From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Carrying Capacity and Sanity
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:23:30 GMT

In article <1466601989@igc.apc.org>, alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:
|> 
|> If sci.environment were a forum like ECOLOGY-L it would be 
|> inappropriate to subject it to the kind of cage-rattling I 
|> sometimes use. But this isn't a place for discussing research 
|> findings -- there is no commonality of background among the 
|> posters here, so that is almost impossible, and basically would 
|> be worthless to do. The closest approximation to anything like 
|> that I've seen recently in here (or talk.environment) is Michael 
|> Tobis valiantly holding out against some guy who thinks that if 
|> treelines aren't marching up mountainsides everywhere, global 
|> warming must be hogwash. 

I've never been accused of valor before, but I must share the blame
with messrs. Halliwell,Parsons and Schloerrer at least. But as you can
see, I very much disagree with you that disucssing research findings
is inappropriate here. What else distinguishes a sci.* group anyway?

Certainly, the point you bring up that values are an essential component
of our decisions is a valid one. The point of discussing these matters
in a scientific context, though, is that at least some of us believe that
the actual evidence is also an important component.

For me, this group holds a double fascination - the intrinsic importance
and interest of the material fascinates me, but the nature of the public's
response to complex issues equally so. I continue to hope that respect for
logic, evidence, and something that passes among non-philosophers for truth
can operate as a uniting force despite enormous divisive tendencies based
on culture, politics and preference.

In particular, I would hope that the tension between the greens and
the greenbacks might be mitigated by an honest concern for evidence. This
ill-tempered and insurmountable tension is mirrored among more scientifically
literate folks with the tensions seen here between technocrats and
biologists. (Alan, if your impression that there was little biology here
before you showed up is valid, my sincere thanks for rectifying the situation.)

As someone with one foot in each camp, I am dismayed at the
constant flamage that seems to invariably accompany discussions between
them. (in particular, the nastiness between Steinn and Alan, both of whom
seem to me to have made significant contributions here, dismays me.)

In any case, the idea that citing evidence is pointless appalls me. I would
hope you would reconsider and temper this statement.

|> The fact is that sci.environment for years was a plinth for 
|> certain arithmetical professors to declaim against 
|> environmentalism and to try to subvert every discussion into an 
|> argument about nuclear power. 

Well, said prof has at least come around to admitting that there may be
something to this global warming hypothesis. Arguing with him is not like
arguing with a nonscientist partisan of whatever political stripe: he can be 
swayed by evidence. Disagreeing with his optimism or his values will leave some
(probably large) residual disagreement about policy, but I continue
to believe that evidence and reason can go a long way toward 
closing the gap. What's more, I can't see how one can be optimistic
about the prospects for democracy without believing that there is power
in reason.

|>When I began posting in the group, 
|> I decided I would be an idiot to play by their rules  -- so I 
|> haven't. 

What rules? This is silly. (This is also Hardwick's mistake.) There is
no room for rules in a discussion among a constantly shifting subset of
the several MILLION people who in principle have access to this discussion.

...
 
|> But this is an old argument, really -- I remember it well from 
|> the 60s -- should we try to "radicalize" people and risk 
|> polarization, or be careful not to turn them off? I was, and 
|> still am, for the "push-hard" approach. That's one element of 
|> youthful impatience I think was sound -- provided the times are 
|> ripe for it. I think they are, again. It's time to raise 
|> conciousness -- principally in the readers. 

There will always be room for rabble rousers like yourself and Prof
McCarthy. Unfortunately, the middle ground is not always so well
represented. Often the middle is characterized by cowardice: trying to
find a position on any matter that will be least offensive to the
various wings. Personally I hope for a sort of radical center which
feels free to adopt the best proposals of any stripe, even the more
extreme ones, without becoming incoherent or directionless, and while
eschewing the amply available nonsense. 

As far as this group is concerned,
I would hope that the sneers of the various participants be directed at
the ideas and priorities of their opponents rather than at their persons.
Except for a harmless ego-tripper or two, it seems to me that participants
in this sort of discussion are universally well-intentioned and deserve
at least a semblance of mutual respect.

|> The regular posters 
|> are not the object here, or at least the rare ones who can learn 
|> (and they *do* exist) are not so fragile that a posting-policy 
|> should be formulated around not turning them off. Most posters 
|> can't learn, and you don't formulate anything around them other 
|> than exchanges intended for the reader. 

Everyone who can type can learn, I think, and almost everyone can be
offended or put off by an ill-chosen remark. In any case, I think
it is the better part of valor to act as if this were the case, and
to offer the general readership and lurkership the benefit of some
pointers to genuine evidence whenever possible.

mt