Subject: Re: Brashears on Hanson

From: [email-masked] (Michael Tobis)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 16:52:16 GMT

Yuri Kuchinsky ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Harold Brashears ([email-masked]) wrote:

: : I'm sorry, my point, not well made, is that as long as you accept
: : Jay's assumptions, he is correct.  Unfortunately, those assumptions to
: : not apply in the real world.

: Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: reality.

An incorrect one, alas.

: The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: (self)destruction.

Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
position. 

As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.

Asserting your feelings is not a way to have the slightest influence
on those who disagree with you in the first place, but perhaps it
will make you feel better. 

For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel 
substantially worse.

mt

---

From: [email-masked] (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 4 Dec 1996 14:03:21 GMT

Harold Brashears ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I'm sorry, my point, not well made, is that as long as you accept
: Jay's assumptions, he is correct.  Unfortunately, those assumptions to
: not apply in the real world.

Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
reality. Unfortunately, this is where the real world is heading.

The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
(self)destruction.

Ecologically,

Yuri.

            =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
  --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
 
I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which
the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the
immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All 
is in God; all lives and moves in God        ===        B. Spinoza

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 96 23:11:05 GMT

>is in God; all lives and moves in God        ===        B. Spinoza

Yuri,

why is it that as things are getting better, you perceive them as getting 
worse?  Pollution was much worse in the '60's than it is now.  Open your 
eyes, ears, and nose, and verify this for yourself.

---

From: "D. Braun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 16:42:06 -0800

> eyes, ears, and nose, and verify this for yourself.

An overgeneralization. In some areas, such as ground water pollution and
non-point run-off, pollution is worse. In other areas, the rate of
pollution is down, as well as total amounts, but the totals creep upwrds
due to population growth and the auto-culture. Many estuaries, such as
Chesapeake bay, are as eutrophic as they ever have been, mostly due to
non-point runoff from farms and developed areas that is laden with
fertilizer/animal waste.  Acid rain is still with us, and high elevation
lakes in the Adirondaks and White mountains are still dead, and red spruce
is still in decline. All our gains can be steadily eroded, because of
population growth, and our sprawling, consumptive lifestyle. Some gains
allready are, and some areas are worse than they once were. Saying its all
better dosen't really help a thing, but feeds directly into the Repub.
attempt to gut environmental protection.

		Dave Braun

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 96 02:34:11 GMT

In article 
<[email-masked]>,
   "D. Braun" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>fertilizer/animal waste.

So what do you propose?  Sewage treatment for animal waste?  This 
particular point is ridiculous, unless you are trying to tell me that we 
need to get rid of cattle, introduce a bunch of predators to keep animal 
populations down, and all become vegetarian.

  Acid rain is still with us, and high elevation
>population growth, and our sprawling, consumptive lifestyle.

Certainly, we are irresponsible for consuming more than the bare minimum 
necessary for survival.  If all of us would just get rid of all our tools 
and technology, and live as animals with the rest of nature's beasts, 
everything would take care of itself.  NOT!  I for one, am immensely more 
intelligent than the non-human animals in nature, and I intend to use every 
bit of IQ I can muster.  If some animals are inconvenienced by this, that's 
their problem.

> Some gains

And where do you think the Repubs got this idea?  From their constituents 
who have been losing jobs over the stupid demands of the extreme 
environmentalists who cannot agree on anything other than zero emissions.  
The only way to get to zero emissions is to die, rot, and turn into a 
skeleton (which cannot decay any farther).  Short of this, you are 
guaranteed to emit something.

For you enviros out there with closed minds, I didn't mean to construct 
such a big straw man, but I was hoping to give you a clue.  I have no doubt 
that you will not understand what I am saying, but I guess I am compelled 
to say it anyway (it's a personality flaw).

---

From: [email-masked] (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 16:08:51 GMT

charliew ([email-masked]) wrote:

[Yuri:]
: >Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: >reality. Unfortunately, this is where the real world is heading.
: >
: >The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: >(self)destruction.

: >I take a totally different view of God and Nature from that which
: >the later Christians usually entertain, for I hold that God is the
: >immanent, and not the extraneous, cause of all things. I say, All 
: >is in God; all lives and moves in God        ===        B. Spinoza

: why is it that as things are getting better, you perceive them as getting 
: worse?  Pollution was much worse in the '60's than it is now.  Open your 
: eyes, ears, and nose, and verify this for yourself.

Your kind have done everything you could to oppose all the environmental
legislation that made the improvements possible. Now you're telling me
about the improvements. Hypocrite.

Yuri.
--

             #%    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    %#
  --  a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku  --
 
Welcome to President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow 
astronauts     ======     Vice President Dan Quayle

---

From: [email-masked] (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 16:14:36 GMT

Michael Tobis ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Yuri Kuchinsky ([email-masked]) wrote:

: : Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: : reality.

: An incorrect one, alas.

There's only one.

: : The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: : (self)destruction.

: Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
: as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
: position. 

Which invalid arguments?

: As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
: qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
: for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.

Maybe to you. Have you read the World Scientists' Letter on Environment? 

: Asserting your feelings is not a way to have the slightest influence
: on those who disagree with you in the first place, but perhaps it
: will make you feel better. 

A little bit.

: For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
: serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
: your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel 
: substantially worse.

I don't think you're too sincere about seeing the problems for
environment... Your tone says something quite different.

Yuri.

--

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 5 Dec 1996 20:44:35 GMT

>populations down, and all become vegetarian.

Charlie,
 
Containment and rational treatment for animal waste, including feces,
urine and offal, strikes me as really pretty fundamental.  I can still
remember back in the early sixties when the feedlot operators
maintained that it was ridiculous to prevent them from simply dumping
both waste from the lots and offal from the slaughterhouses straight
into the Mississippi.  It was a real bit of education for them to
realise that they were profiting at the expense of everybody
downstream, and it had to stop.
 
Now we find that every farm in the country is polluting their various
downstreams.  Pounds of poisons where ounces should do.  Tons of
fertilizers where pounds are called for.  And every damn cow pissing
in the neighbours' water supply of six months later.
 
Yes, Americans should eat less meat, in order to improve their diet.
Yes, reintroduction of wolves is probably a god idea, if only to stop
the ungulates from breeding into moronity. And yes, everybody has to
larn that picking up your garbage is part of having a life.
 
                                                        -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 00:24:24 GMT

>larn that picking up your garbage is part of having a life.

You have to realize that there is a fundamental problem here regarding 
where to draw the line.  Nature will support a certain population of 
"natural" animal species.  These species will urinate and poop where they 
see fit.  This excrement will have the same effect as what you are 
complaining about.  In fact, I have already read a posting (some months 
ago) about too many wild ducks congregating at a particular location, and 
fouling (no pun intended) the water supply of that location.  If such a 
natural activity occurs, and has occurred for eons, why can't the 
environmentalists get it through their heads that *nothing* should be done 
about it?  Or are you telling me that the ultimate aim of the 
environmentalists is to *control* what happens in nature, rather than let 
nature take its own course?  If the answer to this question is "yes", the 
enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.

Have a nice day.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 00:24:33 GMT

>about the improvements. Hypocrite.

Talk about your over-generalization!  Just what is "my kind"?  The last 
time I checked, I didn't consult any group before I replied to any posting. 
This should make me pretty much an individual regarding my postings.  I 
guess that anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% should get lumped into 
the group entitled "your kind".

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 02:09:13 GMT

On Fri, 06 Dec 96 00:24:24 GMT, [email-masked] (charliew) wrote:

>You have to realize that 

Charlie,
 
Get yourself under control.  Is there a scintilla of evidence that I
don't "realise" all the stuff you retail out here?

>                                               there is a fundamental problem here regarding 
>where to draw the line.  

I wouldn't call that a line.  My line, your guess, their fifth beer.

>                                               Nature will support a certain population of 
>"natural" animal species.  

An uncertain population.  "Species" has no meaning, or means what you
waht it to mean.

>                                                These species will urinate and poop where they 
>complaining about. 

Depends on the density.  One ungulate to four acres, no problem.  Feed
lots in Omaha, and New Orleans is uninhabitable -- until they get the
law changed.

>                                       In fact, I have already read a posting (some months 

Charlie, I've gotta say, you have trespassed on one of my pet
bigotries: anybody who ever says "no pun intended" is an asshole.  I'm
sorry, the only ay you can redeem yourself is by reading, maybe, Trout
Fishing in America, either the book or the poems.  Maybe Sylvia Path's
suicide book.  Whatever.  Getchaself some soul, dammit...  :-)

>Have a nice day.
 
Always do.  It's the night before the note is due at the bank that is
hard.
 
                                      Cheers,
 
                                                  -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 04:40:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
(big cut)
>suicide book.  Whatever.  Getchaself some soul, dammit...  :-)

Do you suppose that fish also poop in the water supply?  Hmmm?  No Pun 
Intended!!  :-(

---

From: [email-masked] (Joan Shields)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 18:29:07 GMT

Hmmm... I'm finding that I actually agree with Mr. Lloyd-Jones on a few
points.

>enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.

Actually, while your premise may have a sound start, yes, animals have
been defecating and urinating for years, it ignores a frew very important
points.  One, the concentration of animals is much greater on a far than
in the wild.  For instance, North Carolina now has more hogs than people
living in the state.  These hogs produce huge amounts of waste which is
then contained in lagoons.  Unfortunately, many of these lagoons leak or
rupture spilling very large amounts of waste into streams and rivers (i.e.
Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers).  Moderate amounts of a good thing is good
but a lot can be deadly (as in the case of Vitamin A).  Non-point source
pollution is largely responsible for eutrophication of water bodies.
Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients in excess.  Algae blooms combined
with increases in certain dinoflagellate populations cause a decrease in
available O2 which (along with the dinoflagellates which can be toxic to
fish) cause fish kills.  In the case of the rivers I cited in North
Carolina fish kills of at least a million have been reported.  Not only
does this cause obvious problems for the fishing industry as many of these
fish are food resources - it also causes problems for the water treatment
plants.  Large amounts of organic matter (high turbidity) can lessen the
effectiveness of treatment.  Couple that with storm run-off (which, btw,
often leads to the lagoons rupturing and leaking in the first place) and 
you have an even bigger problem and a greater chance of filter
malfunction.  

In the end, it's a matter of degree.  Generally, hogs don't congregate in
the densities these farms have them at.  Same with cattle etc. 

joan

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Tobis)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 17:09:53 GMT

Yuri Kuchinsky ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Michael Tobis ([email-masked]) wrote:
: : Yuri Kuchinsky ([email-masked]) wrote:

: : : Unfortunately, they aren't assumptions at all, but a description of
: : : reality.

: : An incorrect one, alas.

: There's only one.

There's plenty of descriptions. Here is a fine example of you paying
attention to how you fell about your opponents, rather than to what
they say.

: : : The destruction of Nature will inevitably result in social
: : : (self)destruction.

: : Perhaps so, but using invalid arguments to support this position,
: : as Hanson does, serves to discredit rather than justify such a
: : position. 

: Which invalid arguments?

Handwaving about entropy which neglects to do the numbers and thus
misapplies physical reasoning to cases where the physics doesn't apply.

This has been hashed to death endlessly on this newsgroup. I don't
fell like going another round. Check www.altavista.com for back articles.

: : As far as your statement goes, perhaps you would do better to
: : qualify "destruction" and/or define "Nature". To a physicist,
: : for instance, your position is utterly meaningless.

: Maybe to you. Have you read the World Scientists' Letter on Environment? 

Yes, and I would sign it if anyone asked me to. It says nothing about
entropy.

...

: : For myself, since I do think that environmental problems are indeed
: : serious, and that progress on them requires careful reasoning,
: : your and Hansen's shabby arguments and vain emoting make me feel 
: : substantially worse.

: I don't think you're too sincere about seeing the problems for
: environment... Your tone says something quite different.

Ah yes. Well, we don't solve problems with tone. That's the point.

An angelic chorus singing the words of Rush Limbaugh still would
be false propaganda. How pure your tone is has absolutely nothing to do 
with whether you are making sense.

mt

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 22:25:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Hmmm... I'm finding that I actually agree with Mr. Lloyd-Jones on a few
(cut)

>the densities these farms have them at.  Same with cattle etc. 

So, you didn't really answer my original questions.  If you decrease the 
population density of livestock, you will need either a lot more area for a 
particular farm, or a lot more farms.  If the "pollution" is spread out 
over 10 times the area, but the same amount of total waste is excreted into 
that area as before, do you really think that there will be a net positive 
effect from the lower population density?  If not, the only alternatives 
seem to be:

1) Turn people into vegetarians

2) Build waste treatment plants for livestock

3) Locate livestock in arid regions (where there is little or not rain 
water runoff, and pipe water into them

If you have a proposed practical solution, I'd like to see it.

Have a nice day.

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Baccus)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 01:06:34 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>see fit.  This excrement will have the same effect as what you are 

No, it won't.  Rivers and other aquatic systems have a certain capacity
to deal with waste, which is why, for instance, some places are using
wetlands to soak up excess nutrients in treated sewage before it is
dumped into slow-moving streams or lakes.

Wild populations rarely reach a level where they cause water pollution.
Artificially dense populations of critters, such as are found in feedlots,
can easily discharge enough waste to pollute the recipient stream or
river.

Scale counts.  

>natural activity occurs

Don't know about the particular post, but such problems with ducks
typically involve urban ponds with an artificial food supply in the
form of bread supplied by well-meaning citizens.  Not a natural
situation as the duck population is artificially enhanced.

> and has occurred for eons, why can't the 
>about it?

Since you can't get your facts straight, not much reason to adopt your
conclusion, is there?

Of course, the fact that natural systems may occasionally become
polluted and therefore unfit for human use is hardly an arguement that
we ought to pollute all waters until they're unfit for human use.

That's sort of like arguing that since fire exists in nature, we
ought to torch New York.

> Or are you telling me that the ultimate aim of the 
>nature take its own course?

No, our goal is to have humanity change its own diapers when we soil
them at a rate beyond Momma Nature's capacity to keep up.

> If the answer to this question is "yes", the 

Oh, you're deluded, all right.  Actually, you're a comfort, being so
detatched from reality that you can't really cause any harm.

>Have a nice day.

I did.  I prefer my nice days to your life, lived in ignorance.
--

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <[email-masked]>
  Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
          http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza

---

From: [email-masked] (Don Baccus)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 01:11:05 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>Do you suppose that fish also poop in the water supply?  Hmmm?  No Pun 

Yes, and fish in an overstocked aquarium, maintained at a much higher
density than can occur in nature, with no water changes, all die.

Yet, fish populations in the ocean can maintain themselves.  The
water doesn't get *icky*.

If you can't figure out the difference between these two systems,
and extrapolate that difference to the feedlot vs. natural population
scenario, well ... tough titties.
--

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 16:22:20 -0700

charliew wrote:

> bit of IQ I can muster.  If some animals are inconvenienced by this, that's

I would submit that environmental problems are not sufficiently
described by "some animals being inconvienced". Although knowledge of
global biodiversity is sketchy, virtually all biologists are in
agreement that mankind is causing what would be the sixth mass
extinction the earth has experienced, and may cause a majority of the
world's species to go extinct.

I also assert that most of this destruction is unnecessary and
unjustified. When we throw away as much usable materials as we do, and
use as much land as we do, that our lifestyle could indeed be described
as wasteful, and far, far more than needed to support even a luxurious
lifestyle, let alone "the bare minimum necassary for surviaval." I
believe we could do many things to counter the destructive tendencies of
society and reduce our impact on the biosphere, and still not 'live as
animals' as charliew says it would require. Because so much
environmental damage is done by western civilization's wastefulness,
much improvement could be made at a rather low economic cost. And I am
firmly convinced that a healthy biosphere is very necassary to
humanity's survival, and thus is more important than the relatively
small amount of economic wealth we would have to relinquish. 

I also believe we have become hipersensitive to our own material wants.
When people support extravagant ecnomic growth, even when it requires
that our planet face biological meltdown, something is wrong. I think it
is clear that our priorities must be reordered to reflect the relative
imporantance of things. On both utilitarian and ethical grounds, the
environmental agenda, is the logically justified one.

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 20:28:19 -0700

> enviros are more self deluded than even I imagined.

Natural populations of species are constrained by the carrying capacity
of their environment, and herbivore species never attain a permanent
population that would create pollution problems for the watershed, or
overgrazing problems for the watershed. The feetlots and farms are a
different situation entirely. They have food, in the form of cattle
feed, imported by the ton from other areas. Thus, the only constraint on
the population is the size of the farming operation. This population is
usually quite high, and cattle, being some of the most inefficient
metabolizers on earth, produce quite a bit of waste that can
eutrophicate a stream or pond until it is lifeless. This as not at all
"the same effect" as those of natural populations.
        Your ideas also display a logical error shown in many "it's not
our
fault" anti-environmental arguments. If something is taking place that
rapidly changes or diminishes something that should be rather permanent,
it cannot be of natural origin, because that change would have been
complete long ago, because the human existence represents
a small fraction of the earth's history. For example, natural sources of
chlorine cannot be responsible for ozone depletion, because assuming
that chlorine source has been constant throughout earth history, the
ozone layer would have been gone long ago. Similarly, the duck
population you are referring to must have recently jumped in
popluation,  or else that water body would have been lifeless long ago,
and likely filled with sediment and organic debris until it was
converted into land, and would not be here. It is quite likely that this
increase was caused by humans, as predator elimination has caused
populations of many herbivore species (those that can coexist with
humans in settled landscapes) to increase rapidly.

---

From: [email-masked] (Atanu Dey)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 07:17:33 GMT

Jim ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I also believe we have become hipersensitive to our own material wants.
: When people support extravagant ecnomic growth, even when it requires
: that our planet face biological meltdown, something is wrong. I think it
: is clear that our priorities must be reordered to reflect the relative
: imporantance of things. On both utilitarian and ethical grounds, the
: environmental agenda, is the logically justified one.
 
 Hear, hear!

 Atanu

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 15:38:39 GMT

>world's species to go extinct.

I don't believe that this is true.  The "million species extinct by
the year 2000" ads that you used to see in the hyper-literate press
have stopped appearing, and my imporession is that biologists have
come to believe that the meanings given to the word "species" are
entirely arbitrary.
 
We seem to have killed off the wooly mammoth, the dodo, the carrier
pigeon and a few hundred of their variants.  In the same time frame we
have brought the pig, horse, cow, dog and cat into existence.
 
The top twenty breeds of cattle in Ontario have all been introduced
here in my lifetime, and the old standards of my childhood, Holsteins,
Guernseys, Jerseys, have been reduced to decorative collectors' items.
The Charolais, which was a bizarre experiment in the 1950's, is now
the oldest of the old standards in commercial production.
 
No doubt there is even faster turnover going on amongst the bugs we
try to slaughter, and faster still among the bacteria.  It does seem a
Usenet constant that we are threatened with the Scylla of vast
extinctions on one side, while on the other we have the Charybdis of
newly bred homophages in countless array.
 
Could it just possibly be that both predictions are rash?  Even
fantastic?

>lifestyle, let alone "the bare minimum necassary for surviaval."

If it were true that we threw away useable material in any large
quantity, then it would certainly follow that were were wasteful.
What useable material do you see being thrown away where?

>                                                                                                      I
>animals' as charliew says it would require. 

These "destructive tendencies" are a pure litmus of your own
attitudes.  There are costs, as when harvesting trees causes the
silting of rivers.  Everywhere you look you will find smart people
working to reduce or eliminate such costs.  _Reducing and eliminating
costs is the fundamental activity of human societies at present_.
 
"Destructive tendencies," if they existed, would be an illness, but
they don't exist.  Our tendencies are overwhelmingly procreative,
constructive, creative, and conservational.

>          Because so much
 
Oddly, the premises here are all false, but there is some truth the
the conclusion claimed to come from them.  _An_ environmental agenda
is logically justified; it would have to be one coming from truer
premises, both about human nature and about what is actually happening
inn the world, than those presented here.
 
I think that such an agenda would run along the lines of refining and
deepening our waste reduction programs, a process which is already
under way everywhere.  It would involve making it profitable to
preserve endangered species, another process which is well under way
in Africa, though in North America the administrative route still
seems to be preferred.  It would involve limiting our numbers, and we
have just passed a historic watershed, the time of lessened numbers of
births.
 
Population will continue to increase for some time, because death
rates are still dropping and the number of old people continues to
increase.  The number of potential mothers in the world will start to
drop within the next three years, and the number of old people dying
will increase sharply about twenty-five or thirty years from now
because there will be so many of them.
 
All of these seem to me to be evidence of both individual and
collective intelligence on the part of the human race; they suggest
that many of us will continue to live well, and most of us will
continue to live better.
 
                                                          -dlj.

---

From: Jay Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 06:27:06 -1000

> have brought the pig, horse, cow, dog and cat into existence.

Visit the ENDANGERED AND EXTINCT SPECIES LISTS at:
 http://www.nceet.snre.umich.edu/EndSpp/ES.lists.html

Then visit:
 http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/

Jay

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 15:49:45 GMT

>humans in settled landscapes) to increase rapidly.

I should have been more direct with my previous questions.

If you have a dairy farm, and all of your equipment must be located in one 
building due to its design and the location of electrical outlets, etc., it 
should be obvious that you will need to keep all of your dairy cows close 
to the equipment if you are to milk them every day.  How would you run a 
dairy farm while keeping the animals spread out?

If you run a slaughter-house, it should be obvious that you need to herd 
all of the steers together in the stock yard before you "process" them.  In 
this circumstance, how would you maintain any kind of efficiency in your 
operation if your steers are scattered far and wide?

I could probably cite other examples, but I am trying to make the point 
that there is probably a very good reason that some of these things exist. 
It may be impossible for some of these operations to comply with 
environmental demands and remain in business.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 15:49:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Jim <[email-masked]> wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>that our planet face biological meltdown, something is wrong.

Indeed, something is VERY wrong.  In the U.S., there is a continuing drive 
to produce more efficient workers.  High efficiency results in more goods 
and services produced per worker.  If there is not enough demand to consume 
all of these goods and services, people are fired.  Thus, compulsive 
consumerism is built into the free enterprise system.

Just for a moment, assume that each worker is responsible for consuming his 
own "production".  It should be obvious that to keep his job, this worker 
must necessarily find ways to use more resources as he is forced to produce 
more.  And don't think that this worker has the choice of slowing down.  
With competition in the marketplace, and many unemployed people waiting to 
take this worker's job, he has no choice other than to work as hard and 
fast as he can.

I didn't make these rules, but to remain employed, I am more or less forced 
to live by them.  Despite this, I prefer free enterprise to other economic 
systems, because there is more freedom of choice and individual 
accountability.

---

From: [email-masked] (William F. Hummel)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 17:17:16 GMT

charliew ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, Jim <[email-masked]> wrote:
: (BIG CUT)
: >I also believe we have become hipersensitive to our own material wants.
: >When people support extravagant ecnomic growth, even when it requires
: >that our planet face biological meltdown, something is wrong.

: Indeed, something is VERY wrong.  In the U.S., there is a continuing drive 
: to produce more efficient workers.  High efficiency results in more goods 
: and services produced per worker.  If there is not enough demand to consume 
: all of these goods and services, people are fired.  Thus, compulsive 
: consumerism is built into the free enterprise system.

: Just for a moment, assume that each worker is responsible for consuming his 
: own "production".  It should be obvious that to keep his job, this worker 
: must necessarily find ways to use more resources as he is forced to produce 
: more.  And don't think that this worker has the choice of slowing down.  
: With competition in the marketplace, and many unemployed people waiting to 
: take this worker's job, he has no choice other than to work as hard and 
: fast as he can.

: I didn't make these rules, but to remain employed, I am more or less forced 
: to live by them.  Despite this, I prefer free enterprise to other economic 
: systems, because there is more freedom of choice and individual 
: accountability.
-----------
The only other economic systems being "unfree enterprise", of which there 
are today none.  Even Communist Cuba has some free enterprise.  "Free 
enterprise" comes in all shades.  But they all have some degree of 
government control.  Fortunately so, because none of us would enjoy living 
in a system of unrestricted free enterprise.  So what do YOU mean by 
free enterprise?

William F. Hummel

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 18:41:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
 
>: systems, because there is more freedom of choice and individual 

This is a very good direct question.

The U.S. went through uncontrolled free enterprise approximately 100 years 
ago.  It didn't work, because it produced huge monopolies which price 
gouged their customers.  Some degree of government regulation is necessary 
to ensure competition and reasonable environmental compliance.  At this 
point, I would like to see some limits to the amount of regulation that is 
being proposed, because there never seems to be an end to the demands for 
ever lower emission standards.  This does not mean that I am 
anti-environmental; it means that I believe that any program can be carried 
to extremes.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 20:44:24 GMT

> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/
 
Since this last is an author who claims that the human race is an
endangered species, I think we can take all his opinions on the
subject with a standard sixty pound cake of cow salt.
 
                                                                 -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 20:19:45 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, posted anonymously in
eleven Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first,
alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth,
alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy,
>should be obvious that you will need to keep all of your dairy cows close 

Of course, the thread is irrelevant to alt.org.earth-first,
alt.politics.greens, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, and
sci.environment.  But the anonymous troll "charliew" keeps restarting
it because he's part of the team that's flooding those groups to keep
people from using them.  Most of the team appear to be volunteers.
A few work for firms which do the same kind of work in other mass media.
Some, like the anonymous "charliew," conceal their identities.
Some are duped into working for the team, imagining they might get
"the last word" in an endless, uninformed "debate" and fearing that
trimming their Newsgroups lines might leave some reader somewhere
uninformed of their "victory."  The dupes simply haven't thought the
problem through.

Broad crossposting to flood a newsgroup is a form of censorship.
In radio, we'd call it "jamming."

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 01:17:00 GMT

> subject with a standard sixty pound cake of cow salt.
     Eavid,  Please !  Do tell us where we can see a living  wooly mammoth, the 
    dodo, and the carrier pigeon.   Near a salt lick somewhere?  Please don't 
    keep it a secret, since obviously you know.

-----------------------------------------------
Mason A Clark      [email-masked]
Political-Economics, Comets, Weather
The Healing Wisdom of Dr. P.P.Quimby
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210
  www.netcom.com/~masonc

Vickery on the "Deficit" and notes on Vickrey

  www.netcom.com/~masonc/vickrey.html
  www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3210/vickrey.html
---------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 01:19:44 GMT

Oh, damn.

  My apology to all the groups to which I posted.  I persist in assuming 
  that the previous poster has done the job of selecting groups.

   I'll hang a note on my monitor:

    "CHECK THE ADDRESS LINE BEFORE RESPONDING !".

---

From: William R Hite <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 11:26:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> on  Sun, 08 Dec 96 
15:49:45 GMT [email-masked] (charliew) wrote:

> I could probably cite other examples, but I am trying to make the
> point that there is probably a very good reason that some of these
> things exist. 

Not necessarily so - depends on how level is the playing field with 
competitive organisations.

Perhaps also the way they are staying in business is by <cheating>, 
i.e. throwing some of their true costs off into the environment for 
someone else to pick up later.

Isn't that what environmental legislation should be trying to achieve? 
Ensuring that businesses of whatever nature do not cheat in such ways? 
And making sure for instance, that the farmer who farms in a truly 
sustainable way is not underpriced by the one who destroys, however 
slowly, the environment, of which he is but a temporary steward and a 
part user?

William |WRC Solutions: Computer Consultants|Tel (+44)(0)1695  50470
   Hite |MS-Office, Visual Basic, FTR, Text |Fax (+44)(0)1695 720889
        [email-masked], http://www.u-net.com/~wrcs/home

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 20:59:33 GMT

Dave Braun includes:

     Generalists like rats and roaches (particular species of
     these which are generalists) will probably outlive humans as
     a species.

This nonsense has been around for decades and is a triumph of theory
over experience.  With his other hat on, Dave Braun sees plenty of
differences between humans and all other animals.  However, when
survival of species are concerned, he (and others) fit humans into the
Procrustean bed of his niche theory of species.  The human race
recognizes even minor threats to its survival and takes action earlier
and earlier on the basis of more and more knowledge.  Humanity would
survive any of the catastrophes of the past that have produced mass
extinctions.

-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:01:11 -0700

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> Most of the rest of Jim's post I entirely agree with, but this part cannot go unchallenged. We may be
> an important predator, and responsible for some of the changes that wipe out species, but we are by no
> means the only game in town. I think we are clearly in the middle of a die off of large proportions,
> but I do not think we are the prime cause. The question should be, why have the species stopped
> adapting to the changes that we and other factors are making in the environment? If a major species
> bloom were to happen, would we be able to survive? Perhaps we should be thankful that we are in an
> extinction period.

I can answer that question-because specices are not genetically equipped
to tolerate such rapid change. Evoloution does not proceed at anywhere
near the pace you are thinking of. Speciation occurs when a niche opens
in a new habitat, and a population of an existing species colonizes by
making the necessary genetic changes. When it becomes so genetically
different from the parent species to be incompatible, an new species is
born. But if you wipe out an existing species completely in a matter of
years (in the falling rainforests, often days), there is no time for
adaptaion, especially with highly specialized and demanding species with
small populations. Also, there really isn't any sort of life that can
make itself at home in the wastelands we are creating. When a landscpae
is physically mutilated by humans, there are forms of life that could
live in it, so adaptation is not an option. The primary cause of this
mass extinction is the clearcutting of rainforests. The loss of species
here is quite apparent, as is the cause, so it really isn't a matter of
"are we the primary factor?" By the way, a "species bloom" is called a
radiation. This has happened several times in the earth's history over
millions of years, for reasons that are partially understood. If it were
to happen again (a possibility humans have eliminated by wiping out the
breeding grounds for new species), the earth and humanity would be
immeasurably enriched.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian Staples)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:27:52 GMT

Jim <[email-masked]> writes:

>            ...     By the way, a "species bloom" is called a
>to happen again ... the earth and humanity would be immeasurably enriched.

D'ya think so Jim?  All nice warm inner glow stuff I'm sure; but from
various discussions one sees on Usenet, I'm left with the impression
that all most of humanity want is a dog and a cat for companionship and
a few other species to eat.

Cheers,  Ian S.

-- 

Ian Staples                        MS-Mail: [email-masked]
c/- P.O. Box 1054 MAREEBA          Phone  : +61 (0)70 928 555 Home 924 847
Queensland Australia 4880            Fax  : +61 (0)70 923 593   "   "   "

From C J _and H M [email-masked] Tue Dec 17 13:25:39 EST 1996
Article: 6770 of alt.agriculture.misc
From: "C J_and_H M SETON" <C J _and H M [email-masked]>
Subject: Re: great new ag site
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture,alt.agriculture.misc,sci.agriculture
References: <[email-masked]>
Message-ID: <01bbe750$6f032e60$0d3a868b@default>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.58.13
Date: 11 Dec 96 11:47:31 GMT
Lines: 11
Path: newz.oit.unc.edu!concert!rutgers!news.new-york.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!hp.fciencias.unam.mx!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!news.sgi.com!news.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsgate.cuhk.edu.hk!news.att.net.hk!elausrv2.att.net.au!nsw.news.telstra.net!139.134.5.33!
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture:113 alt.agriculture.misc:6770 sci.agriculture:17136

Benjamin Bignell <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
Want to understand the cattle market?  Curious what prices are doing?  Do
you need to know what the market is doing across Canada, and what major
issues are being discussed world-wide?  If you answered yes to even one of
these questions, there will soon be a web site that can help you find this
out.  Please be patient, as it is in the middle stage of its development. 
I will write again to let you know more. 

----------

---

From: [email-masked] (Harold Brashears)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 13:58:08 GMT

"D. Braun" <[email-masked]> wrote for all to see:

[deleted]

> This question is rather easily answered by students of ecology or
>evolutionary biology, never mind by experts. Habitat change, caused by
>humans for the most part, has occurred and continues to occur more
>rapidly than species can adapt. Species with limited ranges, or narrow
>niche requirements go first. Generalists like rats and roaches (particular
>species of these which are generalists) will probably outlive humans as a
>species.  

I noted that your post is written in a fashion which makes me think
that you do not believe humans to be "generalists".  If this is indeed
the case, I would have to disagree strongly.  Looking at the wide
variety of habitats, items considered as food, extreme range of
environmental conditions, I would hazard the opinion that the champion
"generalists" is not the rat or roach, but the humans.

Regards, Harold
-----
"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take 
for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and
consider."
	---Francis Bacon, Essays, "Of Studies" (1597-1625).

---

From: Romeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:36:57 -0500

You little animal lovers are so funny.  I hate to say it, but we have not
gotten beyond nature.  Everything humankind does conforms to God's will.
Extinction is a natural part of life and the universe, and should be kill
off a species of creature, it is God's will that we do so.  Trust me,
there should be only one species protected under US law, the Bald Eagle.
The nation bird.  Other than that, whatever happens happens.

God Bless America.

---

From: Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:31:26 EDT

On 12 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >Have you ever SEEN a landfill?
> 
> Yes.  When I was a kid you used to see old car bodies at the dump:
> stripped of every ounce of copper and lead, the tires, the dials, and
> everything of any use at all, but the rusted out bodies would still be
> here and there.  Now you can't even find a $50 car body at the dump:
> they go straight to the shredder.
>  
> The last time I walked over an _open_ landfill, i.e. one that had not
> yet been filled, was a few years before that, outside Tokyo.  I didn't
> see anything that could have been sold for a yen -- though the great
> separation plants to pull out the burnables for district heating had
> not yet been built.

You don't seem to know your statistics too well. About half of most 
landfills is recyclable or compostable paper and paper products. Another 
20% glass, plastic, and metals, about 25% food and yard waste, and then 
about 5% toxic substances. In other words, about 95% of the material that 
goes into a landfill is recyclable. Any plastics or toxins that cannot be 
recycled probably shouldn't have been created in the first place.

Toby Reiter (the Green Avenger)

---

From: Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:23:42 EDT

On 13 Dec 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:31:26 EDT, Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
> l
> >landfills is recyclable or compostable paper and paper products.
> 
> I see no statistic in that sentence.  I have no idea where you get
> your "about half" thing from.  If it's compostable, it will be
> composted.  have no fear.  Land fills are full of good healthy
> bacteria who are specialists on the subject.

The statistic, dummy, is the fact that 95% of our waste could be 
immediately reentered into the economy instead of sent to a landfill. 
Because this takes some degree of clue to figure out, people without a 
clue tend  not to get it. The concept is waste equals food.  In other 
words, and one thing which is the effluent of a process becomes the 
influent of another.
The reason that dumping compostable materials in landfills is a problem is 
twofold. First, landfills, because of the way they are designed, do not 
tend  to decompose items very quickly. I.e. there are 20-40 year old  
newspapers in landfills which are still readable, as well as intact 
ancient banana peels. The second reason this is a problem is because we 
spend money and resources to create fertilizer when an even better 
source-- food, yard, and paper scraps, are left to languish in a 
landfill.  They serve no use there and any nutrients that may be found 
there are counteracted by the presence of toxic chemicals and metals.

>  
> Recyclable?  Hell you've been in a classroom, seen all the dust coming
> off the blackboard, all those little recycled sea shells.  Why then do
> you natter on?

That's not recycling that's using. In other words, sure oil used to be 
living plants and animals, so you are using elements that were previously 
used for something else, but most people, even ardent 
anti-environmentalists, would have to concede that oil is a virgin 
resource.

> If it doesn't turn up as slag this it will turn up as igneous that.

True, on a universal scale, the amount of matter and energy will always 
remain constant, but the problem is that once a piece of metal is buried 
in a landfill, it has become de-concentrated to the point that we will 
prefer to use virgin resources.  The problem with your argument is that 
it ignores the practical limitations of resource recovery after dumping 
because of geographic entropy. 

> >                                                                 Another 
> Green Avenger,
> I am very puzzled.  (What are you avenging?  And what colour was _it_?
> Against whom are you doing your hyperthyroid avenging?)  I am
> perfectly prepared to concede the truth, plus or minus a few percent,
> of everything you say here.
> 
> So?
My point is that your argument that humans do not throw away useful 
materials is just blatantly untrue.  Even if people never threw away 
perfectly good but simply outdated appliances (which they do), they still 
could be categorized as wasteful for throwing away items which could be 
used as inputs in other aspects of production.  Look at an ecosystem. In 
it, all waste which is created becomes the food for some other organism. 
Your arguments are about as nonsensical as a physics teacher who 
attempted to prove the lack of intelligence of animals by stating "Have 
you ever seen a squirrel play golf?"  In the current light of this 
conversation, who do you feel has more intelligence an ecosystem which 
insists it be responsible for its inputs and outputs, or a random guy who 
insists he's doing the world a favor when he throws away his styrofoam cup.
The green avenger part is just my way of saying that I accept my 
responsibility for being vigilant and caring for the earth. Anyone who 
refuses to see himself or herself as part of nature is not truly living, 
so David? Go get a life!

Toby Reiter

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 05:42:29 GMT

Green Avenger,

So?

                                                     -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked](jw)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 07:27:08 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (John
>In article
<[email-masked]>
"D. Braun" <[email-masked]> writes:
>  
> > On 10 Dec 1996, John McCarthy wrote:
> > > The human race
> > > recognizes even minor threats to its survival and takes action 
> > > earlier and earlier on the basis of more and more knowledge.  > >
> > >  Humanity would

This seems very probable; even our semi-human
ancestors survived the ice ages - and survived
them by peculiarly human means: fire, clothes,
speech, hunting weapons designed for throwing.

On the other hand, humanity could
inflict disasters on itself that
would be quite different from any of
the natural ones. We are growing stronger
vis-a-vis nature, but not vis-a-vis ourselves.
E.g., there is a minority among environmentalists
that favors extermination of mankind by means
of artificial epidemics. Such an attempt
would probably fail, but not certainly.
We are not guaranteed against extinction.
Only dispersal in outer space can provide the guarantee.

[After various things with which I disagree, dbraun 
says:]
> > Alternatively, in a 5, 10, or 50 million year time span, we
> > may also so adapt to changing conditions that we will become the
extinct
> > common ancestor to several other species. 

This seems possible - and could happen much sooner,
due to artificial human evolution that is
becoming possible.

In that case, however, the human *clade*, if not
human *species*, will have survived.
New and improved editions of mankind will
then exist. I see this as an optimistic scenario.

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 07:08:46 GMT

> refuses to see himself or herself as part of nature is not truly living, 
 
I see Mr. Reiter has learned quite a few slogans in his freshman
environmental studies class.  Do you suppose they chant them in
unison?  My son's 5th grade class was made to chant environmental
slogans.

Let's see we have 

1. "Anyone who refuses to see himself or herself as
part of nature is not truly living".

2. "Get a life".

3. "Green avenger".

4. the concept of an ecosystem with intelligence

5. "... people without a clue tend  not to get it.", i.e. people who
disagree with Reiter's teacher disagree with Reiter's teacher.

The main error of this post is that Reiter's teacher (Could he tell us
the name, so we could argue with the ventriloquist rather than with
the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs.  Labor costs dominate any kind
of recycling.  People will do a certain amount of separating trash for
a while when pumped up by a cause, but they will slack off when the
next excitement comes along.

A sufficiently coercive regime can make people waste their time for
ideological reasons, but then an ideological police force is required.
I see Reiter as an ideological drill sergeant.  "Pick up all the
styrofoam in this landfill.  Bend down there!  All I want to see are
elbows and assholes!"
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 09:26:10 GMT

>then exist. I see this as an optimistic scenario.

I fear jw has just read a new book.  :-)
 
Look, fella, the biologists have not yet got this figgered out, not
even the smart ones.
 
If you start lecturing us on the cladistics vs. species stuff in the
near future, you go straight into the "I know how to spell
thermodynamics" nutso file.
 
                                                       -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 10:12:41 GMT

>immediately reentered into the economy instead of sent to a landfill. 

That, dear Toby, is not a "statistic."  That is a pure confabulation.
An invention.  Thinnest air in vain searchof a butterfly to get
support from.
 
But keep trying, kid.

>there are counteracted by the presence of toxic chemicals and metals.
 
Add it up, kid, and get back to me.  

>anti-environmentalists, would have to concede that oil is a virgin 
 
Virgin, eh? 

>used as inputs in other aspects of production. 

Hunh?  If it is actually the fact that you claim people would be
wasting stuff by not throwing stuff away which could actually be used
as influent from their effluent processes of living and using
appliances, which you clearly do, and also claimed that if they
actually would be causing waste by throwing stuff away, whether or not
such an effluent process was a useful, uh, influent to somebody else's
process, would it not follow logically that you were not merely
tending to run on sentences but also tending toward the construction
of a propostion which was either wrong either way or right either way,
and thus somewhat short on meaning?  Eh?

>                                                                               Look at an ecosystem. In 
 
See the busy gall-stone eaters gather.

>you ever seen a squirrel play golf?"  

Uh, which of my arguments was that you had in mind?

>                                                                                 In the current light of this 

I do not believe that "ecosystems" have intelligence.  You may find a
Buddhist or pantheist in your dorm who can fill in for you on this.

>responsibility for being vigilant and caring for the earth.

That explains the "green" part, I guess.  I'm still a little unclear
on the avenger bit.

>                                                                Anyone who 

Gee thanks, Toby.  How sweet of you.  Or have I just been thrashed by
a spastic hyperthyroid earthworm?
 
                                                -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:44:29 GMT

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:23:42 EDT, Toby Reiter wrote, amidst 
a post:

> insists it be responsible for its inputs and outputs

  Funny what catches the eye in scanning these threads.

  Obviously !  Any natural ecosystem has more intelligence 
  than the silly carpers like David Lloyd-Jones and 
  oftentimes John McCarthy, who  -- so overblown with their 
  self-conceived intellects and lack of self image -- snipe 
  and name-call on the Internet.  Their kind of crap, 
 displacing useful discourse and putting off people who 
 could contribute to debate, is the most destructive force 
 on the Internet.  They are the tone-setters who make some 
 news-groups virtually useless.

  If you doubt this, take a few days of posts and do an 
  analysis of the posts on a constructive-destructive scale 
 of  your own choosing.

  Now, in all fairness, DLJ and JMcC are not alone and they 
  occasionally salt some knowledge amidst their dung heeps. 
  And in all fairness, there are posts that do need strong, 
  corrective responses.  But there are constructive ways to 
  correct, to provide counter facts, rather than ad hominem,

  ad hominem, ad hominem.  Something about the poster 
  is revealed by ad hominem attacks.  (This one not 
  excluded.) 

  By the way, why is this thread spammed all over the net?
  Cut it out, wherever you are.  The source of this problem 
  is the first poster of the thread.  I suggest this be the 
  LAST post on this thread.  To respond to me, use sci.econ 
  ONLY.   Start a new thread in one group to continue the 
  discussion - if anyone's left.

  www.netcom.com/~masonc (slow,wait)

  The Boskin report on the CPI, itself and links:

     www.naz.com/personal/masonc/boskin.html
---------------------------------------------------

---

From: "D. Braun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:20:02 -0800

> The nation bird.  Other than that, whatever happens happens.
Obvious troll.  Please, no one respond.  Let's hope the poster goes out
and plays on the freeway soon, and extinguishes himself.

		Dave Braun

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 01:17:39 GMT

>due to artificial human evolution that is

Woe to those who think they are smarter than nature!  Meddling with the 
human genome is frought with untold dangers that we are not even aware of.
To sum it up - there is also a biodiversity in the human genome (or the 
genome of practically any other species) that serves to provide 
adaptability in times of stress.  Tweaking this genome in attempts to 
improve it assumes that the tweakers can look into the future, and ensure 
that the things that are "tweaked out" will never again be needed.  This is 
a *very big* assumption.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 01:17:33 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (John McCarthy) wrote:
(big cut of environmental nonsense!)
>the dummy?) is to neglect labor costs.  

The ventriliquist is a dummy too!  And a damned liberal, stupid "follow the 
flock of sheep" dummy at that!  If we could get these guys to change from 
sheep to lemmings, our problems would shortly be solved.

Labor costs dominate any kind
>styrofoam in this landfill.  Bend down there!  All I want to see are

Thanks for the chuckle - this was one of your more humorous replies.

---

From: Ronald Schneider <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 14:59:51 -0800

>   analysis of the posts on a constructive-destructive scale 
*
	Well, I have taken a few days of post into consideration as you
have instructed. I have come to the conclussion that both parties that yo
complain about have offerred quite a bit of validity to the arguments
posed in this thread. I also feel that thier critisism has again been very
strait forward and quite stringent. It may be perceived to the critisee
that they are being harsh or rude but I see it as constructive ctitisism
that will force the posters of the newsgroup to refine and strengthen
thier aruments next time they decide to post. (Thus, creating quality news
groups.) This "tone" may hurt a persons feelings but I still deem it
"constructive" because after a person who has recooperated from having
his/her feelings hurt, he/she can leave the descussion a stronger debator
along with a little bit of more refined information.

>   discussion - if anyone's left.

	I disagree that this is SPAM. I feel that each one of the news
groups contain people who are interested in the topics which have been
brought about in this thread. I being one of them. I am only subscribed to
the "save the earth" news group but as an athropologist (amature
primatologist/amature anthropaleontologist) I have found this one of the
most entertaining threads that I have read. It has provided me with the
insight on how various people of the internet perceive consequence of the
human impact on the Earths inhabitants and ecosystems. 
					R. Tyson Schneider

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 00:17:12 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Toby Reiter (the Green Avenger)

That 95% *is* being recycled.  It's just taking somewhat longer to get the 
constituents from this stuff back into the environment.

A lot of comments point to the fact that people seem to forget that matter 
is conserved.

---

From: Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:53:07 EDT

> unison?  My son's 5th grade class was made to chant environmental

Why not? Atheists were forced to chant allegiance to a God they didn't 
believe in when I was a 5th grader, i.e. the pledge of allegiance.  If 
you have extreme idealogical difficulties with having yur son live in a 
cleaner and healthier world, then bring it up with the principal, not us.

> part of nature is not truly living".

Hmmm...this is one I came up with. Not much of an amazing sentence. I 
mostly created it so that the next sentence (see below) could follow

> 2. "Get a life". > 

I don't think I ever heard my environmental studies teacher say that, 
although he might if he had to read your senseless blather.
 
> 3. "Green avenger".

I cam up with this one too. Pretty catchy, huh?

> 4. the concept of an ecosystem with intelligence

Lo and behold, I came up with this one too! Granted he probably would 
agree with me, but my observation comes after reading "Goder, Escher, 
Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". In it, their is a brief section about an 
ant colony having collective intelligence and having a conversation with 
one of the main characters. Since an ant colony represents the 
collectivism of an ecosystem on a smaller scale, this was a rather 
rational inductive step.
 
