From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Date: 20 Aug 92 06:28:42 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <JMC.92Aug19184738@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>California, the largest state in population and also in agricultural
>production, uses 35 million acre-feet of water per year.  The Columbia
>River flow is 180 million acre-feet per year.  There is no reason,
>except environmentalist obstructionism, why Oregon and Washington
>should have water shortages.  Environmental extremists adore
>shortages, because they lend themselves to their "Repent, the world is
>about to come to an end!" slogans.

Not at all. We have scientists-- ecologists who study biology, hydrology, and
related areas, telling us what the consequences of reduced river flows would
be. Lets listen to them and decide whether those consequences are bearable,
and for how much benefit. One of the effects of reducing the Columbia river
flow would be a reduction in the salmon run. The salmon provide the basis for
a large fishing/packing/food processing industry, and provide the primary
means of subsistence of some Native Americans living in the area.
And of course, numerous other ecosystem changes would result, many with
indirect if not direct impact on human activities, but I was trying to pick
an obvious item with direct business/economic affect since John ignores
the importance of ecological effects (and can't be persuaded by any amount
of reason, since lots of reasons have been put forth on this newsgroup in the
past year and his views have not change and his remarks-see below- have become
ever more acerbic).

>The environmentalists today are the successors, and maybe even
>descendants, of the religious enthusiasts in the U.S. of the
>last century.  However, it doesn't seem as though they are having
>quite the same success.  For example, many colleges, in response
>to the religious enthusiasm, required that everyone attend chapel
>at 7am.  It took a while to get rid of that.
>
>I suppose some environmentalists and PC enthusiasts might develop
>enthusiasm for the equivalent of compulsory chapel, but so far they
>have only managed consciousness raising sessions in some college
>dormitories.

What kind of drivel is that? A small number of people have been driven to
extreme environmentalism because of extreme attacks on the environment by
equally zealous people of the opposite persuasion. But most environmentalists
sensibly see the irreversible destruction of natural systems by those
worshipping the profit god and are trying to save the few remaining vestiges
from being plundered. Most environmentalists realize that people are *part*
*of* the system, including dependent on it-- in the big picture, protecting
natural systems and protecting long-term benefits and quality of life for
humans coincide rather than conflict. Most environmentalists realize that
complex issues involve tradeoffs of one kind or another, but also realize
that most of the pieces have already been traded off. 

>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy,misc.activism.progressive,sci.physics