Subject: Re: Bionomics?

From: [email-masked]
Date: 26 Nov 1996 05:05:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Jay Hanson <[email-masked]>
writes:

>> In other words, don't worry, be happy theres plenty of food for
>> everyone.
>
>To see dead babies being thrown into a dump truck, see:
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/authors/hanson/zaire_goma_dead_30.mov
>  They obviously didn't get enough to eat.
>
>

The issue is not that there is not enough food being produced. It is an
issue of getting it to the mouths of the ones that need it. Check out how
much we waste.

Travis Pitts
Alegis Systems Group

---

From: [email-masked] (R.J.(Bob) Evans)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 03:20:34 GMT

On 25 Nov 1996 06:32:38 GMT [email-masked](jw) wrote:

>
>Yes, from thinking what it is like to the hundreds of millions
>who have been saved from misery. 
>Statistrics of hunger and disease matter a lot;
>but the numbers of healthy, happy people in the world,
>of children with a future of hope, matter the most, and are
>increasing the fastest. We are living in times of wonderful progress 
Also remember that this has been accomplished on a minimum of arable
land thereby preserving the genetic diversity and fragile ecosystems
on the great majority of the planet.

>The main obstacles on the way are environmentalists
>and regulators.
For which we have only ourselves to thank.  High-yield agriculture is
the only true environmentalist solution.  We elected the regulators.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 96 03:35:45 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] ([email-masked]) 
wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>i have to agree with Ken's  overall assement of cancer 
risk. But for
>the look at the first enviromental problem of the 21st 
century start
>looking at endocrine blockers. The chemicals that pose as 
endocrines
>will be a greater problem than ozone depletion and cancer 
risk
>combined. There is a fair amount of info available on the 
wweb, just
>set your search engine to endocrines.

Oh, boy!  Here we go with the next catastrophe in the 
making!  I suppose that fertility rates are falling as a 
result of these endocrine blockers.  Funny that this would 
be a problem in an otherwise over-populated world.

Some of you pessimists remind me of a bunch of sheep, 
searching for the next story to blindly follow.  Enjoy your 
pessimism.

---

From: [email-masked] (Cameron L. Spitzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:11:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, posted by a dozen groups
   (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, sci.environment,
   talk.environment, and tor.general),
Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]> wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones ([email-masked]) wrote:
>> It's really pretty boring to see Yuku categorising people according to
>> his own blunderbuss categories.  Just as boring seeing him loading all
>This is a perfect example of a post from Dave that has _absolutely nothing
>of substance_ to say. Mercifully, it's not long...
>Why do you you write this tripe, Dave? Having a slow day? Or a slow few
>years?

...and they go round and round and round like that.  A newcomer to one
of the dozen groups would notice that "The Limits To Growth" is one of
the largest threads.  If the newcomer's newsreader doesn't know about
threads, they'd notice a large number of articles with this title.  The
newcomer might sample this thread to find out what say,
alt.politics.economics is about and whether it's worth subscribing.
Would *you* subscribe to a group dedicated to personal back-and-forth
between Yuri Kuchinsky and David Lloyd-Jones?  The newcomer is likely to
conclude alt.politics.economics is a total waste of time and *never*
return.  That group is denied the benefit of whatever that newcomer
might have contributed.  A group under prolonged treatment in this
manner dies, and Usenet loses the discussion for which the group was
created.  Even if only half the newcomers are dissuaded from
participating, significant censorship has occurred.

Because the attack is aimed at newcomers, who have not developed a
killfile, KILLFILES DO NOT WORK against the attack.  If you tell me to
"just put them in your killfile," you don't understand the problem.

There is a newsgroup for discussion of intentional destruction of
newsgroups, alt.syntax.tactical.  (It's been sacked, of course.)  The
procedure explained in its FAQ is essentially what Yuri Kuchinsky and
David Lloyd-Jones are demonstrating in this thread.  The "syntacticals"
call it "invasion" and "irritainment."  I call it vandalism and
censorship.

Cameron Spitzer in San Jose.

---

From: [email-masked] (Atanu Dey)
Date: 28 Nov 1996 19:34:50 GMT

jw ([email-masked]) wrote:
: >[email-masked] (Atanu Dey) wrote:
: >> Blightly calculating
: >>that there are only 700 million malnourished people in the world
: >>and not 800 million is great for nitpicking on the usenet.  

: I wonder what "blightly" means: "blithely", "brightly",
: or is it derived from "blight"?

  jw,  I promise to actually proofread my posts instead of 
  blithely posting away.  Thanks for pointing out the error.

  Regards,

  Atanu

---

From: [email-masked] ([email-masked])
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 00:32:33 GMT

>be a problem in an otherwise over-populated world.

ok charlie you have prove your an idiot by associating the only effect
of endocrine blockers with reduced fertility.

---

From: Max Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 09:40:56 -0800

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> Are the bionomists interested in input-output tables that show the
> flow of goods among industries, or do they also lump all material
> goods together as neo-classical economists seem to do?
> 
> --
> 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.

Actually neither.
Input output tables were heavily used by central planners in the
socialist economies of eastern europe. Also they are an example of a
mechanistic view of the economy, one we obviously do not hold.  That
people can control the output of the economy as if it were a machine. 
We also dont assume that there are two goods x and y and try to predict
peoples actions through somewhat complicated mathematical analyses like
neo-classical economists.    

Though we dont really have an official stand on mathematics in economics
we try to avoid it.  Math has made many view the economy as a machine. 
As if it is just a set of equations that you can "fine tune" to get the
desired result.  In our view the economy is much too complex for that. 
Our job is to come up with examples where the biologic world and the
economic world meet so that perhaps the bionomic view of the economy
will be thoroughly explored by top economists.  We are probably closest
to the Austrian school and the belief of people like Hayek in
spontaneous order.

If your question was trying to figure out which end of the spectrum we
are coming from, the answer is somewhat difficult.  Though we are
generally free market we do believe that there is a role for government
to train the jobless and other stuff like that which would help the
economy grow.  At our 4th annual Bionomic conference we had people from
much of the political spectrum (i say much because we didnt have any
authoritarians there, unless they just werent speaking up) with people
like Morley Winograd from the DLC and Ed Crane from CATO both having
their chance to speak.

By the way, Brad Cox of George Mason University teaches a virtual course
in Bionomics at http://www.virtualschool.edu if you really are
interested.  There also is a book called Bionomics by Michael Rothschild
which would be in the economics section of a place like Borders or
Barnes and Noble.  I am not meaning for this to sound like an
advertisement but i felt that if you browsed through the book you would
get where im coming from rather easily.

Max Jacobs

************************************************************************
The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org

Viewing the economy as an ecosystem

************************************************************************

---

From: [email-masked](jw)
Date: 30 Nov 1996 03:48:48 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked]

>on the great majority of the planet.

Why, yes. This matters little to me, but it is true
and may matter to others.

>the only true environmentalist solution.  We elected the regulators.

Again, true, if "we" means the majority. 
It must be respected to some extent.
Some day, it may change - if people see the issue as
habitats vs. jobs. Meanwhile, the best
way may be to bypass the regulations and to make them less
enforceable by limited funding and by insisting on due process.
The regulators themselves help by
making so many regulations that full enforcement becomes 
impossible.

And again I have to agree about "true environmentalism".
Not being an environmentralist,
I never make this argument myself.
But indeed more wild nature can be preserved by 
urbanization and by intensive
agriculture - by *concentration* of human 
presence and activity - than  by any other reasonable means.
I just do not think this is a Good Thing
because I see no compelling reason to preserve wild nature
or existing ecosystems. Why preserve what you can improve?

---

From: "Phil Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Dec 1996 03:18:49 GMT

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you do not try to stop them from
fishing at all.

Jack and Dino's Fishin' Show <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
> using public television to change the fishing habits of the american 
> angler.
> 
> http://shell.idt.net/~jdfishsh
> 
> we can make a change
>

---

From: Robert Vogel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1996 21:23:00 -0800

John McCarthy wrote:
> 
> The increase in cancer that was reversed between 1990 and 1996 was in
> age adjusted mortality rates, i.e. the fact that older people get more
> cancer was taken into account.
> --

See what you think of 

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

I would be interested to know what you think of it.

RV

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 05 Dec 1996 22:47:14 GMT

> I would be interested to know what you think of it.

