HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Article in "New Scientist"
Summary:  birds in habitat 
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:12:04 GMT

	From "New Scientist", October 3, 1992:

	"How do tits divide the spoils?"

	When related species occupy the same habitat it is usually
assumed that they divide the food resources so as not to compete
directly.  Although this may sometimes be true, it may not be true
for three bird species living together in one particular coniferous
forest, says a Swedish biologist.
	Allan Carlson of the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences in Uppsala studied great tits (Parus major), which have long
and broad bills, coal tits (Parus ater), which have short and slender
bills, and willow tits (Parus montanus), whose bills are intermediate
in size.
	In previous studies of seed-eating finches, scientists found that
those with the larger bills ate the larger seeds, so Carlson expected
that the tits with the larger bills would select the larger species of
food.  However, when Carlson offered the tits mealworms (the larvae of
various beetles) of different sizes, all the tits ate worms of all 
sizes, although he noted that the great tits appeared to find it easier
to handle the larger prey (Biol. J. Linnean Soc., vol. 46, p. 299).
	The traditional view is that small species are more efficient
than larger species with small prey while the reverse is true for large
species.  But this theory appears to be wrong for these birds, Carlson
says.
	Because the tits coexist without apparent difficulty in the
forest, it may be that they share out the available food by exploiting
different parts of a tree while hunting prey.  What is clear from
Carlson's work is that they do not share out the prey by size.
	Only more research will show whether the tits are just an
exception to a general rule of resource partitioning by bill size.
						-John Timson
Caption to a photograph of the bird species:
"Great tits have broad bills for eating large seeds"

	O.K., so it's an article about tits.  I am so sorry.
Laugh a little!

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov



Xref: sparky sci.environment:11770 sci.engr.chem:520 sci.math.stat:2086 sci.engr.civil:470
From: chaas@coe.drexel.edu (Chuck Haas)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.engr.chem,sci.math.stat,sci.engr.civil
Subject: Graduate Opportunities in Environmental Engineering
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:34:39 GMT
Organization: Drexel University
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F88A5BC60118D7@n1-24-215-coe-abbotts.coe.drexel.edu>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 7 Oct 92 04:36:43 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

Drexel University has a limited number of available assistantships for
graduate study in environmental engineering/environmental science.  We
are particularly interested in students with good quantitative
backgrounds.  A number of projects in environmental process kinetics,
environmental chemistry, risk assesment, and related areas exist.

Students with undergraduate or prior M.S. degrees in civil or chemical
engineering, chemistry or life sciences, or mathematics or statistics,
are invited to e-mail expressions of interest to the below address. 
Information will be sent by mail to respondents, with an acknowledgement
by e-mail.


Charles N. Haas
Professor, Environmental Engineering
Drexel University, Philadelphia PA 19104
======================================
CHaas@COE.Drexel.Edu
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:00:36 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct11023233@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > How much do I owe the consulting ethnologist for this consultation?
 > I believe I may have 10 cents (Australian) left over from a trip.
 > Is that the usual fee?

All contributions gartefully received . . .

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11766 talk.environment:4099 talk.politics.misc:49954
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:59:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Oct7.155906.9095
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <STEINLY.92Oct6141635@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.185940.27881@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>   In article <JMC.92Oct5194918@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 
>   A Harbinger of Technological Bliss (jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU) writes:
>
>						 Why shouldn't people
>   >drive whenever they feel like it?  I claim doing so is sustainable
>   >and extendable to the whole world.  Suppose I am right.  Would it
>   >still be wrong to drive a quarter mile?
>
>   Now you're bothering to claim that sustainability is worth paying even
>   lip-service to ? How kind. And yes, if it was sustainable, and
>   extendable to arbitrary population densities across the entire planet
>   (and beyond, if appropriate), then sure, driving a quarter mile would
>   be just fine.
>
>That's a very strict criterion! 

Its the one John mentioned, thats all.
				 
				 There is no activity that can be
>sustained for arbitary population densities across the entire planet!

Indeed. I'd go so far as to say that I believe that most (not all) of
our current activities would be just fine with a population of, oh,
100 million or so. By the same token, I don't believe that *any*
"green", "sustainable" or "environmentally sound" lifestyles are truly
that when the population densities and absolute sizes are too high.

>Perhaps you should restrict your criteria for permissibly sustainable
>activities under mildly realistic scenarios?

I'd be happy to. I was just responding to John's question. As time
goes by, I tend to think that the scenario is the key item. Reduce
human population, compensate for less people with contemporary
technology, and my guess is that sustainable living habits would come
easy, perhaps even without much change in our lives. Clearly, one
can't reduce population without some rather drastic effects, so I'm
hedging my bets in the same way that John does - he thinks that
technology can solve pretty much any problem, I think that the right
population levels can eliminate pretty much any problem. 

He probably has the upper hand in that we're likely to get technology,
eventually; we're unlikely to see population levels decrease in the
way I think would make things much easier for everyone.

But to answer your question, "permissibly sustainable" in a context
of, say, 1 billion people on the planet. See a followup posting.

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Raskin
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54593@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:58:11

In article <54593@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
   >I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
   >selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil

   That's already done as well. The stuff is heavy and bulky so transport
   costs dominate. 

   >sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
   >per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
   >buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
   >and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
   >deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
   >whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.

   There is already some market incentive to increase top soil as pure
   farm land with better top soil is more valuable. But many farmers do
   not increase or preserve top soil because high capital costs force
   maximization of immediate production and subsidized fuel and
   fertilizer costs allow substitution of man-made chemicals for top-soil.
   Of course, the incentives for farmers to sell land for suburban development
   or to road expansion are also responsible for much topsoil loss. 

   So, I'm still puzzled by what market incentives you propose. 

   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

I don't propose any new incentives.  It is merely that once the
transportation costs are faced, there will be an incentive to
conserve deep topsoil in river valleys, because an excess can be sold
to improve nearby uplands.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<STEINLY.92Oct13115213@topaz.ucsc.edu>,<1992Oct13.190023.8884@vexcel.com>
	<1bfh5aINN33r@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:54:32

Nepal is one of the few places where being a professional soldier in
other people's wars is still a highly respected occupation.  Look up
"Gurkha".  The Swiss gave it up a few hundred years ago.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:32:12 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <54835@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <JMC.92Oct14193800@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>Victor gives references but refrains from giving us an atomic weight.
>>Did he read either of his references?
>
>What's with the bibliophobia exhibited by you anti-environmentalists? Carl
>said he couldn't find a definition of "heavy metals", I gave him a
>pointer.

Victor, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the fact that you have
convenient access to a journal doesn't mean that everyone has convenient access
to one.  You claim that the articles contain definitions, but are too
shit-headed to post them.  Or is it possible that, as John speculated, you
haven't read the articles in question yourself.  How about posting the
definitions?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:38:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <JMC.92Oct10134024@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

> I'm dubious about wind energy becoming important.  Almost all U.S.
> wind energy comes from two mountain passes in Calfiornia.  What is
> the average wind site going to be like?

One reason the wind sites have been concentrated in California is that
that is where the juicy contracts have been.  There are many sites of
wind class 5 or higher (average wind speed > 7.5 m/s at 50 meters) in
the rest of the country (in the Rockies, the northern plains, around
the Great Lakes, in New England and the Appalachians).

The other thing to remember about wind is that the individual units
are small.  Now, I'm not a "small is beautiful" type, but small scale
does make the development cycle go faster, with less investment.  It
takes a lot longer to bring a new generation of 1000 MW powerplants
onto the market.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:11950 talk.environment:4205 talk.politics.misc:51718
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:40:33 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <2927472659.0.p00004@psilink.com> p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes:
>
>Perhaps it's selfishly person-centric of me, but being, myself, a person 
>rather than a highway, I am inclined to believe that transportation 
>should be designed around people and what they are really like, not the 
>other way around. (Members of the Highway Liberation Front will no doubt 
>flame me vigorously for this grotesque example of organic chauvinism.)

I agree that transportation should be designed around what people really
like. Unfortunately for the mass transit boosters, what people really
like is cars.

