From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.environment,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct12.191732.24793@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.114043.13438@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com
>(Nick Szabo) uses the following phrase a lot:
>
>          And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists of 
>	  destroying the economy!
>
>Lets take a little look at this claim.
>
>>In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>>	1) doesn't reduce topsoil depth
>>
>>This assumes we can't make topsoil, or a reasonable substitute (eg
>>mineral-rich fertizer).  It would eliminate most farming in the 
>>U.S., destroying our #1 export.  
> 
>Average topsoil depth on 28 WA certified-organic farms has increased
>over the last 10 years.
>
>Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1987: $300,000
>Cash flow through WA certified-organic farms in 1992: $2,300,000

Yes, enviro-yuppies will pay outrageous prices for "organic" foods.
Of course *all* farming is the practice of growing food using
organic chemistry. Nick says we can make topsoil, you just supported
his claim. Any farmer knows that long term depletion of topsoil is
costly. That's why crop rotation, minimum tillage, terrace plowing,
and the like are routine tools of the farmer. The farmer knows that
a corn crop will cause short term depletion of topsoil, that's why
he rotates in soybeans, clover hay, and wheat. That's also why he
boosts soils with fertilizers, so that what he takes from the soil
is made up by what he adds.

>>>	3) doesn't redirect or restrict more than 1% of water flow
>>>		in a given watershed 
>>
>>We already redirect water all over the place, and we should do it more.
>>For example, we can create large amounts of new wetlands -- 
>
>What was wrong with old wetlands ? Did we have a rational reason for
>destroying them, or is this all just post-facto rationalisation ?

Perhaps they were in desirable locations for other uses. Or perhaps
it's cheaper to drain one swamp and create another than to reroute
a road. Swamps are useful natural filters, but there are artificial
filters that work better and take up less space. It becomes a matter
of weighing costs. If the swamp costs less, use the swamp. Of course
the EPA is going to pitch a fit if you dump city sewage into a swamp,
so you're going to have to build the artificial filtering plant anyway.
Now what purpose does the swamp serve with chemically pure water running
into it? As Admiral Stackpole told Al Gore, clean the pond too much
and the water lilies die.

>>Redirecting water for power and farming is critical to our industries.
>
>Hydro-electric plays a limited role in the eastern US.  1% of the
>waterflow is sufficient for almost all bioregionally-specific farming,
>especially when labor-intensive, small-scale techniques are used. Such
>techniques reduce water usage and increase yields - sample plots like
>Ecology Action's demonstration farm in Willits, CA. exceed USDA
>averages by up to 1000%.

Indeed, let's return agriculture to $0.50/hr stoop labor. Today's
farmer feeds 75 people. In the days of stoop labor the ratio was
4 off farm people for every farm laborer. Labor intensive agriculture
is back breaking hard work from sunup to sunset. I won't willingly
go back to cutting cane by hand.

>>>	6) avoids petrochemicals, in general
>>
>>Synthetic fibers alone save us from tens of millions of acres of ecologically 
>>destructive farmland.   
>
>Which we wouldn't need either if we had a decent population size.

First stoop labor, now genocide. What next?
			 
>			 They are important components in over 90% of 
>>consumer items. 
>
>The most critical (to "standard of living") were made of other things
>first. Note also that avoidance of petrochemicals doesn't mean
>avoidance of long-chain carbon polymers. Rayon (made from plant
>cellulose) as well as Livos plants and oil finishes are examples of
>combining the admitted utility of carbon chemistry with more
>sustainable technology.

Cultured and harvested by stoop labor I presume.

>>>	9) does not use products whose production uses
>>>		more energy than they save, either in terms of
>>>		food or existing non-human energy supply.
>>
>>This doesn't just destroy the economy, it violates the laws
>>of physics.
>
>What *are* you talking about ? 

He's talking about the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


Gary