HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:19:14 GMT

In article <1blijqINNike@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.202424.145@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>
>Suppose the emancipation had resulted in the deaths of all former slaves (yes,
>I know that wasn't one of the consequences, but your point, and Steinn's, is
>that we are not currently able to predict the results of adopting your proposed
>ecocentric society).  Should that have been a consideration in supporting
>emancipation?  If one of the consequences of your ecocentric society turns out
>to be that, despite short-run ecological improvements, it may, in the long run,
>fail in such a fashion as to cause great harm to the environment, is that a
>consideration in deciding the value of your proposed criteria?  I think that
>it's a very real possibility, and that it DOES demand consideration.

Uh-oh - the multi-article thread.  Anyway, you make a good point.  First,
I would say that the type of application issues Steinn brought up were
much different than what you say.  I don't feel deciding whether
technology A will fit into a ecocentric society is a significant part
of the debate.  On the other hand, if a significant purpose of a new
philosophy is to _help_ some participant, then it is appropriate to
determine whether that will actually happen.  It is a much more
general question.  I have seen some people question Alan's proposals
because they feel that they would cause such strife in human society
that they would end up hurting ecosystems further.  This is a valid
question.  The specific answer here is that I think Alan's opponents
insisted on characterizing his suggestions in a more coercive way
than he suggested.  And no complaint on his part that his proposal
were being mischaracterized were properly dealt with.  I am not going
to argue his positions for him here.  If he wants to do that again, he
can.  If you can suggest how something I have said would lead to
additional harm to ecosystems, I would consider that fair game
for debate.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Capital? (was Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas))
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:39:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Oct16.163950.23614
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct16.150127.21940@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

> isolation.  The problems of our nonsustainable society do not exist
> in isolation.  Sure, enough nuclear plants could ne built for 20
> billion people, IF there was the capital.  Sure, we could develop
> a technology to deal with many types of pollution, but how many
> types of technologies will we need for this?


Are you under the impression that there can't be enough capital?
Nuclear power plants are expensive, but not outrageously so, and
would, like anything else, be cheaper if built and operated in large
numbers (one of the problems with nuclear in the US is that utilities
on average serve about a million customers each, vs. 10 million
in Japan and 50 million in France; there has not been the opportunity
to go down the learning curve.)

How expensive would an all-nuclear world be?  Let's do a back-of-
the-envelope calculation.  Let's say a nuclear powerplant would cost
$1500/kW (I think this is a bit high).  To supply 20 billion people
with 5 kW (say) each would require 150 trillion dollars, or about 5
trillion dollars per year (about $250/person) if plant lifespan is 30
years.  This would be a large number of plants, btw:  about 100,000,
worldwide.  They had better be damned safe.

Is $250/person/year affordable?  This is about 1/10 the per capita
GNP of present day China, and about 1% of US per capita GNP.  A world
in which the people are as productive as the US currently is
could easily afford it.  A world 100 years from now will be more
productive still.

This ignores interest, reprocessing, operation and maintenance,
mining, etc.  costs, as well as capacity factors < 1.  However, it
also assumes nuclear plants would be completely rebuilt after 30
years; in steady state it is more likely that they would be maintained
for > 30 years, perhaps indefinitely.  In this case, they become like
large hydroelectric projects that have paid off their initial
investment, and provide power at very low cost.  O&M costs of today's
PWRs in the US are typically around $.02/kWh.

So, where does the capital come from?  Where it always comes from:
economic growth and savings.  Economic growth can and does exceed
population growth under the right circumstances.  Consider the east
Asian countries that have regularly achieved growth rates of 10%/year
or higher.  Or the United States in the last century (we had the
highest population growth rate in the world.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: stevec@unixg.ubc.ca (Steve Cumming)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks! (battle of the dogmas)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 18:54:56 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: jaeger.geog.ubc.ca
Summary: N(t+1) = N(t)(1 - m + b)

In article <1bhd92INNc0@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.142620.1114@vexcel.com>, dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

>So far, Alan McGowan, who favors reducing human population by 90% in ~150 years
>hasn't killed himself nor, to the best of my knowledge, any of his family
>members.

This is no evidence of hypocrisy. Since 100% of those now living will be
dead within ~150 years, it is only needed to lower the birth rate
accordingly. Ecocentrists don't have to slaughter themselves, their
friends or their enemies.

--
Steve Cumming		 boreal mixedwood dynamics and rogue
stevec@geog.ubc.ca				    ... how long you got left?
						    well how long do you reckon?
							
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 13:23:58 GMT

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


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

	Jim Acker
	jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov

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
	<1bhceqINNc0@gap.caltech.edu> <54781@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:38:00

Victor gives references but refrains from giving us an atomic weight.
Did he read either of his references?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Date: 11 Oct 92 16:11:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Oct11.161135.14505
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct11.122451.13982@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>>consideration of inter-generational equity, would be sufficient
>>justification for avoiding damage to ecosystems.

> This would have to rely on a technological and economic valuation
> of ecosystems as a future human resource.  We've attempted that before
> on sci.environment, and I've come away convinced that most
> of the ecosystem is pretty worthless -- ie that there would be little
> negative effect on civilization if 90% of the outstanding species were
> eliminated and even if the ecosystems' productivity were somewhat 
> reduced.

A strictly economic valuation has problems, however.  For example,
there would be little negative effect on civilization (from the point
of view of gross statistics, like life expectancy) if all works of
art were to be destroyed.

The anthropocentric view must include the fact that many people find
pleasure in the existence of diverse ecosystems; in this light, they
have utility apart from their use as natural resources.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Criteria for Sustainability
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:24:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.230132.27325@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>
>...Kristin goes on and argues that an anthropocentric ethics, with real
>consideration of inter-generational equity, would be sufficient
>justification for avoiding damage to ecosystems.

This would have to rely on a technological and economic valuation
of ecosystems as a future human resource.  We've attempted that before
on sci.environment, and I've come away convinced that most
of the ecosystem is pretty worthless -- ie that there would be little
negative effect on civilization if 90% of the outstanding species were
eliminated and even if the ecosystems' productivity were somewhat 
reduced.   I fear that she is treating the avoidinance of damage as an
_a priori_ criterion of any morality, which I find untenable.  I can think 
of many good reasons to damage an ecosystem; for example irrigating
desert land for farming.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
From: gsmith@vardamir.next.nd.edu (george smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: hurricanes and conservation
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:47:21 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Oct7.175332.1553@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu  
(Michael Tobis) writes:
> 
> >>Isn't this a version of the Smokey the Bear mistake, suppressing  
natural
> >>catastrophes to the short term advantage and long term detriment of
> >>the ecosystem?
> 
> >No, the reverse.  We should attempt to maintain species introductions  
at
> >natural levels just we should attempt to maintain the natural fire  
regime
> >in conservation areas.
> 
> Granted. But in most cases, we cannot unintroduce species that are  
already
> introduced. Given that, I wonder how much effort ought to be put into
> controlling the exotics once released. 

I think that the decision to control exotics should be made on a  
case-by-case basis.  Does the species in question sufficiently threaten  
biodiversity to warrant the effort to sufficiently control it?  For  
example, the wild boars introduced in the last century (via hunting  
lodges) into what is now the Great Smoky Mtns. N.P. cause a great deal of  
damage by competing with the native black bears and rooting up large beds  
of plants, some of which are rather rare.  The rangers there have a shoot  
on sight order when they are encountered.  
	This also brings up the issue of what methods should be used once  
the decision has been made to control exotics.  Biological control is an  
appealing method, especially for foreign plants or insects, but of course  
there are all the strings attatched, especially the possibility that the  
controlling species turns out to be worse for the local ecosystem than the  
original exotic.  

Peace and Trees,

George
gsmith@vardamir.next.nd.edu 
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:44:19 GMT

In article <1b48teINNcd4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bl713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Lev Tarasov) writes:

 > You have forgotten what I feel is the strongest right's argument,
 > Occam's razor. Whatever non-religious parameter you take to 
 > differentiate humans and non-humans, you will always find some
 > humans (brain-dead, severely mentally handicapped,...) who will
 > be beat out by some non-human such as a chimpanzee. Should we
 > allow experimentation on those humans who "flunk"?.

You forgot the most obvious difference:  humans are humans, and
non-humans are not.  Why should this criterion be any less valid
than another?  Does it have to be justified in terms of other
criteria (and do those have to be justified, ad infinitum?)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton)
Subject:  . . .  Styrofoam Cups  . . .
Reply-To: isupstud@bnr.ca (Wayne Hutton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:58:21 GMT


	If anyone has information on why styrofoam cups are bad, could they

please post it in this newsgroup.  I'm trying to help cut down on the number

of styrofoam cups used at my workplace (but I have to convince my coworkers).

If you have any statistics, etc. it would be greatly appreciated.  I am also

hoping to find information on the chemicals used in producing such cups.  If

they are dangerous either in being released in the air, or in contaminating

the coffee.  Hopefully, with your help, people will start bringing there own

mugs to work.  Thank you very much.



-todd. (another mug owner)



ps- any other information about stirsticks or sugar packets would help as well.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:11937 sci.geo.meteorology:3220
From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology
Subject: India's Population and India's Climate
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:54:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: meteor.1992Oct14.015409.13159
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In a recent talk here, professor emeritus Reid Bryson, a distinguished
paleoclimatologist, mentioned that he believed that there has been a
thousand year failure of the Indian monsoon in the relatively recent
past, i.e., since the last glacial maximum. (I confess I have forgotten
exactly when.) If such a scenario were to recur for even a couple of decades
with the current population density of India, the likely consequences would
be dire and unprecedented. The vulnerability of coastal Florida to hurricanes 
or California to earthquakes seem to me to indicate that these regions are also
overpopulated, but these problems are trivial compared to the problems that
might be faced by a billion rural agrarian folk deprived of water.

Dr. Bryson, ever a skeptic on theory and a believer only in observations,
seemed to think such an event could not be ruled out. 

On theoretical grounds, I find it hard to imagine that the monsoons could 
fail given the geography of the Indian Ocean. Does anyone know 1) whether
this observation is solidly confirmed 2) whether there are any dynamical
theories to account for it 3) whether it could plausibly recur in the near
future? Crowley & North makes no mention of this event.

mt
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:09:30
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au's message of 16 Oct 92 06:56:21 GMT

In article <-1366673515snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   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?

Gil, over the last 5-10 decades the working week, retirement age
and length of vacation among industrial societies in Western Europe has
changed in small steps in such a way that the long term trend has
been for the working week to be shorter, retirement age to be earlier
and vacation time longer. That can be described succinctly as "an
evolution" of the quantities. No mysticism there, simply a string of
numbers displaying a more or less systematic trend with time.
	
   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?

No. I rarely indulge in paranoia. My personal, direct observation
is that most of this change was due to collective action by the
labour force in times of low unemployment and rising productivity.

   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.

As an ex-union member who has voted on these issues I resent your
insinuation. 

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	* 

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: --UCS Offers New Energy Policies
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:59:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.175004.5480@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>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

I'm not aware that the UCS is strictly against nuclear power. I believe they
want a restructuring of certain aspects of the industry that has nothing to
do with the technology.  The same for the NRC.  I have a technical report
prepared for the UCS that examines the "inherently safe" generation of
reactors. It points to various problems ans lists some critiques but never
says they shouldn't be used.  They do call for an official moratorium on
construction of plants until a waate-handling system is online nad _proven_
safe.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Date: 15 Oct 1992 14:50:56 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Keywords: satellites, budget cuts

In article <1992Oct14.192639.22089@colorado.edu>, gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU 
(GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
> len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens) writes:
> 
> 
> 
> >I thought the Bush administration argued that we have to collect
> >more data about global warming.   How is supposed to happen if
> >measurements of this kind are not financed?
> 
> >Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
> >Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
> 
> As I understand it, use of satellites to collect such info has a very low
> signal to noise ratio and when they started to show evidence counter to 
global
> warming, they were discredited.  I've been told that such satellites could 
also
> been used as `spy` satellites and that this was their primary purpose.
> -- 

WHOA THERE!  Now, I can only speak for the SAGE II experiment on the
ERBS space platform, but it ISN'T used for spying!  Also, its
s/n ratio is quite adequate.  The s/n ratio of the environment
parameters IS rather low...that's why it takes so long and so
much data to extract long-term trends.  Please state your sources
of information if you want to throw these kinds of darts!

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
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
	<1bmv9uINNavn@gap.caltech.edu>
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:40:15

In article <1bmv9uINNavn@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct15210453@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
   >Unfortunately, the short handled hoe works better than the long handled
   >hoe in getting the weeding done quickly.

   But the long-handled hoe allows more intensive cultivation.  If arable land is
   the limiting resource (rather than human labor) the long-handled hoe wins.
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

The elimination of the short handled hoe in California because of its
bad effects on workers' backs is the result of demands by the labor
movement.  (I'm not sure it's all gone).  If it were less efficient
than the long handled hoe, which is much older in agriculture, it
would never have been introduced.

By the way, I wonder if low handlebars on bicycles are hard on people's
backs after enough years.

--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Rights for Rocks!
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:18:18 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Oct13.185041.8730@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Oct13110520@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>As far as dogma goes, I claim that anthropocentrism is the
>current dogma.  Economic growth (especially in physical throughput)
>is the dogma.  Ecocentrists and supporters of sustainability are
>challenging dogma, not creating it.  With this in mind, there
>certainly is an enormous resistence to re-evaluation of dogma.
>Any economist who dares challenge the dogma of infinite growth
>is quickly ostracized.

Anthropocenterism is not equivalent to econo-centrism. One does not
have to believe that trees have souls or that rocks have rights in order
to believe that turning forests into tree farms and highways can have a
negative impact on human life.

Econo-centrism is an example of a common error of  confusing quantification
with exactitude. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu