HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mdbruce@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael David Bruce)
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 02:48:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.214759.20700@netcom.com> beast@netcom.com (Master) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.130956.14406@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>In article <1466601789@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

>>>	11) Does not reduce biological diversity by induced ecosystem
>>>	stresses such as chemical pollutants or human-caused thermal 
>>>	stresses. 
>>
>>Well, here we go again.  All bow down to the holy ecosystem.  :-)
>>The above logic is very similar to that in the Endangered Species
>>Act -- nature has infinite value, and humans must do everything we
>>can not to disturb it, up to and including the destruction of our
>>economy and our civilization.
>
>I'd say companies that let chemicals seep into the groundwater and poison
>the local population are contributing to the destruction of our
>civilization.  I'd say companies that belch acid rain forming chemicals
>into the atmosphere and subsequently leave lakes and streams devoid of fish
>destroy the economies around those lakes by eliminating the recreational
>fishing. 

And I would add that since we take a good deal of what makes up our 
"civilization" (culture is a more accurate term) from the 'holy ecosystem,'
it might be better if we left enough untouched so that *use* itself doesn't
destroy it.  The question is, of course, how much?  Well, I'm no expert,
but I would suggest that a hell of a lot more conservation than what is 
now in place is in order (just saying that all the facts are not in is,
of course, a copout).

>>>	12) Increases biodiversity and reduces extinction probabilities due
>>>	to past human-induced loss of habitat area by active restoration
>>>	of ecosystems.
>>
>>Believe it or not, I agree with Alan on this one.  Albeit, I
>>recommend not returning to the previous state, but creating areas
>>of high biodiversity such as conservatories, zoological parks,
>>and wetlands via the irrigation of deserts.  I also recommend
>>fertilizing the ocean with minerals, so that it will support
>>higher populations, and hunting common animals (eg minke
>>whales, mallard ducks) in order to provide habitat for endangered
>>species.

Of course, the same question arises:  how do you determine the extent of
this, its effects and the outcomes of such practices.  Based on our track
record in predicting effects of large amounts of chemicals in our waters,
in hunting practices, in 'resource harvesting,' and the like, I wouldn't
want to take such chances as irrigation of the deserts, fertilizing the
oceans and hunting.  Gloom and doom?  Sure, why not?  It's better than
preen and dream.




-- 
--Mikey				"'But anything we can do is so _trivial_.'
mdbruce@leland.stanford.edu	And I would say, 'Not trivial, just small.  The
Hayduke lives!			way all life begins."  --Wayland Drew.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:00:58 GMT
Followup-To: talk.environment
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct12.161147.8546@bvsd.co.edu> rlucas@bvsd.co.edu (Richard Lucas) writes:

>     Nonsense. Our economic systems still depend on raw materials provided
> by nature, which pretty much by definition means material found in
> ecosystems. There are therefore demands placed on ecosystems that are
> hardly comparable to those placed on art. If art provided the same sort of
> raw materials that ecosystems do, then there might be the "radical change"
> for preservation we see extended towards ecosystems. Your examples aren't
> parallel enough to justify your conclusion. 

Moreover, ecosystems are "out in the open", exposed to damage, not
locked away in climate controlled museums.  Art that is exposed to the
elements does suffer -- consider the effects of acid rain and
particulate deposition on architecture.  Ugly and destructive.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: VIC@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:37:27 GMT
 <1992Oct5.051653.14318@s1.gov> <JMC.92Oct5193532@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
 <1992Oct6.174123.24496@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
 <JMC.92Oct6184904@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston

The car has cramped and crippled our auto-addicted society. 25% of
our wakening hours are enslaved to car. The automobile has made it
unpleasant to take a stroll down our streets and roads. It has
forced us to breath toxic fumes 24 hours a day. It has shattered
the tranquillity of our towns with a constant roar and rumble of
traffic noise. It has created urban sprawl which makes it almost
impossible to go to work, to shop or to visit friends with using
a personal ton of metal and rubber which generats 400 odd
pollutants.  The car has warped our think, making us believe that
using a car is more convenient while in truth thing are much less
convenient.
  The 25 plus automobile ads a day you get blasted with will lead to
         Self destruction via auto seduction.
From: beast@netcom.com (Master)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:47:59 GMT
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.

