HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Wolves vs. Caribou
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:58:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov22.175859.20802
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ

In article <JMC.92Nov21101132@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>, jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
> Someone wrote that the Alaskan decision to shoot wolves is playing God.
> One can reply, "No, it's just gardening on a moderately large scale."
> Is there a difference?
> 
> So far as I have seen of the discussion, it is about on the level of
> a Bambi movie, and I'm not sure that much more is involved than a
> clash of sentimentalities.
> 
> The idea that keeping down the wolves would cause herds of caribou on
> the scale of African ungulate herds seems unlikely on the basis of
> climate, but maybe the advocates have done their homework.
> 
> On the other hand, maybe it's the people from a pioneer culture
> annoying the sentimental environmentalists for the sheer pleasure of
> it.  In that case, I'm for it.  They certainly deserve some revenge
> for all the meddling.
> 
> --
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> *
> He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> 

-- 
John McCarthy raises several issues but presents no evidence whatsoever
for his suggestions beyond how he personally responds to the discussion.

Having read the article in the New York Times through my particular colored
glasses, I was appalled by the action of the Alaskan State agency
involved.  Let me explain what I found relevant.  I am hardly a
population biologist, but for several years I have taught simple
differential equation models concerning prey predator relations.
What I learned is that the dynamics are quite complicated
and the effect of a perturbation (as decreasing the population
of predators) is not easily predictable.   The state agency's supporters
were not quoted as presenting any evidence from population biologists
supporting their position, but biologists were quoted on the other
side making an argument I was ready to accept.   In this case,
I must admit a bias, but it was based on my professional training
rather than any sentimentality about Bambi.  I suspect that many of
those posting responses on this issue reacted the way I did.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:48:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.163951.24163@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.074014.9157@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>|> No I'm assuming we start with a position that no one has a right to use
>|> a resource they don't own, or lease, and that there can be no such thing
>|> as effective collective ownership. Thus clean air freaks don't get their
>|> lungfulls for free, and neither do factory owners get a waste receptacle
>|> for their waste for free. 
>Everybody should pay for their benefits of the air, OK. But who should they
>pay to? Each other? 

In a sense yes. See a previous post for a mechanism to deal with a 
polluting incinerator. You can't tag a particular liter of air as 
belonging to a particular person, but you can take free market action
to establish a economic price for a particular level of clean air in
a particular location. IE you can drive a pollutor out of business, or
force him to clean up his act, by subsidizing a cleaner competitor. 

People and organizations go to great lengths to get around disincentives,
and conversely they go to great lengths to gain incentives. The carrot
is almost always more powerful than the stick. There's a multi-billion
dollar industry in the US dedicated to tax avoidance. Dodging taxes is
considered honorable by many. On the other hand, offer to pay for a 
service and people will flock to your door trying to get your business.
Pollution taxes go against the natural economic grain. It establishes
a free lunch system where those who benefit don't pay for the benefit
and those who suffer, do so disproportionately.

Gary
From: mingos@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Chemical mops (was Re: Ozone)
Date: 17 Nov 92 12:40:02 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Nov15.180329.4931@netcom.com>, tomd@netcom.com (Tom Dempster) write


{ Deleted stuff asking about replacement of ozone destroyed by CFC's with
  'artificially produced' ozone}
 
> Problems:
> 	1) What amount of ozone molecules are we going to need?
> 	2) What amount of electrical energy would be required to
> 	   create this much ozone? (if corona discharge were to be
> 	   the method)
> 	3) If this artificially-produced ozone were to be created on
> 	   on the earth's surface, how could it be transported to the
> 	   atmosphere where it is needed?

   Whist I think it's clear from previous postings that ozone replacement is
not the solution, due mainly to it being a question of where the O3 <=> O2 
equilibrium lies.  The position of this equilibrium has been (allegedly, for
the sceptics) altered by the presence of CFC's .  Is anyone aware of any work
which has been done which may aid removal of the catalysts - in effect a
chemical mop, which will 'soak up' the halogen radicals, and pull them out of
the system.   For example, one could notionally disperse sodium into the ozone
layer, to form NaCl, which would be subsequently washed out without the
possibility of forming further Cl radicals ( I am fully aware that this 
wouldn't work in practice, but it illustrates the principle).
    
   Just curious.


		Gavin  
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm)
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:03:06 GMT

In article <6966@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@guam.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
|> with respect to Alan's latest post.....
|> 
|> If the target is 500 million people WORLD-WIDE, then the phrase 
|> "our descendants" won't mean much to too many people.  You will have
|> to prevent most of the current population from having descendants.

I'm surprised none has jumped on this yet. If every couple would have one
child the population is reduced to half each generation, thus in 3-4 generations
we are down to 500 million, while everybody has descendants. 

-- 
"Good planets are hard to find."     Thomas Palm
				     Department of Microwave Engineering
				     Royal Institute of Technology
				     S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
				     tpalm@mvt.kth.se
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Request info on homemade eco-friendly cleaning products
Date: 19 Nov 1992 04:11:32 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 <1992Nov18.152418.19074@pellns.alleg.edu>, jannotj@pell2l22.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:
=
= 	I wish to find some information on making your own laundry  
=detergent and home cleaning products.  I once had formulas for these  
=things, but I lost them before I could try them out.  Is there a way to  
=make these relatively inexpensive but still effective and environmentally  
=safe?  What should you look for in store bought detergents and cleaners?   
=I know that chlorine, phosphorous and enzymes are No-Nos - but I can't  
=help feeling sick everytime I purchase these products.

Just why are enzymes no-nos?  Other than a lot of hysteria about a decade or so
ago?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 15:38:42 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <-1363910743snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
> > that over the last 75 years or so the absolute ownership of property (of
> > all kinds) has been eroding, but that is NOT how the underlying law of
> > the land was originally written.
>
>In Australia, I repeat, there is no absolute ownership of land as a
>component of personal property since all of it is vested in the crown,

Actually, it's true here in the US as well.  I think it's just a matter of
degree.  The governement here can condem land for the public good and take
it for its use through due process and eminent domain.  Building roads is
a classic example.  In practice, Gil, how often does the Crown in Australia
take people's land from them?  Is there a court process that is followed?
Is there compensation to the occupants of land "owned" by people whose
land is taken for the public good?

If it's not done often, and there is a court process, then your system is
very similar to ours.  I wonder, then, if that makes us communistic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Ecocentric Criterion and the Population Question
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:10:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.022142.11566@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>Technophiles please note: the specification of current technology levels
>does not constitute a prediction. It is merely a simplification of the
>problem. I do not ask what population the earth might or probably will
>support. I ask what population we NOW are able to support. The probable
>trajectory of technology can be addressed much more rationally once we
>determine what the current limiting process is and what other limiting
>processes are in prospect.

I would suspect that the limit is economic rather than technical or resource
driven. Certainly today's technology is sufficient to desalinize sea water, 
and certainly today's hydroponic and drip irrigation technology is sufficient 
to use agricultural water more efficiently than is being done. As with energy
issues, the limits are not technical, they are economic and social. The 
majority of people are not productive enough to have the necessary economic 
power to fully utilize current technology, much less more advanced technology.
Worker productivity correlates most strongly with standard of living. That's
because high productivity brings with it the wealth necessary to support
a high standard of living.

Gary
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: I=PAT, and a little sci-fi
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:09:19
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.apc.org's message of 21 Nov 92 06:09:00 GMT

In article <1466601925@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

   Some thoughts on ecosystem impacts and the I = PAT eqn. [I = 
   impact, P = population size, A = mean "affluence" or consumption, 
   T = impact of technology used to provide consumed goods or 
   services.]

   The I = PAT idea is due to Ehrlich and Holdren [1].

