HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:21:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct13.171625.6654@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>>  (Paul says he spends 10 hours a week.  Say there are 5 months in
>>   the growing season -- 

> 12 in Seattle. We grow kale, chard, spinach, leeks, onions, broccoli,
> cabbage, rutabagas, and brussel sprouts all through the winter, along
> with lettuce and arugula (rocket) in a cold frame.


Paul claimed he got 80% of his summer food and 30% of winter from this
300 sq. ft. garden.  If we call summer 1/4 of the year, and the rest
of the year is termed winter, this is about 40% of his food, overall.
If by "80%" he was refering to calories, not dollar value of food,
then he could feed himself completely on a garden of perhaps 1000 sq.
ft.

Is this energetically ridiculous?  Back of the envelope reality check.
1000 sq. ft. will receive perhaps 20 kW of average insolation (100 m^2
x 1000 W/m^2, x .2 for clouds, night, etc.)  Converted to food energy
at 1% efficiency, this would yield 200 W of food output.  A person
requires perhaps 150 W.

In comparison, the US has over 100,000 sq. ft. of arable land per
capita.  If one assumes the 1000 sq. ft./capita figure could be
extended to other regions, 5% of the Earth's continental area could
feed about 80 billion people.  

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: global warming/global cooling/global climate change
Keywords: global warming cooling climate change
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:21:12 GMT

I wanted to thank the people who responded to my posting, either on this list
or personally.  I needed a reality check.  The paper to which I referred is
6 years old and as I understand new data is available.

Allen
-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:18:11 GMT

In article <54739@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.210528.10507@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>If one opposes turning forests into tree farms _solely_ because of
>>impacts on humans, this neither conflicts with anthropocentrism
>>nor econo-centrism.  One need not be an ecocentric to be an
>>"environmentalist".
>
>I just want to point out that "impact on humans" and "impact on GDP" are
>not equivalent. If I believe that human beings need to preserve some
>open space and some wilderness is that ecocentric or anthropocentric?

Depends on the motivation I guess.  If you want to save wilderness
for human recreation and aesthetic purposes, that is still
anthropocentric.  The question is are the values that guide your
decisions based soley on known or believed impacts on humans alone.

The difference between "impact on humans" and "impact on GDP" addresses
issues in economics where value is measured strictly in trade value.
One could easily believe that GDP/GNP measurements are not accurate
because they automatically treat the consumption of natural capital as
an increase in wealth and still have an anthropocentric viewpoint.

>If I believe that maximizing an enconomic indicator justifies a development
>path which will make the world into a very large copy of Osaka, is that
>anthropocentric?  

I would think so.
>
>On the other hand, the new age mysticism of people who want to believe 
>that rocks have souls seems to me to be both unecessary and foolish.
>We don't need mumbo jumbo reasons to want to live on a world where there
>is room for Grizzly bears. 
>
There is no guarantee that all speakers/believers in a philosophy will
be eloquent or convincing or even accurate.  Do like they do in the
Olympics.  Ignore the wackos on either side and see if the rest are
convincing.

Newcomers to ecocentrism should read a book by Aldo Leopold.  I would
recommend the Sand County Almanac.  He and John Muir are considered 
the "fathers" of ecocentrism (and they probably didn't even know it!).
>
>-- 
>
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
>


-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
Date: 14 Oct 92 06:34:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Oct13.180540.1732@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>                            FREE-ENERGY TECHNOLOGY
>                       by Robert E. McElwaine, Physicist
>
>                         [lot's of junk deleted]
>                      The device seems to be tapping energy from that 
>          of the earth's rotation, via the 'Coriolis effect', LIKE A 
>          TORNADO. 

The Coriolis effect operates on time scales of a pendulum day. Tornadoes exist
on time scales of minutes. Tornadoes may spin either direction. The ONLY
connection between Coriolis and tornadoes is indirect-- because of the earth's
rotation, the vector vertical shear of the horizontal wind is roughly
perpendicular and to the left of the horizontal temperature gradient, and the 
conditions favoring tornadoes usually has a vertical wind profile which, due to 
dynamic thunderstorm-scale pressure perturbations, often favors cyclonically
rotating thunderstorms which in turn produce cyclonically rotating tornadoes.

The point is that the above-quoted post is filled with BS, and claiming that
tornadoes are "tapping energy from the earth's rotation" is simply false.
On the other hand, at least McElwaine did use the word "seems". With that
approach, I guess he can claim anything he wants to.

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dhepner@cup.hp.com (Dan Hepner)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:15:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1scd1 PL4

From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
>
>>   >Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
>>     If it were cost-effective to truck topsoil to the degraded
>>     land, it would already be happening.
>>
>>is a major reason for the persistence of poverty and
>>backwardness in the world.
>
>However, in this case, dingo is probably right!  We have land in
>overabundance in this country.

Indeed, cruising rural America will result in one occasionally
seeing "TOPSOIL FOR SALE" signs.  Most landscaping contractors 
know of ~infinite supplies.  The market already exists, topsoil
is already a commodity, if not a precious one.  Handling costs
vastly exceed the value of the topsoil itself.

Dan Hepner
From: nin15b63@merrimack.edu (THE WOLF)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: set seen
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:02:42 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA, USA

This might have been asked before, but sometimes ya gotta say "what the FAQ".

I'm interested in learning what solar products are currently available and
worth checking out, not just being researched.  

I know people who know people ... who heat their homes with solar power and say
it's expensive, but it pays for itself and is just great.  Does anyone know any
tangible info?  Who sells it?  Where can I find out more?

Are solar batteries still in the good idea stage or are they a practical
product?
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Andy Harrington                      | nin15b63@merrimack.edu
 Computer Geek                        | aharrington@ldbvax.lotus.com
 Merrimack College, North Andover, MA | The basis of life is freedom; the
                                      | purpose is joy; the result is growth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 11:20:43 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Oct6.174123.24496@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu writes:

 > My Favorite Professor of Technological Optimism jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
 > >
 > >The short answer is yes.  Cars are only some of the things whose
 > >avoidance leads to a cramped life.
 >  
 > The long answer is no. This country made a set of decisions, some
 > explicit and some implicit, some individual and some group-based, to
 > take the technology of internal combustion and use it for
 > transportation in the form of small (!), individual vehicles.
 >  
 > A different set of priorities and a more explicit consideration of the
 > future consequences of the possibilities for using IC might have led
 > to a quite different scenario, one in which the lack of car ownership
 > did not lead to "a cramped life".
 >  
 > Personally, its not clear to me how the combination of bicycle, bus,
 > train, plane and occasional car rental can be described as "cramped".

While sympathetic to Paul's view, with the growing traffic problems
even down here in the Great South Land, it is difficult to establish
the notion of any "country" making a set of decisions.

In all of the New World individualisation of the society is highly
valued, and possessions like cars and jobs have largely taken the place
of people as the "significant others" in one's life. "Mass" transport
on the other hand has always worked best where people are close to one
another, and go most places together anyway.

Whether one feels cramped in whatever situation is an outcome of the
culture one was raised in, which conditions subjective responses to
whatever variables may be present in the environment. Trying to FORCE
a system the people using it will probably find uncomfortable usually
creates a backlash with the opposite effect from that intended, no
matter what environmental/energy efficient/cosmetic benefits may be
actually forthcoming from the new system.

Such distinctions have great strategic importance in planning for
systems implementation, particularly in the U.S. where antisocialist
and anti-Communist sentiment has been running so high for so long, and
I offer them here only in the hope they may be found useful.

Gil

--
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 * *
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:16:04 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <JMC.92Oct9162839@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.135432.894@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>   In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Dingo says:
>
>     If it were cost-effective to truck topsoil to the degraded
>     land, it would already be happening.
>
>Belief in the principle: 
>
>     If it were cost-effective to do X, it would already be
>     happening.
>
>is a major reason for the persistence of poverty and
>backwardness in the world.

I will admit that my statement was simplistic.  It is only correct when a
number of factors permit the market to work.  These factors would include
information on the cheapest alternative, the opportunity to use that
information and the capital to do it.  These factors are more likely,
though not necessarily, true in the US.
>--
>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
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:50:04 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.

	Ahh, you're familiar with something that wasn't in the post (I
looked back and saw no mention of nuclear energy).  I agree with you
in the short-term but not in the long-term, because:  decommissioning of
old reactors is a huge hazardous radwaste disposal problem.  But until
energy consumption patterns change and more environmental-friendly power
sources are found, nuclear remains an alternative.

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: He who refuses to take a stand is doomed to nonsense.
Date: 15 Oct 1992 08:53:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   John McCarthy seems to be blanketting both newsgroups
 sci.environment and talk.environment with nitpicking
 trivial critiques, silliness, insults......but

 He who refuses to propose a serious solution is doomed
 to talk nonsense.


-- 
Capt. Kirk: let's head for that planet, third from the sun, it
            looks promising.... |-)
From: alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Criteria for Sustainability
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:54:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601789:000:2473
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Oct  9 14:54:00 1992


Paul Barton-Davis has made an admirable start at criteria for a sustainable 
society. I would add to his 9 points that such a society:

	10) Does not systematically reduce biological diversity by
	reduction of habitat areas, by introductions of exotic
	species, or by excessive hunting or harvesting. 

	11) Does not reduce biological diversity by induced ecosystem
	stresses such as chemical pollutants or human-caused thermal 
	stresses. 

These are all negative criteria, but a few positive ones are needed as well;

	12) Increases biodiversity and reduces extinction probabilities due
	to past human-induced loss of habitat area by active restoration
	of ecosystems. In fact, such restoration should be a primary social
	goal of sustainable civilization for a considerable amount of time 
	to come, a goal which might be summarized as "ending the current mass
	extinction crisis".  This will not happen immediately when human
	pressures let up because even afterwards vast numbers of species 
	will continue to go extinct, at a roughly exponentially decreasing
	rate, as the effects of reduced habitat areas work out over time, 
	unless the areas (and hence populations of threatened species) can 
	be expanded again.

	13) Seeks to utilize larger amounts of biological diversity, e.g.
	by expanding the number of food crops, natural biocontrol agents,
	use of genetic resources, etc. -- tends to look for these approaches 
	in preference to the introduction of novel synthetic (and hence 
	non-biodegradable) substances. A greater dependence on diversity
	means that it will be better valued even from a purely functional,
	utilitarian point of view. In recognition that human long-term 
	interests are one with those of the biosphere, closer alliances 
	of this sort should be sought with the rest of life in human daily
	economic affairs. This in no way decreases the importance of placing
	a societal value on nature independent of its utility to humans,
	especially in our present state of near-total ignorance of what 
	that full utility may be.

and, quite possibly the most important of all,
	
	14) Seeks to understand "human nature" and "human society" within 
	the larger context provided by evolutionary biology, so that we do
	not again make the mistake of supposing that humans are beings apart 
	from nature who can be expected to flourish in any artificial world 
	of engineers' whims - or of moral philosophers' intuitions. 

------------
Alan McGowen
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
	<1bl29gINNdku@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:04:53

Unfortunately, the short handled hoe works better than the long handled
hoe in getting the weeding done quickly.  However, it indeed has a bad
effect on the workers' backs.  It is proper that we should pay a bit
more for our vegetables in order to save the workers' backs.  All sorts
of occupations, e.g. nursing, where the workers were terribly exploited
are now done more humanely and less efficiently.  Fortunately, there
have been enough efficiency improvements in other aspects of the
economy so we can afford these increased costs.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 06:56:21 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <STEINLY.92Oct14143006@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu writes:

 >  ??? Have you looked at the evolution of the working week, retirement
 > age and vacation time in western Europe?

What is this "evolutionary" mysticism you cite?

Does it not occur to you with your eye on the sky *yet*, that what people
down here on earth do is most directly an outcome of State policy informed
by economists planning for an industrial society?

Those policies might as readily be informed by the people themselves
if the mismanagement and social trauma wrought about by orthodoxy were
reigned in somewhat.

--
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 * *
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
	<JMC.92Oct13215811@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <54757@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:09:37

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

Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc
From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Subsidies for Roads and Cars in the USA
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Oct6.185940.27881@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<STEINLY.92Oct6141635@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Oct7.155906.9095@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:53:04

I am not saying that technology can solve any problem.  I am saying
that technology can solve the problems involved in sustaining
indefinitely a world population of 30 billion at an American
standared of living.

We will run out of oil and we have to replace that.

The greenhouse effect may require us to give up burning coal and
oil or take expensive measures to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Because people can think of large numbers of problem, I offer again,
as I have done before to explain my ideas about any two or three.

I do not offer to satisfy the religious - either those who think
it is unesthetic to drive 1/4 mile or those who think that it is
sinful to get one's electricity or vegetables from sources several
thousand miles awasy.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Keywords: satellites, budget cuts
Date: 10 Oct 92 05:56:16 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

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              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 07:03:29 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


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 . . .

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.

--
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 * *