HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 07:18:26 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct14200537@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Steinn, you are mistaken about this being a case of temper.  Rudeness
 > seems to be a traditional way to post to newsgroups among people
 > from Perth.  Gil Hardwick should be introduced to John Wojdylo
 > who posts on rec.arts.books from the mathematics department of
 > the University of Western Australia.  Wojdylo could teach him
 > a greater variety of much ruder names to call people he disagrees with.
 > None of this "mate" for him.

Merely rude? I am greatly relieved.

Now that you have that off your chest, can we look forward to some
*facts* from your end of the world?

--
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 * *
From: larris@igc.apc.org (Lelani Arris)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: New Canadian Newsletters available
Date: 9 Oct 92 02:32:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1466601787:000:1759
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!larris    Oct  8 19:32:00 1992


From: Lelani Arris <larris>
Subject: New Canadian Newsletters available

 
Announcing....
 
Two Canadian newsletters on global change now available online!
 
The first is DELTA, the newsletter of the Canadian Global Change 
Program.  This quarterly newsletter contains material on a number
of global change issues, including climate change, acid rain,
ecosystems, and other related subjects.  The Summer 1992 (38K) and 
Fall 1992 (76K) issues are currently available, and we expect to 
carry future issues as well.
 
The second is the newsletter of the Climate Adaptations Branch,
Canadian Climate Centre (Environment Canada, Atmospheric 
Environment Service), a bilingual publication on climate change
and adaptation issues.  We are pleased to be carrying the 
inaugural (October 1992) issue of this newsletter (35K), and will 
be carrying future issues as well.
 
The Energy and Climate Information Exchange would like to thank
Dave Henderson of the Canadian Global Change Program, and Andrej
Saulesleja of the Canadian Climate Centre for supplying these
newsletters for electronic distribution.
 
The newsletters are available via anonymous ftp from igc.apc.org
(192.82.108.1), subdirectory /pub/ECIX; or you may request a copy
via email from larris@igc.apc.org.
 
******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                            * Project Director 
EcoNet:    larris                       * EcoNet Energy & Climate
Internet/Fidonet:  larris@igc.apc.org   * Information Exchange
BITNET:    larris%igc.org@stanford      * Box 1061 
Telephone: 403-852-4057                 * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0 
Fax:       403-852-5173                 * Canada
******************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R)
Subject: Re: Env. Satellites Shutdown in Dec. 1992
Keywords: satellites, budget cuts
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:26:39 GMT

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.
-- 
Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
				 *Aristotle				      *
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
	<JMC.92Oct9162839@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct11.161604.18386@vexcel.com>
Date: 11 Oct 92 10:17:41

In article <1992Oct11.161604.18386@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct9162839@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >In article <1992Oct9.135432.894@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
   >
   >   In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
   >Dingo says:
   >
   >     If it were cost-effective to truck topsoil to the degraded
   >     land, it would already be happening.
   >
   >Belief in the principle: 
   >
   >     If it were cost-effective to do X, it would already be
   >     happening.
   >
   >is a major reason for the persistence of poverty and
   >backwardness in the world.

   I will admit that my statement was simplistic.  It is only correct when a
   number of factors permit the market to work.  These factors would include
   information on the cheapest alternative, the opportunity to use that
   information and the capital to do it.  These factors are more likely,
   though not necessarily, true in the US.
   >--
   >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
   >*
   >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
   >
		   dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)

I often happens that all the above factors are present and still
no-one in a position to make the innovation does so.  People are
often just stuck in their old ways.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:01:19 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct13214308@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Who consulted Hardwick?  It seems that he babbles about "the
 > persistence of institutionalised lunacy in the world", he is
 > making a point similar to mine.

Who consulted McCarthy? His postings barely reflect the intelligence
and disciplined study one would anticipate from a Professor in any
field. Far more reminiscent of the blithering of a total ning-nong
with no access to data, to facts, to any sort of reality whatever.

Why don't you do even a minimum of homework, sir! You do no justice to
your institution, and make a mockery of science. I regard your wholly
eccentric ravings with the contempt they deserve.

--
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: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 11 Oct 92 02:32:33

In article <-1367112657snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

    > Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
    > I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
    > selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil
    > sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
    > per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
    > buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
    > and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
    > deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
    > whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.

   It is not necessary to make farm top soil a commodity and truck it
   off somewhere else. The notion is bizarre in the extreme.

