Subject: Re: Major problem with western 'lifestyle'
From: "sdef!"
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 02:40:23 +0000
I will try to reply in the same kind of ratio of length and thought and
effort posting to reply, with a similar degree of respect and relevance:
BALLS! to both of you...
Andy
charliew wrote:
>
> In article <32812221.147A@easynet.co.uk>,
> "sdef!" wrote:
> >Adam Ierymenko wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >Yes, all the effort is being put into that, why not
> accept that we consume too much
> >> >already? one American consumes as much energy as 531
> Ethiopians. Why not start with
> >> >reduction? that can be done now, without any technology.
> The situation is serious fer
> >> >god's sake. This isn't a game.
> >>
> >> Are you willing to watch that many people die? What if
> some of them are your
> >> loved ones? Yourself?
> >
> >Watch how many people die? What on earth are you on about?
> >
> >How many people will die if there are no more mindless
> magazines filling our shops with
> >dead trees and our minds with sick desire for more baubles?
> How many deaths will result
> >from lack of electric tootbrushes, or powere tools in every
> house though they only get
> >used occasionally, or not driving for frivolous petty
> reasons. How many people would die
> >if there were no more wasteful, overpackaged take-aways and
> 'convenience' foods. How many
> >people are dying now for your precious convenience?
> >
> >All the deaths from asthma, caused by cars driven by people
> who know about it but cling
> >desperately to the notion of 'secondary smoking' Killing
> children who never get a chance
> >to voice their opinion for the sake of your precios
> 'convenience'. Killing millions of
> >other lives , simply for getting in the way of the mad rush
> to more and more, and still
> >get homwe in time to watch some zombie soap opera.
> >
>
> Don't you just "love it" every time the liberals justify
> their actions on the basis of how many children us
> conservatives are killing, and how many they will save?
> Let's get real here. Conservatives are not evil monsters
> who deliberately kill people. They often have differing
> ideas about how to reach many of the same goals as liberals.
> The difference of opinion concerns how to do something, not
> what to do.
>
> >Basically people who believe they have a right to all the
> techno baubles they fill their
> >lives with, and refuse to accept the proposition that they
> should have less, are
> >responsible for the death and misery of millions of othe
> people all over the world, for
> >warrs to protect their way of life and for the hell their
> children will inherit.
> >
>
> Should we have less antibiotics? How about less food? How
> about no electricity, modern health care, modern sanitation
> practices, etc. If you want to know what this is like, go
> to many countries in Africa, and take a good long look.
>
> ===================================================================
>
> For some *very* interesting alternate viewpoints, look at
> http://www.hamblin.com/mf.main/welcome.html
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule.
Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
- William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: "sdef!"
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 07:17:44 +0000
Harold Brashears wrote:
>
> "D. Braun" wrote for all to see:
>
> >On 7 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
> >
> >> gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > some facts that you have deliberitly chose not to use.At the time of
> >> > the ban in the US DDT was a known carcinogentic, tumorigentic,and
> >> > teragentic. In addtion today it is also a known endocrine blocker,
> >> > these toxins will be the next large battle and in all likelyhood be as
> >> > large a problem as ozone depletion or global warming.
> >>
> >> Sorry to disturb your rhetoric with some facts, but below is a fairly
> >> comprehensive list of study results on the human effects of DDT.
> >>
> >> A summary of the 19 research studies below is:
> >>
> >> - Humans exposed to large, longterm doses have had little
> >> or no symptoms.
> >> - DDT has not been shown to be a human carcinogen.
> >> - DDT does not cause chromosomal damage
> >> - DDT does not cause liver damage
> >> - Dermal irritation from DDT is minor and presents no health risks
> >>
> >> One study noted a possible increase in one lung cancer, but made no
> >> determination as the study group was exposed to other contributory factors.
> >> Note that the OSHA guidelines list DDT as class B2, a probable human
> >> carcinogen. This is given to any substance that has been shown to have
> >> a positive carcinogenic profile in any other animal species.
> >
> >I applaud your effort at posting sources with abstracts.
> >I do have a question: Did you do a broad literature search (I assume on
> >your computer) to find these, or are these references pulled from a book
> >or paper which sought to disprove human health risks associated with DDT?
>
> Attack the source of the quotes? That is reaching a tad far, is it
> not? It is more accepted practice to look at the original articles,
> or, on Usenet, attack the poster.
>
> Anyway, the observant will notice that the quotes are in various
> formats, some caps, some small letters, some with dates last, some
> not, and so on. While it is possible that your fear that the papers
> were from a central compilation "which sought to disprove human health
> risks associated with DDT" is accurate, it seem improbable that any
> single source would have references so different in style.
>
> >BTW, there were several more studies which you cited below which did link
> >increased incidence of cancer with DDT exposure, in addition to the "one"
> >you cite.
>
> Really? What were those?
>
> [edited]
Didn't read your own references?
MMM... Keyword searches...
--
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!, Prior House
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY, UK
"I can trace my family back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule.
Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
- William Schwenck Gilbert, "The Mikado".
Subject: Re: Major problem with not renaming threads when they drift way off.
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 13:42:00 GMT
In <327D85EB.388A@easynet.co.uk> "sdef!" writes:
>
>jw wrote:
>>
>
>
>> >Good point. We want to protect the "cute" species. On this
>> >note, I have some interesting questions.
>> >
>> >1) Do we want to protect snakes, especially the poisonous
>> >kinds?
>>
>> They are useful for medicinal purposes. But of course
>> it is a bad idea to let them survive *in the wild*
>> where they are dangerous. Far from protecting them
>> there, we should exterminate them - but breed them
>> in captivity.
>>
>> >2) Do we actually want to protect insects?
>>
>> Not mosquitoes, for example. Exterminate them, too.
>> Insects can be collected and preserved in frozen
>> or dried-up condition; then revived for study as needed.
>>
>> >3) Do we want to protect plants?
>>
>> Collect seeds and seedlings. No need to preserve
>> plants in the wild, except those known to be useful.
>>
>> >4) Do we want to protect microbes, even if they are harmful
>> >to humans? Don't forget that we have supposedly exterminated
>> >smallpox worldwide.
>>
>> Some of them are useful and even necessary, like
>> those inhabiting human intestines. As for
>> the rest, preserve them in labs.
>
>Did it ever occur to you that the 'worthless' species you so pompously
>advocate
Two very minor points.
(1) I think the word you intended here was _arrogantly_.
I put my case simply and directly, with no
trappings of false dignity (like "peer-reviewed").
(2) You put the word 'worthless' in quotes, as if
I had used it.
>eliminating from this planet that you had no part in creating
But I had; so did you. Every earthworm takes a part, and
so does a person. We are among the causes shaping
the universe. Lately, our impact has been increasing
- which is good, because we can use it
to promote our interests.
>might possibly be essential to those species you in your infinite
wisdom
>have deemed 'useful'?
Or *fatal* to them? Or fatal to *us*?
The present ecosystems, the existing communities of species,
are not stable systems, they are in flux.
They are not the same today as, say, 3 centuries ago -
in part because of human activity that has
mixed species from many continents, changed
their quantitative distribution, changed the
environment in favor of some species or varieties
or genes and against others.
E.g., cable lines provided birds with perfect, omnipresent
perches... and before that they used church crosses...
Exterminating a species has many
side effects - some of them may be undesirable -
granted. But so does *not exterminating*
a species. And so does *protecting* a species.
*Any* of these policies has many unpredictable
consequences. E.g., had people got rid of
mosquitoes long ago, merely as a nuisance,
they would have also got rid of some devastating
diseases; that would have come as a huge bonus.
When surgeons sterilize a sick person's
environment, their hands and instruments,
they kill microbes that they know are
dangerous - and many that they do not know;
the net result is good. When this practice
was started, it encountered strong objections
which were similar to yours: the natural
environment was changed in an unpredictable
way. We do it, however, every time we wash:
we flush away the good species with the bad.
I works. However, for 2 or 3 centuries, in Western
Europe, the prevailing opinion was that
bathing is very dangerous, bad for your health.
Antibiotics, however, in killing harmful species,
do kill useful ones as well. This is often
worth while - but it is an important
consideration.
How then should we act on imperfect information?
Change nothing?
Nonsense: this is impossible, the change
is under way; if we all disappeared now,
it would continue.
Minimize change?
Or minimize interference?
Or try to restore some status quo ante?
These are 3 equally arbitrary, mutually contradictory
policies that are often pushed in a confused way, guided
by some vague emotion. None of them makes sense.
Rather, (1) do not hesitate to act according to
the imperfect data that we have;
(2) experiment: act locally at first, when reasonably
possible;
(3) use the empirical outcomes to understand more,
then act again (e.g., see the examples above with washing,
with aseptic surgery, snd with antibiotics).
(4) fix any negative results of intervention
with further intervention; do not minimize
impact - optimize it;
(5) preserve in the lab the species that disappear in nature,
for possible back-up.
>On what basis do you assume this godlike authority to judge which
>species to 'preserve'?
See: you did mean _arrogant_.
Homo sapiens is a godlike creature, endowed with
the divine attribute of reason. According
to the biblical story, he was created in God's
image; from a humanistic point of view
(which I prefer) he has created God in *his*
image.
In either case, it is as appropriate
for man to play God as it is for a kitten
to play tiger. Besides, we have been exceedingly
successful in this. Let us go on, on a greater
and greater scale. On this planet, we humans *are*
the nearest approach to divinity.
My dog always tells me that. :-)
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem with climate predictions )
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 13:52:30 GMT
"sdef!" wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>>
>> "D. Braun" wrote for all to see:
>>
>> >On 7 Nov 1996, Mike Asher wrote:
>> >
>> >> gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > some facts that you have deliberitly chose not to use.At the time of
>> >> > the ban in the US DDT was a known carcinogentic, tumorigentic,and
>> >> > teragentic. In addtion today it is also a known endocrine blocker,
>> >> > these toxins will be the next large battle and in all likelyhood be as
>> >> > large a problem as ozone depletion or global warming.
>> >>
>> >> Sorry to disturb your rhetoric with some facts, but below is a fairly
>> >> comprehensive list of study results on the human effects of DDT.
>> >>
>> >> A summary of the 19 research studies below is:
>> >>
>> >> - Humans exposed to large, longterm doses have had little
>> >> or no symptoms.
>> >> - DDT has not been shown to be a human carcinogen.
>> >> - DDT does not cause chromosomal damage
>> >> - DDT does not cause liver damage
>> >> - Dermal irritation from DDT is minor and presents no health risks
>> >>
>> >> One study noted a possible increase in one lung cancer, but made no
>> >> determination as the study group was exposed to other contributory factors.
>> >> Note that the OSHA guidelines list DDT as class B2, a probable human
>> >> carcinogen. This is given to any substance that has been shown to have
>> >> a positive carcinogenic profile in any other animal species.
>> >
>> >I applaud your effort at posting sources with abstracts.
>> >I do have a question: Did you do a broad literature search (I assume on
>> >your computer) to find these, or are these references pulled from a book
>> >or paper which sought to disprove human health risks associated with DDT?
>>
>> Attack the source of the quotes? That is reaching a tad far, is it
>> not? It is more accepted practice to look at the original articles,
>> or, on Usenet, attack the poster.
>>
>> Anyway, the observant will notice that the quotes are in various
>> formats, some caps, some small letters, some with dates last, some
>> not, and so on. While it is possible that your fear that the papers
>> were from a central compilation "which sought to disprove human health
>> risks associated with DDT" is accurate, it seem improbable that any
>> single source would have references so different in style.
>>
>> >BTW, there were several more studies which you cited below which did link
>> >increased incidence of cancer with DDT exposure, in addition to the "one"
>> >you cite.
>>
>> Really? What were those?
>>
>> [edited]
>
>Didn't read your own references?
"My" references? What references did I produce on this subject?
Hmmmmm,... hint here, you make more sense if you read the name of the
poster before you write.
Except for those who are reluctant to have their name associated with
their opinions, that is.
>MMM... Keyword searches...
Regards, Harold
----
"If environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring
human populations back to sanity, it would probably be
something like AIDS."
- Earth First newsletter, December 1989,
Vol. 17, No. 4, Access to Energy.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Oscar Singer
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 05:47:17 -0800
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> Leonard Evens writes:
>
> > Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>
> > > Leonard Evens writes:
>
> > Let me summarize the point I was trying to make which somehow or other
> > we strayed from entirely. It was claimed that just because an idea was
> > rejected by the scientific coummunity through the peer review process,
> > it didn't mean the idea was false. It was suggeested that the
>
> As I recall the original contention was that when there
> is consensus peer review becomes ineffective in that theories
> that contradict the consensus are dismissed pre-emptorily.
>
> You noted that this had (sort of) happened, and in fact been
> corrected by the process, and hence even in such cases peer review
> could work.
>
> > scientific community might be biased, This is of course possible, but
>
> It is possible for the scientific community to be biased.
> Sociologists of science would contend it always is, the claimed
> strength of science is that the process works to make such biases
> largely irrelevant.
>
> > I tried to point out that it might be rejected simply because it was
> > wrong. I chose the example of relativity, by which I actual meant the
>
> Most hypotheses are rejected because they are wrong.
>
> > theory of special relativity. This brought up what I consider an
> > entirely irrelevant debate. I still think it was an irrelevant debate
> > after having participated in it. The point is how we can possibly tell
>
> Well, sorry, I thought the way you made the point was flawed,
> relativity may be challenged, and challenges are taken more
> seriously than outsiders appreciate.
>
> However, there is a more subtle aspect - which is the difference
> between the fundamental theory (eg special relativity or in IPCCs
> case my instance of the continuity equation), a general theory
> (say General relativity or in IPCCs case the full coupled
> equations of hydrodynamics with radiative transfer), the application
> of such theory (say GPS or in IPCCs case solving a GCM with
> a forcing term), the implication of such theory (say the twin paradox,
> or the Aspect experiment; or in IPCCs case the pattern of regional
> climate change) and the policy implications of the results
> (eg Congress would hopefully not fund a proposal to fly a probe
> to Alpha Centauri under continuous acceleration with flight time
> justified by Newtonian dynamics; or in IPCCs case what to do about
> CO2 emissions in the near term).
>
> > one situation from the other. The answer is we can't and only time
> > will tell. Other things being equal, we have to assume the peer review
> > process is working properly unless there is evidence to the contary. As
> > you yourself said, we really have no other alternatives because all the
> > other alternatives are worse. The other point of view seems to imply
> > that scientific knowledge is simply a matter of opinion and all opinions
> > have equal weight.
>
> Scientific knowledge is not simply a matter of opinion,
> public policy in the direct democracy limit is,
> and even tempered by representative democracy opinion
> still counts for a lot.
>
> > > However, if you want _policy_ to be implemented and be
> > > effective, you must understand how average people will
> > > react to the suggestion and attempted implementation and
> > > why. This is amongst other things, in part, a duty for economists,
> > > and other social scientists. It also behooves people to
> > > remember that Limbaugh, however obnoxious, has far more
> > > devotees than the environmental organisations, and that
> > > the Libertarians in the US consistently poll more than the
> > > Green Party. Whether you like that or not, it is something
> > > that must be taken account of when implementing policies.
> > > Implementing policies people, even only a vocal minority,
> > > strongly objects to, is worse than useless.
>
> > > The question is not whether Limbaugh is more believable than
> > > the IPCC on climate issues, the point is that so many do
> > > believe him.
>
> > Let me point out that the policy on CFCs has been implemented, in fact
> > by the Reagan and Bush administrations. This was done through the
> > usual poltical processes. One important factor was that the chemical
> > industry itself was convinced of the validity of the science, so it did
> > not use its influence to prevent the actions that were taken. Rush
>
> Well, the key moment seems to have been Thatcher listening to
> her science advisor and then nobbling the US. The chemical
> industry did indeed co-operate, see Asher's post on why, and
> think why it was important that they did.
>
> > Limbaugh's opposition has had so far little effect beyond confusing some
> > people who insist of listening to him. The fact that people fall for
> > demogogues is no reason to treat them with respect.
>
> You don't have to respect Limbaugh, you might note the Arizona
> attempt to locally overrule CFC laws, and why (and remembering
> the CFC case _is_ strong); or indeed that people will buy
> smuggled CFCs for their car A/Cs because individually they are
> not concerned enough, precisely because of Limbaugh and others
> arguments.
>
> > As to getting the general public to understand science and to adopt
> > policies that are consistent with its predictions, I have no simple
> > solutions. One serious problem in this country for example is that
> > large numbers of people think `creationism' is on the same level as
> > `evolutions science'. However, it would be utterly foolish for any
> > biologist to agree that creationists might have some valid arguments in
> > order to try to convince them of anything. That strategy is bound to
> > fail because creationists know the truth as they see it and are not
> > going to be converted by rational argument. This is a fact no matter
> > how many creationists there are.
>
> But abandoning the debate is even worse. The one thing you can't
> do is throw your hands in the air and declare that people are beyond
> convincing and should just be ignored. That is something many
> environmentalists already do in excess - writing off the opposition
> as irredeemable or malicious. Counterproductive to say the least.
>
> > Instead of lecturing me about how best to convince people that climate
> > change is a real possibility and should be taken seriously, why don't
> > you use your obvious superior debating techniques to convince all those
> > libertarians out there (i.e., all 2 or 3% or them) that they should take
> > the issue seriously. You have been known to suggest that climate
> > change is indeed a real possibility. But you don't spend very much
> > time arguing that point.
>
> Heh. You want me to become evangelical on an issue where I think
> there are significant caveats still? I happily argue with
> libertarians, even more so on other newsgroups where I have
> sharper disagreements with some of their policies. Nor am I
> egotistical to think my debating techniques are "superior".
> My actions and reactions on newsgroups are "local", not
> motivated by a "global" concern (in the logical, not physical
> sense).
>
> > I hope I am not right since I consider the Green Party basically
> > irrelevant to any effective political change tied to environmental
> > issues of importance, but I fear you may be proved wrong in the current
> > election.
>
> Hmm, I think I predicted the US election quite accurately.
> Nader got 3% in California I believe, might have been what
> nudged Clinton below the 50% "mandate" mark.
> European Green Parties have had some impact, might have more
> if the extreme right continues to co-opt them.
> Like the libertarians their main impact though comes
> from pulling the main stream parties policies in their
> direction, even if only by a little bit, well, that and
> getting their old-boys into the administrative network
> where decisions actually get made.
>
> > Finally, let me point out that it is not a matter of what I want. I
> > will be dead before any significant climate change occurs. It is also
> > not my personal responsibility to effect changes in public policy and if
> > those changes don't get made, it won't be my fault. Indeed, since you
> > seem so much better at these things than I am, why don't you try to
> > accomplish something along these lines?
>
> How do you know I don't? I'm far more likely to affect
> any serious change by personal contact with people who
> make direct decisions.
> As for my net.postings, I think I've been quite explicit
> in my rationales for most of my positions and reasoning,
> including when I'm less than wholeheartedly in favour
> or against some policies.
>
> * Steinn Sigurdsson IoA, Cambridge *
> * steinn@ast.cam.ac.uk "standard disclaimer" *
> * "The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his *
> * revolution is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without *
> * radical change. Telling people that paradise can be attained without *
> * revolution is treason of the vilest kind." -- H.S. 1993 *
Dark side of peer review. Lets have Netscape review the Explorer or IBM
review Compaq
and visa versa. Add Ford reviewing Toyota and visa versa. Peer review
in most cases is by competitors who know most about a subject area.
Competitors will mock each other or attempt to plagiarize or steal the
new information.
Read the introduction to my book now online for "The Revolution in the
Understanding of Weather" at http://www.weather.org
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:11:33 GMT
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 15:50:45 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Nov 1996 07:51:42 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>To carry through for you, if we take both your supposition and mine as
>>true it seems evident that the economic system is a secondary concern.
>>What is a primary concern is a manner of conducting government which
>>minimizes corruption. Since we find that corruption can be most
>>effectively carried out by those with power and wealth, as a society
>>it seems we would benefit most by restricting the concentration of
>>power and wealth. The unspoken lack of constraint on accummulation of
>>wealth in capitalism is apparently in conflict with the elimination of
>>corruption.
I would agree with your premise that power is where we are likely to
find corruption, but disagree that restricting private wealth we will
have any effect.
There are a couple of reasons for this, the first is that, with a
government powerful enough to take the earnings of its citizens, we
would invite corruption of those officials who are entrusted with this
enormous power. Citizens rightly feel an interest in the wealth they
have accumulated, and would view the necessary bribery of these
officials as simply a cruder form of taxation. This has been the
experience of governments around the world who have adopted the
policies you appear to be recommending.
A second comment I would advance is that, if your fear is that of
power corrupting, you are looking in the wrong place, in my
estimation. Private wealth in the US is dwarfed by public wealth.
Since wealth is power, you need to look at the government as the
probable source of corruption. A person with a billion dollars in
wealth is a rare being, but with a budget exceeding 1.5 Trillion
dollars, a government official with a billion dollars to spend is
pretty common.
>Corruption comes from corruptible government officials - they can be
>corrupted with money, with power, with sex, or other enticements.
>While extremely wealthy people are certainly more capable of creating
>corruption than poor people, it is the nature of the government and
>the people within it that is more important. The latter is a matter of
>character and culture.
>
>Furthermore, the greatest opportunity for money-based corruption comes
>when people's individual interest is threatened. If you have a
>governmental system designed to prevent accumulation of wealth, that
>system itself will become corrupt.
>
>In the USSR it was illegal to accumulate wealth, and one would hardly
>call it a non-corrupt society. The level of corruption there exceeded
>by far the corresponding level in the US.
>
>Unfortunately, it appears that to run a technological society (or any
>large society) requires significant disparities in power - whether
>that power be manifested as wealth, political power, or criminal
>power. So a quest to eliminate corruption by eliminating
>concentrations of power, as you suggest, is doomed to fail.
I do not agree with this either. I would argue that technology serves
to diffuse power among the citizens. Examining most per-technological
societies (taking the advent of the "Industrial Revolution" as the
start of modern technology. I assume we are not talking of bows and
arrows as technology), we find that they are dominated, even to the
extent of life-or-death power, by very small groups, nobility or
priesthood. This is no longer the case, and as we move beyond the
Industrial Revolution to the Information Age, I expect this to change
even more.
From a historical perspective, we observe that technology frees people
both politically, and economically.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"However energetically society in general may strive to make all the
citizens equal and alike, the personal pride of each individual will
always make him try to escape from the common level, and he will form
some inequality somewhere to his own profit."
---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3,
ch. 13 (1840).
Subject: Re: Libertarian Environmental Policy
From: bashford@psnw.com (Crash)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:37:09 GMT
Yep, EandorY wrote on Sun, 03 Nov 1996
00:03:37 -0800 about:
Re: Libertarian Environmental Policy
>Crash wrote:
>> Yep, msimon@rworld.com (M Simon) wrote on Sun, 20 Oct:
>> >bashford@psnw.com (Crash) wrote:
>> >>>Karen McFarlin wrote:
>> >>>>Libertarianism has no discernable environmental policy.
>> >>BINGO!
[....]
>> >>You guys want to make it legal to pollute? You guys then
>> >>want to "sell off" public lands such as our National
>> >>Forests and National Parks to the Rich Boys? What is wrong
>> >>with this picture?
>>
>> M Simon wrote:
>> >I got news for you. The National forest is already being sold
>> >off and you are not getting a fair price. So much for the
>> >government protecting the environment.
>>
Crash:
>> See what I mean? (source please) You guys don't know what
>> you are talking about. The National Forrest lands are being
>> sold off? (source please)
EandorY:
>So you deny that any National Forests are being clear-cut? Obviously a
>dittohead parrot, or publikly edukated tuffguy!
>You require posts for this?? >Really???
Can't you read, dumb ass? I said "lands". And since
when is selling trees selling a National Forest?
Is selling wheat selling the farm?
>> (Your argument is two wrongs make a right?)
>No, the argument is that such clearcutting is not economically feasible
>without federal subsidization.
Sorry pal, that is NOT an argument, that is an unsupported opinion.
EandorY continues:
> Free enterprise = standing old growth in the Pacific Northwest.
Sorry pal, that is NOT an argument, that is a flat lie. You must
live back east or something. I've seen the PNW, miles of monoculture
treefarms the size of telephone poles.
> Your argument is either "Old growth is not
>being clear-cut" (as you say here) or "It is being clear-cut, but it's
>public multiple-use land, and it must be right because the definition
>of right is: whatever the government wants to do" (as you say later in
>the post).
Wrong pal. My argument is that a National Forest is on average,
in FAR better condition as a forest, than a treefarm is. Your
ASSertations can ONLY be from city slicker who has never seen
the difference.
>> >Read the Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin (a socialist)
>> >and then apply that logic to everything the government owns.
>>
Crash:
>> See what I mean? Garrett Hardin is a die hard capitalist in favor of
>> more privatization.
EandorY:
>This assertion is so ridiculous that it clearly indicates that you couldn't
>have possibly read any of Hardin's work,
You know EandorY, if you are going to play with the Big Boys, you
really are going to have to learn to do more than shove a
trumpet up your ass and fart loudly.
> or have even the slightest
>understanding of what you are saying. Hardin is a die-hard socialist who
>wants to coerce the world's population into zero growth. Forced abortions,
>sneaking contraceptives into the water, and other stuff.
Then why does he have a sub-chapter titled "The Soviet State: The
Finale of a Delusion"? (1993, p215) Why does he bad-mouth Marx
constantly as the world's worst growthmaniac? You dumbass, his
1968 "Tragedy of the Commons", he explains (1993, p216) is DISPROVING
Marx's; "From each according to his abilities, to each...." and is
in fact describing a publication by William Forster Lloyd in 1833.
>> There is a MAJOR difference between Hardin's
>> "commons" (no ownership) and public ownership and stewardship.
>Which is ... ?
Duh. Can you read? One is owned and managed for the long-term, one is
unowned and unmanaged. Why don't you pick up a Forest (Land
Management) Plan some time. It will take two hands to lift.
>> Apples and oranges. I suggest you read it more carefully.
>I suggest you read it, period.
No EandorY, a tuba would sound worse than your trumpet.
>> The
>> proof? Look at the private tree farms and compare those with National
>> Forests.
>Go to Maine or the southeastern US, and look at the private forests.
I have. In the SE, treefarm trees grow as big as telephone poles (25
years) before they are cut. In Main, the real (private) forests are
being turned into housing and malls at a rapid rate. Simple rule of
common sense: even those that want to save their private forests
either sell out of financial nessecity, or they die. Like duh.
>> One is a farm, one is a forest. Which is more
>> environmentally balanced?
>The private forests. Your introduction of tree farms is an obvious
>introduction of a strawman. Use private forests to compare to National
>Forests, not private tree farms.
Laughing..... What is a private forest? About 100 acres? The
National Forest an hour up the road is six million acres. And it
has Yosemite to the north, and Sequoia National Park to the south.
You Libertarian whackos want to privatize those too.
>BTW, the use of private tree farms reduces the pressure to cut old-growth
>forests. That's good, isn't it?
Yep.
> Oh, I forgot, you dogmatically deny that
>old growth on National Forest land is being clear cut,
Nope. It's happening right up the road, why would say something
like that? See, your you guys problem is; all you have are
strawmen to swing at. You cannot react to my words. You have
to make them up.
> National Forest land is being clear cut, because "bad stuff
>couldn't possibly happen under gentle ol' Uncle Sam's watchful eye".
You are full of shit. I never thought that nor anything close
for an instant. Don't you have any real arguments? Only
strawmen? You must be a dittohead parrot too, eh?
>> A monoculture farm, or a National Forest
>> where planting monocultures is illegal and where wildlife and
>> fisheries are considered major resources?
>Actually, the Forest Service and Parks Dept. routinely plant monocultures.
>Which law makes this illegal?
Each individual Forest Plan. Why don't you read one?
> BTW, the federal gov't pays people to poison
>furry critters like gophers and coyotes (and unfortunately, bald eagles and
>black-footed ferrets). I guess they're not considered major resources?
Gophers and coyotes in some areas are considered pests. The others
are secondary and tertiary kills. If you don't like it, I suggest
you get in on your next Forest Plan public hearing. You won't
have that opportunity if they are privatized.
>And you should know that several private forests sell hunting and fishing
>licenses on their lands, making wildlife a major *profitable* resource.
"Several" is right. As in "a few". Just make sure you obey
ALL the signs, and ALL the rules, and don't go over the fence.
NO CAMPING HERE NO FIRES NO SWIMMING KEEP OUT PAY HERE
or whatever the whim of the owner may be. All the freedom you
can rent or buy. A Libertarian's World!
>> Simple economics: one system values only profit, the other
>> values "multiple use", including the common good and environment.
>Ah yes, the clearly definable and universally understood "common good".
If you ever took Econ 101, you would be less confused. May I suggest
Garrett Hardin? Good reading for rednecks and hyper-capitalists.
>Yes, simple economics: if I can influence my Congressman to commit land
>to my particular multiple use (ranching, logging, mining, etc.), than
>I can gain significant advantage over my competitors, and not have to worry
>about the devaluation of the land when I finish with it.
That is why that use (logging, grazing, etc) is HIGHLY regulated
by the owners (us). I'm not sure if you even know what kind of
logging goes on in National Forests, but it sure as hell is NOT
the kind of clearcutting (shave that mountain!) that goes on in
treefarming.
The problem with you city slickers is, you hear bitching and moaning
by environmentalists about National Forests all the time, and assume
they are worse than the treefarms. NOT! The reason you hear bitching
and moaning is because we are MANAGING that land with our voice. We
have no say, nor concern what goes on in private treefarming. The
only cure is for you get up there and LOOK. Take a map so you can
see which is private and which is USNF land.
--Doug
"Selective cut" chosen for oldgrowth forest. Loggers Party!!!
Subject: Re: Libertarian Environmental Policy
From: bashford@psnw.com (Crash)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:37:14 GMT
cont. from prev. pst
Yep, EandorY wrote on Sun, 03 Nov 1996
00:03:37 -0800 about:
Re: Libertarian Environmental Policy
>Crash wrote:
>> CC: msimon@rworld.com, karen@snowcrest.net and Usenet.
>> Yep, msimon@rworld.com (M Simon) wrote on Sun, 20 Oct 1996 01:54:11
>> Re: Libertarian Environmental Policy
>> >bashford@psnw.com (Crash) wrote:
>> >>>Karen McFarlin wrote:
>> >>>>Libertarianism has no discernable environmental policy.
>> >>BINGO!
>>
Crash:
>> >>You guys want to make it legal to pollute? You guys then
>> >>want to "sell off" public lands such as our National
>> >>Forests and National Parks to the Rich Boys? What is wrong
>> >>with this picture?
[no denial]
RE: "forest v. "treefarm:"
Crash Bashford:
>> Simple economics: one system values only profit, the other
>> values "multiple use", including the common good and environment.
>> Each system will tend to deliver only what it values.
>> Simple economics.
>>
>> Bashford:
>> >>But, besides attracting anti-environmentalists like flies,
>> >>in fact the Libertarian Party is extremely anti-environmental.
>> >>This is not to say that they consider themselves to be
>> >>anti-environmental, its just that this is what your policies are.
>>
>> >>The root reason for this, is that in fact, you guys just don't
>> >>give a damn enough about the environment to understand the
>> >>issues.
>>
>> This is a key. You wildly inject broad philosophy into areas where
>> you have no understanding of the system functions. So you wildly
>> assume the problems (magically?) fit your armchair postulating.
>This isn't a key, this is a wild-eyed, broad ad hominem.
I see only two choices: You are ignorant and do the above,
or you are anti-environmental. Do you have a third choice?
> And how come
>you are responding to your own assertions as if they were new ideas from
>other parties? The attribution system shows that both sets of statements
>above were your own!
Oh boy. Like wow. Cheap thrills?
>> What is logical? Not Ayn Rand, -- not when science is available.
>> What is unreasonable? Choosing Rand over unexamined science and
>> inserting her into poorly understood issues. Objective? Not!
>You have yet to show any science, logic, or reason.
Let's put it this way, in the previous post, I falsified
everything you said. All you did was swing at your own
utterly unsupported fears.
>> >>Your only concern is is a paranoid fear. You said:
>> >>- huge, unaccountable government around, [...]
>> >>- with: access to the people with guns and bombs and jail cells who
>> >>- can tell you and me how to live and what to do.
>>
>> This fear seems to override any environmental concerns.
>This is apparently universal, since the people of the USSR and Eastern
>Block countries seemed to have placed the environment dead last behind
>their fear of their unaccountable governments.
If that is a response, I fail to see it. Muddy. Are you suggesting
that most Americans associate government with jail cells?
>Shouldn't it? Shouldn't fear for your life and liberty override Bashford's
>"right" to set 12 foot bonfires in National Forests (paraphrasing Doug's
>previous arguments)?
If your fear of the American government were based on anything
more than paranoid delusions, then yes, perhaps.
>> >> So you blindly inject your "philosophy" into all issues,
>> >>and consider the matter dealt with. In this case, your so-called
>> >>solution is to let the (Rand's) mythical free market deal with it.
>>
>> >>The problem here of course, is that economics can NOT deal with
>> >>environmental degradation.
>Another Hardin-derivative assertion. Which is easily refuted ...
Only by citing anecdotal exceptions to the rule. So?
Gimme some statistics. WHAT?!? You have none? Duh.
>> >>Why not? If you guys had half an
>> >>understanding of economics, you would not find the term: "negative
>> >>economic externality" a foreign term.
>... by pointing out that economists were the people responsible for the
>discovery, definition, and investigation of externalities, including
>negative externalities. The inclusion of the word "economic" is redundant:
>what other externalities are there?
Negative social externalities for one. TV advertising comes to mind,
as do some of the effects of "WANTED: unemployment" by the Fed.
Or the attempted privatization and destruction of the common good.
>Hardin spends an entire chapter in one book discussing the "problems" with
>economic approaches to environmental issues, brings up the issue of
>externalities without recognizing that the concept comes from the study of
>economic science, and finally resorts to dismissing economists' work with a
>*poem* and an ad hominem based on the source of economists' income.
Ironic, perhaps. However, negative economic externalities are
real, not dependent on a concept.
>> >>Since environmental degradation
>> >>is one type of "negative economic externality", it would be silly
>> >>to blindly attempt to use market forces to fix it, wouldn't it?
>Of course. That is what *laws* are for. That is what Coase theorized.
>Once the laws are in place, the market forces take care of it quite
>effectively. Look up sulfur dioxide emissions credits, and get back to
>us.
Don't need to. Pollution credits only work if pollution is
REGULATED. Get it? You guys wanna make pollution legal.
>BTW, not all environmental degradation is due to externalities. Let's
>try subsidization of automobiles, farming, logging, mining, and grazing,
>and child-rearing, all by guess-who? That's right: government.
Yep.
>> >>Like duh. So your policy sucks. Too bad you guys are so dogmatic to
>> >>your (Ayn Rand) cult, or you would plainly see this, and not even
>> >>attempt to debate such a silly issue.
>(1) It's not a silly issue. Funny that you would think so.
You wanting to legalize pollution is a silly issue. That is the
polite word.
>(2) Learning a new phrase does not mean that you understand it. You obviously
>cannot produce a definition for "negative economic [sic] externality", or
>rationally discuss the methods suggested to correct them.
Pull the trumpet out guy. Say something I can respond to.
All you did was mention pollution credits which are DEPENDENT
on regulation. You want to talk about Rational? Then don't
self-falsify.
>(3) What does Ayn Rand have to do with this? Have you got some sort
>of schoolboy crush on her, that you must inject her into every post,
I've never heard anybody deny that Libertarianism is nothing more
that the political arm of her so-called "Objectivist" cult.
>but deny your puppy love feelings for her? Did your kindy-garten install
[further Limbaughtomyville styled humor deleted]
>> >Of course economics can fix the environment. In the one African
>> >country where the elephants have been privatized there are an
>> >abundance of elephants. >M. Simon
>> >Libertarian Candidate for Winnebago County Board
>>
>> Yes, yes, there are cases where economics have performed admirably,
>> and you site one of the better known. So let's do that where we can.
>> But to make the leap of faith; "one worked, so they will all work", is
>> illogical.
>Likewise, the leap of dogma: "One worked, so it must not be tried anywhere else."
You are such a silly goose. I just said the opposite, but
you can't deal with MY words, can you?
>> One reason is; it IGNORES the above economic facts.
>Which "facts"? You didn't present any!
Fact: economics CANNOT deal with negative economic externalities.
Almost by definition.
>> It
>> IGNORES history: Except for the US military, nearly ALL Superfund
>> toxic sites are on PRIVATE land. As you know, that is a huge chunk
>> of clean land.
>Good point! PRIVATE land is a huge chunk of *clean* land! Contradictory
>to your other statement, but perhaps you will let us choose which one
>to keep?
You'd better learn to read: "nearly ALL Superfund
toxic sites are on PRIVATE land". Should I make my sentences
shorter for you? Fewer commas, more periods??
>BTW, Superfund sites are chosen for their political value to federal
>politicians, not for their technical aspects. Do you know how they are
>chosen?
Nope.
>> I believe with clear facts and logic we have shown that
>> Karen McFarlin's perception is right on the money:
>> >>>>Libertarianism has no discernable environmental policy.
>> At least nothing of logical validity.
>> --Doug
>>
>> Re: In a Libertarian world, Earth is scraped bare for the dollar
>> "In a Libertarian world, the right to pollute can be
>> purchased by the Rich Boys. And why not?"
>> --- Libertarian Lazarus.Long, 31 Aug 96 ---
>>
>You believe that "you", not "we", have made such headway. The attributes show that
>you are agreeing with yourself, since
>> is Crash,
>> > is M. Simon, who introduced the elephant anecdote
>> >> is also Crash,
>> >>> is "some libertarian", and
>> >>>> is McFarlin, who contributed an assertion, but no support
chuckling... small victories for small people. Sorry
if I confused you.
>What are the facts to which you keep refering? Is this one of your "facts":
>> >>The problem here of course, is that economics can NOT deal with
>> >>environmental degradation.
>This can be disputed with your own words:
>> Yes, yes, there are cases where economics have performed admirably,
Your point? You equate general environmental degradation with
anecdotal "cases"? You're grabbing at straws.
>Perhaps this is a "fact":
>> See what I mean? Garrett Hardin is a die hard capitalist in favor of
>> more privatization.
Yep. He sure aint the socialist that was claimed. Want more Hardin
quotes? He hates socialism as "lovely words that turn out to be
little more than window dressing for brutal and inefficient
command-and-control governments." (ibid p266)
>Perhaps this is a "fact":
>> There is a MAJOR difference between Hardin's
>> "commons" (no ownership) and public ownership and stewardship.
>> Apples and oranges. I suggest you read it more carefully. The
>> proof? Look at the private tree farms and compare those with National
>> Forests.
>Nevermind the obvious strawman of introducing a tree farm for comparison,
Nope. I doubt you would know the difference even if you were in one.
What? You expect a few chickens and pigs among the trees?
>how does the difference between a tree farm and a National Forest prove
>a major difference between a commons and public ownership and stewardship?
My point was, It was insinuated that a National Forest was a commons.
It ain't. It is owned by vested interests (the public). By
definition, that is NOT a commons.
>A tree farm is neither a commons (no ownership) nor publicly owned and
>stewarded. *YOU* are the one comparing bananas and oranges to show the
>difference between apples and oranges.
Nope. My point was, private ownership turns forests into
monoculture treefarms. My point? That is NOT environmental
protection.
>A National Forest is in fact a commons.
Bullshit. Your words: "a commons (no ownership)"
> Why? Your own words:
> "Simple economics: one system values only profit, the other
> values "multiple use", including the common good and environment."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you own a dictionary asshole?
>See the equality?
Ya, YOU are equivocating. A cheap rhetorical trick.
> "Commons" = multiple use = the **common good** and
>the environment. You are the one who needs to review the "Tragedy of
>the Commons" essay. The major theme is that a scarce resource (like
>land, or a *forest*) that is used by many people will inevitably be
>used up past the point of utility because each individual user has
>no incentive to conserve the resource.
Partly true. The fallacy is your attempting to equivocate "is used by
many people" with "no ownership, nor management", which does NOT
describe public *ownership*.
> Each individual gets his or
>her gain (a cow, mine products, logs, a deer, a 12-foot bonfire),
>while the cost (degradation) is shared equally by all. If your gain
>is 1, but your cost is 1 divided by the number of users, your net
>gain makes it worth *your* while to use the land. The aggegate net gain
>of all users, is negative. >Eric
True. And that is why Hardin is in favor of more ownership of
the commons. The only commons I can think of today is the sea.
So, as you can see, on every point you been shown to be
wanting, or false.
In the future, I hope you will attempt to respond to my words,
or I will NOT respond to your tedious strawmen and unsupported
opinions, and bag of cheap tricks.
--Doug
--
insert:
>. I think the line of argument here was over whether the human
>race faces resource limitations.. and I don't think the human
>race is likely to last trillions of years no matter what happens.
Trillions of years?
I'm not sure you understand the mathematics of exponential growth.
Consumption of non-renewable natural resources is growing
exponentially. This consumption is NOT linked to population growth.
Any economist will tell you that Man's natural thirst for wealth is
unquenchable.
Trillions of years?
... "Our economy isn't growing fast enough!" - Our politicians.
* Sustained economic growth is impossible because it is tied to
* physical consumption (wealth). Why impossible?? 5% annual growth
* in the consumption of 2 grams of any substance will become a "hole"
* with a mass of 800 trillion planet earths in only 2,000 years.
* Thus long term economic growth is impossible. This is but one
* of many fallacies in ALL orthodox economic foundations. - G. Hardin
800 trillion planet earths??? Simple arithmetic.
Of course, the typical response to this is that perhaps most
of the economy is not dependent on consumption. That is like
saying since only 3% of the economy is agriculture, the economy
is not dependent on it.
The link between physical consumption and wealth is unbreakable,
but not necessarily linear. For example the Microsoft whiz kids
are in a low-consumption industry that produces great wealth.
However, the expression of their wealth is mansions, caviar, race
cars and jet-setting. That is the link that cannot be broken.
However, I will change my opinion if a single society can be
named that drastically increased standard of living without
drastically increased consumption.
800 trillion planet earths???
- What we desire is to increase per capita wealth and freedom,
- but we don't care a damn about "stimulating the economy", nor
- so-called "economic growth".
- Growthmania kills what it promises. Ecology can deliver it.
-- Doug bashford@psnw.com
Science, Ecology, Economics, Environment, and Politics (title)
http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/e-index.html
Subject: U.S. Environmental Compliance Professionals
From: rrelsevier@aol.com
Date: 8 Nov 1996 16:01:12 GMT
Visit Elsevier Science Inc.'s new Enviroinfo Research Service page
(http://members.aol.com/elsevierhr/index.htm) and enter a drawing for a
free copy of one of the following Elsevier environmental compliance
publications:
*CAA Regulations and Keyword Index, 1996 Edition (valued at $449, this
four-volume reference includes the full text of 40 CFR Parts 50-82, 88,
and 93)
*RCRA Regulations and Keyword Index, 1996 Edition (normally sold for $149,
this index includes the full text of 40 CFR Parts 148, 260-266, 268,
270-273, and 279-282)
*RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions: A Guide to Compliance, 1996 Edition (a
$100 value, this manual includes the text of the LDR regulations and
in-depth discussion and guidance on related issues)
*Transporting Hazardous Wastes and Other Hazardous Materials: A Guide to
DOT Regulations (usually available for $75, this manual integrates EPA and
DOT requirements for transporting hazardous wastes and provides guidance
on how to package, mark, label, and placard wastes for shipment)
At the site, you can also register for Elsevier's free Compliance Alert
service, which will help you stay current with EPA regulations related to
RCRA, CERCLA, EPCRA, CAA, and PCBs.
http://members.aol.com/elsevierhr/index.htm
Subject: Re: Major problem with western 'lifestyle'
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:43:08 GMT
alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) wrote for all to see:
>On Thu, 07 Nov 1996 23:39:46 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
>Brashears) wrote:
>
>
>>>Then please explain how if everybody achieved "our" lifestyle that it
>>>would be sustainable. I'll listen.
>>
>>In large part, because "our" lifestyle will change. I think that,
>>given free markets and government regulation to ensure safety and
>>vigorous competition, the rest of the world can live a life of
>>security and relative comfort comparable to the US. After all, people
>>make resources.
>
>For the umpteenth time, people don't "make" resources. They merely
>convert existing resources into forms that are more useful to human
>beings.
I would tend to think of this as a semantic "distinction without a
difference". To a butterfly, for example, a bubbling pool of crude
oil is not a resource. To me, or any human, it is. There are many
resources available for sale by the carload today that were not even
in existence a few decades ago, it is silly to say the we "converted"
them, and did not "make" them. But I will go along with your semantic
distinction, because it does not make a difference!
People convert resources, which were less useful, to resources which
are useful! OK?
>This is what inspires Rush Limbaugh says things like "the
>most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut
>it down."
I really think that there are a lot of people overly concerned with
Rush Limbaugh. I think you should spend more time at other pursuits,
and less time listening to day time talk show hosts. I can't believe
that this obsession with talk show hosts is healthy. But, I am
gainfully employed, and have not the time, so how would I know? Maybe
you do get some satisfaction from the experience.
One poster (was it you?) became so frothy about Limbaugh that I was
extremely impressed and inspired to try to listen during lunch.
However, when I turned my radio from NPR to search I could not find
him. When I asked a colleague where I could listen, I was informed
there is no local station here which carries him.
So the upshot is, you are in error if you think I am "inspired" by
Limbaugh. Maybe he reads my posts?
>Everything used by Man originated from nature at some
>point, and we cannot increase the *physical* mass of material we
>work with on Earth (nor would we need to with ZPG).
>
>As long as economists continue to pretend that we are actually
>creating something new when we manipulate a resource, the asinine
>concept of "infinite substitution" will linger.
Maybe you could give us some evidence that humans cannot continue to
substitute one product for another, instead of simply getting al
bummed out about it? I suspect you understand that people really can
continue to substitute (I balk at "infinite" anything) for many items.
Regards, Harold
-------
"The question that will decide our destiny is not whether we
shall expand into space. It is: shall we be one species or a
million? A million species will not exhaust the ecological
niches that are awaiting the arrival of intelligence."
---Freeman Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe", pt. 1, ch. 21 (1979).