From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Summary:  Blueprint for further destruction of the economy
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 11:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>A sustainable lifestyle might have the following attributes:
>
>	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.  And you wonder why we accuse 
environmentalists of destroying the economy!
 
>	2) doesn't have more than a <XXX>% effect on atmospheric
>		composition

Reasonable, as long as XXX is defined rationally in the interest
of civilization, rather than politically.

>	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 -- new
homes for biodiverse ecosystems -- via irrigation, eg the Moses
Lake reclamation projects in Eastern Washington State.

Redirecting water for power and farming is critical to our industries.
And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists of destroying the
economy!

>	4) doesn't use heavy metals
>
>RATIONALE: we do not yet have ecosystems capable of dealing with
>		most heavy metals in significant quantities.

This would ban over three-fourths of all industrial processes.  And you
wonder why we accuse environmentalists of destroying the economy!

In fact there are many organisms capable of concentrating and
removing heavy metals.  Furthermore, this assumes more static
technology, eg that we can't reduce the leakage from industrial
systems into the ecosystem.  The recent order-of-magnitude reduction
in lead release, among other improvements, disproves the assumption.

>	5) leaves contiguous stretches of any given ecosystem
>		connected to original (pre-human) neighbors
>
>RATIONALE: the strength of ecosystems relies heavily on diversity,

There isn't much evidence that "strength" relies on diversity,
actually.  Nor are many of these ecosystems important enough
to warrant such distinction.   "Any given ecosystem" is a 
blank check for confiscating farmland, tree farms, industrial
property, etc.  And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists
of destroying the economy!

>	6) avoids petrochemicals, in general

Synthetic fibers alone save us from tens of millions of acres of ecologically 
destructive farmland.   They are important components in over 90% of 
consumer items. For all the research into alternate car fuels, gasoline 
still comes out #1 in portability and safety.  And you wonder why we accuse 
environmentalists of destroying the economy!

>(7-8 biomass)

These restrictions would, if taken literally, ban all large-scale
farming and lumbering.  And you wonder why we accuse environmentalists
of destroying the economy!

>	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.

God forbid that we ever have to live in this eco-hell.



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