   Methods for creating good deep soil right there on your own land are
   ancient, and needs no rethinking however much nonsense people who do
   arithmetic believe others are destined to talk.

   If anything at all needs to be trucked to the farm with poor soil,
   it is good farming practice. Offering farmers a decent living with the
   money our good Professor would use to buy soil would certainly help.

   --
   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 * *

How much do I owe the consulting ethnologist for this consultation?
I believe I may have 10 cents (Australian) left over from a trip.
Is that the usual fee?
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: beast@netcom.com (J. Kintscher)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:10:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.051307.18621@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>In article <-1366948899snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>
>>In article <JMC.92Oct10113638@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>
>> > in disagreement with someone who said:
>> >  
>> >      The more labor intensive day-to-day survival is, the lower
>> >      the standard of living is.
>> >  
>> > Both within countries and between countries, the lower the standard
>> > of living the more fighting there is.
>>
>Violence among the poor becomes common when there are unrealized expectations
>of wealth, which often implies great disparities of wealth.  Societies with
>low _material_ standards of living, but with sustainable lifestyles are
>often very satisfied and have little violence.  I have traveled extensively
>in the hills of Nepal where material standards of living are extremely low.
>Violence is simply not an acceptable method for solving personal disputes.
>The people lead a hard and happy life.  I was traveling alone, eating with
>the people, sleeping next to their chicken coops and was not insulated at all.
>I would feel much safer walking through any city at night there than in any
>city in the US.  I also met Nepalis who had lived in the US and went back
>"because nobody smiles in American cities."  I would suggest that their
>definition of a "high standard of living" would be very different than yours.

I don't see where either I or John (who quoted me without attribution)
stated that standard of living is based upon "material goods".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 12 Oct 92 11:23:46 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
>I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
>selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil

That's already done as well. The stuff is heavy and bulky so transport
costs dominate. 

>sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
>per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
>buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
>and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
>deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
>whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.

There is already some market incentive to increase top soil as pure
farm land with better top soil is more valuable. But many farmers do
not increase or preserve top soil because high capital costs force
maximization of immediate production and subsidized fuel and
fertilizer costs allow substitution of man-made chemicals for top-soil.
Of course, the incentives for farmers to sell land for suburban development
or to road expansion are also responsible for much topsoil loss. 

So, I'm still puzzled by what market incentives you propose. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 12 Oct 92 13:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Oct10.151520.29893@pellns.alleg.edu>, jannotj@pell2l8.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:

>I disagree I feel life might be that much richer if I had to rely on  
>myself alone to survive.  I also think that if it were as such people  
>would only have themselves to blame for their strife/happiness and as a  
>result human conflicts could be kept to a minimum.

I believe many of the historians who hang out around here will set you straight
on that, but I'd like to observe this: personal labor of the sort you describe
cannot easily be taxed (not since we gave up feudalism) and our current tax
system does not try.  You do not have to declare your tomatos, or the chair you
knocked together from wood cut on your own property.  That means you get to
keep the two-thirds or so of your work that would normally be appropriated by
the gov't for its own purposes, except for the property taxes, of course. It
may, indeed, be that you are right, so long as that situation does not change.

Of course, if everyone did that, things would change pretty quickly.  You'd
probably wind up being conscripted into a burial detail for those who could
not live under the new regime.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:30:06
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct14.191258.4416@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of 14 Oct 92 19:12:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.191258.4416@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   In article <-1366846190snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:

   >Even now, computers and automation are taking over most of the jobs
   >people were doing before, which phenomenon in large part stimulates
   >this debate to begin with. All those people now freed from boredom and
   >repetition might be helping the farmers a little more, or perhaps
   >helping farming communities to pool their machinery inventory to
   >avoid being ripped off so badly by the factory, and so free up the
   >availability of money to the farming community where it originated.

   Furthermore, this is not happening to the degree expected.  The old
   belief used to be that increasing productivity would provide people
   with more leisure time.  As it turns out, fewer people are now working
   more hours, have less leisure time, and more people ahve no work!  This
   is not the type of leisure time that was intended. 

 ??? Have you looked at the evolution of the working week, retirement
age and vacation time in western Europe?

