit timber sales.  I think the market should dictate the prosperity of
any industry, and not be suplimented by the government.  Not to mention the
ecological ramifications of over-cutting and forced mismanagement.

To get back to an original point, I think it would be a big mistake to limit
the management tools (i.e.  even age management) that the USFS is allowed to
use.Make no mistake, selection cutting is not the panacea many
environmentalists would have us believe.

Mark
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA