Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:12:21 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: jw wrote:
: > (Bruce Scott TOK ) writes:
: > >Not so fast. Many people have woke up to the fact that our present
: > >system is one in which people have to work twice as long and twice as
: > >hard to attain the standard of living their parents did,
: >
: > Twice? No, most of them do not work 80 hours a week.
: > Some do, but some of the parents did.
: > And their standard of living is much higher.
: > They live several years longer, on the average,
: > than the parent generation. Did the parents have the Internet?
: > VCRs? Cellular phones? FAXes? Could they afford as
: > much air flight? What percent of the parents'
: > generation went to college? The parents paid as much
: > for a calculator as the children pay for a PC,
: > more powerful than the mainframes of the parents'
: > generation. How much would the parents' gasguzzler be
: > worth now - except possibly as an antique? The parents' air
: > and water were more polluted. Etc. etc. Life is improving,
: > whether people notice it or not.
: Good points, all. Also we might note that environmentalists traditionally
: want us to work harder and lower our standard of living. It is a basic
: tenet of environmentalism.
Quotes here. No-one says this except you guys parroting the
"enviro-nazi" nonsense.
Address the fact that the number of person-hours required to keep a home
has skyrocketed in the US over the last 3 to 4 decades.
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Southern Dependency
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:36:36 GMT
jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: To draw this conclusion, one must vastly exaggerate the
: importance of natural resources.
: The mineral resources of the third, or underdeveloped,
: or backward, or poor, world, were given to it by the
: advanced West - which found the minerals, found
: the proper ways of extracting them, and found
: profitable uses for them.
: It is clear, then, who depended
: in whom. Wrt countries like Zaire, this is still
: quite true; but countries like India and Indonesia
: are climbing up from backwardness. They can
: more properly be called parts of the *developing*
: world now. The majority of the world's population
: lives in such countries.
If I assume for purposes of argument that you are totally right...
Why, then, does their land and reseources not belong to them (I mean the
people, not the strongmen who get their insertion and support from
outside interests) now that they know how to extract the materials and
what they can do with them?
--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott, Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de
Remember John Hron: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hron-john/
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem wi
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 10:45:19 GMT
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) writes:
> Poehler, a retired senior scientist with decades of work in the
> space industry, fears the rocket will explode, the concussion will
> vaporize some of the nuclear fuel, and winds from the ocean will
> spread a potentially cancer-causing radioactive mist over Brevard
> County and other parts of Florida.
That is odd since such a nuclear thermal power source is a massive
piece of metal. To crack open a thick piece of metal you need a
concentrated explosion and not something like the challenger accident,
an impressive fireball with lots of burning fuel. The rocket would
have to detonate like a kilo of plastique explosive right on the
nuclear powersource. Its fuel simply cant detonate in such a way, its
a chemical impossibility.
> NASA scientists say yes, Pohler's scenario would be devastating -
> but it won't happen.
How could it ever happen?
> The first time, a navigational satellite performed as designed, and
> the spacecraft burned up on re-entry, releasing radioactive vapors
> over the Indian Ocean in April1964.
> After that accident, the protective coverings around the plutonium
> dioxide were redesigned, and since then no plutonium has been
> released.
> The second time, a radioactive heat source was retrieved intact
> after a meteorological craft failed in May1968.
> And finally, when the Apollo13 moon mission was aborted, the
> radioactive heat source aboard the craft fell undamaged deep into
> the Pacific Ocean, where it remains.
It can survive reentering at orbital speed, how could a break up of
the rocket destroy it?
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Rally against Mitsubishi
From: Jonathan_Layburn@discovery.umeres.maine.edu, William_Antell@discovery.umeres.maine.edu, Jonathan_Layburn@discovery.umeres.maine.edu (Jonathan Layburn)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 03:52:12 -0500
Teamwork...Let's get to work!!!
The rainforest helps to oxygenate our atmosphere, regulate world
climates, provide food, and shelters many tribes of primitive peoples
with unique cultures. It also contains over half of the Earth's unique
animal and plant species, some of which may help provide cures for
afflictions such as AIDS, Arthritis and Cancer.
This natural resource is being destroyed by the reprehensible
Mitsubishi Corporation to provide material for paper, plywood and
disposable chopsticks.
Jonathan Luman is organizing a protest against Mitsubishi and asks for
your help.
Mission: Help the teenage environmental group,
Defenders Of The Rainforest,
rally against Mitsubishi Co. and
Voice your anger about Mitsubishi's
role in the deforestation of rainforests.
When: This Saturday, November 16, 1996
11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Where: Gallo Mitsubishi
70A Gold Star BLVD.
Worcester, MA
WANTED: Students and Drivers
Contact:
Jonathan Layburn via:
First Class or
Phone: #581-7539
Teamwork...Let's get to work!!!
Subject: Re: CFCs ...and the THEORY of Ozone Depletion
From: Leonard Evens
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 06:05:54 -0600
Bob Scaringe wrote:
>
> On 8 Nov 1996 14:58:19 GMT, bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
> wrote:
>
> >Dave (wingnut@sprintmail.com) wrote:
> >: Leonard -
> >: Quite simply the whole Montreal Protocol on CFC's is a sham.
> >
> >: 4. The new stuff has 2 atoms of chlorine, which through a process
> >: changes O3 (ozone) to O2, free oxygen.
> >: The old stuff had 3 atoms. WOW, a 33% drop.
> >
> > Dave, a small change in chemical structure can make a large change
> >in chemical action. In this case, the small change causes HCFC to
> >break down BEFORE it reaches the ozone layer, so its chlorine is not
> >released where it will damage it. CFC delivered the chlorine directly
> >to the ozone layer, because it is so resiliant that it basically does
> >not break down into its constituent elements until it encounters the
> >unfiltered sunlight near the top of our much-needed ozone layer.
> >
> > In an even more critical chemical system, DNA, it is only a tiny
> >(less than 1%, I believe) difference that distinguishes human DNA
> >from chimpanzee DNA. A small difference can produce a big effect.
> >Please study the issue more thoroughly.
> >
> > As for the increase in price - well, maybe if the chemical companies
> >had begun their sliding two-year research program back in the mid-70's
> >when they should have, we would not be paying the big bucks now.
> >
> > Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
>
> The real truth about the depletion of the ozone by chlorides and
> bromides is that it is just a theory by two professors from Calif.
> (Rowland-Molina theory). Acutally one volcano dumps more Cl and Br
> into the atmoshphere that all the CFC's ever made. To make it
> worse, the HFC's (zero Ozone Depletion) provide lower performance so
> you use more energy and make more emmisions (Nox, CO,...) producing
> the energy.
> >
This particular posting seems to be a dragon with many heads. It
appeared last week when Paul Dietz and others completely demolished
the basic argument. Volcanic halides do not make it to the
stratosphere because they are two reactive. CFCs do because they
are very stable. In the stratosphere they are decomposed by ultraviolet
radiation. As to the alleged increased pollution from using HFCs,
could you give a reference in the peer reviewed scientific or
engineering literature? I happen to own a 1994 car with CFC
refrigerant and it works just fine. I have no evidence that there is
any significant increase in pollution.
The issue of volcanic sources of Chlorine is thoroughly explored in
Robert Parson's FAQ. Mr. Bruhns ought to read that and stop repeating
non-scientific propaganda he has been fed.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 03:20:19 GMT
cpollard@csn.net (Chris Pollard) wrote:
>
>jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: _Limits to Growth_ predicted, in 1972, that the
>: world would run
>: --out of gold by 1981.
>: --out of mercury by 1985.
>: --out of tin by 1987.
>: --out of zinc by 1990.
>: --out of oil by 1992.
>: --out of copper by 1993.
>: --out of lead by 1993.
>: --out of natural gas by 1993.
>Yes and a lot of people read the book and changed the way they did things
>- so it might have happened if they didn't write the book!
Nice try, Chris, but no cigar. Use of all of those materials continued
upward throughout the period. Of course some of the tin we're using
today was dug in Cornwall in pre-Roman times, which you wonder what
was going on at the Club of Rome when they convinced themselves they
were inventing recycling.
A few of the things the Meadowses recommended were tried: regulations
forbidding this, laws forbidding that, and they fortunately had little
effect. The effect they did have was bad: it caused great expense to
the law-abiding, and had no effect on those outside the law.
But while the dogs were barking the caravan moved on. The major
developments of industrial society kept going. As the ever more
efficent use of power, the production of greater value added from less
and less material, mass production on increasing scale, and
international sharing of markets for both production and consumption
all progressed, literacy spread; fertility rates dropped; the
percentage of the human race living in poverty declined steadily.
In 1969-71 the human race turned a corner as the percentage rate of
increase slowed for the first time in ten thousand years. A teen-age
generation later, in 1986-90, the actual numerical of births dropped.
This means that about four years from now the number of new mothers in
the world will start to drop -- year after year after year. A few
years after that the total number of mothers will start to drop. This
is not a guess: it is a count of people already born and now in their
early child-bearing years.
These things are all happening out in India, China, Kenya. They have
nothing to do with people having read the stupid Meadows/Club of Rome
book. They have to do with the spread of radio and television, which
tell people about the better life they can hope for for their
children, and perhaps for themselves.
The major developers of change in the world are not a bunch of silly
academics with their braindead computer programs. What makes change
is Avon Ladies knocking on the doors of huts and telling people that
soap will make their children smell nice, a day's wages can give you a
touch of lipstick like the women on the posters.
The Third World's greatest friend is neither Limits to Growth, nor the
AK-47. The revolution in our lifetime is worldwide Proctor and
Gamble.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: "David Prime"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 13:44:50 GMT
Patrick Reid wrote in article
<3281077b.2764560@news.mis.ca>...
> If the "no threshold" model is correct, why have there been no excess
> cancers observed in those populations which recieved higher doses than
> the general population, such as the liquidators?
>
There are problems in any epidemiological study associated with controls.
To do a correct scientific study you have to have a control population for
comparison purposes that is identical in all respects other than with the
agent under investigation (ionizing radiation in this case). This just is
not possible with human populations and therefore uncertainties are
introduced. When you try to detect excess cancers these uncertainties are
even greater.
For example, if you take the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki the
choice of a control is very difficult. If you were to take the standard
Japanese population you would get a wrong result because there are regional
variations in cancer rates. It was therefore decided to do a comparison
with a group of survivors who received a low dose. Unfortunately, if you
believe that low doses of radiation reduce cancer this means that the
cancer incidence in the study population has been underestimated since the
comparison has been carried out against a group with a lower cancer
incidence that expected.
Small scale studies do not show any excess cancer because the total dose is
not sufficient to produce a significant difference over the control. To
give an example, Ethel Gilbert and co-workers on a study of 36 000 workers
receiving a total of 1 100 person Sv in the US found a negative correlation
between radiation dose and cancer, but the range of errors was so great
that this range includes the possibility that the rate was the same as the
ICRP figures. Conversely, the larger UK study of the National Radiation
Registry 95 000 workers, 3 200 person Sv, showed a positive correlation
with a risk rate above the ICRP figure but still not a large enough
population and dose to rule out either the ICRP figure or no effect.
The only thing you can do is to carry on the studies and in the mean time
take the best figures that you can and use models that are conservative.
This has not always happened in the past and caused the risk rates to be
changed upwards by a factor of 4 to 5 in the late 80s.
Gilbert and the UK workers combined their results and their conclusion was
that there was no indication that the ICRP risk estimates were
significantly in error.
Dave
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 11 Nov 1996 14:55:53 GMT
Bob Falkiner wrote:
OK, lets finish this foolishness once and for all:
1980 emissions ~25 Million tons VOC
Power generation and 0.8 MTons
comfort heating
Highway sources 5.8 Mtons
Off-highway sources. 3.8 Mtons
(Tractors, lawnmowers, chainsaws,
personal generators)
Industrial generation 8.7 Mtons
(Petrol refinery, etc)
Power plants add almost none of the VOC burden to Ozone production.
Not only are they a small source, most are located far enough away from
urban sources to not take part in the VOC ozone equation. (NOx is another
matter)
Small commercial engines are another matter. They are run in peak ozone
forming season, they are run in the ozone formation area. If you've
ever lived in an ozone non-attainment area you would know that one of
the pleads that is issued is for citizens to avoid lawn equipment usuage
during ozone action days.
> Th is is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
> as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
> the urban pollution equation. The consumer and government demand has
> been for reduced tailpipe emissions. Now that 20 years of government
> bureaucracy has been built around this, how do we declare success, even
> after that we've achieved it??
Success in the ozone program is easy to measure, when air quality is
achieved, success is achieved. We've not achieved success. Progress
has been made, but sucess has not been achieved.
I'll even make the case that the standard that we are trying to achieve
may need to be changed. But it would be nice to live in a world where
children and elderly don't have to be lock-up indoors during the ozone
seasone.
>
> This is going to be a case study in government rivalling the US space
> program!
>
> > Now, how much cost do you estimate that the addition of features
> > like these would add to the cost of a basic $300 lawn mower? (Of
> > course, the stores and manufacturers would simply love it...and
> > rental firms would boom since many people could not afford the
> > purchase price of such a product.
Whats been required for new lawnmowers is pretty low tech stuff. I've
heard that the estimate is $25-50 dollars for a new system. About
the cost of the chainbreak on my stihl chainsaw. A basic lawnmower
cost about $125,
> >
> > Then too, consider maintenance. We already have a generation of
> > cars on the road in poor maintenance, since few mechanics are
> > capable of fixing them properly. Why not add an entire fleet of
> > poorly functioning lawn mowers as well?
> >
With Inspection and maintainence program for non-attainment areas,
I don't think we have fleets of poorly running cars. Maybe you should
cross post over to one of the automobile groups and get their opinion
about their competancy.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:13:49 GMT
on Jeremy (tooie@sover.net) wrote:
> Tis not only me who has dismissed Gould & Sternglass, how about
> National Cancer Institute
> American Cancer Society
> Minnesota Dept of Health
> New York state and county health depts
Can you cite specific articles, publications, etc., from these?
> http://www.nspco.com/nsp/spntful.htm
> http://nuke.handheld.com/NEI/News/1994/Second.html
> http://haweye.me.utexas.edu/~ans/Anti/dubious.html
* for some reason, I couldn't access this one
> http://www.wdn.com/asf/wilson1.html
> http://www.nei.org/main/pressrm/facts/radiation.htm
* note - this one is really /facts/radiatn.htm
Besides these, which mostly appear to be nuclear industry websites,
can you specify particular published documentation?
But even your sites yield evidence. www.wdn.com/asf/wilson1.html
is an article by Alexander Shlyakhter and Richard Wilson, "The Myths
of Yablokov," which seems to exist for the sole purpose of refuting
some fellow named Yablokov, and its reference to Sternglass is
fleeting. Yet this document acknowledges an elevated death rate in
the US in 1986, for a few months immediately following the Chernobyl
disaster; but the authors discount these deaths because, they say, the
deaths fell off more rapidly than they thought they should have.
To say the least, this makes a very weak case for your side, Tooie.
Your guys Shlyakhter and Wilson say there WERE excess deaths in the US
for months after Chernobyl, and all they can do is try to deny that
these were caused by the Chernobyl radiation, and where are their
references? Do us all a favor: keep telling people about wilson1.
> I love to see hyprocisy in action. When Rush brings out a lone
> flunky or two to disparage the environmentalists position,
I'm shocked, Tooie! Are you accusing _Rush_ of such a thing???
> Now it's your turn to show all the support, peer review, etc.
> for Sternglass ;-)
Yes, there are plenty of books to read. Not to support only one
dissident, but to gather more reports that identify and quantify
the dangers of nuclear energy.
> I haven't seen anyone here state that nuclear power (or anything
> else) is risk free.
Really, you haven't? Check the thread name, it's right there,
"Nuclear Madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)." Well, I can agree
with the first two words, but - sorry - not with "Extremely safe".
And several posters have tried to claim that nuclear power is "safe".
> *You* came up with a ludricous definiton of "safety" that you
> couldn't possibly apply to any facet of your life but then *insist*
> that nuclear power meet this definition.
Is it a difficult concept, that "safe" should really mean safe?
Actually, I think it was Webster who recommended this idea to the
English-speaking world. Sorry if it upsets you. But I only demand
that those who call nuclear power safe, should speak more
accurately.
> If you are implying that I think that misinformed uneducated
> clods shouldn't be making technical decisions, BINGO, you got
> *one* thing right!
Thank you. Then so as not to misinform the people, perhaps you
would agree that this thread ought to have been named "Nuclear
madness (Nuclear power that is definitely not risk free)"?
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:02:39 GMT
In article <55vid3$i1p@osh1.datasync.com>,
Paul Farrar wrote:
>In article <55tici$ivf@valhalla.comshare.com>,
>Mike Pelletier wrote:
>...
>>The supply of food -- 50 years ago, 3,000,000 Americans were farming
>>and producing enough food to feed the country. Now 30,000 Americans
>>are farming *less* land and producing enough food to feed America,
>US Farm employment:
> 1940 8,995,000
> 1992 2,936,000
>Dept. of Agric. & Bureau of the Census, via 1995 World Almanac
This does not, in itself, contradict his statement. 50 years ago, if
one takes the most productive 3,000,000 farmers, were they producing
enough food to feed the country? Are the most productive 30,000 doing
so now?
If I recall correctly, the U.S. produces a fair amount of food for
export and for fodder.
>Paul Farrar
snark
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:10:44 GMT
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>Scott Susin includes:
> The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when
> compared to the price of chicken. Certainly demand for
> chicken is increasing for some of the same reasons. And I
> would guess that technological trends are similar.
> Here are some more figures:
> % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
> Finished Goods: 317%
> Chicken: 178%
> Fish: 528%
>I think Susin is mistaken about chicken. Chickens have improved
>enormously in the amount of meat you get for a pound of chicken feed.
>The technology of raising chickens has also improved enormously, i.e. the
>machines that feed them and remove the chicken shit.
[snip]
Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
snark
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:18:15 GMT
Patrick Reid (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
:>: Could you expand on your problem with long half-life isotopes,
:>: please? I couldn't understand exactly what you were saying.
Bob Bruhns, bbruhns@li.net responded:
:> OK; regarding the supposed 10 000 year spread of deaths from
:> Chernobyl, I was wondering about the distribution curve of
:> deaths over time. Would it be flat and level, as one fellow
:> thinks, neatly spreading 30 000 dead at exactly 3 per year
:> over 10 000 years? Or would the deaths follow more closely the
:> 30 year half-lives of Strontium-90 and Cesium-137, and the 24
:> year half-life of plutonium 239? This would make a significant
:> difference, I think.
Patrick Reid (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca) replied:
> I would think so too, if there were any detrimental health
> effect, which there hasn't been.
Mr. Reid, do you really mean to claim that there has been no
detrimental health effect from the Chernobyl disaster?
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 15:20:40 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
: Ha! Wouldn't that stir up the bees in the hive. AIDS caused by
: increased radiation exposure! What a concept! Interesting
: thoughts, and references provided. Good for you!
Thank you, but actually it was Gould and Benjamin's idea, which they
were not quite ready to officially advance. They stated that the
strontium-90 level in human bones in Africa are the highest in the
world, and they think this is because nuclear fallout from US/USSR
tests concentrated there. But they were not sure whether there might
be some reason that African people might be genetically predisposed to
concentrate strontium-90 in their bones, etc, so they could only
_speculate_ that _perhaps_ exceptionally heavy fallout contamination
there, and the consequent effects on the human immune system, are in
fact the reason that AIDS emerged from Africa. (Gould, Benjamin [with
Millpointer], "Deadly Deceit," pub. Four Walls Eight Windows, NY, 1990,
ISBN:0-941423-35-2.)
Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 16:53:31 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> : Also we might note that environmentalists traditionally
> : want us to work harder and lower our standard of living. It is a basic
> : tenet of environmentalism.
>
> Quotes here. No-one says this except you guys parroting the
> "enviro-nazi" nonsense.
Bruce, I'm suprised you didn't snap a finger-joint typing that nonsense.
Every single day here, we have someone posting that we should give up our
"greed" and our excessive wants, to return to a more primitive society.
This is simple echoing of the environmental leaders, who tell us over and
over that modern society consumes too much, that we should be happy with
less, not more.
You want quotes? I'll start with a couple from this group:
"..one American consumes as much energy as 531 Ethiopians. Why not start
with
reduction? "
- Adam Lerymenko. Sounds like a call to lower our standard of
living.
or, Andy (SDEF), who says we should have less, not more:
"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"
Andy also offers this little gem, in regards to modern society residents:
"OK they live a bit longer but what use is that as a measure of success?"
Of course, environmental leaders say the same thing. Here's a quote from
Paul Ehrlich:
"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic
growth...is the disease, not the cure."
or, from "Limits to Growth":
"As its third and final conclusion, the study suggests that overshoot and
collapse can be avoided only by... a cessation of economic growth"
or,
"We Norwegians need to realize that there is no room for increasing living
standards any more"
- Thorbjørn Berntsen, the Environment Minister of Norway.
or, this bit from the Whole Earth Catalog,
"We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or social change to come and
bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley"
or this little gem, by Maurice Strong, Sec. General of the Earth Summit at
Rio,
"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class-- involving high meat intake, consumption of frozen
and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles,
small electric appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and
suburban housing-- are not sustainable."
Convinced yet? Or should I trot out a few hundred more?
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:17:01 GMT
snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>> Finished Goods: 317%
>> Chicken: 178%
>> Fish: 528%
>Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
>considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
>it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
The key number you would need to draw that conclusion is missing, but
a cursory examination of that table suggests that you are wrong.
Chicken has probably gotten cheaper, but unless more commodities in
the PPI and CPI have followed the pattern of Chicken than Finished
Goods, Fish is more expensive in constant dollars, which are current
dollars deflated by your choice of index from CPI, PPI or WPI. All of
these indices move more or less together...
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers. If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Greenpeace harms the environment yet again
From: zcbag@cnfd.pgh.wec.com (B. Alan Guthrie)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 16:07:15 GMT
In article <55qmb1$o8k@tron.sci.fi>, Miikka Raninen wrote:
>In article <01bbcaa8$1401cf40$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher" says:
>
>>One of the most pressing modern day concerns is what to do with
>>weapons-grade plutonium from superpower stockpiles. Typically a dangerous
>>and expensive undertaking, some have proposed to 'burn' the plutonium in
>>CANDU power reactors, and derive energy while disposing of the plutonium.
>>Enter Greenpeace, though.
>
>>In a press release, Greenpeace has stated that the idea "must be stopped as
>>it will only stimulate those countries which are exploring the civilian use
>>of weapons-usable plutonium."
>
>>Greenpeace proving once again that it puts grandstanding above serious
>>efforts to improve the environment.
>
>Yet again Mike Asher is able to turn everything upsidedown...
>CANDU power reactors don't DISPOSE plutonium !
>They just use it as a fuel in a fission process where dangerous isotopes are turned
>into other dangerous isotopes. Actually the process produces more radioactive
>material because the plutonium has to be enriched first and after the fission there will
>be hundreds or even thousends (if you count the low-radiactive material) times more
>radiactive material then in the first place...
>
No, the plutonium does not need to be enriched prior to burning in a
CANDU or, for that matter, a pressurized water reactor or a boiling
water reactor.
And, no, you will not have hundreds of times more radioactive material
than in the first place. When a plutonium atom fissions, two atoms
of fission products will be produced. Now, the fission products will
most very likely be radioactive. On a molar basis, one will have twice
as many moles of radioactive materials, but on a mass basis, one will
have a slightly smaller mass of radioactive materials.
Perhaps, what our correspondent meant was that the activity (disintegrations
per minute) would be greater post-fission. This statement is true -
plutonium-239, with a half-life in excess of 24,000 years, has a
comparatively low activity level. The fission products, on the other
hand, have much shorter half-lifes and much greater activity. The
good news is that the activity (and the hazard) decays away much
faster than is the case for Pu-239. The time scales for the
fission product decay is on the order of centuries, whereas, for
Pu-239, the time scale is more on the order of 100,000 years.
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | When the going gets tough,
| the tough hide under the table.
alan.guthrie@cnfd.pgh.wec.com |
| E. Blackadder
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 18:00:21 GMT
In article <567flk$ah7@sloth.swcp.com> snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
> In article ,
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >Scott Susin includes:
>
> > The price of fish has increased much more dramatically when
> > compared to the price of chicken. Certainly demand for
> > chicken is increasing for some of the same reasons. And I
> > would guess that technological trends are similar.
>
> > Here are some more figures:
>
> > % change in price, 1970-1993 (Producer Price Index)
>
> > Finished Goods: 317%
> > Chicken: 178%
> > Fish: 528%
>
> >I think Susin is mistaken about chicken. Chickens have improved
> >enormously in the amount of meat you get for a pound of chicken feed.
> >The technology of raising chickens has also improved enormously, i.e. the
> >machines that feed them and remove the chicken shit.
> [snip]
>
> Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
> considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
> it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
Susin's mistake was speculating that the technological trends for fish
were the same as those for chicken. The fish caught today are
genetically the same as those caught in the 1930s. This is not true
of chicken.
--
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.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca (Patrick Reid)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 17:15:42 GMT
[Posted to sci.energy]
af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
>
>: >Scott Nudds wrote:
>: > The cost of avoiding waste disposal is . Don't burn the coal,
>: >don't produce nuclear waste and you don't have waste to dispose of.
>
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: WRONG. To avoid all waste disposal would be outrageousely expensive,
>: since it would mean avoiding _any_ power production, even solar, which
>: involves some industrial waste.
>
> Funny, I have re-read my statement (above) several times, and I don't
>see where I state that all waste disposal should be avoided.
>
> Why are you trying to invent something that was not said Mr. Reid?
>
> It seems self evident to me that the cost of unnecessary resource
>consumption is not only lost resources, but the cost of disposing of the
>waste products produced.
>
> It also appears self evident to me that the cost of waste disposal,
>here there is no waste is precisely zero.
If you had meant to say that, the proper wording would be "The cost of
avoiding ADDITIONAL waste disposal is ." Not what you said. Your
sentence implied to me that we could avoid disposing of any waste at
zero cost, which is what I repied to. I went on to say that everyone
should try to minimize their electrical consumption.
>(Patrick Reid) wrote:
>: No one has approached the Chinese with a wind or solar or tidal or
>: geothermal plant which is cheaper than one of those three.
>
> I would advise the Chinese to ignore false choices based on false
>accounting. Minimum dollar cost is a fiction that does not reflect
>reality.
I notice that you snipped my comment pointing out your golden chance
to make your fortune by pointing out these self-evident truths to the
Chinese and getting them to purchase your design for meeting their
national power needs. As they say, "If you're so smart, why aren't you
rich?" Since China will be spending many billions in the next few
years on energy production facilities, you should be able to make a
mint.
[space added to prevent complaints about amount of reply text]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Patrick Reid | e-mail: pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca |
| ALARA Research, Incorporated | Voice: (506) 674-9099 |
| Saint John, NB, Canada | Fax: (506) 674-9197 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - - - - - Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone: - - - - |
| - - - - - - - - - -don't blame them on anyone else - - - - - - - - |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Enviornmental Thermodynamics
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:03:05 -0700
Discussions of the application of thermodynamics to ecology have
occasionally arisen here, and since the latest got me to reread
Yourgrau et al.'s delightful little treatese, I decided to use their
discussion of Onsager's Reciprocity Theorem as a guide for developing
statistical analogies to ecosystem parameters. Here we go:
First, I am going to leave the variables T, p, V, U and zi (the
chemical potential/mole undefined. The number constituting a 'mole'
is also left open for later discussion. The i in zi can be taken as a
subscripted index, while independent variables will be in parentheses
e.g. zi(T,p). I will adopt a standard expression for zi shortly and
assume there is some 'free energy' G analogous to the Gibb's Free
Energy of thermodynamic systems appropriate to the ecosystem Later
the appropriateness of the form of the potential will need to be
examined as well as the meaning of the state variables. I'm also
going to refer to zi as the eco-potential, and wi as the equivalent
mass fraction of form i mi/m.
The analog to chemical species are the various stable and quasi-stable
forms making up an ecosystem, and in this case soil, grass, deer, and
other complex forms taken by the chemical components of the system,
are resevoirs of these components, and are on par with each other in
this sense. Each can be described in terms of the others, so that for
example, if a deer requires some amount of calcium on the average and
soil contains some amount of calcium on the average, either number of
deer or volume of soil can be used as units. kij is the velocity
constant for the equivalent reaction j -> i, and kji the same for the
reaction i -> j. I assume also that the ecosystem is described by a
simple mass-action rule where the fraction of forms of one type
converting into another type (again in a simple case the death of a
deer, for example, may cause it to convert wholly to soil. It should
also be noted that the numbers given subsequently do not imply that
the identical chemical components consistently take part in the
processes). Then denoting the equivalent mole numbers of form i by ni
we have
dni/dt =-ni(Sum over all j)kji + (Sum over all j)nj*kij
For a static ecosystem the number of each species is a
time-independent constant denoted and I think it's safe to write
d/dt==0 for the present. Then
0 = -(Sum over all j)kji + (Sum over all j)*kij
since again kij are constant. If N denotes the number of forms in the
ecosystem, then the number of ratios / are (N-1)+(N-2)+...+0.
The numbers can be solved for by including the relation
(Sum over i)=n=constant.
With the standard linear form adopted for the ecopotential:
zi = zi0(T,p) + RTlog(/n)
where R is a constant, the relations / = Kl are obtained where
l is an index and each Kl is constant. The discussion of detailed
balancing in environmental systems also requires further development,
but if it holds we can obtain an expression for equivalent entropy,
and if we determine that it does not hold, development under this
alternate assumption will probably also yield a working form for
entropy.
Continuing, let yi = ni - giving dyi/dt = dni/dt (again it's only
the average that we assumed to be zero in equilibrium). Then
dyi/dt = -yi(Sum over j)kji + (Sum over j)kij*yj.
Also,
zi - = RTlog[1+(yi/)]
which for small deviations from equilibrium gives
yi =~ -zi)*/RT. This gives the set of equations
RT*(dyi/dt) = (Sum over j)kji**(-zi)
- (Sum over j)kij**(-zj)
The quantities Xi = -zi)/T are the forces acting on the ecosystem
which, although dervied here, drive the direction the system takes
toward equilibrium.
Since TdS (dS is a differential increment of entropy) is written
TdS = dU + pdV - (Sum over i)zi*dwi,
then the contribution to the entropy production by a system in
equilibrium is
ds/dt = -(1/VT)*(sum over j)zj*(dnj/dt).
Since dyi/dt = dni/dt, and with (Sum over i)dni/dt = dn/dt = 0 and
= which reflects that the equilibrium eco-potentials are
equal, the entropy production ds/dt may be written
ds/dt = -(1/VT)*(sum over j)(-zj)*(dyj/dt)
= -(1/V)*(Sum over j)Xi*dyj/dt!
relating the entropy production of an eco-system in equilibrium to the
forces acting on it. This is neat!!! It also leads directly to
consideration of external forces acting on the system, which can
probably be represented in terms of measurable quantities. Wot larks!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 18:46:38 GMT
I (Craig Mohn) wrote carelessly:
>snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) wrote:
>
>
>>> Finished Goods: 317%
>>> Chicken: 178%
>>> Fish: 528%
>>Why is he mistaken? He's saying that the price of fish has gone up
>>considerably more than chicken. I suspect that, in constant dollars,
>>it has actually dropped (is that your point?).
>The key number you would need to draw that conclusion is missing, but
>a cursory examination of that table suggests that you are wrong.
>Chicken has probably gotten cheaper, but unless more commodities in
>the PPI and CPI have followed the pattern of Chicken than Finished
>Goods, Fish is more expensive in constant dollars, which are current
>dollars deflated by your choice of index from CPI, PPI or WPI. All of
>these indices move more or less together...
Sorry, I mangled that in editting, making the statement exactly wrong.
Couldn't be any less correct. Unless most of the rest of the products
used in calculating the relevant price index showed a much larger
price increase than fish, a pattern which is very different from both
chicken or finished goods, fish is more expensive in real terms than
it was. I shouldbn't try to be coherent before my second cup of
coffee.
The key to this is obvious, and was alluded to in another post, I
believe by John McCarthy. There have been huge technology
improvements which enhance productivity in the poultry industry, and
also in manufacturing. Since the vast majority of fish is hunted
rather than cultivated, the opportunities for technological
improvements are more limited.
If we are really interested in using prices to explore whether fish
are becoming more scarce, we might look at the price of foodstuffs
which cannot be successfully farmed, but which are not obviously
declining in natural supply. Morel mushrooms come to mind, although I
would guess the size of their market has grown (relatively) more
rapidly than fish over the same time period. Matsutake mushrooms
similarly elude cultivation, and probably have a more stable demand
over time. Of course, both of these are small markets, and may be
misleading.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers. If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jsmolen@bcm.tmc.edu (Jim Smolen)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 19:25:28 GMT
jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>Your basic horseshit. Defense spending increased. Domestic
>spending not associated with entitlement programs (Social Security,
>Medicare, etc. ) decreased or stayed constant. The conservative
>Democrats in the House forced through the first two Regan Budgets.
>The situation only reached the stalemate you describe after 1986,
>when the Republicans lost the Senate.
Well, let's see what we got here. The following data were downloaded
from the Concord Coalition Homepage and are submitted for the perusal
of one and all.
Enjoy,
Jim
___________________________________________________________________
A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Each year, the federal government publishes the Budget of the United
States
Government, a document of several hundred pages. It gives the expected
receipts and proposed outlays of the federal government for the
following
year. It also includes the Historical Tables, a collection of tables
that
summarize past budget information. This article references these
tables to
provide an introduction to the federal budget.
The following table shows the percentage of the outlays that are spent
on
each major government function. This is done for every tenth year from
1945
to 1995 in order to get some idea of how the allocation of outlays has
evolved. This does not show every short-term trend. For example, right
after World War II, around 1948, National Defense dipped briefly to
30.6
percent of outlays and Veteran Benefits, Net Interest, and
International
Affairs rose briefly to 21.7, 14.6, and 16.8 percent of outlays,
respectively. However, the table does show most long-term trends since
1945.
============================================================================
OUTLAYS BY SUPERFUNCTION AND FUNCTION: 1945-1995
(as percent of total outlays)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERFUNCTION and Function 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE.................. 89.49 62.43 42.82 26.03 26.71
17.91
HUMAN RESOURCES
Education, training, employment,
and social services.......... 0.14 0.65 1.81 4.82 3.10
3.57
Health........................... 0.23 0.43 1.51 3.89 3.54
7.60
Medicare......................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.87 6.96
10.52
Income Security.................. 1.23 7.41 8.00 15.09 13.55
14.51
Social Security.................. 0.29 6.47 14.77 19.46 19.93
22.11
Veterans benefits and services... 0.12 6.83 4.84 4.99 2.78
2.50
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Energy........................... 0.03 0.47 0.59 0.88 0.60
0.32
Natural resources and environment 0.49 1.37 2.14 2.21 1.41
1.46
Commerce and housing credit...... -2.84 0.13 0.98 2.99 0.45
-0.95
Transportation................... 3.94 1.82 4.87 3.29 2.73
2.59
Community & regional development. 0.26 0.19 0.94 1.30 0.81
0.70
NET INTEREST...................... 3.36 7.09 7.27 6.99 13.68
15.28
OTHER FUNCTIONS
International affairs............ 2.06 3.25 4.46 2.14 1.71
1.08
General science, space & technlgy 0.12 0.11 4.93 1.20 0.91
1.10
Agriculture...................... 1.76 5.13 3.35 0.91 2.70
0.64
Administration of justice........ 0.19 0.37 0.45 0.89 0.66
1.07
General government............... 0.63 0.95 1.27 3.13 1.22
0.91
Allowances....................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS. -1.50 -5.10 -5.00 -4.09 -3.46
-2.93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, table 3.1 (percentages calculated)
============================================================================
Of the twenty functions listed, the largest six made up nearly 88
percent
of outlays in 1995. In ascending order, these functions were Health
(7.6%),
Medicare (10.52%), Income Security (14.51%), Net Interest (15.28%),
National Defense (17.91%), and Social Security (22.11%). Of these six,
only
National Defense is dropping steadily as a percent of outlays. Income
Security appears to have grown rapidly until about 1975 at which point
it
stabilized. The other four functions appear to be still growing as a
percent of outlays with Health and Medicare growing most rapidly.
The next table shows the percentage composition of receipts by source
from
1945 to 1995. The leading source, Individual Income Taxes, has stayed
fairly stable at about 40 percent of receipts. Corporation Income
Taxes and
Social Insurance Taxes and Contributions appear to have pretty much
switched places.
============================================================================
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION OF RECEIPTS BY SOURCE: 1945-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual Income Taxes........... 40.7 43.9 41.8 43.9 45.6
43.6
Corporation Income Taxes.......... 35.4 27.3 21.8 14.6 8.4
11.6
Social Insurance Taxes & Contrib.. 7.6 12.0 19.0 30.3 36.1
35.7
Excise Taxes...................... 13.9 14.0 12.5 5.9 4.9
4.2
Other............................. 2.4 2.8 4.9 5.4 5.0
4.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, table 2.2
============================================================================
The final table shows the total federal outlays, receipts, deficits
and
debt as a percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and in billions of
dollars. As can be seen, the federal deficit (also called the
"Reported
Deficit") is simply equal to federal outlays minus federal receipts.
The
gross federal debt is the accumulation of all past deficits with one
addition. It also includes monies that are borrowed by the government
from
its own trust funds. The 1997 Budget states: "The Federal Government
accounts holding the largest amount of Federal debt securities are the
civil service and military retirement, social security, and medicare
trust
funds." Hence, the gross federal debt increases each year by the
amount of
the reported deficit plus any additional borrowing from trust funds.
============================================================================
SUMMARY OF OUTLAYS, RECEIPTS, DEFICITS, AND DEBT: 1945-1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(as percent of GDP)
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 43.7 17.8 17.6 22.0 23.9
21.7
FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 21.3 17.0 17.4 18.5 18.5
19.3
FEDERAL DEFICIT............ 22.4 0.8 0.2 3.5 5.4
2.3
GROSS FEDERAL DEBT............... 122.7 71.3 48.0 35.9 45.8
70.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(in billions of dollars)
TOTAL, FEDERAL OUTLAYS............ 92.7 68.4 118.2 332.3 946.4
1519.1
FEDERAL RECEIPTS........... 45.2 65.5 116.8 279.1 734.1
1355.2
FEDERAL DEFICIT............ 47.6 3.0 1.4 53.2 212.3
163.9
GROSS FEDERAL DEBT............... 260.1 274.4 322.3 541.9 1817.5
4921.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 1997,
Historical Tables, tables 1.3 and 7.1
============================================================================
As can be seen from the table, the debt reached 122.7 percent of GDP
at the
end of World War II. It's peak was 127.5 percent in 1946. From there,
it
steadily declined to 35.9 percent of GDP in 1975. It's lowest point
was
actually 33.6 percent in 1981. Since then, it has risen back up to
70.3
percent of GDP. It has continued to rise despite the fact that the
deficit
has recently declined. Hence, a stabilizing of the deficit does not
necessarily imply a stabilizing of the debt.
Hopefully, this article has succeeded in providing a brief
introduction to
the federal budget. Further information can be found by referencing
the
actual budget. For example, table 3.2 in the Historical Tables further
divides up outlays according to subfunctions. In any case, the Budget
of
the United States Government can be found in most public libraries. It
can
also be found on the World Wide Web at location
http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/index.html. The Historical Tables can be
accessed directly and downloaded in text or spreadsheet format from
location http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html.
Subject: Re: forests
From: "sdef!"
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 20:08:02 +0000
Don Staples wrote:
>
> Marcus Agua wrote:
> >
> > karl1971@aol.com writes:
> > :
> > : ... when the subject of forestry comes
> > : to mind it sees only lumber, paper products, and recreation....
> > :
> > : Forestry, in the truest sense of the word, means all human
> > : interactions with trees and not some short sighted dualistic concept of
> > : either a crop...or a lovely little place to go for a hike.
> >
> > Hmm, I've never really been able to interact with a tree. What should my
> > first step be? Should I address it politely? Send it flowers and candy?
> > Would a kiss on the first date be correct, or am I just asking for a
> > mouthful of splinters?
> >
> > ==========================
> > Marcus Agua magua@dbtech.net
> > ==========================
>
> How about just giving respect to another life form on a very small space
> craft.
Unfortunately most people are so totally self-obsessed they only have respect for
life of those things that have power over them. Everything else must provide
some advantage or be wiped out.
Shame.
Andy
--
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: Mountain Bikers Are Carrying GUNS!
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 11 Nov 1996 21:43:24 GMT
jthuang@dolphin.upenn.edu (Justin T. Huang) wrote:
> : > I've carried handguns as large as .44 magnums on a belt holster while
> : > off road bicycling with the intent of shooting deer during the season.
> : > Under those conditions I wear my hunting tags. I can get it deep
> : > quietly and quickly with the bicycle and have enjoyed little hunting
> : > competition as a result.
In Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Tennesse and Virgina you can not
"hunt" for deer with a handgun. In Kentucky, you can not "hunt"
deer from horseback (my favorite way to hunt, and yes I am an admitted
lawbreaker).
> What's this have to do with carrying guns on a mountain bike?
> You act like carrying guns in the wilderness is unheard of. :)
>
Ya, it does seem a little strange the mindset of city people. Word
to the wise, messy amies, both westeners and farmers are oft to have
a sidearm. Although we can be nice cordial people, it might be something
to think about before starting an assine arguement about ozone with us.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:04:53 GMT
"Mike Asher" wrote:
>Andy, you're a good guy; I can't actually believe you said that. "Ok, they
>live a bit longer, but what use is that as a measure of success?" The
>length of our lives, multiplied by the enjoyment of each moment, is the
>_only_ measure of success. Technology applied against resources allows us
>to increase both.
This thread has gotten a bit ridiculous. Asher has just claimed that
there is some sort of linear scale for quality of life, and that it is
multiplicative with quantity. Apparently this measure of quality may
be objectively applied across cultures.
It would be hard to argue that agricultural/industrial societies offer
a larger quantity of life. It is also true that most hunter-gatherer
societies tried to selectively adopt what they could from the
agricultural/industrial societies they encountered. They generally
got more than they bargained for. It is not clear that their
aggregate quality of life went up - key indicators such as alcoholism,
crime, and mental illness might suggest the opposite.
There is an almost total absence of alcoholism/drug addiction among
hunter/gatherer societies before they become westernized. From
Bathurst Island to the Navajo Reservation, many of these societies try
to restrict or ban the offending substances from their reservations.
This, coupled with the homelessness and urban misery I see every time
I drive through many neighborhoods in Oakland and Berkeley, leads me
to conclude that our lifestyle as a whole is not obviously superior to
all hunter/getherer societies, just different. The only
incontrovertible conclusion that we can draw about the differences
between hunter/gatherer and agircultural/industrial societies is that
the latter generally offers a much larger variance in happiness
outcomes for its participants.
Of course, this point won't last long in this discussion, because this
forum self-selects to get only the relatively successful members of
society - there aren't too many homeless winos who are going to get on
the internet to share insightful comments about the social forces
common to our market-driven societies which created their
situations.....
After a _lot_ of thought about the matter, theoretical economists have
generally given up trying to make interpersonal comparisons of
happiness, even though it would make their jobs a lot easier. The
statement that person A is happier than person B is completely silly,
because no observer can experience things as both person A and person
B. We are not likely to do better in this forum, and discussions
about relative quality of life are not likely to get much beyond the
"is so" - "is not" level common to elementary school playgrounds.
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers. If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu