HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:32:16 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.ucsc.edu


In article <C1Fpx4.4M6@ccu.umanitoba.ca> yschin@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Yu-Shin Chin) writes:
>In article <1jtf19INN6tt@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, haynes@cats.ucsc.edu (Jim Haynes) writes:
>|> 
>|> In article <22JAN199315572069@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>|> >In article <1993Jan22.181151.6670@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, rcanders@nyx.cs.du.edu (Rod Anderson) writes...
>|> >
>|> >>Just because bicycling works for you does not mean that it is the solution
>|> >>for all of the country.
>|> >True enough; however, if even 20% (yes, that's arbitrary) of present
>|> >car-driving commuters exercised another option, the results would be felt.  
>|> Let me be the cynic of the day and suggest that if 20% of the present 
>|> car-driving commuters exercised another option then they would simply be
>|> replaced by another 20% who are waiting to take their places.
>
>Where would this extra 20% come from? 

To quote from somebody else's post...
(N.B. When I lived 6 miles from work, I cycled. Now I live 40 miles from
work I drive.)

-- 
haynes@cats.ucsc.edu
haynes@cats.bitnet

"Ya can talk all ya wanna, but it's dif'rent than it was!"
"No it aint!  But ya gotta know the territory!"
        Meredith Willson: "The Music Man"

Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:23:13 GMT

In article <21JAN199323271566@pearl.tufts.edu> ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO) writes:
>In article <2936740077.1.p00004@psilink.com>, p00004@psilink.com (Michael Smith) writes...

>>Very true. Car-dependency is the symptom; suburban sprawl is the 
>>underlying pathology. (There is, to be sure, something of a 
>>chicken-and-egg question on the historical level.)

Actually, I don't think that cars are the best way of getting around...far
better than some stupid government-transit system.  I think most people
racognize this since they volunatrily choose to buy cars while the government
has to forcce people into trains.  Would you care to defend this idea of 
yours that suburban living and cars are pathological?  Even if you 
find some arguments to support your contention, who are you to force your
opinion on others?

>>the transit facility gets paid ticket-by-ticket. What has to be 
>>discouraged is car *ownership*; use will follow.

Why can't you mind your own business and stop trying to make people's
lives more miserable?  I LIKE my car, I don't care what you think.

>Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
>individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?  

Well, modern internal combustion cars fit this bill quite well.

>I raise the question,
>but have no clue about an answer.  

That much is clear.  How can you recommend that car ownership be discouraged
while admitting to know of nothing better?

>Even solar cars have serious costs (mining,
>production, etc.).  

They also don't work in any practical way.  Why do you thing that fuel is
such a terribly important issue?  Far more important is overall operating
cost and actual performance.  Do you know how much acceleration you
could get from a solar-powered car assuming full bright light and
100% efficient collectors covering 100% of the car driving a 100% efficient
motor running on a 100% efficient suspension?

Do you know how fast it would go at night?

>What I believe is probable, however, is that the costs of
>technology such as solar and zero-emission vehicles will be deemed acceptable. 

I suggest you consult any introductory physics text and do a few back of the
envelope calculations.  Solar-powered cars make absolutely no sense and
never will.  You can't change the laws of physics.

>Perhaps they are, especially in the face of the combustion engine.

But IC engines are a really good means for getting around!  Too bad
solar car's can't cut it.  Even if you could somehow manage to get a solar
car to work, what about driving at night?  Would we all just have to give
it up?

--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: andrewt@watson.ibm.com (Andrew Taylor)
Subject: Re: Temperate zone habitat loss
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:52:05 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <149180297@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>This is an extremely important point which needs to be kept in mind in
>discussions about human land use. We don't choose land randomly for 
>conversion -- we choose *biologically productive* land preferentially. 

The effects can be subtle.  Recent surveys of Koalas have found that a
substantial population still exists and the Koala is currently not
threatened but most of this population lies outside conservation areas.
This was puzzling as these areas seem to have good numbers of the tree
species which are the Koalas favoured diet.

Recent unrelated research may explain this.  Eucalypts growing on infertile
soil tend to have leaves with a long lifetime and high level of toxins to
protect them from predators.  Eucalypts from the same species on more fertile
soil will have a higher rate of leaf turnover and a lower level of leaf toxins.

Despite their adaptions, Koalas may be able to tolerate a certain level
of toxins and so require not only forest containing certain tree species
but also this forest must be on fertile soil.  Not suprisingly conservation
areas tend to be less fertile land which is less favoured for farming.

Andrew Taylor
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Forcing the Spring
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:43:52 GMT

In article <149180428@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen) writes:
>If McCarthy is right, a high frequency in 3) means that the data in 2) will
>not change over eight years and that the data in 4) will not change in eight
>years. People will not allow themselves to be "led astray" down such a
>value shift, as they will be deterred from doing so by the discomfort of
>adjustment.

On the other hand, changes in frequency can be misleading.  All such changes
_really_ prove is that polls measure lower numbers.  It's quite likely that,
if people are bombarded with messages favoring gays in the military for 8
years, that they would be less likely to state a contrary opinion to a
pollster, even if their actual opinions have not changed.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 22:42:23 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <727850590snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan22.155035.2899@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov writes:
>
> > In article <727680855snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil
> > Hardwick) writes:
> > >
> > >Perhaps fewer might choose active confrontation in the name of peace
> > >that there might be less confusion between an abstract ideal of peace,
> > >and peacefully doing things, as time goes by.
> > >
> >  
> > What a sentence!  Who has the Rosetta Stone handy?  Perhaps it suffered
> > in translation from some other language.  Sociology-speak?
>
>Pleased you're so impressed! Just e-mail for a course list now that
>you are keen for an education.
>
>Gil

"Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken up teaching."

                                   -Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde-
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Loaded phrasings
Date: 26 Jan 1993 11:29:32 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 <Jym.25Jan1993.0352@naughty-peahen>, jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
==o= I abhor these things.  Indeed, I not only abhor junk mail,
=but I especially abhor junk mail that insults my intelligence.

Then why do you post GreenHype's press releases to the groups?  They're an
example of "junk mail that insults my intelligence" if ever there was one.

>=o= Fortunately, there's something you can do about it.  Over
>in alt.save.the.earth, Cameron Spitzer has made an offer to
>convey complaints from net.users to Greenpeace:
>
>    I've mentioned my concerns, and those which appear in these
>    newsgroups, to Greenpeace volunteers at every opportunity
>    and they always tell me to pursue these complaints through
>    the proper channels within Greenpeace.

Do you suppose that requests that GreenHype include all critical information
(e.g., the amount of Pu found on beaches near Sellafield, the time-frame for
their 1/17 probability of a Candu meltdown) in their press releases might have
an effect?

>=o= Cameron will collect these "knocks" for a few weeks, post a
>digest or summary of them, send them off to Greenpeace, and post
>Greenpeace's response.  Don't bother sending angry or hateful or
>malicious messages, and do keep them as short as possible

I didn't think so.  After all, by your standards, asking GreenHype to be at
least halfway honest must be either angry, hateful, or malicious (probably the
latter, since it would rob them of the opportunity for most of their press
releases), right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Alan McGowen)
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 00:04:55 GMT
Subject: The Real Challenge
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: sci.environment

John McCarthy writes:

>Humanity had to find a substitute for whale oil.  It will also need a
>substitute for petroleum.  Fortunately, we know more today about how
>to substitute for petroleum than our ancestors knew about how to
>substitute for whale oil.  Further substitutions are required, but,
>as I recall, the examples given by McGowen were peripheral to the
>standard of living.

The examples I gave were: high-quality wood, meat and fish.

Let's never forget that these things are "peripheral to the standard 
of living." 

This tells us much about the sort of world certain technological "optimists" 
would irreversibly condemn us to live in if we were fool enough to let them.
If they can't even care for *these* things, how much can they care for
less economically important species? 

We would have a world with plenty of power, plenty of machines, plenty of 
people, and not a shred of grace, living beauty, or comfort for the human 
spirit.  Not a civilization, but a technological barbarism. That is what 
McCarthy apparently means when he speaks of creating a "US standard of 
living" for a world of 30 billion. It's a political program, pure and 
simple, hiding behind a mask of false scientific objectivity. But the
masquerade is over.

No.  We aren't going to let it happen. The first limiting resource to 
be encountered will be the limit of our tolerance for the continued 
degradation -- in every sense of that word -- of our beautiful planet. 
From here on, we will choose a different future for our children, one 
that they will be able to share with all of life, in all its myriad forms. 

		*	*	*	*	*	*	

That future is worth infinitely more than any "substitutes" for it. The
technologies and technologists we need are those that will help us to
reach that future, not those that will help to make it forever unreachable: 
technologies that serve life -- *all* life -- not destroy it. Ecologically 
sane technology, not technological substitution gone insane and become 
technological supremecism.

The time of morally empty technology, driven by greed, limited only by 
derided threats of "doom", is over. The real challenge for technologists
is whether they can overcome the counsels of greed and fear and find within
themselves the moral purpose and strength to be able to just say "no" to
technological changes that take us ever farther from where we should be, and 
to seek out with all their intelligence the changes that will bring us, day
by day, year by year, sensibly closer to our heart's desire: our true home 
on earth, among our innumerable living kin, the tapestry of life rewoven. 

But can such technologists exist? Will they appear in the years ahead?

Just watch! 

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

"Force the Spring." -- Bill Clinton
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Objective Environment, again - reluctantly (was Re: Temp
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:29:34 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan25.174847.19299@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

 > Policies in the real world need to recognize the ignorance of humanity
 > as much as the knowledge of humanity.  Some people suggest that this 
 > ignorance be recognized as an ethic, those others believe that this
 > would impede further knowledge.  Yet others prefer
 > an intellectual understanding of our limits of knowledge, but it seems
 > to me that an intellectual understanding of ignorance is problematic
 > at least.  To deny the objective environment altogether may serve a
 > pragmatic purpose in a world where its mis-application causes so many
 > problems.

My argument being that about where the limits of one body of knowledge
tapers off into ignorance, ambiguity, contradiction and doubt, there
another body of knowledge begins to take shape. That in-between space
is well known already as a liminal domain, and where Westerners exhibit
marked incompetence negotiating it, indigenous people consistently prove
themselves past masters.

That is what Cameron Laird has been talking about, inherent in the
intellectual tools of the trader, the nomad, and the fisherman.

To illustrate:


        Corpus A        |  Liminal Domain  |
  ---------------------- ----- ---- --- -- -        Corpus B
                         - -- --- ---- ----- -------------------------


The task is to move from one to the other without becoming confused,
and without confusing the other as to one's intent, or indeed without
confusing a third party with no prior access to either point of view.

The problem here on the Internet being that we are all posting our
very good material off into an inherently liminal cyberspace . . .

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Another ozone question
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:10:34 GMT

In article <JMC.93Jan26211304@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, 
jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> I think the non-chemists may need it pointed out that molecular oxygen
> O2 and ozone O3 are always being converted back and forth.  How much
> ozone there is relative to molecular oxygen depends on the rates of
> these processes, and these are affected by substances present in small
> quantities.
> 
> What else is involved?
> 
 In the strat., flux of solar radiation with wavelength < 240 nm
 determines O2 -> O3  (in detail, O2 + hv -> O + O, then O + O2 -> O3)

 Undoubtedly the sun's UV output has varied significantly on the 
 billion-year timescale.
 
 Recombination (O + O3 -> 2 O2) is slow in the absence of catalysts
 (oxides of nitrogen and hydrogen, as well as chlorine and bromine).
 Absorption of UV-B and UV-C _by_ ozone does not result in a net ozone
 loss.
 
 In the troposphere ozone production is a lot more complicated. 


Newsgroups: sci.environment,soc.culture.usa
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Cars and suburbs
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:43:54 GMT

In article <C1C08B.BBs@ccu.umanitoba.ca> yschin@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Yu-Shin Chin) writes:
>
>|> >>Are there no realistic ideas for a mode of transportation which caters to the
>|> >>individual while avoiding serious environmental harm?
>|> >
>|> >Many commuters could get to work by bicycle most days.  Bicycling is good
>|> >for you, clears the head in the morning, and creates approximately zero
>|> >environmental harm.  It's also a lot less dangerous than most people think.
>|> >
>|> >Cameron
>|> 
>|> ONLY if you live were it is warm year round.  If the streets are snow
>|> packed and slippery it is difficult to ride.  And what about those who are
>|> over 60. Not all of them are  comfortable rideing bicycles.  Bicyclig is a
>|> option only for those who are healthy and active.  Bicycling on ice is only
>|> for the young and foolish.
>
>
>You still have spring, summer, and fall when the weather allows you to cycle to work.  Cycling does end when someone reaches 60 years of age.  I have heard of two elderly ladies (60+ and 80+) who were riding their bicycles across Canada.  I think that the
>re are two big reasons why people don't cycle to work.  One is that they are 'lazy' and lead seditary lives(couch potatoes).  The second is that their workplace doesn't have proper shower facilities.  Oh and a possible third reason is that they are s
>
>
>of being hit by bad drivers like themselves.
>
>
>Sammy Chin

Of course, there are people who can't cycle, but there are also many
people who can't drive because of physical or other problems.   An auto
based transportation system with inadequate public transportation is
particularly hard on such people.

If more people cycled to work more of the time, we would have less air
polution, less need to spend public money on roads, etc.   However, a
humane system would still make provision for people not able to use
the standard systems used by others.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Date: 24 Jan 93 04:43:10 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan22.155035.2899@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov writes:

 > In article <727680855snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil
 > Hardwick) writes:
 > >
 > >Perhaps fewer might choose active confrontation in the name of peace
 > >that there might be less confusion between an abstract ideal of peace,
 > >and peacefully doing things, as time goes by.
 > >
 >  
 > What a sentence!  Who has the Rosetta Stone handy?  Perhaps it suffered
 > in translation from some other language.  Sociology-speak?

Pleased you're so impressed! Just e-mail for a course list now that
you are keen for an education.

Gil
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace press releases -- fact or fiction?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:04:14 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 <JMC.93Jan24215137@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>I'm sure that plutonium is considered valuable at Sellafield, so the
>quantities release are as "trace" as they can make it.

Sorry, John, but your argument is pure bullshit.  You're basing it on
economics.  The appropriate conclusion is:
	The value of the quantities released does not, at the margin, exceed
	the cost of recovering that plutonium.
This does *NOT* mean that the quantities released "are as `trace' as they can
make it."  Back to undergraduate microeconomics with you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: lgzgwd@vax.nott.ac.uk (Grant Denkinson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace's alternative refrigerant
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:32:24 GMT
Reply-To: lgzgwd@vax.nott.ac.uk (Grant Denkinson)
Organization: University of Nottingham, UK

In reply to Chris Malcolm who writes:
"The principles of refrigeration can be taught to primary school kids"

The way this type of refrigerator works is not simple to explain.
If you, or anyone else, has an explanation that can be given to
primary school kids I'd like to hear it.

I agree that more people should know about these though.
I have an electric/gas powered one myself, with a diagram taken from
a degree level engineering textbook of how it works stuck on the door
in response to lots of questions from friends.

--
Grant Denkinson,			email: LGZGWD@vax.nott.ac.uk
Remote Sensing Unit,			phone: +44 602 515731
Department of Geography,
University of Nottingham,
Nottingham.
NG7 2RD
U.K.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Forcing the Spring
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:10:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <149180313@hpindda.cup.hp.com> alanm@hpindda.cup.hp.com writes:

 > >Yes -- this does mean "putting people first". Not first before *life* 
 > >(an insane idea anyway), but first before greed and fear and immediacy. 
 > >
 > >That is *how* we shall force the spring.
 >  
 > PS. Haven't I been arguing for two years that everything depends on a shift
 > in values? It seems we have a president who understands that perfectly. He
 > has made it the metaphor for his administration. 

Yet wonder how you are force a shift in values, Alan. It seems to many
in the rest of the world that it is the US which requires a shift in
values, and to that extent I would applaud your efforts.

But how are you going to force the rest of the world, especially when
it is your country which has already underwritten the forcing of so
many other countries into environmental destructiveness in the name of
economic progress?

If you have no intention of anything of the sort, why then would you
bother posting so much on US internal affairs here on a world forum?

Is it really the case, as friend Victor asserts, that you represent
the defacto world standard in environmental awareness (heaven help us
all!), or is it simply that you people have no us.* hierarchy over
there, as we have our own aus.* hierarchy here for posting matters
only of interest and relevance to Australians?

Gil
Xref: sparky sci.aquaria:1924 rec.aquaria:10423 alt.aquaria:6788