HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Axel Boldt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: A simple solution (was: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!)
Date: 11 Jan 93 03:21:10 GMT
Reply-To: 6500axel@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
Organization: Univ of California, Santa Barbara, Dept of Mathematics

Is it more important to reduce consumption in the first world or to
reduce population growth in the third world?

Don't know.

But here's a measure which would achieve both at the same time:

The Plan
========
All development programs for third world countries are stopped
immediately. Instead, every industrialized country adopts one or two
underdevelopped countries (a suitable matching could be worked out by
the UNO) and promises to pay social security benefits to elderly and
to construct a working health care system in this third world country. 

The Effects 
=========== 
Consumption in the first world will have to be reduced drastically
since there is less money available and therefore living standards
will go down. 
In the third world, it's no longer economically smart for a couple to
have 10 children because they don't need them any more as 'social
security' and because the children have to be fed (less of them will
die since health care is available).  Women will try to get
contraceptives because they don't see a point in raising so many
children any more.

The Problem
===========
You can't convince first world countries that this is a good plan.



Axel.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.sources.wanted
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: Re: "Urgent warning"
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 93 02:19:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.201034.8018@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>|In The Chronicle-Herald : The Mail-Star Saturday, January 9, 1993 C2,
>>|David Suzuki, a Canadian scientist and writer mentioned that at "The end
>>|of November, the prestigious Union of Concerned Scientists released an
>>|urgent warning tha the planet is undergoing catastrophic ecological change
>>|that threatens all of humankind. Their global call to action was signed
>>|by over 1500 senior scientists, including 101 Nobel laureates from around the 
>>|world".
>
>He never said environmental scientists.  The UCS sent the "Global Warning"
>to all living nobel laureates in the sciences, all members of the
>National Academy of Sciences and most members of other scientific
>academies around the world.  The majority of these Nobel
>laureates have endorsed the warning, along with many academy members.
>The recent issue of the UCS publication "Nucleus" contains the
>entire text of the warning.

I should hope that this "Warning" supports building nuclear power plants,
since a vast majority of laureates and NAS members do.

Tino
-- 
     "Here are the young men, the weight on their shoulders..." - J.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Sacrifice (was Re: Save the Planet ...)
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:43:29 GMT

In article <725783083snx@tillage.DIALix.oz.au> gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec30.180835.26471@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com writes:

[...]

> > doesn't necessarily accumulate around you.  Sometimes, it accumulates
> > around the next generation.  Avoiding that requires sacrifices.
>
>Goodness me! Haven't you ever thought of making an *investment* in
>real, long term economic development instead of crying for sacrifice
>like some high priest howling for blood.
>
>What on earth is the environmental movement over there? Some sort of
>religious cult, or what? No wonder everyone here just gets the shits
>with it all and start sniping at personalities instead of getting on
>with the job.

Gentlemen, I do believe the man has a Clue.

Yes, it *does* seem that much of the environmental movement over here
is a religious cult.  Not all of it, mind you, but much of it.  But then,
it seems that quite a lot over here smacks of religion.

What with the historical roots of the U.S. including people like the
Puritans, I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

>Gil


-- 
Kevin Brown					kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end >
	    This is your .signature virus on drugs: <>
			Any questions?
From: ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology Center)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Sub-Species" (was: Mt. Graham: UPi
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:58:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:Jym.8Jan1993.2247@naughty-peahen:646234235:cdp:1466602032:000:864
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!ecologycntr    Jan 11 10:58:00 1993


So. Woody,

What exactly, then, is a species? As opposed to what you term
"just a subspecies".

Hint: the definition you learned in High School Biology ("fertile
offspring") is not always applicable. Cacti and Orchids produce
fertile offspring from fertilization across GENERIC boundaries.
Then there are amoebae and the like, who produce fertile offspring
only with "themselves", meaning that according to the above
definition, each amoeba is a true species?

There are clines, a species spread over a wide geographic area in
which neighboring populations are interfertile but populations at
"either end" cannot interbreed.

I venture the following definition: A species is a taxon
constructed by human taxonomists, in which organisms are placed
that seem more like each other to those taxonomists than they seem
like organisms NOT placed in that species.

chris
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sheep in Organizations
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 09:28:45 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <58221@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:

 > Your theory of land ownership is, like any other theory of land ownership,
 > quite far from a "fact". The fact here is that under US law the government
 > "owns" much of Alaska. 

It gets to the point where I simply shrug, and suggest that *some*
countries bring their own problems upon themselves . . .

 > The US wilderness has been compromised pretty much out of existence. 
 > Currently, large parts of Alaska remain off limits to development. This
 > leaves an immensity of acreage in private hands and under the ownership
 > of native corporations in Alaska itself, not to mention the rest of the
 > United states. There is no advantage to the general public if we allow
 > the destruction of what little wilderness is left, and we there are
 > intangible benefits for most of us otherwise, even if we never visit
 > our lands up north.  The plea for auctions or giveaways of public
 > land is a plea for public charity. I'm all for a good social welfare system,
 > but, I don't believe that it should be implemented by tossing away our
 > precious remaining wild places.

Perhaps your former situation has led to this latter, yes?

Perhaps everyone has got so paranoid about everyone else because no
latitude is allowed in government or other groups for bargaining and
compromise, to make the best use of the resources at your disposal
(including your natural environment). Which may explain the behaviour
of the US contingent to this forum.

You may find it of interest that we in Australia have no declaration
of human or citizen's rights in our Constitution? We have the choice
of getting on with one another or coming apart at the seems, without
recourse to some "higher authority" enshrined on paper somewhere for
the lawyers to be bludgeoning us with.

If our Constitution is open to interpretation, that empowers me to
interpret it myself, as anyone else has a prerogative to exercise that
together we can get things done we want done (including managing our
natural environment).

The only real job then is to provide valid and reliable information to
people on an ongoing basis, allowing them to make informed decisions
and to vote accordingly. The screamers and hysterics don't get very
far, BTW.

Gil
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Education and the Environment by Gregory A. Smith
Distribution: world
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 10:09:26 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1993Jan9.012901.28461@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu writes:

 > >Let's see what sort of momentum can now be maintained . . .
 >  
 > Except you forgot something.
 >  
 > What about the argument that you bolstered with the bad etymology?  Do you
 > now admit your position is weaker than you had thought, since one of the
 > pieces of evidence for it is bogus?

No, I have not forgotten anything. My position has been clearly (and
repeatedly) stated as seeking to bolster the level of discussion here,
within the wider context of a persistently polarised, petty, sniping,
zero-sum type of game among the American contingent here.

The presentation of raw "facts" is only partly effective in pedagogy,
and by no means edifies or enriches students particularly. As often as
not such students emerge into their adult life wondering, "So what?",
as I do of your endless, mindless "First World" political arguments.

Throwing a real howler periodically into a thread (whose author had in
fact begun to explain himself as it all appeared to get out of hand)
with which I had no previous involvement at all, is quite a legitimate
device. Indeed it got you all sitting up suddenly worrying about it.

My old mate Professor McCarthy was the very first into the breach,
although quickly followed by what I thought was a fine example of
scholarship we have not seen here at all for quite some time.

Pity the same people don't feel so ready to dive into the rest of the
crap here, but feel so free to sponsor as much of it as they possibly
can. Perhaps the bogus evidence (indeed more commonly *no* evidence
whatsoever) you Americans present on a routine basis is to be valued
above that of others, for some reason.

Believe me, I feel no embarrassment among you people at all. Maybe
some of you do know something within your own limited specialties, but
as soon as you step out of your respective fields, into Anthropology
for example, you stand as naked and ignorant as the day you were born.
Preposterous in your howling incompetence, in fact.

But you deal with it by disparaging the other discipline, by sitting
there just waiting for the one single word of untruth in the volumes
of their submission and then crying "Foul! All this scholar's work is
to be dismissed as fraud!", and by fending off their other citations
and evidence as mere propaganda.

Honestly, I don't mind at all feeding you people as much rope as you
want. I can drop a clanger in there anytime I chose, and when you get
tangled in it and whinge and complain so loudly as you do I just take
the opportunity to mock and ridicule you all the more, indeed with a
great relish . . .

On the other hand we can always pursue more reasonable standards of
scientific and scholarly debate, yes?

Gil

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND DESIGN COMP.
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:35:30 GMT

Daniel Chung (dchung@efi.com) wrote:
: 
:      In response to T. Turner, where will electricity for cars come
: from?  If it comes from fuel, then it is equally pollution to the
: environment.  It had better come from solar, or waves, or the like.
: 
: 					Daniel Chung (Mr.)


	I remember reading that electric vehicles produce up to
20% less pollution (total, including electricity generation)
than conventional internal-combustion engine cars.   Does anyone
have more in-depth knowledge than this?