> disagree with Reiter's teacher disagree with Reiter's teacher.

My teacher wouldn't care a rat's butt if someone disagreed with him, as 
long as that person had some valid point.  However, if your talking to a 
person holding a loaded gun at their head and insisting that they'll 
survive pulling the trigger, then it might make sense to point out how 
much they are mistaken. (if you can't figure it out, you're the one holding 
the gun).

> next excitement comes along.

The main error of your post is that you cannot comprehend that anyone 
could care about the environment without being brainwashed by some sort 
of master.  My teacher is Professor David Orr, who happens to be one of 
the best environmental studies teachers in the country and an expert on 
ecological design and ecology.  However, as I have stated in my post, all 
these ideas are mine or concepts which I have gained from reading highly 
respected and accurate environmental writers, such as Wendel Berry, 
Herman Daly, Sim van DeRyn, and others. Your claim to know everything 
about the environment through "Why Nature Sucks" by Rush Limbaugh just 
won't hold water.

> styrofoam in this landfill.  Bend down there!  All I want to see are

In Young and Sach's article "The Next Efficiency Revolution", they have 
shown that by shifting the economy away from the extracting and refining 
of virgin materials towards recycling and reusing more jobs will be 
created in the economy.  Resource recycling and reusing will not require 
totalitarian methods but rather will simply entail the creation of new 
jobs to fill these needs.  These jobs could all be paid for by investing 
in negawatts, that is negative amounts of energy, by buying energy 
efficient technologies and using them in an efficient manner.  Amory 
Lovins has estimated the cost of negawatts as about 2.5 cents per kilowatt 
hour, which is roughly 2 cents below the nearest competitor, coal (and 
coal is heavily subsidized to keep this cost low). Multiply this times 
the amount of energy used by this country and you've got a lot of wasted 
capital that could be invested in waste reclamation services.

For some rather weird reason, I don't see saving the earth for 
myself and future generations as a waste of time.  I have had rather 
harsh conversations with people in the past who just don't care and it 
infuriates me. Here's why:  people complain about too much crime, dirty 
streets and highways, and failing educations.  Funny thing is, often the 
people who complain the most are those who aren't willing to get off 
their butts and get anything done!  I plan to dedicate my life to 
improving the way society lives--through urban planning and developing 
for sustainable economic practices, as well as through community service. 
People like you think that your own time and money is worth too much to 
bother helping anyone else or caring for anything other than your own 
self-interests. Well, you can chase dollars for as long as you want, but 
until you realize that all you want is happiness and that money is 
inherently useless for creating happiness, then you will still be the 
miserable sack of garbage that you have always been.  True happiness 
comes from peace of mind, from health of body, mind, and environment, and 
>from  connections to family, friends, and society.  These considerations 
are at the forefront of the drive for a sustainable economy.  The 
forefront of the current economy is worship of growth for growth's sake. 
Since our current economy does not include a scale for happiness anywhere in 
it, how can you possible expect it to make anyone truly happy?

---

From: [email-masked](jw)
Date: 14 Dec 1996 16:52:53 GMT

In <[email-masked]> Toby Reiter
<[email-masked]> writes: 
>The concept is waste equals food.  

No arguing about tastes. :-)

---

From: [email-masked](jw)
Date: 14 Dec 1996 17:49:32 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
>>then exist. I see this as an optimistic scenario.

[...]

>Look, fella, the biologists have not yet got this figgered out, not

Figured *what* out? We are speaking of a future
that no one knows - why pick biologists in particular?

>thermodynamics" nutso file.

There is no reference to 
any issue like "cladistics vs. species" in what I wrote. 

And spelling "thermodynamics" right is certainly
desirable for all, not merely for nutsos 
(or for nutsoes - as VP Quayle might have corrected me.:-)

As far as I can fathom, you are objecting to my use of
the word *clade* as not being in general usage. 
It ought to be, as "species" and "genus" are -
because there's a niche for it. 
Its meaning was clear from the context
of my posting.

To paraphrase: if human species evolves
into many other species, its genetic line
will continue. In most cases of species extinction,
that is not true. This is a different, more
benign, kind of "extinction". Nothing lasts
forever - to live is to change; but some
change is death and some change is progress.

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:54:21 -0700

> If it doesn't turn up as slag this it will turn up as igneous that.

Actually, things don't really decompose in the anaerobic conditions of a
landfill. They stay there forever. Also, you seem to imply that things
thrown away are recycled into nature again. Again, there's simply no
basis for this. The modern pathway is TREE>>PAPER>>CONSUMER>>LANDFILL.
There is no cycling. Even if it did decompose, a forest was still cut
down for it, which could have been avoided through recycling.

---

From: [email-masked] (Johnny Gowen)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 14:43:40 GMT

[email-masked] (Evan O'hara Kane) wrote:

>Real freakin' intelligent rationalization there, bud.

>In article <Pine.SOL.L3.93.961212193504.6860D-100000@bingsun3>, Romeo <[email-masked]> writes:

>Evan Kane

yea! ,,,  How would you like if the dinosaurs were still living.
they would take their big long tail and knock down your $100,000
house.     If you have a $100,000 house. I don't so it would'nt
matter.

JohnBoy

---

From: [email-masked] (Evan O'hara Kane)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 19:55:51 GMT

God Bless America.

--
Evan Kane

---

From: Janet Crofts <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:13:57 -0700

> The nation bird.  Other than that, whatever happens happens.

Where do you get off saying things like that.  If it wasn't for
humanbeings the animals wouldn't be going extinct.  Animals are part of
the cycle of life.  Without animals humans can't live, but without
humans, animals can live in peace.  Humans have destroyed what is left
of the earth and they are doing it more and more every day.  It is sad.
Wake up and smell the coffee.  Animals can live without humans.  Humans
are nothing but trouble.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 12:48:30 GMT

On Sat, 14 Dec 1996 08:13:57 -0700, Janet Crofts
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Romeo Troller wrote:
>humans, animals can live in peace. 

The lion lies down with the lamb.  If it weren't for those _nasty_
humans, the panther and the gazelle would share a pretty green
breakfast of herbs and flowers.

>                                                                    Humans have destroyed what is left
 
How nice to see the self hate of the environmental extremist
summarised so neatly.
 
                                                               -dlj.

---

From: Bill Toman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:23:23 -0500

> Romeo wrote:
> >
> > Extinction is a natural part of life and the universe...it is God's will that we do so.... 

Janet Crofts wrote:
> Where do you get off saying things like that......

It's a troll, kill it off.

---

From: "D. Braun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:04:50 -0800

> it, how can you possible expect it to make anyone truly happy?

	I liked this last paragraph. You are, however, wasting your time
with McCarthy.  You probably know this already.

		Dave Braun