HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Date: 10 Nov 1992 05:37:54 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov10.021446.11169@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
=In article <1dmi8pINNha9@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
=>In article <1992Nov9.174031.3072@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
=>>Your point was that human action is more the result of capabilities
=>>than values.  In what ways has the capability to own other human
=>>decreased?
=>
=>The more relevent question is, in what way has the capability to accomplish
=>with machinery the things that used to be done by slaves changed?
=
=People are still needed to run the machines.

Quite some time ago, it was demonstrated by French workers that you do NOT want
a disconted worker running machinery.  Turns out that a wooden shoe (sabot in
French) does a nice job of getting you the afternoon off.  Hence the word
sabotage.

=There is plenty of unautomated labor around.

Yup.  Which is cheaper, hiring the labor or having slaves?  Remember, slaves
become a capital resource and are subject to depreciation if not properly
maintained.  If you do the arithmetic, I think you'll find that slavery
doesn't pay, or at least doesn't pay well enough for the hassle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:12:24 GMT

In article <1dmfrvINNha9@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.172217.2590@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>=If the propert is collective and society wants to preserve it,
>=then it does not need to determine a quantitative value.
>
>Just how do we determine that "society wants to preserve it"?  Ask Dean Alaska,
>and if he says society wants to preserve it, then society wants to preserve it?


Thats probably not too bad of a place to start :).  There are plenty of other
people in society that could be asked, also.  If one person doesn't want
to preserve it, is the rest of society wrong?
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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.


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:33:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Historic levels of methane by bison (was Re: Perot ad and methane from cattle)
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

>/ hpindda:sci.environment / jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) /  9:10 am  Oct 31, 1992 /
>As to Alan McGowen asking:
>
>     Uhm, John, just how do you propose to keep methanocreatrices
>     out of the guts of ruminants? (Or of humans, for that
>     matter?)
>
>You know us technocentrics, Alan.  Every problem caused by a kind
>of technology is to be cured by another technology.  We're working
>on
>
>1. Using small doses of Pu-240, the kind not useful in bombs, to
>kill the methanocreatrices.

I'll support this idea, provided that John sets the example for other
technocentrics by being the first to ingest the plutonium to purge
his own gut. This sounds to me like a promising cause for technocentrics
to take up.

Actually, methanogenic bacteria are found worldwide in all anerobic 
environments, both inside and outside animals. They are archaebacteria,
and one of the oldest groups of that ancient kingdom.

Unless all anerobic environments are thoroughly sterilized, they are 
going to remain with us -- indeed, they are going to be around long 
after H. Sapiens is gone. McCarthy's proposal to "breed cows which
don't fart methane" remains so much technological flatulence.


------------
Alan McGowen

Arithmetic saves no one from profound ignorance.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:44:15 GMT

>There is no free lunch, in human economics, or in nature. There is only
>a balancing of costs and benefits in every action and *inaction*. This
>should be kept firmly in mind by environmentalists. Opportunity costs
>are just as real as any other cost, and must not be ignored in developing
>optimum use strategies.

 think it is important to point out that the most important issue in all of
this is that the environmentalists want to impose POLITICAL strategies on
the use of these resources, while the rest of us want to see individual
freedom to trade and contract to do so.  That's why you see little Hitlers
like Al Gore pushing this idea so much...he wants to rule over everyone's
private lives, and environmentalism is the perfect vehicle for this.

Read his book if you don't believe me.


--Brian
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic Radiation
Date: 7 Nov 1992 19:16:07 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


To find an _advocate's_ view of the hazards of electromagnetic
radiation, look up one or maybe two books by Paul Brodeur.
They originally appeared in _The New Yorker_ several years ago.
Badly biassed, but they will provide names of researchers for
further looking.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:37:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.163716.26393@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>In article <1466601882@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
>
>>In short, it's unacceptable to act as if our goal were to shut down
>>evolution.
>>
>>The acid test of ecocentrism is operational, not subjective: get
>>extinction rates back down and speciation potentials back up to 
>>average. Work backwards from that goal to see what has to be 
>>done. 
>
>I'd like to thank Alan for a definition of ecocentrism that is clear
>and not exclusionary. Indeed, not only do I include myself without hesitation
>under this definition, but I believe that this opinion could be sold
>in a democratic context to most of the society. Indeed, it is easy to
>maintain that opposition to this point of view is not really anthropocentric,
>but merely short-sighted. 

I think that this acid test is less of a definition than a goal and
a test for the effectiveness and success of ecocentrism.  Alan has
consistently argued the anthropocentric argument for ecocentrism - that
ecocentrism is what is needed to achieve the goals listed above for
humans to survive.  He essentially makes ecocentrism a moot point.
If he convinces people that ecocentrism is needed for humans to
survive, then it is no longer ecocentrism.
I have no disagreement with this acid test, and if people find it
more acceptable, that is great.  

The point is that ecocentrism is not _defined_ by a need to
reduce extinction rates.  It is defined by valuing all
components of the ecosystem, irrespective of their necessity to
humans. I fail to see how this is exclusive.  Is it exclusive
because many people don't share it?  Most people do not share the concern
over extinction.  It may be harder to sell ecocentrism than it
is to sell a need to reduce extinction to the general population.  
Maybe this is why Alan focuses on this aspect.

It seems to me that a crucial point is whether extinction rates
can be brought down by scientific study and education.  If this
is so, then ecocentrism is not "necessary".  Or is the
knowledge of humans too limited to determine what we require to
survive?  If this is so, then ecocentrism may be necessary, but
then its justification is not ecocentric.

Even if there was no biodiversity crisis, ecocentrism
could still exist as a value system without this acid test.  Many
ecocentrists contend that if it was the dominant value system,
then there would be no biodiversity crisis.
>
>Not that I agree with Alan on all things, but this position is one which
>is not difficult to endorse.
>
>mt


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Theodore Roszak article on "Ecopsyc
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:25:15

Along with other things with which I disagree Dan Yurman includes:

     Economists argue that environment and development are part
     of a zero sum game.  Gain for one results in loss for the
     other.  This is just another monolith built on the
     foundation of the rational businessmans' technocracy.

I have never heard of an economist saying any such thing.
Occasionally extreme environmentalists say it.  Alan McGowen comes
pretty close.  Roszak says it repeatedly.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:23 PST
Subject: IPS: Ghana Environmental Credit
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601890:000:1764
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Nov 11 09:23:00 1992


/* Written 12:22 am  Oct 22, 1992 by newsdesk@igc.apc.org in igc:ips.englibrary */
/* ---------- "GHANA: World Bank clears 18-million" ---------- */
Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Title: GHANA: World Bank clears 18-million-dollar environmental credit


washington, oct 19 (ips) -- the international development
association (ida) will provide an 18.1-million-dollar credit to
help ghana implement an environmental resource management project,
the world bank announced here monday.

the bank said the project, with a total cost of 35.9 million
dollars, is designed to bolster the government's institutional and
technical capabilities to monitor environmental problems and to
support a pilot programme to combat soil degradation and erosion.

it will also seek to prevent further environmental and resource
destruction in five costal wetland areas considered of
international importance as habitats for migratory waterfowl, the
bank said.

with a total cost of 35.9 million dollars, the project is being
co-financed by the global environmental trust fund, the british
and danish aid agencies, and the government itself.

ida, the bank's soft-loan window, provides no-interest credits
to the world's poorest nations. (end/ips/jl/yjc/92)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The above news story is copied from the IGC Networks, home of   *
* the nonprofit networks EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet, LaborNet, *
* and HomeoNet.  For more information on IGC Networks news        *
* services, write to support@igc.apc.org  .                       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Historic levels of methane by bison (was Re: Perot ad and methane from cattle)
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<JMC.92Nov3175950@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <4NOV199221095906@pearl.tufts.edu>
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:46:41

In article <4NOV199221095906@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
  In article <JMC.92Nov3175950@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes...
   >We do other things with the land than just grow cattle.  However, I am
   >skeptical about the high estimates, 30, 60, 150 million.  Is this the
   >estimate of the Nature Conservancy itself or just some enthusiast?
   >Why not just one million?
   > 
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

   The estimates were of pre-Columbian bison, not present-day cattle.

   Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
   ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)

I understood that, but precisely who made them and where were they
published?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: Tom Gray <tgray@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:39 PST
Subject: IPS: India Dam Funds Delayed
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601892:000:2869
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Nov 11 09:39:00 1992


/* Written 12:12 am  Oct 24, 1992 by newsdesk@igc.apc.org in igc:ips.englibrary */
Copyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Title: ENVIRONMENT: Funding meeting for India dam project again delayed


washington, oct 21 (ips/jim lobe) -- in a further delay for a key
meeting to decide the fate of a major dam project in india, the
world bank's executive directors are to meet here thursday with
former u.n. development programme chief bradford morse who has
called on the bank to suspend its participation in the project.

as a result, the thrice-delayed meeting on the bank's continued
funding of the 12-billion-dollar sardar sardovar projects is now
scheduled to take place friday.

''we think it's a good sign,'' said laurie udall, staff counsel
for the environmental defence fund (edf), which has played a key
role in lobbying against the dam.

she added that the directors representing britain, japan, and
the netherlands -- which have been undecided on the projects --
could be brought around by morse and the rest of his team of
independent consultants who are assessing the projects.

the plans for sardar sarovar, which includes the construction
of 30 large dams and hundreds of smaller ones along the narmada
river valley, are designed to provide water, irrigation, and more
electricity to three arid states in western india.

the bank, which has already provided 450 million dollars in
loans for the projects, has been asked to approve a new, 350-
million-dollar loan by india an the three state governments of
gujarat, maharashtra, and madhya pradesh.

but the projects, which environmental groups charge ignore the
area's ecology and the plight of more than 120,000 families
affected by the construction, have encountered unprecedented
opposition, both internationally and from the communities which
face resettlement.