I have looked at it in the past, though probably not at everything.
As I have said before, I consider Hanson and many of the people he
quotes to be crackpots.
-- 
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: "D. Braun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 15:16:18 -0800

> As I have said before, I consider Hanson and many of the people he

Hmm. The illustrious, logical John McCarthy name-calling? 
Can we call him a crackpot too for suggesting such remotely possible 
things as an earth with 10s of billions of people living in a western
lifestyle, or melting all the ice in antarctica in the name of progress a
crackpot too? If I remember rightly, doing so in the past would merit a
lifetime snub. Do we have to take Mccarthy seriously any more?

		Dave Braun

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 00:14:46 GMT

>lifetime snub. Do we have to take Mccarthy seriously any more?

I don't know whether McCarthy has ever suggested that melting the
Antarctic ice-cap would be a good idea.  Certainly would be expensive
putting dikes and berms all around Bangladesh, southern New York
state, and other places close to sea level.
 
As a logical proposition, however, the possibility that McCarthy may
have said something silly in the past does not in any way encroach on
the question of whether Hanson is a crackpot.
 
My own feeling is more like this: I think Jay made a good living as a
freelance writer for some years out of running a schtick.  A few
facts, some of them from avant garde but respectable sources, plus a
lot of panic, retailed with his good command of grammar and typing,
and passable control of paragraphs, added up to a saleable product.
 
Now a reaction has set in: many people have looked at what went on
under the aegis of "environmentalism" over the last thirty years, and
found much of it lacking.  There was a certain haste on the part of
the US Congress to Be Good, and there was a great deal of absolutism
among the self-proclaimed leaders of environmentalism, and much of
this became visible.
 
Hanson, however, has not yet seen the curve in the road.  He's still
trying to sell the same old product, and he gets hysterical when
criticised by well informed and judicious environmentalists (like
myself, among others).
 
Perhaps in a few months we shall see a new Jay Hanson, one attuned to
the new realities of the market out there.  He has to make a living
after all.  At that point we shall have an eloquent journalistic voice
for cost benefit analysis, freer and more rational markets, payment
for takings, and so on.
 
He won't necessarily understand it all, but he'll run it off by the
ream as long as it pays.

-dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 00:24:57 GMT

>He won't necessarily understand it all, but he'll run it off by the

Your comments must surely seem like a "stake through the heart" for Mr. 
Hanson.  You are strongly implying that he is more motivated by the profit 
motive than by any environmentalist ideas.  Oh, well.  Apparently, even 
environmentalists have to eat.  Too bad they don't realize that many 
others, in whatever chosen profession, also have to do the same.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 18:16:25 GMT

On 6 Dec David Lloyd-Jones made an ad hominem argument and indulged in name calling in
the grand style:

> freelance writer for some years out of running a schtick.
>  
> found much of it lacking.
>  
Where the hell have you been living these last thirty years?  If it weren't 
for the environmentalist who started controlling smog more than thirty 
years ago, California would now be unlivable.  And a speak as a Californian 
with asthma probably acquired in Los Angeles thirty years ago.

Maybe this dumping ground for inanitites is populated by teen agers who 
don't know about the river in Ohio that caught fire.  Or about the time long 
ago when people caught fish from the Chicago beaches.  Fish that are now 
coming back. I could go on and on but youth must be served so live in your
ignorance of the real world.

> he gets hysterical when
Well, well, a "judicious environmentalist"?  Self-appointed.  I've seen 
precious evidence of judiciousness here.  Where should I look?

> He won't necessarily understand it all, but he'll run it off by the
A clever attack.  McCarthy would love it.  Oh, but you wouldn't know 
who I refer to.  Tell us about Hanson making money from environmentalism.
Or tell us how much he's *spent* on it.

Nothing I've seen here more strongly supports Jay Hanson than the 
scurrilousins of the attackes upon him.

I've been looking into the problem of ideology - there's at least one very 
good page on the web if anyone's interested.  The word that keeps reappearing 
is "FEAR" - in many cases irrational.  The fear that drives the environmentalism
ideology seems apparent.  Whether it's irrational could be debated, but obviously
not here. 

Now the question is:  what is the nature of the fear that is so driving the
anti-environmentalism ideology? The profit motive is obvious for the Pollyanna 
book sellers.  But what fear is driving you?

-----------------------------------------------
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] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 12:00:12 GMT

On Fri, 06 Dec 1996 18:16:25 GMT, [email-masked] (Mason A.

>On 6 Dec David Lloyd-Jones made an ad hominem argument and indulged in name calling in

Uh, Mason don't you ever get tired of this stupid shit?
 
It goes like phases of the Moon: for two weeks you love everything I
say, because it's just like you learned from your dada in the
Depression, and then you get two weeks of whing at me.
 
Jeez, Mason, have you considered hormones?
 
                                                   -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 17:02:47 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
(BIG CUT)

>book sellers.  But what fear is driving you?

Finally!  A news reader who is observant enough to ask questions about a 
non-environmentalist.

The fear that drives me is the fear that my employer (a refiner) will be 
regulated out of existence in this country (U.S.).  When I can work inside 
a refinery, and see little evidence of pollution, it seems that the 
regulations are probably strict enough as they are.  

Another issue, which is more of a bother rather than a fear, is the 
apparent stupidity and arrogance of some of the more rabid 
environmentalists.  These guys don't seem to realize that I will not give a 
damn about the environment is I am out of work and hungry.  If you think my 
attitude is bad now, how would you like to see me indiscriminately chopping 
down trees in order to get enough free fuel to stay warm?  Or, how would 
you like to see me poaching any animal I came across in order to get enough 
food to survive?  Think about it.

BTW, thanks for asking, and have a nice day.

---

From: [email-masked] (Chad T Gardemann)
Date: 6 Dec 1996 19:15:16 GMT

-- 
Chad T Gardemann
[email-masked]

---

From: Dale Wagner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 11:13:30 -0800

Mason A. Clark wrote:
> years ago, California would now be unlivable..
.
But now you are saying man must go so nature can live.  You have went as 
far off as to be a haszardous to mans health as the pollution was before. 
Until the 'middle' ground is achieved, we are going to have this fight.  
Almost all pollution is caused indirectly.  The air in Cal was polluted 
by cars burning 'cheap' fuel.  'cleaner burning' fuel cost more to 
produce and so you wouldn't buy it.  Riding a bus didn't fit your 
lifestyl, so you drove 50 miles to work.  You wanted to 'project' class 
when you went to your job interview and so 'had' to have a Caddy.  
Madison Ave created most of the problem by creating a socity that had to 
have 'status' symbels instead of essencials.
Now we have a class of people that is sitting in a wood house telling us 
not to cut trees, buying their food at the supermarket and telling us how 
to farm, and ect.  Get real!  Show us how by example!  Especially how to 
feed our familys when the morgage is half the income.  If this wasn't 
empty retheric, the Earth First and Greenpeace would be the ones 
promoting and operating the abortion clinics and other population control 
clinics.  Hugging a tree or kissing a owl's ass is not going to save 
nothing.  Developing an alternitive that is viable will.
Rewarding responsible stewardship is the best way to do it.  Tax those 
who damage the world and give incentives to those who improve it.  BUT 
you also have to remember that TODAYS BEST ANSWER may be TOMORROWS 
PROBLEM.  Only by keeping a open mind and continuously researcing will we 
gain. 
I was an envoirenmentalist long before most of you got on the wagon and 
still am.  Most of you remind me of a visitor that came to the ranch one 
time.  He got carrying on about how wonderful it was to can some of the 
fruit from his garden so as tto have it later.  He'd canned up 16 pints. 
I asked the neighbor lady,who was politly listening to his spiel, how 
much she'd canned so far as the season was about 2/3 over. She replied, 
"600 quarts."
Dale Wagner

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 96 22:25:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Chad T Gardemann) wrote:

How do you expect to eat them if you release them?

---

From: "D. Braun" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 15:07:07 -0800

> and passable control of paragraphs, added up to a saleable product.

This is an opinion based on generalizations about his alleged style. It
has no weight with me, or anyone else that would rather see constructive
debate about factual issues. Could you be specific?

> among the self-proclaimed leaders of environmentalism, and much of

I really don' believe that this is generally true; it mught be in a few
specific cases, like...?  Rachel carson has been derided as an ill
credentialed Henny Penny from the day Silent Spring was published, right
up until a month or two ago on the newsgroups. I have yet to see a
substantive charge that has shown her to be a charlatan. 

> criticised by well informed and judicious environmentalists (like

He may overreact.  However, are you clearly differentiating
psuedo-scientific, wise -use propaganda from honest scientific skepticism?
Lot's of enviros, self-styled or labeled as such, have plenty of reasons
to feel paranoid and abused.
  
> for cost benefit analysis, freer and more rational markets, payment

And why should he agree with these things? Maybe you could provide a
framework for payment for takings which would not bankrupt the country,
through unscrupulous people that want to be payed for every "development"
proposal that they can dream up that might run afoul of any number of
state and federal laws, e.g., ESA, CWA, CAA, local zoning, worker safety,
pollutant reporting, etc.?  I always thought that responsibilities went
along with property rights, and that what is regulated by the above
examples are justified in the name of the common good. That's just
a bit on "takings". 

Cost benefit analysis is only as good as present knowledge, and
what we know now about costs and benefits. Unknown costs and benefits are
left out, although there is reason to believe that these are not zero. Sure, 
we make decisions in many areas based on cost benefit, such as pollutant
levels; however, that dosen't mean that these are the proper decisions.  
Perhaps decisions which impact the environment can be
made on the basis of cost-benefit if a conservative "buffer" of
additional, unkown impacts are factored in, as well as benefits. 

Endangered species are another matter; once species, and the ecosystems 
on which they depend, are gone, that's it; additional knowledge won't
help.  The beauty of the ESA is that it nearly avoids CBA entirely--
except for the "God Squad" provision, and the HCP process which allows
some "take". Has any takings analysis actually taken into account the
role of a species in the ecosystems in which the reside?
Doubtful; and for most, this is little understood, anyway.  Yet we depend
on resilient ecosystems for many "free" services.

We can adapt to other economic pathways for making a living; whereas the
decision to allow an ecosystem to unravel or dissappear is permanent and
irrevocable. Because we all share ecosystem benefits, we should all share
in the responsibility to maintain biological and ecological richness, AKA
biodiversity. Many people don't believe that they have this responsibilty,
and want to be paid to carry it out; I couldn't disagree more.

Recent proposals in Congress sought to basicly eliminate the ESA. On the
other hand, an NPR report yesterday (Wed, Dec 5th.) had someone on from
the Environmental Defense Fund who suggested that targeted tax breaks
could be an effective and fair way to encourage private land owners to
maintain endangered species habitat.

This sounds good to me; its a far cry from typical takings
legislation that has been proposed.  Certainly, if the feds can subsidize
destruction of primary forests, the feds could also subsidize, through tax
breaks, privately held endangered species habitat. Pay someone not to fill
a wetland with toxic waste? No way.  

So, am I hysterical? Not attuned to the realities of the market?

 > He won't necessarily understand it all, but he'll run it
off by the > ream as long as it pays.

		Dave Braun

---

From: Jay Hanson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:50:00 -1000

David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
 
-> Perhaps in a few months we shall see a new Jay Hanson, one attuned to
-> the new realities of the market out there.  He has to make a living
-> after all.  At that point we shall have an eloquent journalistic
voice
-> for cost benefit analysis, freer and more rational markets, payment
-> for takings, and so on.

You have no idea what I do or have done -- and that's
 why you are pissed off.  Cause I know ALL about you.  <G>
  (If anyone wants his bio, let me know.)

I will give you a hint: you as wrong about me as you
 have been about ecology.

Now go back to your corner, stamp your feet, double up 
 your fists, hold your breath, etc. <G>

Jay

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 05:01:53 GMT

>with asthma probably acquired in Los Angeles thirty years ago.

Actually I spent a good deal of time in LA 30 years ago.  Pouncing on
the managing editor of the UCLA Daily Bruin, mainly, but otherwise
getting around to Rand, Mitre, the Examiner and generally checking the
joint out.

>don't know about the river in Ohio that caught fire. 

When the white people first arrived the local inhabitants took pride
in showing how the Monongohela could be made to burn.  Floating wax
and light oil.  Mason, can you spell Quaker State?  There, I knew you
could.

>                                                                                           Or about the time long 

We seem to agree that fish are coming back in places where they had
been rare.

>book sellers.  But what fear is driving you?

Mason, you've obviously been living in California too long.  This is
psychobabble.
 
                                                             -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:41:54 GMT

On Fri, 06 Dec 1996  Dale Wagner <[email-masked]> wrote at some 
length and offerred some good ideas.

> Mason A. Clark wrote:  (a bunch of pro-environmentalism stuff (mac))

> > > found much of it lacking.
    OK, be specific.  Did they miss some super-polluted sites or what?

> far off as to be a haszardous to mans health as the pollution was before. 

     I missed that part.  Where did I say anything of the kind?

> Until the 'middle' ground is achieved, we are going to have this fight. 

      HEAR ! HEAR !
 
> by cars burning 'cheap' fuel.

   How is that "indirect"?  

>  'cleaner burning' fuel cost more to  produce and so you wouldn't buy it.

   Not so, we took out the lead and recently switched to a "cleaner" gasoline.
   Also spent more than other states reducing exhaust pollutants by special 
   "California" auto engines.

> Riding a bus didn't fit your  lifestyl, so you drove 50 miles to work.

  The bus didn't go from here to there.  I did vote money for public 
  transportation and we do have more buses.  A long way yet to go.

> Especially how to feed our familys when the morgage is half the income.

  One way, get an environmental job.  Rampant environmentalism would 
  create many jobs - already has in fact.

>  If this wasn't 
> clinics.

   It's the Industrial Revolution: job specialization.

>  Hugging a tree or kissing a owl's ass is not going to save 
> who damage the world and give incentives to those who improve it.

    HEAR HEAR !   But how to overcome the anti-environmentalist
    ideologues who slam any and all efforts - even efforts to publish data?

>  BUT you also have to remember that TODAYS BEST ANSWER may be 
>TOMORROWS PROBLEM.

   Yes, the "law of unintended consequences."    But it's hard to know in 
   advance.  Fear must be overcome so as to try "today's best answer."    

>  Only by keeping an open mind and continuously researching will we gain.

   Can we post this as a FAQ and keep it always before us?

> Most of you remind me of a visitor that came to the ranch one 
> fruit from his garden so as to have it later.  He'd canned up 16 pints. 

  Big oaks from little acorns grow.  Even Campbells started with one can. 
  We've cut down more than 95% of the redwoods in California.  May we save a few?
  By the way, cutting down zero redwoods when they're all gone won't be paying 
  any mortgages.

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 17:55:04 GMT

On 6 Dec 1996 12:00:12 GMT, [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:

> Depression, and then you get two weeks of whining at me.

  David, dear, if you want uncritical love, go get married in Hawaii.

  (oh, sorry, I forgot -- that profiteer, Hanson is there.)

---

From: [email-masked](jw)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 01:02:28 GMT

In <[email-masked]>
"D. Braun" <[email-masked]> writes: 
>> I consider [...] and many of the people he
>> quotes to be crackpots.
>

Yes, he lapsed here. But it took that lapse for you
to pass him the backhanded compliment.
If messrs N, K, F *stopped* name-calling,
that would likewise raise some eyebrows...

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 08 Dec 1996 01:54:25 GMT

> that would likewise raise some eyebrows...

My opinion was specifically requested about the pages in question.
-- 
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: 8 Dec 1996 03:44:49 GMT

>>> I consider Hanson and many of the people he
>>> quotes to be crackpots.
>>

 I think sensible and decent people everywhere must disapprove of this
McCarthyite outrage.
 
It is a great and undeserved insult to pots or all kinds everywhere.
 
                                                     -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked](Thomas A McGraw)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 09:38:28 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (charliew)
writes: 
>>ideology seems apparent.  Whether it's irrational could be debated,
but 
>obviously
>>not here. 
>>
>>Now the question is:  what is the nature of the fear that is so
driving 
>the
                                                                       
        You all are going to have to find some other work. The trend is
to combust less, not more oil.                                         
        If you needed a tree to stay warm, you would tend to not use it
inefficiantly. You might want some around for later. Ever eat food from
a tree?                                                                
        The "environment" isn't "their" problem. The environment isn't
'over there". It's a global thing. Your job is inconsequencial.        
        You say you, "see little evidence of pollution". Ever been
outside your front door? Do you use a TV? Do you know what a newspaper
is?                                                                    
                                                                       
        Fear comes when decision makers declair that they see little
evidence of pollution.

---

From: Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 03:47:33 +0000

> How do you expect to eat them if you release them?

Virtual Cooking?

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 18:41:38 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked](Thomas A McGraw) wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>to combust less, not more oil. 

If the oil industry lasts about 10 more years, I will not have to find more 
work.  At that point, it will be someone else's problem.

>'over there". It's a global thing. Your job is inconsequencial.

This is where people like you start looking totally foolish.  I have 
dependents to care for, and so does the vast majority of the rest of the 
adults in the world.  If you are looking to change my attitude, you 
definitely cannot do that by calling my job inconsequential.  In my 
opinion, environmentalists are often inconsequential, as my daily problems 
of finding food, shelter, and clothing for me and my family have a much 
higher priority than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Until 
environmentalists get smart enough to recognize the human nature, and human 
instinct, in the problems they are so concerned about, they are going to 
have a very difficult time impacting the problem in the way that they see 
fit.

In other words, if you are "people antagonistic", you are never going to be 
able to change peoples' attitudes.
        
>outside your front door? Do you use a TV? Do you know what a newspaper

Yes, I go outside regularly, and I watch the TV regularly.  I don't believe 
everything I see in the media (as you apparently do).  When I look around 
me, I repeat again that I see very little evidence of pollution.  The most 
pollution I regularly witness comes out of the tailpipes of autos that need 
ring jobs; it doesn't come from industries who are intent on dumping their 
waste because of their greed.                                              
                     
>        Fear comes when decision makers declair that they see little

Fear comes when a pack of environmentalists howl at the moon, lamenting 
that the sky is falling, when simple observation indicates that the problem 
is much smaller than they say.

---

From: [email-masked] (J McGinnis)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 06:27:18 GMT

>work.  At that point, it will be someone else's problem.

Not only do you attempt to leave the solution to someone else, but you
hope and fight to make sure that the problem is not even faced in your
time. At the least the problem is still there, and most likely it is
compounded.

>adults in the world.  

And you think you are doing them a favor by leaving them with the
problems? Do you think you can improve life for them by simply leaving
them a big fat trust fund? Do you enjoy teaching them that to survive
they have to step on whoever and whatever gets in their way, and that
the same will done to them?

>If you are looking to change my attitude, you 
>higher priority than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  

Your job and your life is not inconsequential, but is no more
consequential than anyone else's. Problems are solved by collective
effort, not by self-centered competition. Greed and poverty are each
direct results of the other; to eliminate one you must eliminate both.
The greed you demonstrate and justify with your fear of poverty is
example enough. Those who benefit from the way things are have a
responsibility to those who don't.

There are nearly 300 milllion people in the United States, most of
whom are well educated, intelligent and hard-working. Why should
anyone fear going hungry? Why should anyone fear _anything_? Now
_that_ would be the greatest country in the world. 

Instead we have trillions of dollars of public debt around the world,
which is blamed on the poor, (and in your case the environmentalists),
and held by those who benefit most from the way society works.

>Until 

Impacting the problem involves the definite changing of that 'human
nature', so to say that they don't understand it is pretty far off the
mark.
                                                                      
>is much smaller than they say.

Maybe you should try more than 'simple' observation. BTW, the sky
isn't falling, it's just being irreparably damaged.

Jason McGinnis

---

From: Jim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 15:50:52 -0700

> is much smaller than they say.

To charliew-
	If you are saying that economic values will not be affected by global
warming, please see Scientific American issue Sept. 89'. Also in
refernece to you statement that problems "are much smaller than they
say."

---

From: [email-masked] (Cheryl Kinkaid)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:43:52 GMT

>regulations are probably strict enough as they are.  

The trouble is that pollution is usually OUTSIDE the refinery. That's
what "pollution" means. Inside (refineries, automobile gas tanks, etc)
is where the stuff is meant to be; it isn't meant to be in rivers, on
beaches, in people's lungs, etc.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 01:55:56 GMT

>the same will done to them?

You are getting pretty close to my plan, Jason.  In fact, you are finally 
getting to the pessimistic part of my personality, and you are not going to 
like what you read.  When I look into the future of manufacturing in this 
country (U.S.), I do not see a very good future past 10-20 more years.  
Since I work in manufacturing, this has me committed to make as much money 
in as short time frame as I am capable.  Once manufacturing leaves this 
country, and moves overseas, everyone's standard of living will decline.  I 
plan to do whatever it takes to migrate into the "rich" class, while the 
rest of the middle class migrates into the "poor" class.  This will 
necessarily require VERY stiff competition, but I think I am more mentally 
prepared than most.  If I have it my way, I will leave most of the enviros, 
and others who are less fit to compete, in my dust.  Furthermore, based on 
the attitudes and capabilities that I have seen in this newsgroup, there 
will be very little that the average newsgroup poster can do about this 
(either the economy declining, or me getting ahead of them).

>effort, not by self-centered competition. 

My problems will indeed be solved by self-centered competition.  If I stay 
in my present income bracket for the next 5-10 years, I can tell my present 
employer to "stick it where the sun don't shine!"

Greed and poverty are each
>direct results of the other; to eliminate one you must eliminate both.

This is a big over-simplification, usually espoused by people who are 
socialistic minded.  Oh, the poor working class!  They need to overthrow 
the greedy, rich industrialists!

In 5-10 years, you can preach this sermon to my CPA!

>responsibility to those who don't.

This is where we strongly disagree.  I make occasional charitable 
contributions, but I don't have a responsibility to raise the standard of 
living of someone in poverty, at my expense.  Even if I wanted to, there is 
not enough money to go around.  Besides this, giving away money *just plain 
doesn't work*!  I know this for a fact, because I have done it before, and 
the gift had big unintentional consequences.

>and held by those who benefit most from the way society works.

I don't blame the enviros for any of this debt at the present time.  
However, if we implement some of their grander (and more stupid) schemes, I 
will blame them big time!

However, I will tell you something that is stranger than what I have 
already said.  If enviros do something that causes the economy to slump, I 
may even be benefitted by it.  Assuming that an economic depression was the 
order of the day, the money I have in savings would get more valuable.  I 
definitely would not want to see this, but I will try to take advantage of 
it nonetheless.

>nature', so to say that they don't understand it is pretty far off the

Read your Old Testament accounts of the Israeli march through the desert 
(see Exodus).  If the almighty couldn't seem to change the attitudes of his 
chosen people, how in the world do you expect some wimpy environmentalists 
to do this for a much larger population?

Your ideas were favorites of the communists.  Those guys' theories 
implicitly assumed that people would do the right thing, even when there 
was no material gain to be had from their actions.  This stupid experiment 
has been repeated many times in the last century, and it has invariably 
produced substandard results.  Why do you think your ideas will "take root" 
this time around?

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 01:56:10 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   [email-masked] (Cheryl Kinkaid) wrote:
(Big cut)
>beaches, in people's lungs, etc.
It usually isn't in rivers or on beaches in the U.S. of today, unless there 
is some type of accident.  And regarding people's lungs, 25% of the U.S. 
population smokes cigarettes.  You *don't even* want to go down that road!

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 22:48:49 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
   John Flanery <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, charliew wrote:
>
>There is no conflict between employment and the environment.  Oh, certain
>jobs should be eliminated, but the overall employment level is controlled
>by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.
>
>But your point is valid.  So long as you are dependent on holding on to
>your job, you are compelled to defend your employer, even when they do
>not deserve it.
>

I agree.  This is what you call a conflict of interest.  Unfortunately, I 
find myself dealing with more conflicts of interest as I get older, but I 
don't think I can do anything about it, as I seem to slowly have less and 
less control of my own destiny.

---

From: John Flanery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 20:06:47 -0800

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 12 Dec 1996 03:15:35 GMT

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:31:20 EDT, Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>p.s. You obviously don't live in Ohio.   States in the industrial belt 
>which continue to be industrialized have some of the worst water quality 
>in the country, mostly because the U.S. government regulates businesses 
>in how fast they can poison other people and animals, and not whether 
>they should be doing it in the first place.
 
Toby,
 
The Monongahela River used to burn from time to time before the white
people arrived in North America.  The original inhabitants used to
skim the oil and rub it on arthritic limbs.
 
The river is now cleaner than it was in 1976, in 1776, or in 1276 --
because we made even more valuable ways of cleaning up nature's oil
spill.  Think Quaker State.
 
                                                              -dlj.

