X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 14:47:17 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Thoughts?

Jay: First, thanks for the response to my question on international law.
You actually *did* help clarify some things :)

Now on to more of a debate:
>On man and fish:
>
>1) I agree that water issues are complex.  There is a simple choice here,
>agriculture or fish.

Read these two sentences again and see if you can spot the contradiction.
I would also point out that, according to some of us, rivers are wetlands -
- and did you not say they should be protected at any cost?

 2) biodiversity is a fancy word that probablky could
>stand the loss of one species of salmon who were dying anyway.

Biodiversity is a fancy word, and some of the best scientific minds in this
and other countries are devoted to understanding exactly what kind of
losses we can "stand" in the long run.  I would also point out that a good
chance exists that this particular species is/was on its way out due to
anthropogenic causes.  In any event, the "humans v. other species" argument
is deeply flawed in its basic premise that human life is somehow
independent of other forms of life and in its implication that the
continued existence of individual species is the primary goal of
conservation efforts.  Of course, I readily grant that many pop-
environmentalists perceive their intents and design their efforts toward
that end.  But that's not what true conservation biology is about.

3) It is
>beyond dispute that the starving people of the world are fed with the surplus
>agriculture of america and that California is the leading state in the union.

I'd like to see some figures on exactly how much of our surplus production
feeds how many starving folks.  andy pointed out that CA rice is traded to
other countries, and some is given away as surplus.  But the major crops of
the San Joaquin valley include things like cotton, stone fruits (mostly
peaches and nectarines, but also apricots and others), almonds, alfalfa,
corn for silage, and the grapes that Gallo grows in such abundance.  How
many of the world's starving are being fed from those?

> 4) your faith that some conservatives have no interest in humanity, but only
>want to destroy species is silly and sounds like something that KAT would
>say.
>
>Just what have I said that makes you think I have no interest in either farm
>workers or the starving of the world? My opposition to world socialism?

Maybe I was too hasty.  Let's see -- many migrant farm workers receive
welfare and draw unemployment during the "off" season.  That makes them
lazy and unworthy of compassion, if your previous posts are any indication.
Among the immigrant workers are some number (don't know how many) illegal
aliens.  I don't recall you mentioning how these individuals should be
dealt with.  And I don't know how you feel about the UFW and its efforts
to ensure adequate housing and job safety (like reduced exposure to
pesticides).

How, beyond ensuring the flow of water to the crops they pick and consume,
do you propose to help farm workers and the starving of the world,
respectively?

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)