last fall, then-bank president barber conable formed an
unprecedented independent review committee headed by morse to look
into the situation and make recommendations.

in june, morse submitted a 363-page report which concluded that
the projects ''as they stand are flawed'' and warned that
''resettlement and rehabilitation of all those displaced are not
possible under prevailing circumstances and (their) environmental
impacts have not been properly considered or adequately
address
(story received incomplete)
p063
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The above news story is copied from the IGC Networks, home of   *
* the nonprofit networks EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet, LaborNet, *
* and HomeoNet.  For more information on IGC Networks news        *
* services, write to support@igc.apc.org  .                       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Speaking of Rocks (NM rock question)
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:35:00 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov9.025517.8700@gnosys.svle.ma.us>, gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us (Gary S. Trujillo) writes...

> 
>1.  Has anyone out there heard of "the rock that breathes water" somewhere
>in New Mexico?  Evidently it was well known to Native Americans in the area
>and now some commercial enterprise has gotten hold of it.
> 
>....
>--
>    Gary S. Trujillo                            gst@gnosys.svle.ma.us
>Somerville, Massachusetts              {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst

What properties does it have?

Sci.geo.geology would be a good place to ask, too.

Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)
                                         Department of Geology
---------------------|                   Environmental Studies Program
"Be gneiss to me,    |                   Tufts University
 I'm going through   |
 a lot of schist."   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:20:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.seyhC9e00UzxE3q4th
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.environment: 6-Nov-92 The Criterion for
Ecocentrism by Gil Hardwick@Gilsys.DIAL 
> I do believe your American legal system is wrought with problems if
> such questions were not long ago settled. Here in Australia *ALL*
> land is vested in the Crown; which means in the common interest under
> the legal framework of a Constitutional Monarchy manifested in the
> power which has been legitimated in the elected parliament. That is,
> we dispose of this apparent problem of "the public" having to pay for
> something by merely stating that the public already own it.

We do things a little differently here, Gil. We are so far away from the
the notion of property you suggest that I find it hard to respond. You
must read our Constitution sometime ? 

>  
> Private interest, as a subdomain of the public interest, therefore
> negotiates with the public in order to establish the nature of the
> tenure pertaining to any given project. Even my family house is built
> on land to which my tenure as "owner" is conditional, although we do
> try to plan far enough ahead that we can be reasonably confident that
> the risk of future resumption by the crown is slight.

You might be willing to put the public interest before your own but
please don't expect the rest of us to be so disinterested. 
>  
> We do not find it a problem; certainly the costs associated with
> fighting about it all the time far outweigh any benefits we might gain
> from a system allowing individuals an absolute privilege of tenure.
> Perhaps someone can post a synopsis of US Law in this regard.

Is this the "royal we" here ? Do you have that much faith in your
elected members of Parliament ? No special interests in Australia ? 

From an economic standpoint a system with well-defined and enforced
property rights is more efficient and, I might add, effective in
providing maximal welfare than the "communistic" system you suggest.

Steve Sorensen
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.activism,rec.backcountry
From: ae277@yfn.ysu.edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Re: Articles on companies that pollute?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:20:46 GMT


Information on companies that pollute is available from NLM's Toxline
in the Toxic Release Inventory file. This is limited to _manufacturing_
companies in certain (but most mojoajor) chemical- making
and -using industries.
 
If you do not subscribe to NLM's Medline/Toxline, you can get this information
free through RTKNET. FoTo explore this option, send e-mail request
or proposal to mstein@igc.org.
) -Stewart Rowe usr2210a@tso.uc.edu  srowe@igc.org
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: cls@truffula.sj.ca.us (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Subject: Re: Wanted: bumperstickers promoting environmentalism/recycling
Organization: Save the Humans!
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 05:52:50 GMT
Summary:   Donnelly/Colt


In article <40871@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>I'd like to decorate my bumper with some stickers promoting
>environmentalism and recycling.  Does anyone know a  source

Try the Donnelly/Colt catalog.  Hundreds of stickers, buttons, posters.
Box 188
Hampton, CT 06247
203-455-9621
Fax 1-800-553-0006


Cameron, not connected to Donnelly/Colt.
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:35:13 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <149180091@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>Michael Tobis:
>>I am with John here. I would really like to see some objective argument
>>for the numbers. I have been convinced by arguments in this newsgroup
>>that the impact per individual is not simply related to affluence. 
>
>Then you have been convinced prematurely since it certainly is -- unless
>we define "affluence" in a doublespeak manner, so that, e.g. you can replace
>consumption of dinner trays and disposable chopsticks made of Indonesian
>rainforest with plastic items while keeping "affluence" constant.

Er, Alan?  Michael said "*SIMPLY* related" (emphasis mine).  I.e., what he's
saying (I think) is that it's possible for one person to be more affluent than
another yet still have lower impact.  For example, who is more affluent:  The
person using disposable chopsticks or the person with his own set of laquered
chopsticks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.