HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 02:26:37 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct10113638@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > in disagreement with someone who said:
 >  
 >      The more labor intensive day-to-day survival is, the lower
 >      the standard of living is.
 >  
 > Both within countries and between countries, the lower the standard
 > of living the more fighting there is.

Your preposterous remarks require the support of evidence. Can you
cite any correlations whatever between these two variables?

The manifest and abundant literature published over the past one
hundred years rather indicates the opposite is the case; the poor live
peacefully while the most wealthy exercise extraordinary violence in
their paranoid clinging to material possessions.

Against the scale of fighting either within or involving the most
wealthy nations, that among the poorest represents no fighting at all.
65 million people died during the Anglo-American backed counter-
revolution between 1917 and 1924 in the USSR alone. 35 million during
World War II. How many arising from both French and US involvement in
Vietnam? Not to mention Korea, Central America, Iraq?

The Aboriginal people of Australia and the K'ung of Southern Africa,
along with many other indigenous people, are known to be lacking a
concern for great wealth. The very few documented killings among those
people were in relation to civil offences, not fighting or war, until
the wealthy Europeans arrived and started shooting them to claim their
land.

Perhaps the *professor* would like to join a fresher program in any of
the social sciences and get his facts in order. Even watching the news
every night would enlighten him somewhat is to who is pointing their
guns at whom, in fact.

--
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 * *
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:43:52 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

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. 

The US average industrial work week in 1900 was 62.3 hours. In 1992 it
is 42.1. In 1992 there are 126 million full time US workers. In 1900 there
weren't 126 million *people* in the US. More people are working fewer
hours today than at any time in US history. US agriculture has shown
the most astonishing reduction in hours of labor. Total agricultural labor 
in the US has declined 18.75 times from the amount of labor required in 
1900 while food production has increased dramatically. US worker productivity
is 12% higher than German workers and 23% higher than Japanese workers,
even with the decreases in US worker hours per week. The leisure industry
in the US is a $100 billion dollar industry. People watch an average of
4.2 hours a day of television. Leisure time *has* increased, work weeks
*have* shrunk, and the number of workers *has* increased.

Ye have never had it so good.

Gary
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 1992 22:04:26 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Oct13.190023.8884@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>And as the next paragraph indicates, "casual" violence is also not a
>part of the culture.
>>
>>   in the hills of Nepal where material standards of living are extremely low.
>>   Violence is simply not an acceptable method for solving personal disputes.
>>   The people lead a hard and happy life.
>>
>>Yet the same hills produce some of the fiercest fighters in the world
>>when provided with the resources and incentive.
>
>A fierce fighter is not the same as a violence-prone person.  The point
>is that this "lower" standard of living exists in a society more
>peaceful and less prone to violence than the US.

Very profound observation.  If I may add a point, a lot of violence in this
country isn't entirely casual, it's related to one person (or group) deciding
to coercively appropriate (i.e., steal) the property of another person (or
group).

One further observation:  One tends to find few thieves where there's nothing
worth stealing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:27:19 GMT

In article <9643@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1992Oct14.212931.12399@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rvanderb@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rian van der Borgt) writes:

$ Another point is, that a lot of people just don't know what mass transit 
$ is like, because they've (almost) never used it. They can't know if 
$ they like it. Those people may need just a little 'push'.

>I know what mass transit is like, I did it for several years.  I liked it
>so much that I was willing to work a second job in order to buy a car.

	I'm afraid I'm not that much of a masochist...
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Nature's Rights and Muddled Dietz
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:23:05 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1466601813@igc.apc.org>, Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.apc.org> writes:
>Anthropocentrism also tends to undervalue
>ecosystems because it has no way to compensate for ignorance about value
>to humans -- ecocentrism, by attaching a value to ecosystems independent of
>anything we can assess today, is protected against this pitfall.

At the risk of overvaluing the ecosystems.  Of course, Alan, your position is
that humans have zero (or possibly negative) value, so it's impossible to
overvalue an ecosystem.

>I have been arguing that ecocentrism is more likely to aid human welfare than
>anthropocentrism is.

Sorry, Alan.  You have not been ARGUING that.  You've been ASSERTING it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: jannotj@pell2l8.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:15:20 GMT
Organization: Allegheny College

In article <1992Oct10.075735.8668@netcom.com> beast@netcom.com (Master)  
writes:
> In article <JMC.92Oct7225619@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU  
writes:
> >In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu>  
pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
> >
> >	   9) does not use products whose production uses
> >		   more energy than they save, either in terms of
> >		   food or existing non-human energy supply.
> >
> >   RATIONALE: encourage comfort and leisure through efficiency, not
> >		   through expanded use of energy sources.
> >
> >Here's the energy god again.  There is plenty of energy to be had.
> >Human labor is what needs to be conserved, unless we want to live in
> >poverty.
> 
> 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.  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.

				jannotj@alleg.edu  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
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
	<STEINLY.92Oct9141008@topaz.ucsc.edu> <1992Oct9.214835.7124@vexcel.com>
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:40:24

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?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct16113159@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct16.203428.25214@vexcel.com>
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:21:04

I don't see how to proceed further with the argument.  I offered to deal
with any two resources, and Dean Alaska tells us that no single resource
or few resources need be a problem; it's the lot collectively, and he
offers no aggregate numbers.  Would it be convincing that the total
fraction of the GNP devoted to the extraction of all resources is
small and decreasing?  I doubt it.

This reminds me of when I was sent a 16 page nicely printed paper
about how to trisect angles with ruler in compass.  The sender was a
friend of a friend of my father's so I didn't like to ignore it.  On
the other hand, the thought of reading a 16 pages to find the error
was depressing.  Thumbing through the paper, I found on page 4 a
formula purporting to give  sin(x/3)  in terms of  sin x.  The
formula was a polynomial with rational co-efficients.  Aha, I have it.
The polynomial has to give the wrong answer for 30 degrees, since
the sine of thirty degrees is 1/2 and the sine of 10 degrees is
irrational.  So I substituted into his formula and wrote him that
his formula was wrong for 30 degrees.  I supposed that this would
put him off for quite a long time if not permanently.  However, I
got back an immediate indignant reply that didn't I know that in
arguing about general propositions it was illegitimate to bring
up particular cases.  I wrote back that it might seem unfair to him,
but although a particular case could not prove a general proposition,
it could refute one.  With even more indignation, he wrote that if
I wasn't going to be fair I should return his paper.   This I was
glad to do.

The situation isn't exactly parallel.

--
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.92Oct14143006@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct14.231420.7127@vexcel.com>
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:59:34

In the U.S. the retirement age is going down slowly, the work week is
going down very slowly, the age at which people start work is going
up.  The social thinkers that work for unions, e.g. the United
Automobile Workers, used to try to get shorter work weeks, but every
time the union held a conference on what to demand from the automobile
companies, the workers voted for more pay rather than shorter hours.
Even people with quite high incomes, e.g. doctors, usually choose more
income rather than shorter hours.

I remember visiting a Ford plant that had a 58 hour week for both
workers and managers, and asking, "Who would want to work 58 hours
a week for one's whole life?"  The answer was that workers who
were trying to accumulate money to buy a house worked the 58
hour week for an average of four years, and then got a different
job or a job in the co-located truck plant that had two 40 hour week
shifts.

As might be expected, a priori ideas about what the work week should
be don't take into account individual differences in preference.
--
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
	<1992Oct16.224734.3098@cs.rochester.edu>
	<1992Oct16.233913.27071@vexcel.com>
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:06:10

In article <1992Oct16.233913.27071@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
   >
[stuff quoting Paul Dietz about the availability of resources omitted]

   The problem is that most analyses that find a problem with 
   unsustainable throughput are not based on resource scarcity,
   they are based on sink saturation.  Though the CO2/ozone example
   may not be typical of sink saturation, it shows how difficult they
   are to predict.

   The need for substitution is also likely to be the need to find a resouce
   that uses a different sink, not a resource with less scarcity.  Just how
   unique are sinks to resources?  Is there a synergistic problem as more
   sinks become, if not saturated, then at least somewhat scarce, in the sense
   that they aren't taken for granted?

