HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Jul20.143817.21153@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<1992Jul25.075320.11055@ke4zv.uucp>
	<1992Jul27.172754.3407@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:42:38

In article <1992Jul27.172754.3407@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

   In article <1992Jul25.075320.11055@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
   >From the mastery of fire to the tapping of the atom, man's quest for
   >"enough" energy to modify his environment has been ongoing. As a result,
   >man's lifespan and quality of life have increased from a brutish existance
   >spanning perhaps 30 years, if he survived childbirth, to it's present seventy
   >some odd years of sheltered, air conditioned, well fed, relative comfort. 
   >I don't think that's "enough", but it's a damn good start.

   If you don't think thats enough, could you perhaps explain one, two or all
   of the three things:

	   1) what will be enough ?
	   2) why people who have whatever you imagine to "enough" will
		   agree with you ?
	   3) if you don't think that "enough" can be described, 
		   whether or not you agree that general optimism
		   about the future is all that supports the morality
		   of a lifestyle predicated on expansion ?

Here are my answers to Barton-Davis's good questions.

1. There is no definition of enough.  There will be limitations at
some point in the future imposed by nature, and maybe the return on
further effort will make leisure the most desirable good.  We are
very far from the limitations imposed by nature at present.

2. covered by the answer to (1).

3. A lot of scientific and technological information supports the
view that expansion can be continued for several hundred years
without jeopardizing anything essential for the welfare of humanity.

4. As humanity gets richer, it is motivated and able to devote
increasing resources to the preservation of other forms of life.
Very likely the present situation, in which the preservation of
genetic resources, requires the maintenance of habitats is
temporary.

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.  

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.

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

Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:41:38 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Jul20.192034.2963@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>This is such utter nonsense, it shows that your clearly know very
>little about forest practices. Clearcutting was in use long before
>there were any government regulations; its been used to decimate
>forests all over the planet. 

I found it interesting how rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth environmentalists
love the word "decimated."  Perhaps that's because most people don't
know what it means.  It sounds so much more awful to say that something's
"decimated" rather than "reduced by 10%."  Not the US forests have been
decimated recently -- we have more forest land today than we did at the
turn of the century, and the "environmental" movement had very little
to do with it.  But you won't hear that from extremist environmental
candidates who believe they have to scare people to get votes.


>Why the caricature ? What aspect of deep ecology ("biocentrism")
>prevents you from recognising the idea that trees deserve rights as
>trees, not as people ? 

Perhaps the same aspect that prevents him recognizing that trees
should be required to register with selective service.  He may be
operating under the delusion that trees are not people.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Fwd: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!
Date: 26 Jul 92 22:00:40 GMT
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <deleted> (Joshua Alan Knauer) writes:
>
>---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------
>ACTION ALERT
>LEGISLATION ON THE HORIZON TO PROTECT
>MT GRAHAM - IF YOU ACT NOW
>July 17, 1992   Washington,  DC--Friends of Mt. Graham and the San

LIES deleted here.  Appropriate changes below.
 
Dear Congressman __________________,
 
It has been in my attention for the last 6 or 8 years that the University
of Arizona in Tucson Arizona is leading a consortium of International partners
in building a telescope complex on a very small part of Mt. Graham in
southern Arizona.

As a citizen from your district, I urge you to support this
observatory against the silly obstructions of the ecofreaks.
They've slowed this project down a little bit in the last decade,
but it's time you stood up to them and told them to find something
reasonable to worry about.
From: Peter_Ronald@mindlink.bc.ca (Peter Ronald)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: 25 more arrests in Clayoquot Sound
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:21:32 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

F R I E N D S   O F   C L A Y O Q U O T   S O U N D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Box 489, Tofino B.C. V0R 2Z0 CANADA
(604) 725-4218

MEDIA RELEASE -- July 31, 1992
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


MASSIVE SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ANCIENT FORESTS

In a massive show of public frustration with the continued loss
of priceless ancient rainforest, 65 people blockaded the Kennedy
Lake Road in Clayoquot Sound this morning.

As of 10:00am, 25 people had been arrested. This brings the total
of arrests during the three-week blockade to 41.