In article <1992Oct11.130956.14406@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1466601789@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>Hi Alan.  :-)
>
>>	11) Does not reduce biological diversity by induced ecosystem
>>	stresses such as chemical pollutants or human-caused thermal 
>>	stresses. 
>
>Well, here we go again.  All bow down to the holy ecosystem.  :-)
>The above logic is very similar to that in the Endangered Species
>Act -- nature has infinite value, and humans must do everything we
>can not to disturb it, up to and including the destruction of our
>economy and our civilization.

I'd say companies that let chemicals seep into the groundwater and poison
the local population are contributing to the destruction of our
civilization.  I'd say companies that belch acid rain forming chemicals
into the atmosphere and subsequently leave lakes and streams devoid of fish
destroy the economies around those lakes by eliminating the recreational
fishing. 
>
>>These are all negative criteria, but a few positive ones are needed as well;
>>
>>	12) Increases biodiversity and reduces extinction probabilities due
>>	to past human-induced loss of habitat area by active restoration
>>	of ecosystems.
>
>Believe it or not, I agree with Alan on this one.  Albeit, I
>recommend not returning to the previous state, but creating areas
>of high biodiversity such as conservatories, zoological parks,
>and wetlands via the irrigation of deserts.  I also recommend
>fertilizing the ocean with minerals, so that it will support
>higher populations, and hunting common animals (eg minke
>whales, mallard ducks) in order to provide habitat for endangered
>species.

You want to alter the oceans?  That might just be worse than the ozone hole
(of course, that might alter the oceans, too).

>Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
>Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian

Breathe Healthily: vote Green 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:22:40 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <54781@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
=In article <1bhceqINNc0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <JMC.92Oct13214608@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
=>>Is "heavy metal" a definite term?  What atomic weight do the banners
=>>of heavy metals have in mind. 100, 200?
=>
=>I've been able to find no definition of it (other than as a type of music). 
=
=Speaks volumes as to the quality of your research.  Try
=    Greenhouse AH: Heavy Metals and the nervous system. Clin Neuropharmacol
=    1982;5:45
=
=    Oheme FW: Mechanism of heavy metal toxicity. J. Clin Toxicol
=    1972;5:151

So Victor, are you just trying to score points or what?  If you've actually
read the articles (and since you're claiming they define the term "heavy metal",
was defined in these articles) why the hell were you unwilling to post the
definition, jackass?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: IPS: CFC-Free Refrigerator
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:05:35 GMT

In article <1bhe9lINNc0@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes...
>In article <1466601808@igc.apc.org>, Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>>but dkk claims their new refrigerator is cooled by the simple
>>gases propane and butane, usually used in the ordinary cigarette
>>lighter. where the traditional refrigerator uses cfc-blown foam
>>for insulation, the dkk invention uses expanded polystyrene.
> 
>Hmmmm.  What happens when this sucker springs a leak and the fuel/air mixture
>reaches the brushes of the compressor motor?  Sure, it doesn't use CFCs.  But
>is it safe?  Somehow, I doubt it.

Refrigerators using gases other than CFCs are hardly new.  In fact before
CFCs were available, such things as ammonia, sulfur dioxide were used,
in addition to hydrocarbon gases.  Of course all these can be dangerous
if there is a leak.  CFCs quickly became popular because other than
simple suffocation, they were (thought to be) totally harmless in
case of a leak.  About a year ago there was a posting from someone
who filled the AC system of his car with a propane-isobutane mix.
Worked fine, he said, other than people being scared to death of it
when they found out what he did.

-Mike
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:59:22 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <JMC.92Oct11101741@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>I often happens that all the above factors are present and still
>no-one in a position to make the innovation does so.  People are
>often just stuck in their old ways.

You're having an off-day, John.  People are seldom "just stuck" but they _can_
BE stuck - stuck without capital or time to take advantage of opportunites.
These sort of situations are cyclical - we call them "recessions".  Many of
these same sorts of opportunities _will_ be exploited when there is time and
capital to tackle them.  Ideas are just 1%, perspiration is the other 99%.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11992 talk.environment:4221
From: ketil@apal.ii.uib.no (Ketil M. Malde)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: ketil@ii.uib.no
Organization: student of computer science at the University of Bergen, Norway
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:32:12

In article <1992Oct10.151520.29893@pellns.alleg.edu> jannotj@pell2l8.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:

   > I agree.  The thing that really gets me about these people who want us  
   to
   > make as many of the things we use as possible (including growing our own
   > food) is that they don't seem to realize just how much time we would  
   actually
   > spend doing these things.  I have better things to do than spend time
   > sewing clothes, growing food, etc., when there are other people willing  
   to
   > do it for me (for a price, of course).  The more labor intensive  
   day-to-day
   > survival is, the lower the standard of living is.

   I disagree I feel life might be that much richer if I had to rely on  
   myself alone to survive. 

What's stopping you?  Go ahead, by all means, grow your own food, sew
your own clothes, etc.  From 'as scratch' as you like.  As for me,
I'll use the stores.

			 I also think that if it were as such people  
   would only have themselves to blame for their strife/happiness and as a  
   result human conflicts could be kept to a minimum.

I don't agree at all.  It used to be more like that earlier, didn't
it?  I'm sure the stone-age man thought a lot about that, sitting in
his cave at midwinter, frozen to the bone, barely anything to eat:
'Yup.  It's all my own fault.  No reason to go plunder the neighbors'

:-)

Also, I don't think earth can support 5 billion people without
specialization. 

Sorry if I sound harsh, but specialization is very, very basic in our
society, and I think that's the way it *has* to be

--
 = Ketil Malde                     In real life:  ketil@ii.uib.no =
 = Nuke the whales!                    Honk if you love unicorns! =
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Date: 8 Oct 92 05:43:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Oct8.054331.26269
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct7.175956.4223@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>I'm not aware that the UCS is strictly against nuclear power. I believe they
>want a restructuring of certain aspects of the industry that has nothing to
>do with the technology.  The same for the NRC.  I have a technical report
>prepared for the UCS that examines the "inherently safe" generation of
>reactors. It points to various problems ans lists some critiques but never
>says they shouldn't be used.  They do call for an official moratorium on
>construction of plants until a waate-handling system is online nad _proven_
>safe.

In other words a million year test. To those of us with shorter lifespans
that's essentially equivalent to forever. I'm satisfied with safer and 
don't expect the impossible ideal of safe. Good odds is all we can get,
sure things don't exist in the real world. We do know that the proven
routine hazards of current fossil generation are higher than the experienced 
hazards of nuclear power. We do have some confidence that defense in depth 
works.  And we do have some confidence that 500 year storage times are 
possible.  Beyond that we are dealing in probabilities. The odds favor 
the nuclear option, but there is always the long shot that we'll lose. 
Playing long shots is sucker betting.

Gary
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:58:28
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct13.171625.6654@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1992Oct13.182127.18286@cs.rochester.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dietz@cs.rochester.edu's message of 13 Oct 92 18:21:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.182127.18286@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

   In article <1992Oct13.171625.6654@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

   >>  (Paul says he spends 10 hours a week.  Say there are 5 months in
   >>   the growing season -- 

   > 12 in Seattle. We grow kale, chard, spinach, leeks, onions, broccoli,
   > cabbage, rutabagas, and brussel sprouts all through the winter, along
   > with lettuce and arugula (rocket) in a cold frame.


   Paul claimed he got 80% of his summer food and 30% of winter from this
   300 sq. ft. garden.  If we call summer 1/4 of the year, and the rest
   of the year is termed winter, this is about 40% of his food, overall.
   If by "80%" he was refering to calories, not dollar value of food,
   then he could feed himself completely on a garden of perhaps 1000 sq.
   ft.

   Is this energetically ridiculous?  Back of the envelope reality check.
   1000 sq. ft. will receive perhaps 20 kW of average insolation (100 m^2


   capita.  If one assumes the 1000 sq. ft./capita figure could be
   extended to other regions, 5% of the Earth's continental area could
   feed about 80 billion people.  

You don't get 12 month growing season in most of the world. Figure
more like 40-50 billion. 20-30 billion if you want a safety margin
and some surpluses to keep the markets depressed to avoid people
sterting to trade and specialise again.
This leaves of course the oceans untouched.

*  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	*
From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: <None>
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:59:02 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <1bd2t1INNcn6@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU 
(Carl J Lydick) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.215613.22312@cs.wisc.edu>, adve@cs.wisc.edu 
S. Adve) writes:
> =We (names and e-mail addresses below) are collecting e-mail signatures
> =of those opposing the Sardar Sarovar Project. We will collect these
> =signatures until Wednesday, October 14, and send copies of these to:
> =1. Mr. Lewis Preston, President, The World Bank

> Do any of these people have the faintest idea how easy it is to counterfeit
> e-mail?  

> =We are opposed to the World Bank funding the Sardar Sarovar Project because:

> Yes, folks, check your brain at the door and send in your electronic mail
> signature.  SHEESH!

Jeeze Carl, just what I'd expect from you.  Don't you know that whenever
someone types on a keyboard, they hit the keys just a bit different than
others?  That trained experts, microscopically examining each individual 
bit making up each ASCII character can conclusively interpret these minute
differences and prove who typed it, much as a handwriting expert 
authenticates a real signature?  I thought not!  Using just that 
technique I recently caught a .sig counterfeiter.  I submit for the net 
the real and the counterfeit .sig.  You decide. 

The following are two copies of my .sig, seemingly identical:

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant
Disclaimer:  Monsanto didn't say this, I did.

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant
Disclaimer:  Monsanto didn't say this, I did.

Now, note when they are ASCII image enhanced on the Monsanto
Cray supercomputer using the Helveschmidt-Borgenschnaft algorithm:

Ted Feverbach - Scientific Systems COnsvltant
Disclaimer:  MOnsantO didn"t say this, I did.

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant
Disclaimer:  Monsanto didn't say this, I did.

With a little effort you may notice the differences
that have appeared.  For those with low intellect, such as
Carl, I will point out the differences.

Ted Feverbach - Scientific Systems COnsvltant
      ^                             ^  ^
Disclaimer:  MOnsantO didn"t say this, I did.
              ^     ^     ^
Note the subtle differiences?  The U's are different...  And, notice
the apostrophe!  But the *REAL* proof is even more subtle...  Note
how he emphasises the O's where I don't.  I rest my case Carl. 
I hope that you've learned something today! 

Ted Feuerbach - Scientific Systems Consultant (the real one)
Disclaimer:  Monsanto didn't say this, I did.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:23:06 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1bhceqINNc0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <JMC.92Oct13214608@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>>Is "heavy metal" a definite term?  What atomic weight do the banners
>>of heavy metals have in mind. 100, 200?
>
>I've been able to find no definition of it (other than as a type of music). 

Speaks volumes as to the quality of your research.  Try
    Greenhouse AH: Heavy Metals and the nervous system. Clin Neuropharmacol
    1982;5:45

    Oheme FW: Mechanism of heavy metal toxicity. J. Clin Toxicol
    1972;5:151

:
-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:14:20 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct14143006@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.191258.4416@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>
>   In article <-1366846190snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>   >Even now, computers and automation are taking over most of the jobs
>   >people were doing before, which phenomenon in large part stimulates
>   >this debate to begin with. All those people now freed from boredom and
>   >repetition might be helping the farmers a little more, or perhaps
>   >helping farming communities to pool their machinery inventory to
>   >avoid being ripped off so badly by the factory, and so free up the
>   >availability of money to the farming community where it originated.
>
>   Furthermore, this is not happening to the degree expected.  The old
>   belief used to be that increasing productivity would provide people
>   with more leisure time.  As it turns out, fewer people are now working
>   more hours, have less leisure time, and more people ahve no work!  This
>   is not the type of leisure time that was intended. 
>
> ??? Have you looked at the evolution of the working week, retirement
>age and vacation time in western Europe?
>
I am not familiar with Europe.  I described the situation in the US.
Theres another thing we could learn from the Europeans.

>*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
>*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
>*  Just because there's a reason          			*
>*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 


-- 

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