   >	Paul F. Dietz
   >	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

So what sink saturation examples would you like us to discuss?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct15.001155.20365@s1.gov>
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:34:02

Does Loren Petrich ever come from Livermore to the Stanford area, and
how does he do it?  In fact, if he will come from his home in Livermore
to Stanford University entirely by public transportation I will give
him a free lunch at the Stanford Faculty Club.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 04:57:15 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct9162839@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Dingo says:
 >  
 >      If it were cost-effective to truck topsoil to the degraded
 >      land, it would already be happening.
 >  
 > Belief in the principle: 
 >  
 >      If it were cost-effective to do X, it would already be
 >      happening.
 >  
 > is a major reason for the persistence of poverty and
 > backwardness in the world.

Nonsequetors of this order of eccentricity are a major reason for the
persistence of institutionalised lunacy in the world, while people
from whom academic salaries and research budgets are extracted
remain poor and backward . . .

--
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 * *
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct10.151520.29893@pellns.alleg.edu> jannotj@pell2l8.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:
>I disagree I feel life might be that much richer if I had to rely on  
>myself alone to survive.  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.

Well then Jason, what are you doing at a University. Head for the hills
man. Otherwise you're just a posturing hypocrite. I might suggest that
you try Somalia as a place to practice your manual skills amid peace
and harmony.

Gary
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:22 PDT
Subject: --Missing Carbon Still at Large
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601801:000:2695
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Oct 12 10:22:00 1992


From: Tom Gray <tgray>
Subject: --Missing Carbon Still at Large

/* Written 10:13 am  Oct 12, 1992 by tgray@igc.apc.org in igc:en.energy */
/* ---------- "--Missing Carbon Still at Large" ---------- */
CLOSE LOOK AT OCEANS FAILS
TO FIND 'MISSING' CARBON

A detailed examination of the Earth's oceans has turned up a
portion of the carbon "missing" from the global carbon cycle,
researchers reported in Science magazine recently, but at least 1
billion tons/year, and possibly as much as 2 billion tons/year,
remains unaccounted for.

Carbon dioxide, the leading "greenhouse gas" associated with global
warming, is emitted into the atmosphere from a number of sources,
including the burning of fossil fuels and decay of plants, and is
in turn absorbed by growing plants.  In this cycle, the oceans play
a significant part which is not well understood, at times absorbing
CO2 and at other times releasing it.

Scientists are making strenuous efforts to account for the missing
volume of gas, as Science puts it, because "not knowing where all the
carbon is going raises the unnerving possibility that whatever
processes are removing it may soon fall down on the job without
warning, accelerating any warming."

Carbon from human sources can be distinguished from that in the
atmosphere because it contains a different ratio of the radioactive
isotope carbon-13, the magazine said, and researchers measuring CO2
in the oceans have concluded they absorb 2.1 billion tons of carbon
annually.  However, that number remains in dispute, with other
scientists believing it may be too high.

Some believe that northern hemisphere forests, which are gradually
expanding after having been nearly wiped out in the 18th and 19th
centuries, may be absorbing the missing carbon.
===============================

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has authorized me to offer
an electronic edition of its newsletter, _Wind Energy Weekly_, from
which the above article is excerpted, at no cost.

For those of you who have not previously seen excerpts from back issues
on Usenet or Bitnet, the _Weekly_ reports on the outlook for renewable
energy, energy-related environmental issues, and renewable energy
legislation in addition to wind industry trade news.  The electronic
edition normally runs about 10kb in length.

If you would like a free electronic subscription, send me an e-mail
request.  Please include information on your position, organization,
and reason for interest in the publication.

*******************************************************************
Tom Gray                                 EcoNet/PeaceNet: tgray@igc
Internet/Bitnet: tgray@igc.apc.org    UUCP: uunet!pyramid!cdp!tgray

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: ENV SATELLITE SHUTDOWN IN DEC 1992
Keywords: nasa, environment, meteorology, satellite, ozone, aerosol
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:59:32 GMT

This is a repost of 6 Oct. posting (revised)...

We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9 (partial?)

     NOAA-10 (partial?)

     UARS (SPRING 1993)

Some of the following experiments that will terminate when
their satellites are shutdown are:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)
     
     Total Ozone Measurement System (TOMS)

     Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE)

     Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)

No plans have been stated to restart the satellites.

Budget cuts are specified in House Conference Report 102-902
that is attached to HR 5679, Sept. 24, 1992.

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.environment