   Some posters have criticised the idea on the grounds that the
   factors are not in general completely independent, i.e they say 
   that we might have A = A(P,T), T = T(P,A) or dependencies on 
   derivatives. It has also been suggested that only physical 

Also, the trivial case has a population density dependence
which I think is an irreducible term - that's assuming that
"I" is quantifiable (or A,T for that matter...) ;-)

 ...

   The moral: thou shalt not multiply implicit variables beyond 
   empirical necessity without well-supported and *applicable* 
   theoretical cause, or in other words Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Associated moral, often forgotten: "if all you have is a toy
model don't expect it to say anything about reality".

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	          *
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	          *
*  Ain't you heard of the the starving millions?     			  *
*  Ain't you heard of contraception?  "Too much too young" Specials, 1979 *
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Ecocentric Criterion (again)
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:08:54 GMT
	<6966@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> <1992Nov19.090306.22174@kth.se>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: tpalm@nada.kth.se's message of 19 Nov 92 09:03:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.090306.22174@kth.se> tpalm@nada.kth.se (Thomas Palm) writes:


   In article <6966@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@guam.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
   |> with respect to Alan's latest post.....
   |> 
   |> If the target is 500 million people WORLD-WIDE, then the phrase 
   |> "our descendants" won't mean much to too many people.  You will have
   |> to prevent most of the current population from having descendants.

   I'm surprised none has jumped on this yet. If every couple would have one
   child the population is reduced to half each generation, thus in 3-4 generations
   we are down to 500 million, while everybody has descendants. 

Not quite true. First of all, if the mean # of children is 1 per
couple, significant fraction will have 0 children, further a
significant fraction of each generation either die before having
children or have zero children so you rapdily bias the demographics.
Secondly, although Europe and North America have flat (or slightly 
inverted) population profiles, most of the world has a steep
pyramid population profile which continues to drive population growth after
the birth rate drops. Thirdly, humans are not well modeled by 
single-generation-and-die population models, we're not dayflies,
human life expectancy is about three generations, which produces a lag
in population decline even if all other factors are working in your
favour.
	Quite frankly the only way to decrease the human population by
a significant amount on less than six generation time scale is plague
or a catastrophic event. On longer time scales you can do it but
have problems with social instabilities.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*
From: ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson)
Subject: Re: Steering Clinton onto the right track
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:10:13 GMT

Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. writes:

>Ozone depletion (caused mostly, in the U.S., by auto air
>conditioners) threatens, and has already initiated, an epidemic of
>skin cancer, blindness, etc.

Ozone depletion has already intitiated an epidemic of
skin cancer, blindness, etc. ....  

Absolutely untrue.

ajackson@ernie.princeton.edu





















Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Date: 18 Nov 92 04:01:07 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov13.061824.8598@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > It depends on how badly that one person wants the resource and how strongly
 > other individuals want to preserve it. That's where the market can set a
 > quanitative valuation. If 100 million people want to preserve a resource,
 > but are only willing to spend a penny each to do so, and one individual
 > is willing to expend 10 million and *one* dollars to use the resource,
 > then the market says that his voice wins the decision. The market is
 > valuable because it forces people to face hard choices straight on rather
 > than depending on "somebody should do something" and "there ought to be
 > a law." If they value something, they must *personally* bear their share
 > of the cost to obtain and keep it.

This model is very highly problematic indeed, where 100 million people
may very well only have a penny each, and therefore spend 100% of the
resources they have at their disposal in pursuit of satisfaction, while
the one person may well have $100 million and only has to spend 10% of
his own resources in order to frustrate the wishes of the many.

The practical solution to your problem of forcing people to face hard
choices, in this light, is for a few among the many to far more easily
simply dispose of the one frustration than it is to make available
education to the many, usually under the cover of a highly indignant
rhetoric on just how the one managed to have become so wealthy while
the many are so impoverished. That is exactly what happens, if you care
to read a little history.

As far as the established analyses of political economy have long been
available, if you find Marx uncomfortable, since he covered so much of
the American experience why not read for example:

        Stone J. and Mennell S. (eds)  1980
        Alexis de Tocqueville: Selected Writings on Democracy,
           Revolution and Society
        Chicago: U.C. Press

I am not at all unsympathetic with what you intend in prompting the
view that individuals must take on more personal responsibility for
the state of the world, instead of forever blaming someone else, but
I do wish to point out to you that your free market model is not worth
the grade-school arithmetic you deploy in its support.

As I mentioned in another context; garbage in, garbage out, and you
might just think of building your argument from more substantial and
realistic assumptions, and a little more difficult to find fault with
in practice.

--
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: carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink)
Subject: Good environmental programs in NE U.S.A.?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:09:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

  Hi.  I'm asking on behalf of my boss - can people recommend some
universities with good environmental science or resource management
programs in the northeastern United States?

  Reply either here, or via mail to one of the addresses below.
If anyone would like a digest, write me:  if there's enough 
interest, I'll post the digest.

  Thanks in advance.


-- 
Carl Fink          carlf@panix.com, C.FINK4(GEnie), or CF427620I@LIUVAX.BITNET
  "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our
  inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter
  the state of facts and evidence"     --      John Adams
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: The Criterion for Ecocentrism
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 02:59:57 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Nov21.014807.24403@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP writes:

 > In a sense yes. See a previous post for a mechanism to deal with a 
 > polluting incinerator. You can't tag a particular liter of air as 
 > belonging to a particular person, but you can take free market action
 > to establish a economic price for a particular level of clean air in
 > a particular location. IE you can drive a pollutor out of business, or
 > force him to clean up his act, by subsidizing a cleaner competitor. 
 >  
 > People and organizations go to great lengths to get around disincentives,
 > and conversely they go to great lengths to gain incentives. The carrot
 > is almost always more powerful than the stick. There's a multi-billion
 > dollar industry in the US dedicated to tax avoidance. Dodging taxes is
 > considered honorable by many. On the other hand, offer to pay for a 
 > service and people will flock to your door trying to get your business.
 > Pollution taxes go against the natural economic grain. It establishes
 > a free lunch system where those who benefit don't pay for the benefit
 > and those who suffer, do so disproportionately.

Again, we agree.

--
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: galloway@cheshire.oxy.edu (Gregory Wayne Galloway)
Subject: Road Usage Fees
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:48:07 GMT

	I am currently researching the idea of implementing a Road Usage Fee 
program in the United States.  This is not a program such as Turnpikes or Toll  Roads, but on in which people would be charged for using all public roads.  Sucha system was experimented with in Hong Kong and Singapore and not only 
succeeded in reducing traffic and pollution, but provided capital with which to improve public transit.
	I have already consulted my library on this subject, but have found the
information there to be lacking.  Therefore, I would be very appreciative of anyand all suggestions, opinions, and information anyone would be willing to give. Please either email me directly at galloway@oxy.edu or post to the net.
	Thank you in advance.

							Greg Galloway
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Browning of America
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:58:06 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <JMC.92Nov20135714@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

> >    When non aboriginals started farming the Great Plains there was nearly two
> >    feet of topsoil underneath all that waving grass. Most is gonzo now. Now I
> >    have a serious question which only seems facetious:
> > 
> > 	   Can we restore Americas topsoile by collecting human feces, and 
> What is a mere calculation in face of a Gardener's suspicions?
> But why not cow manure?  There is a lot more of it than human feces.

Cattle grazing destroys ecologically sensitive public lands!  Very
politically incorrect!  Much better would be chicken manure.  Our
President-elect has already conducted a far-sighted research program
much like the original poster suggested, in which the entire state
of Arkansas has been buried to a depth of two feet in chicken manure.
Newsgroups: sci.environment