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================
From: Alan McGowen <alanm@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Date: 08 Jan 93 21:38 PST
Subject: In Re: Dragonslayers
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602024:000:648
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!alanm    Jan  8 21:38:00 1993


Gil Hardwick writes:

>I suggest again, fellow, dragons be there. I can take you to face
>them at your leisure. Just send your cheque, and I shall alert our
>people to prepare something. How frightening, or how simply absurd
>it will finally get just depends on you.

Poor Gil. He still hasn't figured out what happens to the 
Dragonslayer in the end.

My money is still on the Rhinemaidens. They had it right from 
the beginning:

     Traulich und treu ist's nur in der Tiefe;
     falsch und feig ist, was dort oben sich freut!

And that applies to the would-be dragonslayers just as much as to 
the would-be gods.


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



Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:57:35 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Solar vs. Nuclear
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan4.151131.20135@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.013947.25856@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> 471-1@.arizona.edu (E. Shane Jimerfield) writes:
>
>In the spirit of charity, I suggest that the poster resume the study of
>Freshman English to enhance his opportunity to reach the sophomoric
>state.  "Obviously" (in the last strange sentence of the posting) should
>not be bounded be commas.  
>               ^^

And "by" should not be typed as "be" by aberrant finger-brain
connections, either.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: plutonium arrives in Japan
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:08:12 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan7.203118.17716@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:

|Mark Wilson (mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM) wrote:

|: For the umpteenth time.  The plutonium in question is not suitable for
|: making bombs.
|: Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

|	I think the other countries believe Japan possesses the
|technological capability to reprocess the large amounts they are importing
|into weapons-grade plutonium.

If that's what they are afraid of then they are even dumber than I thought.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: rmg3@grebyn.com (Robert Grumbine)
Subject: What is Climate?
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:54:49 GMT

  Sci.environment spends a lot of time talking about 'climate change'
and related (potentially) environmental changes that may accompany
some of the predicted 'climate changes'.

  Yet, implicitly, there is an assumption that everyone talking in
the group carries the same definition of climate.  Given that
there are approximately as many definitions of climate as people
who study the subject, it seems unlikely to be true in this group
either.

  Two common elements in the definition of climate by people in
the field are averaging (of some quantities) over time, and over
space.  Which quantities, how to average, how long a time, and
how large an area (volume) are generally points of debate.

  What are your thoughts?

Bob Grumbine
rmg3@grebyn.com
From: tgray@igc.apc.org (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: IPS: China in Population Squeeze
Date: 4 Jan 93 23:07:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466602020:000:2925
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tgray    Jan  4 15:07:00 1993


/* Written 12:03 am  Dec  9, 1992 by newsdesk@igc.apc.org in igc:ips.englibrary */
VCopyright Inter Press Service 1992, all rights reserved.  Permission to re-
print within 7 days of original date only with permission from 'newsdesk'.

Title: CHINA: Little land left to feed world's biggest population


an inter press service feature

by deirdre godfrey

beijing, dec 7 (ips) --  as china fast runs out of arable lands
to support its ever-growing population, even its efforts to catch
up with the industrialised world is taking a backseat.

the country's highest governing body, the state council, has
issued a circular prohibiting townships from setting up
industrial development zones, which have proved to be the key to
china's surging economy.

but such industrial parks are eating up china's already
limited reserves of precious farmland, raising the potential for
an agricultural crisis.

''it is inevitable that some farmland will be used during
china's current rapid economic development,'' said the state
council circular released last month, ''but the misuse of land --
especially limited arable land -- has to be halted.''

with more than one billion mouths to feed, china supports
almost a quarter of the world's population -- the biggest
globally -- on only seven percent of its arable land.

a national report on development and the environment says that
while the country's population increases by 15 to 17 million
people a year, its cultivated land shrinks by an average of
300,000 hectares annually.

at present, china has only 0.08 hectares of farmland per
person, or one-fourth of the world average. officials say the
rate of shrinkage has slowed in recent years, but add that a
potential for crisis still looms.

part of the reason lies in soil erosion, which
environmentalists say threaten at least one-third of the
country's total farmlands.

in mid-november, the ministry of water resources released a
report showing that 18 percent of the total national territory
has suffered soil erosion, and described the problem as ''still
growing''.

to prevent the loss of more agricultural land, the state
council has ordered all development zone projects, including
those currently under construction, to undergo full feasibility
studies before being submitted for approval.

it also emphasised that in all cases, the zones should not
occupy large tracts of arable land but should be on wasteland,
including beaches and non-agricultural
(story received incomplete)
0717
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The above news story is copied from the IGC Networks, home of   *
* the nonprofit networks EcoNet, PeaceNet, ConflictNet, LaborNet, *
* and HomeoNet.  For more information on IGC Networks news        *
* services, write to support@igc.apc.org  .                       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tom Gray (tgray@igc.apc.org)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: "Sub-Species" (was: Mt. Graham: UPi
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:50:25 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: GE-CRD

In article <1466602032@igc.apc.org>, ecologycntr@igc.apc.org (Ecology
Center) wrote:
> 
> 
> So. Woody,
> 
> What exactly, then, is a species? As opposed to what you term
> "just a subspecies".
> 
> Hint: the definition you learned in High School Biology ("fertile
> offspring") is not always applicable. Cacti and Orchids produce
> fertile offspring from fertilization across GENERIC boundaries.
> Then there are amoebae and the like, who produce fertile offspring
> only with "themselves", meaning that according to the above
> definition, each amoeba is a true species?
> 
> There are clines, a species spread over a wide geographic area in
> which neighboring populations are interfertile but populations at
> "either end" cannot interbreed.
> 
> I venture the following definition: A species is a taxon
> constructed by human taxonomists, in which organisms are placed
> that seem more like each other to those taxonomists than they seem
> like organisms NOT placed in that species.
> 
> chris

Yes, as you suggest, taxonomy is both fluid and often arbitrary.  However,
with regard to the so called "endangered species" which started this thread
some weeks ago--Mt. Graham Red Squirrel, Florida Panther, Northern Spotted
Owl--the sort of classification problems that you correctly point out just
don't exist.  These are all more closely related and (taxonomically more
similar) to other widely distributed red squirrels, panthers and owls
respectively, than are greyhounds, beagles, and poodles taxonomically
similar to each other. 

I hope that you aren't suggesting that ambiguity in some cases should
justify  misrepresentation in those cases which aren't ambiguous. 

Woody Ligon
(ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com)
standard disclaimer applies
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: Need Help with Marine Infection...
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:27:39 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <C0K4pF.15G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> igorl@uiuc.edu (Igor Livshits) writes:
>
>This sounds like lateral line disease.  What were the areas affected on
>the tangs?
>
Diffuse on both sides, not symmetrical, not particularly concentrated at the 
lateral line. Some on caudal area. Looked like someone had smeared makeup on
it. No noticeable change in behavior or eating habits.
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
Subject: Re: Need Help with Marine Infection...
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:36:38 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1993Jan5.164841.17704@mr.med.ge.com> demma@south (Tom Demma x7-4308) writes:
>I'm hoping that someone can give me some advice on treating what appears to
>be a bacterial infection with my marine fish.  Since this site has decided
> two of the Yellow Tangs developed red-colored streaking about the
>dorsal and caudal fins, which developed into red blotches on the body
>with loss of the bright yellow color that they normally have.  They're
>still yellow, just not as bright as the one that appears unaffected.
>
My yellow tangs gradually developed a faint diffuse "blush" in some areas, red
or rust-colored. The brilliant lemon yellow faded slightly, and became 
variable. No diagnosis.

This condition, whatever it was, did not seem to concern the fish much, only my perception of it. It persisted for months, but the fish continued to act normally and eat live, flake, and lettuce leaf foods. Ultimately, I lost the fish in a serious tank casualty, but I'm sure it was unrelated. Have seen this in 3 or 4
different yellow tangs. I don't believe I ever attempted to medicate it.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.aquaria
From: jason@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Jason Rosenberg)
Subject: Re: Need Help with Marine Infection...
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:44:18 GMT

drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes:

>In article <C0K4pF.15G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> igorl@uiuc.edu (Igor Livshits) writes:
>>
>>This sounds like lateral line disease.  What were the areas affected on
>>the tangs?
>>
>Diffuse on both sides, not symmetrical, not particularly concentrated at the 
>lateral line. Some on caudal area. Looked like someone had smeared makeup on
>it. No noticeable change in behavior or eating habits.

Still, it does sound similar to symptoms for HLLE (Head and Lateral Line 
Erosion).  You might want to try adding a grounding probe to your tank.  

Jason
-- 
Jason Rosenberg                           Computer Science Department
jason@cs.ucla.edu                         University of California
{uunet,rutgers,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!jason      Los Angeles, CA  90024
Newsgroups: sci.aquaria