The non-violent blockade started with a community pancake
breakfast at 6:00am. Amongst the crowd were some of the original
residents of the town of Tofino, people in their seventies. The
mood on the blockade was very positive and peaceful.

The oldest arrestee was Sue Fraser, age 72, from Port Alberni.
Two juveniles (under 18) were arrested and released.

Two people who were not on the road and were not blockading were
also arrested. It appears the police are exceeding the terms of
the court injunction and are targeting protest organizers.

The police were a quite rough with first round of arrests.
Blockaders stood or sat peacefully on the road, arms linked in
solidarity. Some blockaders were kneed in the chest and stomach
as police tried to break their links. When the police returned
from Ucluelet for their second load of arrests, their demeanour
had mellowed.

Clayoquot is the largest area of ancient temperate rainforest
remaining on Vancouver Island. Clayoquot River is a pristine
watershed over 5000 ha. in size. It is the third intact watershed
in the Sound that has been logged during the deliberations of the
Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Strategy Steering
Committee (CSSDSSC).

The Committee is over two years late in submitting its
recommendations for preservation of some of this last great
wilderness. The groups final report was again delayed for two
more months at the beginning of July. Logging in areas proposed
for protection has been permitted to continue all the while.

The Friends of Clayoquot Sound continue to call for an end to
clearcut logging destruction of this priceless world heritage.

For more information, please call:

Valerie Langer -- 604-725-3156 (days), 604-725-2600 (eves)
Friends of Clayoquot Sound -- 604-725-4218


--
Peter Ronald - @TEC Information Services  *  Rainforest Summer '92
peter@mindlink.bc.ca or tec@web.apc.org   *  Come to Clayoquot Sound this year!
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: "Keep Your Pollution!" (Article)
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:40:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article <9207280232.AA12737@poly.math.cornell.edu> harelb@MATH.CORNELL.EDU (Harel Barzilai) writes:
>[...From misc.activism.progressive...]
>
>                   Keep Your Pollution! Says One Expert
>                             by Maneka Gandhi
>
>Maneka Gandhi is India's former minister for the environment and
>forests.
>******************************************************************
>
>                   Keep Your Pollution! Says One Expert
>                             by Maneka Gandhi
>
>    Practically all environmental degradation in the East is due to 
>overconsumption in the West.

I can tell already I'm not going to like this "expert's" opinion.

[Much ranting and raving deleted]

>    The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) should be
>strengthened and given sanction-making powers.

Wow, what a neat proposal.  Let's have a UN body that is responsible
to no electorate (but to the "votes" of the "East"?) make our
economic and political decisions.  Not much point in having a
presidential election, is there?

India doesn't have a population problem, does it?

Population doesn't have much relation to "70% of our water is poluted",
does it?

Talk is cheap.  I sure hope there's not any action behind this talk.
From: rea@den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: ozone depletion
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:29:07 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Originator: rea@avila



Whats the latest on ozone depletion?
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Native People's leadership (!!)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:31:54 GMT

In article <JMC.92Jul28175405@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>The counter-cultural people in communes are parasitic on the main
>culture in the following senses:

I would suggest that communes are a subset of the counter-culture
and are not completely representative.

There seems to be a running assumption here that counter culture = poor
non-working types.  While I am too young to be personally familiar with
the 60's counter culture, the counter culture I am familiar with today
takes care of itself quite well with alternative health care and has
plenty of the "wisdom-enhanced" (seniors) living among them.  While
their tax contribution is small, so are their demands from society.
>--
>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)
From: MEK104@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:36:28 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

> in  <hank.711879926@well.sf.ca.us> hank@well.sf.ca.us writes:

>Briefly, even assuming that old growth forests are in equilibrium at any
>given time, they're producing topsoil (which is at least half arthropod
>shit, in the temperate coniferous rain forests).  The steady conversion of
>CO2 into topsoil is the contribution that old growth forests make (well,
>they also convert it into salmon, and other interesting forms of solidified
>carbon).

>Most of the CO2 released from intensive logging is from oxidation of soils,
>not from the trees.

