HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:52:13
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct13.051307.18621@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.051307.18621@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <-1366948899snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
   >
   >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.
   >
   Violence among the poor becomes common when there are unrealized expectations
   of wealth, which often implies great disparities of wealth.  Societies with
   low _material_ standards of living, but with sustainable lifestyles are
   often very satisfied and have little violence.  I have traveled extensively

More simply, organised violence is a luxury not affordable to those already
struggling to exist. To support an army or even an extended raid
you must produce a surplus to support them, if your society does
not generate surplus resources no systematic fighting lasting more
than a day or two is possible.
That still leaves casual violence, and plenty of it, either way you're dead.

   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.

	  I was traveling alone, eating with
   the people, sleeping next to their chicken coops and was not insulated at all.
   I would feel much safer walking through any city at night there than in any
   city in the US.  I also met Nepalis who had lived in the US and went back
   "because nobody smiles in American cities."  I would suggest that their
   definition of a "high standard of living" would be very different than yours.

So what. If I wanted to I could buy several cows, this would boost my
living standard immensely by some measures. By my measure it would
severly reduce my living standard. Is the other way better?

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
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
	<1bn6a8INNr7q@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:08:35

In article <1bn6a8INNr7q@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct16114015@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
   >The elimination of the short handled hoe in California because of its
   >bad effects on workers' backs is the result of demands by the labor
   >movement.  (I'm not sure it's all gone).  If it were less efficient
   >than the long handled hoe, which is much older in agriculture, it
   >would never have been introduced.

   I'll dispute your claim that the long-handled hoe is "much older in
   agriculture."  Perhaps in some agricultural traditions, it is, but not in all.
   For example, the Gwembe Tonga on the Zambezi river used the short-handled hoe
   exclusively until some of the members of the tribe travelled far enough (in the
   1960's I think) to encounter the long-handled hoe.  The latter quickly
   displaced the short-handled hoe, largely because it allowed them to plant their
   crops much more densely.
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

My opinion was based on only seeing long handled hoes on New England
farms where I was boarded as a child.  I suggest suspending this
discussion till we have more facts.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:49:16 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Oct14200937@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Some back of the envelope calculations suggested that the economics
>is tolerable for short distances in areas with expensive farmland
>where soil is the only difference between poor land and good land.

Perhaps you are missing out on a profitable venture. Please let's
all see these calculations. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: Re: --Missing Carbon Still at Large
Summary: Carbon-13 is _not_ radioactive 
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:19:33 GMT

In article <1466601801@igc.apc.org> Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>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.

  ARRRRGH!!

  Sorry.

  Carbon-13 is NOT radioactive.  Carbon comes in three isotopes.  Most
of it is Carbon-12, which is stable.  A little bit is Carbon-13, which
is STABLE.  An even tinier fraction is Carbon-14, which truly is 
radioactive, with a half life around 5700 years.  The Carbon-14 is 
created in the atmosphere when cosmic rays strike a Nitrogen-14 atom
and convert a proton to a neutron.  All carbon-14 comes from the
atmosphere, so sources from the earth can be neglected.  (PS, strictly
speaking, not _all_ C-14 comes from this.  Some is also created in
nuclear bomb tests, particularly those conducted above ground.  This
fact is also used by oceanographers.)

  Carbon-14 and Carbon-13 can both be used to diagnose human influences
on the carbon cycle.  When we burn fossil fuels, we burn carbon sources
with distinctive signatures.  The fossil fuels contain no carbon-14,
since they were created millions of years ago.  (That they don't is
a direct observation.)  Also, the plant matter that went in to making
the fossil fuels is depleted, relative to the global inventory, in 
carbon-13.  This happens because your high school chemistry teacher
fibbed.  Isotopes are _not_ chemically identical.  The less massive
isotopes are _slightly_ more reactive.  So plants (and people and
anything else using carbon chemistry) tend to absorb Carbon-12 in 
preference to Carbon-13.  The difference is slight, but measureable.

  So, as a tracer, both isotopes can be used for tracking the carbon
cycle.  Carbon-13 is preferable for longer periods because it stays
around.  One line of research (consult the last 2-3 months of Science
and Nature) is to measure the Carbon-13 trapped in air bubbles in the
polar ice caps.  Results of the ice cap work suggest that the rise in
atmospheric CO2 levels that accompanied the end of the last ice age was
an even more complex process than we'd been thinking.  
 
Bob Grumbine
rmg3@grebyn.com
Not all isotopes are radioactive!
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
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:43:08

Who consulted Hardwick?  It seems that he babbles about "the
persistence of institutionalised lunacy in the world", he is
making a point similar to mine.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:27:28 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <-1366845887snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>In article <1bel61INNqi7@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
> > Tradition for one thing.  "Because it's always been done this way," is the
> > usual explanation.
>
>Perhaps because traditional methods, having been tried and tested over
>so many generations, actually work so well . . .

So they're "good enough."  A short-handled hoe certainly works well.  Not
nearly as well as a long-handled hoe, but it does its job.  Is that a reason
to continue using a short-handled hoe?

>I do not regard your pitiful ignorance a virtue, mate. You are merely
>stupid and I have no respect for the crap you post to this group.

Don't worry about it.  The feeling is quite mutual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:40:07

There is plenty of evidence of old ways being maintained by people
who would benefit from switching to something new.

Why do do few people use push button combination locks on their
front doors?  They are much more convenient than keys.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:33:33
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au's message of Wed, 14 Oct 92 07:03:29 GMT

In article <-1366845887snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   In article <1bel61INNqi7@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:

    > Tradition for one thing.  "Because it's always been done this way," is the
    > usual explanation.

   Perhaps because traditional methods, having been tried and tested over
   so many generations, actually work so well . . .

Is that a general rule, mate?
Have you applied it to the fertile crescent or the granary's of the
Roman Empire?

   I do not regard your pitiful ignorance a virtue, mate. You are merely
   stupid and I have no respect for the crap you post to this group.

My, temper, temper.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: UICN Guatemala and BD since Rio
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:14:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <1466601786@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
>are immense: Clinton wants to retain US leadership in this area, while Bush

Bush is criticized for lack of leadership and Clinton wants to "retain
US leadership."
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Oct15172216@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54868@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:04:20

You might ask a highway engineer how much it costs to move dirt and
look up how much topsoil is enough for good crops and ask a real
estate man how much different kinds of farmland go for in western
Massachusetts.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:58:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1466601779:cdp:1466601793:000:673
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Oct  9 21:58:00 1992


Presumably Dietz would not approve of a different application of
his "argument": whites (or gentiles) are whites (or gentiles) and
non-whites (or jews) are not. If his argument is a good reason for
withholding rights, so are these.

It seems almost ridiculous to have to make such an obvious point,
but alas...

Actually, I did consider the "Occam's Razor" argument -- it was
the one Michael Tobis offered. Sigurddson replied that diminished
capacities often entail diminished rights. It is not the view of
ecocentrics that nonhuman nature is an incompetent approximation
to humanity, which I why offered a completely different line of
argument.
-------------
Alan McGowen
From: djasson@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Drew Asson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:03:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <6578@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh  
Rovero) writes:
>> Some of these satellites are getting on in years, and in at least the
>> case of the NOAA-xx birds, the replacement satellites are already in
>> operation.
>
> With deficits of hundreds of BILLION$, something has to go.......
> 
> -- 
> Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
> Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
> Naval Postgraduate School              |              

Yeah ... like all the wasted money put into defense and weapons
systems.  Taxing the very affluent their fair share.  Something has to
go indeed.  And unfortunately, I feel that it will be the Earth itself
that will go.  The problem cannot be ignored any longer.  It will not go
away.  Let's put our money to real defenses for the children of the world,
lets save the environment for them.

djasson@afterlife.ncsc.mil
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:00:56
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct8.054331.26269@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Oct8.144024.25915@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.144024.25915@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <1992Oct8.054331.26269@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct7.175956.4223@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

    UCS
   >>says they shouldn't be used.  They do call for an official moratorium on
   >>construction of plants until a waate-handling system is online nad _proven_
   >>safe.