Gary
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct7.175004.5480@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Oct7.175956.4223@vexcel.com>
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:59:35

In article <1992Oct7.175956.4223@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <1992Oct7.175004.5480@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
   >John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
   >
   >:    : I don't see that UCS has rethought any of its policies.
   >
   >: 	   Why don't you suggest which ones should be rethought?  (if
   >:    you're implying there's a problem.)
   >: 
   >: 	   Jim Acker
   >: 	   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
   >
   >: UCS should rethink its opposition to nuclear energy.
   >
   >	Ahh, you're familiar with something that wasn't in the post (I
   >looked back and saw no mention of nuclear energy).  I agree with you
   >in the short-term but not in the long-term, because:  decommissioning of
   >old reactors is a huge hazardous radwaste disposal problem.  But until
   >energy consumption patterns change and more environmental-friendly power
   >sources are found, nuclear remains an alternative.
   >
   >	Jim Acker
   >	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

   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.
   -- 

		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

UCS isn't against nuclear power in general.  They are just against
nuclear power in particular.  Their "proven safe" is a condition they
will never agree has been met.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:10:26 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Oct13115828@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
...
>   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.

Actually, in the tropics you could in principle grow things year round
(given adequate water), and more than 5% of the world's continental
area is there.  Even elsewhere, a 1000 square foot greenhouse would
not be outrageously expensive -- certainly less expensive, amortized
over its life, than the time Paul already spends working on his
garden.  There are plastic honeycomb transparent insulating materials
demonstrated on a pilot scale that achieve a thermal conductivity of
just .6 W/m^2 K (about R-10) while transmitting 75% of incident
sunlight.  This insulation value is enough to maintain an 80 deg C
temperature difference with a transmitted power of just 48 W/m^2.

Was I against trading and specialization?  Hardly -- just pointing out
that Paul's claim seems to imply very large populations could be fed.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 13:09:56 GMT

In article <1466601789@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

Hi Alan.  :-)

>	10) Does not systematically reduce biological diversity by
>	reduction of habitat areas, by introductions of exotic
>	species, or by excessive hunting or harvesting. 
>
>	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.

>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.

>	13) Seeks to utilize larger amounts of biological diversity, e.g.
>	by expanding the number of food crops, natural biocontrol agents,
>	use of genetic resources, etc. -- tends to look for these approaches 
>	in preference to the introduction of novel synthetic (and hence 
>	non-biodegradable) substances.

This can be counter-productive to your goal, because it can give us
more agriculture (eg cotton fields), which use up and pollutes more habitat
than the equivalent chemical plant (eg nylon). Also, the vast majority
of species are worthless for human use.

>	14) Seeks to understand "human nature" and "human society" within 
>	the larger context provided by evolutionary biology, so that we do
>	not again make the mistake of supposing that humans are beings apart 
>	from nature who can be expected to flourish in any artificial world 
>	of engineers' whims - or of moral philosophers' intuitions. 

We might find that the intended outcome does not follow from the
intended study. For exampe, from studying evolution we find that
humans have been making the "mistake" of following technological 
"whims", from rock-chipping to computer hacking, for millions of years.  
On a more practical level, we can use sociobiology to design advertisements 
for sports cars as easily as we can use it for Greenpeace boilerplate.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct13.210528.10507@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>If one opposes turning forests into tree farms _solely_ because of
>impacts on humans, this neither conflicts with anthropocentrism
>nor econo-centrism.  One need not be an ecocentric to be an
>"environmentalist".


I just want to point out that "impact on humans" and "impact on GDP" are
not equivalent. If I believe that human beings need to preserve some
open space and some wilderness is that ecocentric or anthropocentric?
If I believe that maximizing an enconomic indicator justifies a development
path which will make the world into a very large copy of Osaka, is that
anthropocentric?  

On the other hand, the new age mysticism of people who want to believe 
that rocks have souls seems to me to be both unecessary and foolish.
We don't need mumbo jumbo reasons to want to live on a world where there
is room for Grizzly bears. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 09:48:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.161135.14505@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>A strictly economic valuation has problems, however.  For example,
>there would be little negative effect on civilization (from the point
>of view of gross statistics, like life expectancy) if all works of
>art were to be destroyed.

I'll agree with this, and then note that people _don't_ destroy
art, for the most part, because they value it over the alternative.
There are many ecosystems that are less valuable than their 
alternative.  On the other hand there are ecosystems that are more
valuable, eg the ones bought up by Nature Conservancy.  There is
little effort by government to preserve works of art, and there is
no need for radical change in civilization to preserve works of
art.  The same is true, I submit, concerning the preservation of
ecosystems.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
Newsgroups: sci.environment