Studies on tree physiology have demonstrated that carbon fixation rates (ie
photosynthesis) generally increases with increasing CO2 concentration, to a
point.The greatest carbon sink in any forest is the vegetation, particularly
the woody vegetation.  When a tree falls over, wood munching critters injest
the carbonand release much of it through respiration.  Insect frass only
contributes very little to the organic material in soil.  Most of it is
vegetative in origin.

When trees are cut, not all of the carbon in those trees is released
immediately because much of the wood goes into structures, etc.  The problem
is not with harvesting trees, the problem is with decreasing forested area,
like in the tropics, which ultimately decreases the volume of the carbon
sink.  Cutting trees and decreasing forested area are not necessarily
synonymous.

Mark
Newsgroups: talk.environment
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: NEWS: DOE Plans to Build New Savannah River Reprocessing Facility
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 17:10:04 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.073315.10830@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>No one can predict the political state of the world in 2018. 

But it might be nice if we tried to plan it and assert our
capabilities as rational objects instead of just engines of creation
driven by circumstance. Throughout history, plenty of people have
sought to predict 20 years into the future, and in so doing have
shaped the lives of the contemporaries and children, both for better
and for worse. Is Mr. Coffman advocating that we just throw out
political hands up in the air, and get on with tinkering with the
technology ?

-- paul
-- 
		     Paul's housebuilding credo:
     Measure it with a micrometer, cut it with a chainsaw, fit it
			 with a sledgehammer
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: PBS Elementary/Secondary Service
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:58:45 GMT
	<1992Jul27.172754.3407@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<JMC.92Jul27174238@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Jul28.184749.4618@vexcel.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:47:49 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.184749.4618@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:


   Should abolitionists have been required to buy slaves to get them out
   of slavery?  Can you suggest some rule of thumb for when some moral
   imperitive gets the force of law?  The "establishment" of a moral
   imperitive will always be a problem in a society with rules.  I detest
   the imposition of Christian morality on me by certain Christian groups
   but have no problem with the imposition of freedom for slaves.  In the
   hypothetical case where ecocentrism gets strong support from the
   majority, when can society _impose_ this value on others, as it did
   when slaves were freed?

When the majority of society is willing to pay the price it takes
to impose this will. At least that is the operational criterion.
Slavery was ultimately abolished by force, and arguably the background
for its abolition was set not by moral evolution but economics (and,
no, I do not care to advance that argument further, merely note it
and its implications). Of course this is also a function of how
strongly the "minority" is willing to resist the impostion of a new
moral imperative.

	  I don't have easy answers for these questions
   but I do reject what I consider to be simplistic solutions such as
   those offered by Libertarians who would draw a hard line after the
   human individual, who would have the right to do _anything_ that doesn't
   harm another human, but absolutely _nothing_ that impacts another human
   in some undesired way.

yeah, curious creed libertarianism, offers a healthy counterbalance to
statism at some level, never understood how they could assume
individual rights and deny collective rights...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
* steinly@helios.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
  
Xref: sparky talk.environment:2876 sci.environment:9715 alt.politics.marrou:109
From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.politics.marrou
Subject: Re: Libertarians & the environment
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:16:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul22.011657.3102
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Jul21.213229.4946@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>... It is much
>easier to say "ban it!", or dump the problem on distant bureacrats,
>than to think up good solutions to problems.  Libertarians observe
>that people who own things have the incentive to think of and 
>implement such solutions.  

People who own things have incentive to think up solutions when the "problem"
is a threat to their ownership.  The only reason property owners might 
try to think up environmental solutions is that if they don't, they
may lose their "property rights," and THAT incentive is provided by the
threat of government intervention.

>Unfortunately, some Libertarians react reflexively to ecofascist nonsense, 
>instead of showing how property rights do more than any other policy to 
>protect the environment. 

>All species that have ever been exterminated have been communal property.
>Alledgedly they are under government protection, but in fact nobody has
>an incentive to save them.  A libertarian solution would put
>ownership of endangered species in the hands of biotech companies, for
>whom unique genetic information is working captial, and conservationist 
>groups like Nature Conservancy and Audobon.  Genetic patents would ensure 
>that people have an incentive to find and preserve our planet's vast 
>storehouse of bio-information.  Keeping the problem in the hands
>of bureaucrats is will continue to doom countless species (the
>socialist for all their eco-hype haven't even bothered to get around to 
>counting them).

I didn't argue that laws provide the best incentive to behave a particular
way -- clearly they do not, whether the behavior is avoidance of drugs, re-
spect of people's rights, or non-destructive treatment of the environment.
I argued that some treatments of the environment are a wrong and should
be prohibited.  In any case, ownership provides the owner with incentive
to preserve the value of his property, which is not equivalent to its
environemntal health: the value of Georgia-Pacific's land to GP is a few
billion board-feet, worth X-amount of dollars, for instance.  If a timber
company owns, under US law, the last of an ecosystem, should they be permitted
to log it?  I say no; Libertarians say yes.


-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: NEWS: DOE Plans to Build New Savannah River Reprocessing Facility
Summary: Extra! Environmentalist agrees with Prof. John McCarthy
Keywords: GreenHype
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:28:58 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


  jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
> [ with respect to GreenHype opposition to a new nuclear-materials
>   processing facility planned for Savannah River ]
>
>
> As usual Greenpeace has its head up its ass.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

---
Joel Hanes

"We do need activists, but we need educated activists, not religious
 fanatics and slogan shouters."  --  Wayne Green
From: tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman)
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Leasing land (was Re: What, if anything, is a wetland?)
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:00:46 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: tsf@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <trR-6T_@engin.umich.edu> blagdon@engin.umich.edu (Kenneth James Clark ) writes:
   In article <TSF.92Jul22125430@U.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU> tsf@CS.CMU.EDU (Timothy Freeman) writes:
   I hadn't heard of this 'permanent lease' idea before, but it sounds 
   like it could work.  In this case, it seems that you as the lessor would
   be required to return the thing back to its original state.  If you 
   couldn't do that, you'd have to pay for it to be brought back as close
   to originally as possible.  In this case, you'd pay to have the keyboard
   recycled into original components, with the closest thing to oil being
   plastic pellets to be reused.   

I'm sure that with a million dollars and creative chemistry (and lots
of generated pollution), the plastic in my keyboard could be
transformed into something resembling crude oil.  Who decides how
close to the original state the keyboard needs to be returned?

I've lost track of the purpose of this proposal.  It seems to lead to
the destruction of a perfectly good keyboard.  Why is this a good
thing?  Apparently the original state is better than the new state
just because it is the original state?  Why?

   >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?)

   You don't.  You get what utility you can out of the ditch while you are
   leasing the land.  When you leave you are required to bring the land back
   to its original state, or pay to have that done.  Ie, you fill in the 
   ditch and replant the ground with whatever kind of plant you removed (or
   at least some native plants) to make the ditch.  If you don't expect
   to get enough utility out of the ditch, don't dig it.

And if the next person who leases the land needs a ditch in the same
place for the same reason I needed it, then the ditch gets filled in
and redug?  Why bother?  What's the point?
--
Tim Freeman <tsf@cs.cmu.edu>    CompuServe ID 71045,2267 checked occasionally.
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 15:30:33 -0400 
From: Joshua Alan Knauer <jk71+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTION ALERT!!

On 26-Jul-92 in Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTI..
Lord John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf speaks for all:

>point - that the environmentalists, just as much as business
>and government, owe the public impact statements about their
>proposals that would include negative impacts.  For this reason,

These full impact statements are all available through the number
previously listed.  

John-  "We" (whoever that is) owe nothing to you.  This newsgroup is
intended for environmentalists that are concerned about the future of
the earth in the hands of the "let's wait and see" people like you.  

I also wonder what the other people on this newsgroup feel. John seems
to feel that he speaks for the masses, I sincerely hope that not all of
the people on the net are similar in thought to him.

Josh Knauer

------------=================----------------
On 26-Jul-92 in Re: URGENT: MT. GRAHAM ACTI..
user John McCarthy@SAIL.Stanf writes:
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

He who does only math is bound to speak nonesense.
------------=================----------------


Newsgroups: talk.environment
From:  ()
Subject: test test
Organization: NASA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:59:35 GMT

this is a test