---

From: Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:38:35 EDT

> spill.  Think Quaker State.

After reading some of your posts, I'm beginning to become a little 
scared.  There is no way you can sat that humans can operate an ecosystem 
better than nature--it's just not true. Water quality in the U.S. 
overall is much worse than before European colonization. There are much 
fewer forests in the U.S. than there were before, and the forests that do 
exist are almost entirely second or even third growth, and as a result 
have lower biomass to land ratios, and are much weaker in terms of 
diversity and efficiency of the system.

I'm wondering where you're coming from. What is your particular 
background, and what is your purpose? On my end I am a college freshman 
in an introductory environmental studies course. I know my knowledge is 
limited, but from what I have read I can see that most of what the 
environmental movement would have implemented in the U.S. and around the 
world would have better economic as well as environmental ramifications 
for humans and all other members of the biosphere.  My purpose is to try 
and create a society in which social connections are improved, emphasis 
is placed on moral and ethical improvements are put above economic ones, 
and humans live a sustainable equilibrium within nature.

Waiting to hear your response....

Toby Reiter

---

From: Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:31:20 EDT

On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, charliew wrote:

> is some type of accident.  
Hmmmmmm.....I suppose decreases in aquatic flora and fauna in American 
streams is based upon their decisions to leave the river and live in the 
suburbs? Come on, as long as people think they can dump anything dirtier 
than pristine non-chlorinated drinking water into America's watersheds, 
then we will see species loss.  

I don't have the figures on my, but they are easily available.  
Basically, thousands or maybe millions of gallons of chemicals are dumped 
in American rivers throughout the year.

Toby Reiter

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 12 Dec 1996 15:39:40 GMT

>diversity and efficiency of the system.

So?  Even if this were true, which it probably isn't, what's so great
about forests as opposed to say rose bushes or carefully cultivated
third growth marijuana?

>background, and what is your purpose? 

Is this relevant to the question of whether or not the advanced
societies are doing a generally good job of cleaning up the messes
left earlier?

>                    On my end I am a college freshman 
>for humans and all other members of the biosphere. 

Some would, some wouldn't.  In particular the blind faith of many in
the environmental movement in the enforcement of regulation at any
cost could have truly disastrous consequences.  Fortunately this
tendency is in retreat most places.

>                                                                                                       My purpose is to try 
 
Fine.  I wish you well.  I do, however, point out to you that
asserting that attractive-sounding set of conflicting purposes does
not do a great deal toward clarifying or achieving them.  

In particular I wonder if you can show me an example, anywhere,
anytime, of anyone whose "emphasis is placed on moral and ethical
improvements {be/are} put above economic ones" who achieved any of
either. The very beginning of moral and ethical improvement is usually
to wish health, wealth and long life upon others.  This is
conspicuously true of people who live lives of voluntary poverty,
though the tendency is less marked among wealthy American college
students.
 
                                                  -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 Dec 1996 18:33:57 GMT

Toby Reiter tells us

     On my end I am a college freshman in an introductory
     environmental studies course. I know my knowledge is
     limited, but from what I have read I can see that most of
     what the environmental movement would have implemented in
     the U.S. and around the world would have better economic as
     well as environmental ramifications for humans and all other
     members of the biosphere.  My purpose is to try and create a
     society in which social connections are improved, emphasis
     is placed on moral and ethical improvements are put above
     economic ones, and humans live a sustainable equilibrium
     within nature.

It is rare that someone tells us the sources of his knowledge and
Reiter is to be congratulated for this.  It is natural that someone in
the middle of a single course should be positive in his opinions,
especially if the course has not bothered to present a variety of
opinions.  One of the 29 books on my environmental shelf is _Greening
the College Curriculum_.  The title of the introduction is "Helping
Harried Professors Teach their Convictions".  It mainly concerns other
than environmental studies courses, but the tone is clear.  THERE ARE
NO GENUINE CONTROVERSIES.  We just have to teach the "truth".

Reiter may be the victim of such a course - one in which the
instructors are "teaching their convvictions".  Were dissenting points
of view presented?

For different viewpoints he should look at _The True State of the
Planet_, edited by Ronald Bailey, Free Press or _The State of
Humanity_, edited by Julian Simon, Blackwell.  The first has 12
chapters by different authors and the second 58.  He might also look
at my

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 13 Dec 1996 07:02:58 GMT

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:52 PDT, [email-masked] (Ron Hickman)
wrote:
.
>
>The text used in the environmental studies course taken by my 
>wife at San Jose State a year ago openly stated in the introduction
>that it purposefully was going to discuss only one side of the issues
>presented and was not even going to *try* to be balanced.   Can't 
>recall the name and author, but I recall that part.
>
 
Now then, I'm going to need some help here.
 
Can somebody clarify for me, is this the same or different from the
Dark Ages of the "Christian" world, when people in authority assumed
they had a lock on Truth and conveyed it to the humble masses?
 
                                                     -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ron Hickman)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:26:52 PDT

Ron Hickman
-
Ron Hickman <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Paul Jenkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Dec 1996 04:55:00 GMT

This is quite true -- the existance of unemployment results from a poorly
functioning labour market interacting with insufficient aggregate demand. 
In the long run, any set of policies (except arguably those which disrupt
the functioning of the labour market) will not "cost jobs".

That is not to say that environmental regulations do not impose costs.  If
compliance and enforcement use real resources (e.g. labour and/or capital)
then these resources will not be available for other uses.  These costs
must be weighed against the benefits (e.g. clean water, better air quality
etc.) .  In this respect, decisions about environmental matters do not
differ fundamentally from any cost/benefit decision.

A key issue is assessing environmental regulations is whether the
de-centralized market outcome is truly suboptimal.  One reason why it may
be so is the existance of externalities.  However, the existance of
externalities should not be assumed, but must be considered on a
case-by-case basis. 

John Flanery <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...

---

From: Max Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:44:41 -0800

> by the Federal Reserve, not by the amount of economic regulation.

Thomas Hopkins recently studied regulatory compliance costs in
"Regulatory Costs in Profile" done for the Center for the Study of
American Business.  In 1995 regulatory compliance costs were $668
billion.  Of that $218 billion was just paperwork, $223 billion was due
to environmental regulations and $227 billion was for price and entry
controls.  Even if you assume that environmental regulations create no
paperwork (which would be like assuming that the world is flat)
environmental regulations still cost on average $1905 per employee in a
business with less than 20 persons.  $1824 per employee in a business
with 20-499 employees and $1025 per employee in large businesses with
over 500 workers.  So imagine if you ran a business with 10 employees. 
By these figures, you would be paying $18240 just to comply with
regulations.  That is enough money to hire another person. So, its hard
for me to believe you when you tell me regulation doesnt effect the
general employement level.

Now for your second assertion. The federal reserve does not control the
general employment level in this country, the market does.  Your
assertion is a good example of machine age thinking, something we at the
Bionomics Institute are trying to overcome.  The economy is not some
sort of automobile, with the fed having its foot on the gas pedal.  The
economy is a complex ecosystem.  Sure if the fed raised the federal
funds rate tremendously there would be, some increase in the
unemployment level.  But that is only because wall street trusts Alan
Greenspan to make the right decision.  The fed only controls the federal
funds rate, which is the interest it charges to make loans to other
banks.  This does effect the interest rates that we deal with everyday,
but it is the market that actually changes them.  A couple of months
ago, there were some rumors going around that the fed was going to raise
the federal funds rate and that very day, interest rates rose by
themselves.  

If this hasnt convinced you, how about this.  Imagine if the federal
government cut defense spending by 25%, wouldnt that effect the
employment level? (it did in california).  Imagine if IBM went bankrupt,
wouldnt that effect the employment level?  Imagine if regulatory
compliance costs went down to zero and $668 billion were availible this
year for investment.  Wouldnt that raise employment? The economy is vast
and complex and many different things create the current level of
unemployment.  

Max Jacobs

The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org

---

From: [email-masked] (Brian Carnell)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 16:26:01 GMT

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 01:38:35 EDT, Toby Reiter <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>better than nature--it's just not true.

Human beings are a product of nature.
Ergo, the way human beings manage the ecosystem *is* the way nature
manages the ecosystem.

Your attempt to personify "nature" as some high minded manager is a
bit silly.

Brian Carnell
-----------------------------
[email-masked]
http://www.carnell.com/

---

From: [email-masked] (David Whitt)
Date: 14 Dec 1996 17:18:39 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>and complex and many different things create the current level of

Seeing as how this study was done by a pro-business think tank I wonder
how accurate the figures are but giving the benefit of the doubt, are you
recommended that all regulatory compliances be disregarded?  That would
fit in line with what many businesses would like.  Imagine, they could
pollute all they like, higher children and legally own sweatshops, offer
no medical or retirement plan to workers, pay nothing to the government. 
Boy wouldn't that really get the economic "ecosystem" going!  As complex
as our economy might seem to you, it pales in comparison to the complexity
of a singled-cell organism much less a true ecosystem.  As a Green
supporter, I would love to see some regulation go, not all regulation is
bad.  Some may seem absurd, but since we are talking of the environment,
its protection is not.  

      ****                   David Whitt     [email-masked]
     ** ***
         **                  No one can make you feel inferior
         ***                 without your consent.
         ****                                 -Eleanor Roosevelt
        ***  *
       ***   **   *          People often find it easier to be a result
      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.
     ***       ***

---

From: [email-masked] (David Whitt)
Date: 14 Dec 1996 17:28:00 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Your attempt to personify "nature" as some high minded manager is a

And it is due to our efficient management of the ecosystem that we have
caused one of the largest extinctions in all world history.  That is why
carbon dioxide levels have doubled and there's a hole in the ozone layer
over the poles and the rest is thinning (causing the number of causes of
skin cancer to multiply).  While humans beings are a product of nature,
their actions are not.  Natural actions are generally governed by instict,
not ignorance, greed, or apathy.  The facts are, nature has done very well
for the past several hundred million years without man.  Since the
industrial age man has adversly affected the environment through
artificial means (unless you want to imply that platics and DDT can occur
in nature without any means of artificial production).  Why is this such a
hard concept for you to understand?

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hall)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 23:06:02 GMT

>      ***    ******          of the past than a cause of the future.

Ignorance, greed, and apathy are not instincts? Look at any human two
year old. Concern about anything other than immediate self
satisfaction is a learned behavior.
Man was created by nature and his actions are a part of nature. He is
just better at it than any other species.
 
1) You want all of mankind to work together. That is not nature's way
2) You want to change man's natural behavior in ways that you think
would be better. 
3) You are trying to prevent certain changes in nature. That is not
nature's way. This biosphere we are a part of is always changing.
Species come and go. Temperatures go up and down. Coastlines move back
and forth. Change after change. Nature never sits still.

What you are proposing is not natural. 

Besides, it won't work anyway:
1) China is not listening to you. That's about a quarter of the
world's population. If you think the mess the USSR made was bad, wait
until you see what China does.
2) The need for energy in the second and third world is going up, up,
up.  Unless we start building them cheap nuclear plants, they will
biuld coal or oil plants and they won't put much in the way of
emissions controls on them.
3) You are not going to make the changes you want to in the US. The
rest of us won't let you.

---

From: "Politenessman" <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 Dec 1996 03:51:04 GMT

You missed the point - Catch and Release refers to Newtonian
Conservationism. Utilizing Newton's laws of physics, new-age mountain men
(members of a bizzare cult in the western United States), believe all
animals remain equal. They preach that whether mammal or fowl, insect or
reptile, et cetera, God gave all his creatures the right to survive on His
earth.

The overweight, docile hunter has as much right to kill and forage for food
as the three toed sloth. Erwin "Pappy" Parker, in fact, is patron saint of
overweight, docile hunters. On a hunt in 1992, he gave his life fighting
the mighty sloth. His memorial shrine, dedicated last year in a moving
ceremony, bears his immortal, final words: "Ah cain't keep up this-here
pace, boys. Ya'll keep runnin'." 
The lesson: An object at rest tends to remain at rest.

Fishing plays an important part in Newtonian Conservationism (NC) worship.
They have combined the pagan believe that "There are plenty of other fish
in the sea," with the fact that "For every action there is an equal but
opposite reaction." Jack "Lobo Lights" Mursette, the famous Canadian NC
high priest, said it best, "If I don't eat it, someone else will. Besides,
if'n I don't catch, how do I release all those tempting and tasty flavors,
eh?"

Many people have confused "Catch and Release" with a Newtonian
Conservationist splinter group known as "The Bass Councel" (or something
like that). If you happen to encounter a fisherman who supports the
practice of releasing caught fish back into its environment, move away
quickly. An NC sniper probably has the sissy-mary in his sights.

In other news, did you have something important to say?

Howard <[email-masked]> wrote in article <[email-masked]>...

---

From: David Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 07:53:00 +0000

Max Jacobs wrote:
[stuff deleted]

> general employment level in this country, the market does. 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't know what this means.

As I understand the Federal Reserve, it only controls the employment 
cap. That is it raise interest rates when unemployment dips below about 
5%. Why? This increases the cost of creating more jobs and thus prevent
unemployment from going any lower. Why? Because as the pool of job
seekers
shrinks wage competition heats up and wage competition is inflationary
and 
inflation is BAD (or at least, so we've been told).

Now what I want from anyone out there is:
If I'm wrong about this please let me know.

If I'm right then answer this:
Isn't so call "Welfare Reform" just going to produce a horrible ammout
of 
human misery? So what if you get some job training and so what if you
can 
get child care? None of that matters if you can't find a job. Isn't is 
immoral as hell to get rid of welfare without providing for full
employment? 
As far as I can see, the system will not tolerate let alone support full
employment!

Finally, let's do a little math. 5% of 250M is 12.5M, but not all those
people are seeking jobs. Let's guess that only about 1/4 are. That's
about
3 million people. Sounds like a lot of misery to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lewis ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (David Whitt)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 19:45:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>satisfaction is a learned behavior.

A two-year old human can talk some too.  Is that instictive?  No, it is
learned.  Perhaps the two-year old is, as when speaking, immitating a
behavior they picked up from adults when acting selfish?  The sure would
have plenty of role-models in today's society.

>just better at it than any other species.

Better at what?!

>1) You want all of mankind to work together. That is not nature's way

Who are you to say?!

>2) You want to change man's natural behavior in ways that you think

True.  What's so bad about that?  Sounds very nice to me.

>and forth. Change after change. Nature never sits still.

We are not against natural changes in the biosphere.  We ARE against
negative man-made changes including mass extinction and pollution.  To
simply say because we do it it is nature's way is naive.  If I killed you
would that simply be an act of nature?

>What you are proposing is not natural. 

And how would you know?  The closest you probably get to nature is a
picture on the television or a view from your 16mpg land rover.

>until you see what China does.

The US consumes 75% of the planet's resources at produces 85% of the
hazardous waste.  If we can make changes here, it will be good for its own
sake.  Eventually, with a little pressure from within and without, the
other nations will change as well.

>emissions controls on them.

How about more research into alternative energies?  The US spent more in
one day during the Gulf War than in the last decade and a half on
alternative energy.  As for nuclear power, what do you intend to do with
the waste that stays radioactive for thousands of years but it stored in
barrels which leak after only 100 years?

>rest of us won't let you.

Seeing as how the public is already pro-environment and is getting more
and more that way every day I don't see how you are in the position to
speak that way.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hall)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:51:12 GMT

>> general employment level in this country, the market does. 

The actual data for November 1996 is:
134,818,000 in the work force - 63.39% of the population
    7,221,000 unemployed - 5.4% of the work force 
average time between jobs was 15.9 weeks 
   1,146,000 - ..095% of the work force had been out of work for more
than 27 weeks

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The good news is that less than 1% appear to be long term unemployed,
the bad news is that is still a million people.

Sam

--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hall)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:54:20 GMT

>have plenty of role-models in today's society.
Is that the best you can do? 

>>just better at it than any other species.

Changing nature to suit him

>>1) You want all of mankind to work together. That is not nature's way

History is quite clear. War after war. From tribes in Africa and South
Seas islanders to world wide conflicts. 
>True.  What's so bad about that?  Sounds very nice to me.

Who put you in charge and why do you wish to change nature? Maybe you
should start trying to change other species behavior. They might have
a better chance to survive that way.
>would that simply be an act of nature?

Man-made changes are part of nature, how could they not be since
nature made man. Beside, who is to say that certain changes are
negative? Just because you don't want certain changes, doesn't mean
they should not happen.
>picture on the television or a view from your 16mpg land rover.
I suspect I have seen a lot more of it than you have. From Alaska to
South Pacific islands. Not on a tour either. (and it was a Jeep CJ5)
>other nations will change as well.
Good luck. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?
>barrels which leak after only 100 years?
We are not doing it. "Should" doesn't cut it.
France doesn't seem to have any problem with their nuclear waste. They
reprocess it and sell it. 
>and more that way every day I don't see how you are in the position to
Then why did the Texas EPA (what ever their name is) have to start
using unmaked cars. Seems they were having troubles with the
farmers.Why is illeagal imports and sales of CFC's a major problem.? 

--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)

---

From: [email-masked] (Mason A. Clark)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 23:10:12 GMT

On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:51:12 GMT, [email-masked] (Sam

> the bad news is that is still a million people.

The bad news is that the unemployment is seriously
understated.  Those who have given up are not counted.
Those who are under-employed, just on part time, are 
not counted.  Anyone got more specific data?
-----------------------------------------------
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 (slow,wait)

  The Boskin report on the CPI, itself and links:

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 15:35:33 -0700

> not counted.  Anyone got more specific data?

U.S. News, Business Week, or a similar magazine had estimates of 10%-15% 
un- or underemployed if these latter groups are considered.  I don't 
recall the issue - it was some time ago and I tried to find it again but 
couldn't.  The 15% figure came from MIT.

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 96 23:41:29 GMT

>have plenty of role-models in today's society.

Much of the mechanics behind speech may in fact be instinctive.  A baby 
doesn't know any language at birth, but obviously has the ability to adapt 
its brain to the language it hears all the time.  This is not a learned 
behavior, as the brain "circuits" of that infant are being "tuned" during 
this period of development.

However, I do get the point you are trying to make.  Unfortunately, you are 
wrong.  Many parents consciously work to set a good example for their 
offspring, in the hopes that the good examples will help "civilize" their 
little ones.  Assuming that parents just always acted on their own 
self-centeredness leads to some interesting conclusions:

1) They never would have become parents in the first place, because raising 
children is a very difficult, tiring, relentless job.

2) Each new generation would learn behaviors that were worse than their 
parents, because children always try to "push the boundaries".  
Civilization would not long survive in this scenario.

Based on your suspect conclusion, I assume you have never raised children.

(cut)
>would that simply be an act of nature?

Are you against every spec of pollution, or just pollution that is more 
concentrated than a specified maximum threshold?  In other words, is one 
molecule of a pollutant harmful to the environment in some way?

(cut)

>other nations will change as well.

Like they already changed to a democratic form of government in China, 
based on the Tienenmen (sp?) Square demonstrations?  You are getting naive 
on this one.

(cut)
>and more that way every day I don't see how you are in the position to

The public is not going to be so pro-environment when EPA starts hounding 
them every time they get their car inspected.  The public is not going to 
be so pro-environment when the government takes over U.S. energy in an 
effort to control CO2 emissions.  The public is not going to be so 
pro-environment when unemployment goes way up as environmental concerns 
force most manufacturing jobs out of this country.  I think you are 
counting your chickens before they are hatched.

---

From: Martin Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 09:25:40 -0800

David Whitt wrote:
> >regulations.  That is enough money to hire another person.

I doubt it!  The money has already been spent employing someone to comply with the 
regulations.

 So, its hard
>(snip)
> Boy wouldn't that really get the economic "ecosystem" going! 
> (snip)

First, 	I'll state my vested interest - I am employed by a business organisation as 
an environmental adviser.  If this is negative, then on the positive side, the 
majority of my 20+ year career has been as a regulator and an environmental 
consultant.

Very few companies really seek a return to the old days. Many of those who do are 
stuck with out-of-date technology which they are having difficulty upgrading.  This 
is a normal part of the business cycle (and the rest of society) where new ideas and 
methods need to fight for their place.

Two connected points - firstly new technology which is less polluting is also likely 
to mean less employment at least at the production stage.  

Secondly, EPAs around the world need to get better at achieving maximum 
environmental return for the cost of their regulations.  One of the most obvious and 
most quoted high cost - low return expenditures is the Superfund process in the US. 
 Lots of expenditure assigning blame, not many sites cleaned up.

Regards, Martin

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 03:28:45 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>I doubt it!  The money has already been spent employing someone to comply 
with the 

This is often an incorrect assumption.  In today's manufacturing sites, 
employers pile more work on their current employees to get the job done.  
They also lay-off people to offset some of these costs, leading to even 
more work for the remaining employees.  However, don't take my word for it. 
Find some stats that show the trend in manufacturing employment - you will 
see a steady decline over the last decade, with little let-up in sight.

> Lots of expenditure assigning blame, not many sites cleaned up.

I agree with this 100%.  I was in the manufacturing workforce when 
Superfund was first implemented.  It was obvious, even in the early '80's, 
that this plan was likely to turn into a politicized bunch of crap that 
made a lot of lawyers rich.  How do I know this?  Because the associated 
legislation gave agencies the right to sue companies who polluted, and 
those companies had the right to sue *anyone* who even remotely contributed 
(in any direct or indirect way) to the pollution.  Naturally, once greed 
and lawyers get mixed together, there was a feeding frenzy.

Is it any wonder that I am skeptical about the intentions of bureaucratic, 
self serving agencies, to actually achieve desireable goals without 
destroying the businesses they are regulating?

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:47:18 -0700

charliew wrote:
....
> destroying the businesses they are regulating?

I ask:

What do you suggest, assuming [minimum intelligence] standards or 
minimal [intelligence] standards - i.e. in this case no copping out with 
platitudes and political buzz phrases.

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Farrar)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 22:50:20 -0600

...
>the federal funds rate and that very day, interest rates rose by

Perhaps "we at the Bionomics Institute" should find out what the Federal
Funds rate is and how it is set, and how it differs from the Fed's
discount rate.

>Max Jacobs

Paul Farrar

---

From: [email-masked] (David Whitt)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 13:52:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>Is that the best you can do? 

I gave an example showing your assumption may be wrong.  In return you
give one sentence demeaning what I say but offering nothing constructive
in return.  A better question would be is that the best YOU can do?

>Changing nature to suit him

You mean pillaging nature to make a buck.  Why does something which has
worked well for billions of years need our "improvement"?  

>Seas islanders to world wide conflicts. 

History itself is the product of civilization which by definition is
mankind working together.  Without people working together there would be
no religion, government, writing, etc.  It is in our nature to work
together far more so than to fight.

>a better chance to survive that way.

As a member of the human race I have the right (one may say the
responsibility) to work for the betterment of mankind.  My working to
better mankind is not the same as my being in charge of mankind.  I'm
amazed you can't see the difference.  What I would like to change is the
negative aspects of our behavior and focus on the positive aspects.  In
the end if we do not save ourselves no other species will survive (except
perhaps the cockroach, they thrive on your so-called "improvements").

>negative? Just because you don't want certain changes, doesn't mean

As for the nature-made-man-therefore-man's-actions-are-natural dribble,
all of our society is based on what is natural and what is artificial. 
Natural is that which is based on nature.  Artificial is that which is
based on technology.  One happens without purpose, the other with.  There
is a fundamental difference here that even a grade-school student would
understand.  As for the not-all-changes-are-bad tripe, I clearly stated
that I was against "negative man-made changes".  I see your reading
comprehension skills need a little brushing up on.

>Good luck. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Again, is that the best you can do?  Nothing constructive?

>reprocess it and sell it. 

Reprocessed for making nuclear weapons.  Isn't that such a better idea! 
Let's build hundreds of nuclear plants and we can make nuclear weapons out
of the waste!  Your buddies at the NRA can fight to have nuclear weapons
made available for personal protection and hunting.

>farmers.Why is illeagal imports and sales of CFC's a major problem.? 

Because a vocal minority of people like Ron Arnold, Chuck Cushman, Bill
Grannell, Grant Gerber, Clark Collins, and William Perry Pendley have
excited these people with propoganda telling them they'll lose their
houses, jobs, and starve to death if industry can't have its way.  They
are told environmentalists are pagans and communists and as any
God-fearing American [redneck] must do they must fight.  Violence is
encouraged to the point of arson and murder.  Most Americans DO support
the EPA.  Keep in mind farmers only make up 2% of the population and not
all of them support Wise Use and other anti-enviro groups.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Whitt)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 14:09:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>this period of development.

The mechanics behind speach may be instictive but the language is not. 
Babies learn to speak by immitation which isn't perfect at first so it
sounds like gibberish (ie - "baby talk") but clears up after more
imitation et cetera.

>children is a very difficult, tiring, relentless job.

While I don't have the statistics I would bet many or most children were
not planned so saying parents would not be parents if they didn't feel up
to the job isn't always so.  Also many parents have no idea what to
expect, probably as a result of their parents. 

>Civilization would not long survive in this scenario.

A word of advice, take a psychology course.  Children often do immitate
their parents but not always and not necessarily to a greater extreme. 
Often if a parent is at one extreme it has the opposite effect on the
child making them go to the other extreme.

>Based on your suspect conclusion, I assume you have never raised children.

Based on the fact that I am gay I doubt I ever will.  I have studied
enough to know what I am talking about and if you are basing your
conclusions on your personal experience I would suggest you take a broader
look at humanity.  Not everyone has the same relationship as you do.

>molecule of a pollutant harmful to the environment in some way?

I guess that would depend on the molecule.  Molecule for molecule,
plutonium is far deadlier than carbon monoxide.  There are acceptable
limits because every organism that exists produces wastes.  When those
wastes cripple the ecosystem, then that is a problem.  

>based on the Tienenmen (sp?) Square demonstrations?  You are getting naive 

That was only a few years ago.  The key word here is "eventually" and yes
China has changed some and most analysts don't think the Communists will
be in charge for much longer.

>them every time they get their car inspected.

If you've ever driven in a smog-ridden city you will find most people are
more than happy to have stricker emissions standards.  Most people know it
is good for them and get sick and tired (litterally) of the smog.

>  The public is not going to 
>effort to control CO2 emissions.

Yeah, they really screwed up with TVA.  Government interference in energy
is so harmfull.

>  The public is not going to be so 
>force most manufacturing jobs out of this country.

There is no evidence to prove this would happen and in states with strict
environmental standards unemployement has not gone up.  You are simply
trying to scare people.

>  I think you are 

And I think you are becoming desparate.

---

From: Max Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:29:14 -0800

David Lewis wrote:
> unemployment from going any lower. 

No, actually it doesnt control that either.  The fed only controls the
federal funds rate which is what it charges banks for money.  The market
then sets interest rates accordingly.  The only reason you are seeing a
causal relationship now between fed action and interest rate hikes is
because the market (at least wall street) trusts greenspans judgement. 
If he were replaced with someone more insane, the market could ignore
what he wants and keep interest rates relatively steady.  The market
doesnt want inflation either and if greenspan is scared, they get
scared.  If it were someone else, im not so sure.  The fed is really
just an inflationary advisor, they dont control much at all.

Max

---

From: Max Jacobs <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:36:02 -0800

David Whitt wrote:

> 
> And it is due to our inefficient management of the ecosystem that we have
> caused one of the largest extinctions in all world history.  

I have trouble with the thought that we are "managing" our ecosystem. 
Earth was doing fine on its own before man came along and will do fine
afterwards.  The Earth is so immensely complex that humans cannot manage
it at all.  Remember Mt. Pinatubo?  One volcanic eruption basically
eliminated all the global warming that had occurred for the past 100
years of industrialization.  That is not to say that we arent negatively
affecting the environment, but we are not managing it, and we cannot
ever hope to do so.

Max Jacobs

The Bionomics Institute
http://www.bionomics.org

---

From: [email-masked] (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 17 Dec 1996 11:46:58 GMT

On Tue, 17 Dec 96 04:54:53 GMT, [email-masked] (charliew) wrote:

>
>I know something much more valuable than child psychology.  It's called 
>adult psychology.  I've been around for almost 41 years, while my oldest 
>daughter (and oldest child) has been around for 5 years.  I maintain that I 
>can out-think her without the benefit of a liberal college child psychology 
>course. 
>
 
Charlie,
 
I didn't see anybody claiming otherwise.
 
On the other hand I think it's pretty well established that five year
old daughters can psyche out 41 year old daddies any day of the week.

Thinking is a minor factor in human affairs.
 
                                                              -dlj.

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Hall)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 01:49:51 GMT

>in return.  A better question would be is that the best YOU can do?
It seems plain that you have not raised any childern or you would not
try to disagree.

>worked well for billions of years need our "improvement"?  
The "improvenment" was (is) for man's benefit. One example: We have
doubled the average human life span (in the western world) by
"pillaging nature". Not a bad trade.
(And no, I don't care about the rest of the world. If they want what
we have then they can earn it like we did.)
 I have no interest in your "nature" except as how it can serve man.

>together far more so than to fight.
We work together for the same reason we fight: because we think it is
in our own best interest to do so.

The definition of civilization is:

civ·i·li·za·tion (s¹v”…-l¹-z³“sh…n) n. 1. An advanced state of
intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society,
marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of
writing, and the appearance of complex political and social
institutions. 2. The type of culture and society developed by a
particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan
civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome. 3. The act or process
of civilizing or reaching a civilized state. 4. Cultural or
intellectual refinement; good taste. 5. Modern society with its
conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
(The American Heritage Dictionary)

(SNIP)
>amazed you can't see the difference.  

I know the difference. I also know that you cannot do what you want to
do without using force since many of us don't agree with what you
think is the "betterment" of mankind. 
Whenever I hear that phase I am reminded of the  Third Reich and their
program for the "betterment of mankind" (No, I am not calling you a
Nazi. I am just pointing out that people can have very different ideas
of what a better world would be.)

>What I would like to change is the
First of all. You have your definition of negative changes and I have
mine. For example, when I lived in Alaska, it was legal to hunt polar
bears. I did not and I  have regretted it because I would like to have
a polar bear rug in front of my fireplace. Somehow, I don't think you
would agree that I should have one. A second one: a few weeks ago, I
was in east Texas on a job and the roads were full of trucks hauling
logs to various mills. I saw new homes and other products to improve
the lives of mankind. You would have probably seen a destoryed forest.

>In the end if we do not save ourselves no other species will survive (except
The strong will survive. That old saw about the meek shall inherit the
earth might actually come true someday. The rest of us will leave.

>comprehension skills need a little brushing up on.
See above about defining "negative".
When a beaver builds a dam, does he not do it on purpose? Just because
we are better at building dams than the beaver is (and our creations
have a much larger effect) does not change the fact that we both did
it "on purpose"
>>Good luck. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?
I forgot to add this comment last time:
I didn't know we were up to 75%. Not bad for 5% of the population. We
should be making sure that it stays at that ratio. 
I am not sure I believe the 85% of the hazardous waste. I doubt that
the former USSR's part is being fully counted and I doubt that anybody
knows what China is doing.
>Again, is that the best you can do?  Nothing constructive?
The Chinese are going to do what the Chinese what to do unless we stop
them by force. That  will be true with whatever form of government
they have.
 
>>>alternative energy. 

So what? That was for our benefit. Spending money on alternative
energies is not in our best interest for ourselves, we certainly
aren't going to do it for someone else.

>As for nuclear power, what do you intend to do with
>of the waste!  

Their biggest customer is Japan who is using it in their power plants.

>Your buddies at the NRA can fight to have nuclear weapons
I don't even own a gun. Well, that is not quite true. When I left
Alaska some 25 years ago, I left my guns with a friend. They are still
there. 
It seems that if someone disagrees with you, then you say: that person
is an X, a Y and a Z. The world is not that simple.
>encouraged to the point of arson and murder.  

I have never heard of any of those people. 

>Most Americans DO support the EPA.  

Please provide proof of this. 

>Keep in mind farmers only make up 2% of the population and not
So, because they are so small a group, you can do what you wish. Is
that what you mean?

--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)

---

From: [email-masked] (charliew)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 96 04:36:13 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] wrote:
>.....

I'm not sure that I suggest anything.  It is apparent from the lessons of 
history that governments and cultures have a life cycle of their own.  Once 
a bureaucracy gets to a certain point, it seems likely that it will 
continue to the point that it causes society to fall under its own weight. 
I can't give exact references, but a library search for the former great 
societies (e.g., Greece, Rome, etc.) will clearly indicate that we in the 
U.S. are apparently following their example.  Just because I can't do 
anything about this problem doesn't mean that I have to like it.  Thus, I 
am inclined to occasionally get on my soap-box about this issue, even if it 
doesn't change anything.

If I gave you any platitudes or political buzz phrases, I apologize.

BTW, I didn't cc you via email on this one.  Have a merry Christmas.