*  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: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:31:34 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1bl62tINNike@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <54835@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>In article <JMC.92Oct14193800@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>>>Victor gives references but refrains from giving us an atomic weight.
>>>Did he read either of his references?
>>
>>What's with the bibliophobia exhibited by you anti-environmentalists? Carl
>>said he couldn't find a definition of "heavy metals", I gave him a
>>pointer.
>
>Victor, as has been pointed out to you in the past, the fact that you have
>convenient access to a journal doesn't mean that everyone has convenient access
>to one.  You claim that the articles contain definitions, but are too

Caltech has no library? Maybe you should ask someone how to find it.

>shit-headed to post them.  Or is it possible that, as John speculated, you
>haven't read the articles in question yourself.  How about posting the
>definitions?

The reference librarian (generally sits behind a big desk near the
library entrance) may be able to help you out. 

BTW, your usual flair for language, deep committment to rational debate,
and understanding of scientific principles are, as always, deeply
appreciated. Thanks ever so much.





-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:02:25 GMT


>   >Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
>   >I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
>   >selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil
>   >sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
>   >per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
>   >buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
>   >and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
>   >deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
>   >whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.
...
>Dingo says:
>     If it were cost-effective to truck topsoil to the degraded
>     land, it would already be happening.
>
>Belief in the principle: 
>     If it were cost-effective to do X, it would already be
>     happening.
>
>is a major reason for the persistence of poverty and
>backwardness in the world.


However, in this case, dingo is probably right!  We have land in
overabundance in this country.  Creating more of a surplus resource is
economic folly.  Carting around topsoil is quite expensive.  A layer
of topsoil 6" thick, covering 1000 acres, weighs about 1 million tons.
The cost to gather, transport and spread this soil had better be only
a few dollars per ton or it is not worthwhile, using those figures for
Idaho farmland.  The cost for truck transportation alone will exceed
this for distances more than several tens of miles.  Even with rail
transport (~$.02-.03/ton-mile) -- the soil had better be transported
less than about 100 miles (never mind the loading/spreading costs).

If, one day, we really do start running short on farmland, then moving
topsoil (or some other scheme) could start making sense.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: beast@netcom.com (Master)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:16:12 GMT
Organization: Belle & Philippe, Pty. Ltd.

In article <1992Oct10.151520.29893@pellns.alleg.edu> jannotj@pell2l8.alleg.edu (Jason Jannot) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.075735.8668@netcom.com> beast@netcom.com (Master)  
>writes:
>> I agree.  The thing that really gets me about these people who want us  
>to
>> make as many of the things we use as possible (including growing our own
>> food) is that they don't seem to realize just how much time we would  
>actually
>> spend doing these things.  I have better things to do than spend time
>> sewing clothes, growing food, etc., when there are other people willing  
>to
>> do it for me (for a price, of course).  The more labor intensive  
>day-to-day
>> survival is, the lower the standard of living is.

>I disagree I feel life might be that much richer if I had to rely on  
>myself alone to survive.  I also think that if it were as such people  
>would only have themselves to blame for their strife/happiness and as a  
>result human conflicts could be kept to a minimum.

A tornado just destroyed my crop!  Hmm... My neighbor's crop looks good...
I think I'll go kill him and take it... :) 

Yeah.  Human conflict at a minimum <=> Many small scale conflicts. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Kintscher	 | "Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only
beast@netcom.com     	 |  queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can
			 |  suppose. . . . I suspect that there are more things
"No matter where you go, |  in heaven and earth than are dreamed of,  in any
 there you are."	 |  philosophy."
			 |				J. B. S.  Haldane
	Buckaroo Bonzai	 |				Possible Worlds
From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Sustainable lifestyles
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 04:57:19 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <JMC.92Oct9003559@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

 > Evidently my point about making top soil a commodity wasn't clear.
 > I wasn't referring to selling land, which already is done, but to
 > selling top soil.  In Idaho near Boise, land with good top soil
 > sells for $4,000 per acre and land with poor top soil for $1,000
 > per acre.  Someone who owns an 1,000 acres of $1,000 land should
 > buy top soil from someone whose top soil is deeper than necessary
 > and truck it to improve his land.  This would give the owner of
 > deep top soil an immediate incentive to conserve the top soil,
 > whereas now he can afford to let a fair amount of it erode away.

It is not necessary to make farm top soil a commodity and truck it
off somewhere else. The notion is bizarre in the extreme.

Methods for creating good deep soil right there on your own land are
ancient, and needs no rethinking however much nonsense people who do
arithmetic believe others are destined to talk.

If anything at all needs to be trucked to the farm with poor soil,
it is good farming practice. Offering farmers a decent living with the
money our good Professor would use to buy soil would certainly help.

--
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 * *