   >In other words a million year test. To those of us with shorter lifespans
   >that's essentially equivalent to forever. I'm satisfied with safer and 
   >don't expect the impossible ideal of safe. Good odds is all we can get,

   Proven safe does not necessarily mean absolutely safe.  I am not sure
   what their definition of proven safe is, but mainly they want to see
   that some waste repository is available with some level of actual
   experience.  While its clear that fossil has a worse record than

It would be nice if opponents would state an acceptable level of
proof _and_ _stick_ _with_ _it_.

   factor.  Further, the UCS does not advocate fossil-fuel construction.
   There is plenty of evidence that short-term efficiency retrofitting
   moving towards renewables as efficiency gets played out can remove
   the need for major building of fossil-fuel _or_ nuclear power plants.
   The continued ignoring and/or refusal to accept (or rebut) these
   facts demonstrates a bias or tunnel-vision among many of the same
   people who complain about representations of nuclear power.

The refusal to accept this comes from recognition of some other
factors. There is more to energy supply then building capacity
to meet increased demand (peak or base ;-), you need to consider
replacement of current capacity as it becomes ineffective of obsolete,
unless you reduce the absolute demand fast enough and that is not
happening. Personally I'd like to see a lot of fossil plants in
US and western Europe retired.
No matter how you look at it you need to produce some electricity,
I'd claim that reducing demand below 1/3 current is umprobable
(barring a major population crash) and to reduce it by an order of
magnitude is sheer fanatsy. Hydro and wind cannot meet that demand,
geothermal is immature and solar has distribution and reliability
problems that have not been addressed (flat assertions on the net
notwithstanding), that leaves fossils or fission for the next 2-4
decades.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  If you ever have to go to Shoeburyness			*
*  Take the A-road, the ok road, that's the best!		*
*  Go motoring on The A13!	- BB 1983			*

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:12:58 GMT

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. 

>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 * *


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
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
	<1992Oct7.132358.28622@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:53:56

In article <1992Oct7.132358.28622@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

   Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!stanford.edu!ames!nsisrv!jgacker
   From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
   Sender: usenet@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov (Usenet)
   Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
   Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
   X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
   References: <JMC.92Oct6205144@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
   Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:23:58 GMT

   John McCarthy (jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
   : I don't see that UCS has rethought any of its policies.


	   Why don't you suggest which ones should be rethought?  (if
   you're implying there's a problem.)

	   Jim Acker
	   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov


UCS should rethink its opposition to nuclear energy.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:35:52 GMT

In article <JMC.92Oct15174016@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>dean@vexcel says:
>
>However, if people work
>>   more hours, whether they want to or not, and if productivity
>>   continues to increase, then we _will_ have more people without
>>   work to do, and this unemployment will be structural, not the
>>   result of business cycles.
>
>Not if people want more goods and services.  The first approximation
>to the results that will follow is obtained by looking at how people
>with greater than average incomes spend their money as compared to
>people with lower incomes.  Typically, the income has to get to several
>times present average American incomes before people take shorter
>work weeks.  Indeed for many people longer vacations, time off for
>personal business and earlier retirement take higher priority.
>
Ah  - now we move back to sustainability issues.   Even if we assume
ZPG, more productivity without more unemployment and the
corresponding increased _goods_ and services leads to
nonsustainable consumption _unless_ you can show that these _goods_
are "virtual" goods (sorry for the computerese) and that they are
not correlated with increased _physical_ throughput.

>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment