HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:08:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

spears@bobcat.lmc.edu (Gene Spears) writes:
>While I second the vote for the Nature Conservancy as one of the most 
>successful of environmental organizations, I bet the staff of TNC would 
>agree that their organization would be almost unworkable WITHOUT the help of 
>state and governmental agencies to manage and protect the land after they 
>have acquired it.  In almost every instance of land purchase that I've read 
>about (and I'm a member), TNC donates the land to some governmental agency 
>with stipulations about how the land may be used.  Without this option, TNC 
>would have to devote a large portion of its budget to property upkeep and 
>protection, and be a far less effective organization than they are today.  I 
>don't know about Ducks Unlimited, but I bet they work the same way.

There's really not a whole lot of upkeep to be done on what they buy -
in fact that would sort of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?  A TNC
person told me that the reason they have to give the land back to the
government is so they don't have to pay the incredibly massive
property taxes on the land.  Government created the problem.
-- 
Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance?
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (John S. Watson - FSC)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Date: 28 Jul 92 06:18:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035

In article <JMC.92Jul27174238@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>5. Morality is a human invention, and human morality at present
>doesn't go very far in granting rights to viruses, bacteria,
>beetles and whales.  The fact that some humans don't want whales
>killed has some force, just for that reason.  By expressing their
>preference as a matter of rights, they have succeeded in avoiding
>the question of what they should pay to get others to honor their
>preference.  

Too bad you weren't around 120 plus years ago,
we could have avoided the Civil War.

>The Nature Conservancy has my respect, because they express their
>preference for conserving nature by *buying* the land containing the
>nature they want to preserve.

Are they the John Browns of our time?

"My eye have seen the glory ..."

John S. Watson, Civil Servent from Hell          ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov

HOMEBREW NAKED! --- Ursus cerevisiae nudium  (The Bare Beer Bear)
All right, then, I'll GO to hell"  --- Mark Twain
From: jym@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: GreenHype
Date: 24 Jul 1992 16:25:44 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com's message of 11 Jul 92 01:44:05 GMT

> Jym forwarded onto sci.environment a GreenHype press release
> that proudly explained how a Colorado schoolteacher was
> teaching his kids that nuclear wastes remain dangerous for
> a *quarter-billion* years.

=\= And as I recall, I also provided phone numbers for folks
to check to see if this was what was really said (as oppposed
to, say, being a typo), how the schoolteacher may have arrived
at the figure, etc.  None of Greenpeace's critics bothered to
pay that much attention to it -- it's much easier to flame.

> This year, we have been treated to the GreenHype opinion that
> all industrial uses of chlorine chemistry should be halted to
> "save the Ozone layer"

=\= The opinion is that the many, many side effects of the
production of chlorine products -- even if you choose to dis-
count or completely disbelieve any effect they might have on the
ozone layer -- outweigh the benefits derived from such products,
especially given the alternatives.  Greenpeace has provided a
detailed analysis of this situation (see Joe Thornton's report,
_The_Product_is_the_Poison_, and have compiled a comprehensive
list of alternatives.

=\= I have brought this up before, of course.  Several times,
in fact.  But the Greenpeace critics can't be bothered to pay
attention to it -- it's much easier to flame.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul28.051237.6982@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 28 Jul 92 11:17:53

In article <1992Jul28.051237.6982@ucunix.san.uc.edu> hagemann@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Brian Hagemann) writes:

   In article <3590@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
   >In article <keQjpNi00UhWM2SXEc@andrew.cmu.edu> jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:
   >
   >>This newsgroup is
   >>intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
   >>the earth...
   >
   >NO!  This newsgroup is so that counter-evironmentalists will be able to
   >monitor what the ecofreaks are up to.

   Mike...  trust me on this one...  us 'ecofreaks' are 'up to' more that you
   or Mr. McCarthy will _ever_ know about through a lame newsgroup such as this.

   For me, reading this group and the rants of the ultra-right appearing here
   nightly is about as useful as AM Talk-Radio.  You know... something to get
   the pulse rate up before darkness falls...

   Beware.  We Never Sleep.

All the discussion of issues on this talk.environment and sci.environment
just come down to

	"rants of the ultra-right"

for Brian Hagemann.  Very likely, he is partly right.  In some political
circles, people shouting slogans and blocking entrances have more
effect than any discussion of issues.  However, in my few contacts
with Congressmen, I have found them on the average more rational
than mere contemplation of what it takes to get re-elected would
suggest.

Of course, it might be Hagemann is bragging about plans for illegal
activities that might be done - spiking trees or blowing up electric
transmission towers.

If such things occur in his neighborhood, round up the usual suspects.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:22:38 -0400 
From: Student Enviro-Link <env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
	<3583@execu.execu.com>
Distribution: usa

On 24-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
user Mike McCants@execu.execu writes:
>In article Environet writes:
>>
>>=> From: DENISE JOINES
>>=> Subj: MT GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
>... Junk deleted ...
>>
>>You can play a key role ...
> 
>I sure hope not.  I hope it's too late now.

What the fuck is up your ass?  Why are you on this network if all you
are going to do is make fun of serious issues that are being addressed? 
Do you have nothing better to do with your life than to sit around on a
computer and make fun of serious work?

Get a life.


Student EnviroLink                 *    Send regular mail to:           
                       
<env-link@andrew.cmu.edu>          *    SEAC
Reaching over 300,000              *    Skibo Hall
environmentalists in 31 countries  *    Carnegie Mellon University
Josh Knauer, Administrator         *    5000 Forbes Ave.                
                                              
Telephone: (412) 268-4722          *    Pittsburgh, PA 15213  USA
        or (412) 268-2139          *                                    
          
>>If your group puts out a newsletter, please send it to the above
address!!<<
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: rape of nature
Date: 28 Jul 92 04:51:27 GMT
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University

When someone writes of "the rape of nature", it somehow reminds me of

     The Puritans objected to bear baiting not because it gave
     pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the
     spectators. - Thomas Macaulay
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: blagdon@engin.umich.edu ()
Subject: Re: Gas Mileage
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 13:32:03 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Jul25.083446.11361@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <rHR-9+_@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
>>
>>I ALWAYS drive the speed limit (on those rare occasions when I drive).
>>Saves mongo on the gas bill (and pisses off the rest of the speeding
>>motorists to boot).
>
>Have you actually *tested* this savings? Or are you just mindlessly
>repeating a claim you were told? I've kept careful records and find
>that one of my vehicles gets better gas mileage at a speed higher
>than the national limit and the other doesn't vary more than 3%
>ten miles either side of the limit, though it's mileage peak is around
>47 MPH. Three percent is $0.60 a week. I wouldn't call that "mongo" by
>any stretch of the imagination.

My SO speeds, I don't.  She manages 35mpg highway in her 87 Subaru wagon,
I get 45mpg in the same wagon.  Our mileage (her's is our only car) is
92% highway.  She fills the tank on average once every three weeks.  That
means I get about 29% better mileage than her on the highway.  That's 
close to the figures from the NHTSA and Transportation department studies
I've seen, which said you lose about 30% of your mileage by driving
10mph over the speed limit (of 65, about 20% at 55).

Unless your car has another gear which you use above the speed limit
only, you'd better check your figures, since they're pretty close to
impossible.  The greatest source of drag above 30mph is wind drag, which
I think is to the third power of velocity.  The peak mileage on the
other makes sense, the studies found that for both 76 and 88 model year
cars, best mileage was achieved between 35 and 45mph.

I had a friend who made a similar claim at one point.  Turned out that
he was doing a lot of drafting at the higher speed.  Actually, he was
tailgating when he got caught behind trucks and to try to scare other
motorists out of his way.  Of course when I draft trucks, I get about
54 mpg.

Ken
>
>Gary
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Jul29145701@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul29.233204.23999@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<3601@execu.execu.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:53:52

Consider the following four ideas:

1. The idea that the positions of the planets can be accurately
observed by telescopes and predicted by integrating Newton's
gravitational equations.

2. The idea that steam engines are an effective way of propelling
vehicles that carry goods on land and sea.

3. The idea that the free market is an effective way of motivating
people to produce what other people need.

4. The idea that free elections lead to better governments than
absolute monarchies, hereditary oligarchies or one party dictatorships.

Which of them can be considered facts about the world, valid for
all human societies, and which were "forced" upon the unwilling
or are the results of intoxication?



--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 21 Jul 92 05:59:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: genie.1992Jul21.055902.6498
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences

In article <1992Jul21.035335.25089@reed.edu> sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape) writes:
}how
}does one first acquire moral ownership of a natural resource?  In other words,
}if we look at a case where some land or natural resource is unclaimed, what
}is the method that can give me a right to do whatever I want with the land?
}Historically, I gather that the most common method employed to determine 
}"turf rights" has been invasion, conquest, and so on.

The "homesteading" principle is the one for land acquisition.  First appropri-
ation.  The particular conventions differ.

}I've started arguing, in my political discussions, that some things are
}private by nature, and some things communal, and that it is therefore
}reasonable for me to call myself a  "Libertarian-Socialist." When I think
}of things that I regard as communal I think exclusively of natural resources.
}If something were communal intrinsically, it would then be proper for the
}government to regulate & limit its use by private entities -- to forbid
}monoplization, for instance.  So, as a Libertarian, i.e., someone who 
}believes the sole purpose of government is to defend rights (rather than 
}fulfill needs), I argue for environmental protection on the grounds that 
}use of communal property which is destructive or monopolizing violates
}the rights of others (all of whom have equal right to access said property).

You've yet to justify your position that natural resources are commonly
owned, without which natural monopolies are perfectly permissible.  Also,
environmentist economists are defending private ownership of natural resources
on the grounds that economic rent ensures the most economical use of it.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Subject: Re: What, if anything, is a wetland? (WAS Re: Why Bush does not want to sign at Rio?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 17:54:30 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Jul20.195908.4422@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<TSF.92Jul21100849@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU>
	<1992Jul21.192627.22543@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Jul21.192627.22543@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
   In article <TSF.92Jul21100849@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
   >Each object (with the exception of intangible things like patents)
   >consists of some amount of human effort combined with some amount of
   >material that originally came from the Earth.  The current
   >configuration of a piece of land also depends on some amount of human
   >effort combined with whatever nature did.  I can see quantitative
   >differences but not qualitative ones.

   Then I must explicitly widen my scope: I don't think that you should
   be able to own materials, only that part of an object which represents
   human effort. 

Okay, so in the case of the plastic in my keyboard, CMU owns the labor
that went into making the keyboard from the oil, but "the community"
owns the atoms that originally came from the oil.  If the scheme with
the land continues to hold, then the oil has only been leased from the
community.  When the lease expires, the keyboard will have to somehow
be converted back into oil and pumped back into the oil well?  I'm
pretty lost here.

I'm equally lost when it comes to the irrigation ditch.  When the
lease expires, how do I keep the ditch but lose use of the land?  (If
the lease can't expire, then in what sense is it a lease?)

I have to admit I haven't read the author you pointed me to.  I did
save it away though, and if your viewpoint starts to look reasonable
to me I'll go read.

The scheme where the community leases the land might be workable, if
the community were an intelligent decision maker (so it could put the
right restrictions on the lease) and we also feel good about having no
one plan past the end of their lease.  Unfortunately neither of these
conditions seems reasonable: communities are made of people who will
necessarily have less ability and motive to pay attention to good
resource management of a particular piece than an individual owner
would.  I also don't like schemes that necessarily restrict people to
limited-range planning. 
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>
When they took the fourth amendment, I was silent because I don't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I kept quiet because I know I'm innocent.
When they took the second amendment, I said nothing because I don't own a gun.
Now they've come for the first amendment, and I can't say anything at all.
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 00:54:00 -0400 
From: Joshua Alan Knauer <jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!

On 25-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
user Student Enviro-Link@andr writes:
>Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 17:22:38 -0400 
>From: Student Enviro-Link <env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>Subject: Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Action Alert!!
> 
>On 24-Jul-92 in Re: ACTIVISM: Mt. Graham Ac..
>user Mike McCants@execu.execu writes:
>>In article Environet writes:
>>>
>>>=> From: DENISE JOINES
>>>=> Subj: MT GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
>>... Junk deleted ...
>>>
>>>You can play a key role ...
>> 
>>I sure hope not.  I hope it's too late now.
> 
>What the fuck is up your ass?  Why are you on this network if all you
>are going to do is make fun of serious issues that are being addressed? 
>Do you have nothing better to do with your life than to sit around on a
>computer and make fun of serious work?
> 
>Get a life.
> 
> 
>Student EnviroLink                 *    Send regular mail to:           
>                       
><env-link@andrew.cmu.edu>          *    SEAC
>Reaching over 300,000              *    Skibo Hall
>environmentalists in 31 countries  *    Carnegie Mellon University
>Josh Knauer, Administrator         *    5000 Forbes Ave.                
>                                              
>Telephone: (412) 268-4722          *    Pittsburgh, PA 15213  USA
>        or (412) 268-2139          *                                    

--------============------------
As the head administrator of Student EnviroLink, I am forced to accept
responsibility for this post. I personally did not write it, rather
another person utilized the account for posting without a proper
signature.

I hope that no person's view of the services that Student EnviroLink
offers is tainted.

My personal response to all of this is to follow.

Thanks,
Josh Knauer
Head Administrator, Student EnviroLink Networks
<env-link@andrew.cmu.edu>
From: jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua Alan Knauer)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:24:48 GMT
	<JMC.92Jul25225348@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Freshman, H&SS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

On 25-Jul-92 in Re: Fwd: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM..
user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
>Some people may be wondering why I keep pounding away at the
>environmentalists to tell us negative impacts of their proposals
>when they tell us that they have no intention of doing so.  I
>think this may be an area in which repetition can actually get
>people to think.

I have already posted at least three times:

Mt. Graham is a very important from a biological standpoint being the
southernmost intact Spruce-Fir forest and is home to at least eighteen
endemic plant and animal species, including the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel
(currently listed as "threatened".  Mt. Graham (or Dzil nchaa sm `n) is
also the most sacred mountain of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.

This very clearly and concisely states the reasons for which I (and I
assume many others) are involved in this issue. If you need more
details, please either reread the original posts or write/call Save
America's Forests at (202)
544-9219, as they have reams of information on the issue.

On 25-Jul-92 in Re: Fwd: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM..
user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
>I must admit ignorance as to whether there are already astronomical
facilities >on Mount Graham.

Maybe, then, you should attempt to gather information before splashing
an opinion all over the place that is obviously a gut reaction to the
myth, "It is in the name of Science, so therefore it is good."  I would
hope that in the future you might be able to wait until you have SOME
information before you react.

Thanks,

Josh Knauer                          *      Box 3085 
Head Administrator for:              *      1000 Morewood Ave.
Student EnviroLink, SEACnet          *      Pittsburgh, PA   15213  USA
and GREEN-L                          *      Phone:  (412) 268-4150  
                                     *                 or 268-2139
Western Pennsylvania                 
Representative for:    
Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)

**All views expressed are mine alone and not those of any group(s) I may
represent**

Clearcut Bush/Quayle '92
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:51:32 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: duneman7484@iscsvax.uni.edu's message of 28 Jul 92 01:37:54 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.203754.5809@iscsvax.uni.edu> duneman7484@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:


   Americans.) What I think is something we have to REALLY think about is why the
   only enviromental "leadership" making headlines are people like Germany and
   Japan's leaders when they go against the US at Rio. ".... Strong environmnetal
   stand by Germany ...."  ?? 

Talk is cheap. If every piece of rhetoric received the same coverage
as the pilicy decisions of leaders of 100million people nations
then CNN would have the signal-to-noise ratio of Usenet ;-)

   real. This brings me to another question: why, when speaking of how some native
   people's found a close balance between themselves and nature, is it pointed out
   that they had all these diseases and only lived to be 50 and had very hard 
   lives... ?? Really now, tell me, do we really think that our QUALITY of life 
   has become so beautiful that "it was worth it?" I see SO much psychological and
   other damage BEACUSE of this lifestyle we've created. STRESS.....!! Sure, we
   live to be 100 -- unable to walk, talk and in a old folks home. Great. 

Yes. It is great. Try the alternative someday. 
Remember that humans tend to scale crisis on a relative
scale, as major problems are resolved, lesser problems appear
more important - stress is quite frankly a trivial problem when
compared to hunger, and worrying about it is a luxury only
afforded by the sated.

   "In the  absence of the sacred." I'm talking about the Great Spirit and anyone 
   who has really felt it in the warm breeze of summer. Leadership, heroes ...

That's nice, I prefer poetry and a good white wine on a sunny
afternoon, I have little time for spirits, greater or lesser.

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