Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 12 Nov 1996 13:01:21 +0000
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> Nudds writes:
> There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car
> that has a standard and unchanging design that is intended
> for long life and simple repair. No such automobile is
> currently in production, and none is planned. The reason is
> Nudds is repeating and old half-witted song.
> The VW Beetle is such a car. It is still in production in Brazil, but
> its sales in the U.S. and other rich countries declined until VW
> decided that the Rabbit would be more profitable.
> Others have tried to make a basic car profitably and have failed.
One of the big US manufacturers are currently producing
such a car, the "World Car", was an interesting article
on it in the Herald Tribune or some such,
Its aimed at the Asian emerging market (primarily China)
but I believe it will also be sold in Europe. Looks like
a VW Bug crossed with a Fiat 600 with a hint of the Mini
in its ancestry. Good mileage, crap performace, probably
won't sell in the US (indeed might not be legal in the US).
Couple of the European manufacturers have similar
models out or in production. The Japanese manufacturers
also seem to have small standard models that don't make
it in the US, eg I've never seen a Mazda 121 in the US.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 13:14:23 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>: As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
>: world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
>: modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
>: double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
>: though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
>: for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
>
>You are welcome to calculate the increase of the crude oil drawdown rate
>if the rest of the world farms the way the US does.
There is nothing here about the rest of the world farming "the way the
US does." Feeding chemical fed corn to cattle is a singularly stupid
way of both using land and feeding people.
The major hindrances to the productivity of land are the lack of
potassium and of nitrogen. The United States burned its eastern
forests to export potash to Europe, then conquered the Pacific to get
the islands it authorised itself to seize under the Guano ct of 1899.
Modern agriculture -- modern, not American, being Asher's keyword --
replaces these olde tyme moves with the simple strewing of phosphate
rock, available in vast quantities in Saskatchewan, Idaho, California,
Peru, and elsewhere.
In American agriculture the main source of nitrogen is ammonia, which
used to be made out of electricity, and is today made more cheaply
from natural gas. This is not the only way of doing it. India and
China both built large populations on small land areas by planting
nitrogen fixing plants, lentils and soybeans, respectively.
It will be a quick fix, literally, in Sudan once the civil war ends,
to alternate soybeans with millet on the Bor uplands. This will mean
an immediate, cheap, and huge improvement of productivity; the
necessary survey work has already been done, by satellite, and is on
file on the Internet at University of Arizona. My partner's family,
those who have not been murdered by the government, own some of the
land, and bide their time in universities in Europe, Canada, Botswana.
I think there is an automatic Nobel Prize in either chemistry of peace
for the person who comes up with the nitrogen-fixing grain, tuber, or
fruit tree. As genetic engineering -- think of it as a new kind of
biodiversity -- proceeds, I expect these prizes to be claimed over the
next few years.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 12 Nov 1996 13:43:48 GMT
conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover) wrote:
There is no point trying to educate you, facts when presented are
ignored. Truths when given are corrupted.
Having lived in L.A. (Culver City and Topanga Canyon, near the place
where Top. and Old Topanga splits, not far from Rocco's Pizza), I can
state that the use of two cycle engines are very common. Can you say
leaf blower,
> :
> : 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)
>
> What you're really saying is that since these are not near you, you
> really don't care that they pollute someone else...someone far away from
> the populated urban areas.
>
Ozone is formed when VOC and NOx and sunlight forms some rather complicated
chemistry. Without a high concentration of all three, you don't get
unacceptable levels of ozone. It is ozone we are talking about,
bozo.
NOx, SO2 and acid rain 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.
>
> On the other hand, I would argue that such areas are so densely populated,
> few residents really need a power mower.
>
>
> :
> : 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,
>
> Funny, I can remember when the same thing was said about automobiles.
> Anti-pollution adders for a car were estimated by their proponents as
> costing roughly $125 (catalytic converter and blower). As it turns
> out, pollution control devices on a modern car cost roughly the price
> of an engine.
>
Oh please, the manufactur cost of an engine is not greater than the
the manufactor cost of pollution control devices. Your arguement
is so spurious to be laughable. A new $20,000 car, it purchased by buying
repair or replacement parts, costs of S150,000 (source Click and Clack,
NPR) Don't spout bullshit here
> What can one conclude from estimates of this quality? I conclude
> that the proponents of such systems, by putting forth estimates of
> such poor quality, label themselves as either technically incompetent
> or simply liars. Your choice.
>
Yes, I agree that the above statement describes YOU very well.
Don't say that air quality in the South Coast Basin (L.A.), has not
improved immensely over the last thirty years. Any resident, or
former resident will call you a damn liar for that statement.
The CAA has brought attainment to many areas of the country. It has
improved the air in all non-atttainment areas.
Subject: 100's of New EnvComputing Resources
From: greendisk@igc.org
Date: 12 Nov 1996 06:13:53
From: The Green Disk Journal
HUNDREDS OF NEW ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUTING RESOURCES IN 1996
Did you know that hundreds of new computer-related resources for
environmental learning, research, and activism were released or
came online over the past year? If you're like most folks that
use the Internet, you probably did not. How could someone
interested in environmental issues who regularly uses the
Internet miss all that's out there?
There are some basic problems with relying on the Internet to
provide you with all the information relevant to your area of
professional and personal interest:
o The only way to know when new software programs, Web sites and
discussion lists come online or are updated is by chance --
you see it in a newsgroup or happen to receive an email.
o WWW searches can be frustrating and time consuming, as you
slog through reams of often outdated or irrelevant sites.
o How can you know about non-Internet resources like software,
CD-roms, conferences, courses, etc.?
o Your ability to store and index potentially important
resources you may have seen can be problematic.
The Green Disk GUIDE TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPUTING v1.2 contains 387
new listings for the last twelve months alone. Over 1100
resources in all are described in the guide -- from WWW sites and
discussion lists to CD-Roms and software programs. The listings
range from the general to the highly technical and specialized
(50 sample listings are posted at our WWW site).
This computerized guide is Boolean (and/or) keyword searchable
and updates are added easily. If you order the guide, you will
receive six months of free updates via email, in addition to a
review issue of The Green Disk Journal focusing on the Depletion
of the Ozone Layer.
Find out why Mother Jones, E, Alternatives, Earth Island Journal,
Wild Earth, Information Today, The Green Business Letter,
National Public Radio and many others have hailed The Green Disk
as, "the most innovative resource on the environment" ... "a
convenience and a bargain" ... "a great tool" ... "a great idea"
... "a wonderful service" ... "great for students and teachers"
... "of immense value" ... "a portentous innovation in
environmental communication". In the words of Real Goods editor
Michael Potts, "The Green Disk provides environmental information
you could waste your life looking for on the nets in a concise,
resource-friendly package."
The guide, which would be over 900 pages if printed, is published
on a high-quality, recycled disk in IBM and Mac editions. If
after a 30-day review you are not thoroughly satisfied, you will
receive a complete refund and keep the disk!
Order online from our Web site with VISA/MC, or print/download
this orderform. Fax or email if using VISA/MC, and mail by post
if paying by check (US bank only). The cost of the guide is
US$25, which includes first class/air mail shipping, USA or
International. Submissions to future editions of the guide are
accepted at the Web site.
------------------------ :< --------------------------------
Name: __________________________________________________________
Organization: __________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________
City, State: ___________________________________________________
Postal Code, Country: __________________________________________
What type of computer do you have? ____ Macintosh ____ IBM-PC
What is your Internet user ID? _________________________________
VISA/MC# _____________________________________ Exp. date _______
Name appearing on card: ________________________________________
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> The Green Disk Paperless Environmental Journal <>
<> PO Box 32224, Washington, DC 20007 <>
<> EcoNet Internet <>
<> http://www.igc.org/greendisk <>
<> Phone/FAX toll-free 1-888-GRN-DISK <>
<> Outside North America +1-207-351-1934 <>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:20:44 +0000
mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn) writes:
> There is an almost total absence of alcoholism/drug addiction among
> hunter/gatherer societies before they become westernized. From
This is a puzzling comment. It would seem impossible for
a hunter/gatherer society to have alcoholism, however as
soon as you get to pastural societies brewing alcohol is
uibiquitous and with it, presumably, the problem of alcoholism.
As for drug addiction, that begs the question. Do we know
that societies with natural psychopharmaceuticals readily
available did not experience substantial drug addiction?
Presumably there would in most cases be severe maladaptation
for hunter/gatherers to spend much time stoned, so we'd be
strongly selected not to observer much such behaviour, even
if it was common.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:36:29 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : >
> : > Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But things
> : > will have to get _much_ better before the price of fish falls to, say,
> : > its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two and a half times cheaper than
> : > it is today, relative to the CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish
> : > has gone up 40% faster than overall inflation. "We're running out
> : > of fish" doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
> : Ah, the price of _what_ fish, where?
> : Are you comparing sardines in the Bay
> : Area or salmon in London?
> These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
> of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
> of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
> Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
> From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
> rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
Those will then include a different bunch of fish
in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
have been unthinkable in 1970.
Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
for consumer convenience.
A number of different species of fish were introduced to
US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
commanded a premium price.
Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
BTW, there has been substantial technological improvement
in fist cathcing. This has been dampened both by high
capital cost of replacing equipment, and, more significantly,
very high subsidies of inefficient fisheries by many nations.
Subject: Re: forests
From: whs@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Will Satterthwaite)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 07:08:58 -0800
In article <3287C011.2E09@livingston.net>, Don Staples
wrote:
>
> You bet, thats why foresters are fighing to maintain what we have, rather
> than having full support from the government, environmentalists,
> eco-freaks and the like.
And how does cutting old-growth, which you have repeatedly supported in
regards to Headwaters Forest, maintain "what we have"?
Rather, cutting 500-2000 year old trees and in the process destroying the
ecosystem in which they dwell destroys "what we have" for any conceivable
time span.
-will
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:16:26 -0500
In article <01bbd057$81cc4280$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher"
wrote:
> Jay Hanson wrote in article
> > Well John, if there is anyone who is an expert on misleading
> > people, it's you.
Mike - This is like intruding in a conversation heard at another table in
a restaurant, but here goes:
per: your response to John about accurately reporting fishery losses,
after reading your contribution, I can't see that you've refuted what John
said. All you've added is that (probably partially in response to
declining yields in some overfished species) the fishing industry is
branching out and attacking new species. And just because the overall
fished yield of ALL species of fish has increased, it doesn't follow that
there are more fish. It probably means the frighteningly efficient
floating warehouses are strip-mining the seas ever more effectively, and
telling consumers to try fish that didn't used to be as popular. Did you
see the Mother Jones spread on world-wide decline of fisheries last year?
Excuse me. I know I'm butting in.
Humbly,
Betsy (aka Loretta)
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:31:38 -0500
Mike wrote:
> >Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
> >asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
> >high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
> >companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
> >yield explosion here within the next decade.
OK - I promise to butt out after this - in fact I don't think I'll be able
to stand reading this outdated debate. Mike, why are you acting as if the
"Green Revolution" hasn't been debunked years ago?
Why are you ignoring the real reason farmland is declining in this country
(ie: being covered in suburpia) - because so much of it has lost it's
value as farmland, thanks to the ignorant short-term strip-mining approach
of petro-chemical farming? Hey - even the popular press (GASP) has heard
the news. Much of the best farmland in this country eroded into the ocean
years ago. Biggest question of all - why are you on this list? Is it just
to bait people who acknowledge these facts?
Betsy
Subject: I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 05:47:29 -1000
charliew wrote:
> you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap. We've
> all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
> connection between entropy and food production. Many of us
> are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
> same senseless, extremely long document.
charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
Jay
Subject: Re: forests
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:09:58 GMT
whs@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Will Satterthwaite) wrote:
>
>
>
> Rather, cutting 500-2000 year old trees and in the process destroying the
> ecosystem in which they dwell destroys "what we have" for any conceivable
> time span.
>
>
There are forester and there are foresters. In the Southeast U.S.,
most timber operations are on private lands, which are second or third
cutting. Further south, the softwood pulp comes from tree plantation.
The century oaks that I cut are because the T.Adams of 4 generations
ago cared enough to replant and do erosin control. The burl and white
oaks that I cut now are replaced with the same.
No responsible forester fears responsible forest managment plans.
Now, this does not apply to those government funded S.O.B's that
get cheap trees in the Pacific Northwest.
<:>)
<<>>><>++_-09099``1`124007y
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:26:30 -1000
Mike Asher wrote:
> Speak of misleading! Your table includes only the species that experienced
> declines; not hard to support your thesis that 'fish are running out'.
> However, culling from the same source as you, the FAO, I pulled the
> following data:
>
> "World marine fisheries production has increased almost fivefold over the
> past 40 years, rising from around 18 million tonnes to more than 86 million
> tonnes by 1989... The use of fish as a source of food has increased
> steadily, rising from 40 million tonnes in 1970 to 70 million tonnes in
> 1989."
Are you surprised that the fish which declined just happen
to be the ones we eat? Gee, how did you happen to pick 1989?
"Despite the vastness of the planet's coastal waters, where
most fish are caught, an unforeseen natural threshold was
crossed before scientists even knew it existed. The global
fish catch peaked in 1989 at 89 million metric tons and has
hovered at around 85 million tons since then. The United
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates
that nearly 70 percent of the world's conventional fish
species-such as cod, hake and haddock-are already fished
up to or beyond sustainable limits.
"Although aquaculture—the farming of fish in either marine
or inland waters—produces more fish each year, it cannot
long compensate for the declining availability of fish
caught wild, according to the report's authors. Under two
of the United Nations' three projections for world population
for the year 2050, aquaculture production would have to
'exceed' the total wild fish catch in order to maintain
current levels of per capita fish consumption-a virtually
impossible achievement, according to PAI."
Catching the Limit: Population and the Decline of Fisheries"
is available for purchase from:
Population Action International 1120 19th Street,
NW-Suite 550/Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-659-1833
Contact: Sally Ethelston 202-659-1833 ext. 133,
sae@popact.org; FAX 202-293-1795
Patricia M. Sears, Deputy Director,
Media Relations 202-659-1833 ext.
131,pmsears@popact.org; ORpmsears@aol.com.
> Hang your head in shame, Mr. Hanson.
If you pull another one like this, I will no longer respond to you.
Jay
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:18:54 -1000
Mike Pelletier wrote:
> >Why don't you watch the movie? They are
> >tossing dead babies into a dump truck.
> >
> >This is what you call "progress".
>
> And I suspect you're being disingenious to say that this is solely due
> to environmental, Earth-carrying capacity issues, rather than the fact
> taht it's really hard to plow a field and plant food when you're being
> shot at and when your field is littered with landmines.
Here is my working definition of carrying capacity:
"Carrying capacity is the maximum load that can be exerted
on a life support system by a population of animals without
damaging the system itself. When a population exceeds
carrying capacity it is known as 'overshoot'."
It follows that carrying capacity can not be raised by a
technology that either results in a net draw-down of
non-renewable resources or pollutes sinks faster than they
can be naturally cleansed. (I think this includes nearly
all technology.)
Instead of actually raising carrying capacity, technology
"temporarily" allows more animals to survive. At some
point, populations MUST fall to (or below) carrying
capacity. (Populations MUST fall because of the way
carrying capacity is defined.)
Here is a particularly important point to remember --
it gets right to the heart of your question:
CARRYING CAPACITY IS CALCULATED IN A SPECIFIC REGION
USING ACTUAL ANIMALS ACTING AS THEY NATURALLY DO --
NOT SOME HYPOTHETICAL SET OF ANIMALS THAT MIGHT BE
SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ACTUAL ONES.
In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
Conversely, if humans actually DO manage to somehow
change their behavior for the better, then carrying
capacity goes up. For example, Earth might be able
to support 6 billion Amish.
Jay
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: cpollard@csn.net (Chris Pollard)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:53:02 GMT
Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
: Speak of misleading! Your table includes only the species that experienced
: declines; not hard to support your thesis that 'fish are running out'.
: However, culling from the same source as you, the FAO, I pulled the
: following data:
: "World marine fisheries production has increased almost fivefold over the
: past 40 years, rising from around 18 million tonnes to more than 86 million
: tonnes by 1989... The use of fish as a source of food has increased
: steadily, rising from 40 million tonnes in 1970 to 70 million tonnes in
: 1989."
This is misleading too because it is old information - I don't have access
immediately but the best information is a graph shown in New Scientist
which showed that fishing had maxed out and was declining. It also showed
that large areas of ALL the oceans had major reductions in fish stocks.
Certain areas like those off Newfoundland which were originally teaming
with Cod now essentially have none.
Has any body got a copy of the graph showing fishing tonnage and stock
estimates for the last 20 years - the one I saw was really scary.
Subject: Re: Give'em Hell, Helen!
From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:30:53 GMT
Extremely Right (99@spies.com) wrote:
: In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
:
: > I notice that Helen Chenoweth, the freshman representative
: > from Idaho, so demonized in the green usenet groups, has been
: > re-elected.
: >
:
: > Pay it back, with interest, Helen.
: > You are stronger now, not a freshman
: > any more. Your party is bound to increase its
: > majority substantially in 1998, a midyear always
: > works that way. You are almost sure to be re-elected.
: >
: > This is the time for some healthy triumphalism.
: > Rub it in, let them know you feel their
: > pain. Your enemies are the enemies
: > of mankind. Give'em hell.
:
: I second the motion with interest... ###8up
Just to contrast, the vast majority of Republican
freshmen running for re-election took great pains to stress
that they were dedicated to protecting the environment
(with only a couple of noteworthy exceptions) due to the beating
on the issue they took in 1995,
and Gingrich's realization that they were getting clobbered in the polls
because of it. He even advised some of the more vocal (Pombo and Young)
to quiet down. Do you think they are immediately going to hand
Democrats a cudgel like that to beat them with again? I think
Lott and Gingrich are intelligent men and won't do anything that
stupid.
Chenoweth just barely made it, too. I wonder what her margin
was in 1996 compared to the 6-7,000 vote squeaker she had this time.
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 17:35:04 GMT
John Moore (ozone@primenet.com) wrote:
: On 11 Nov 1996 10:12:21 GMT, bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK
: ) wrote:
: >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.
: #1 - Enormous tax increases (even though top marginal rates are down
: #2 - the desire for more and more and more
: #3 - the myth that leaving the kids every day with a third person does
: not harm their development
Trivial effects in my view. The real causes are:
#1 - Improved efficiency of machines enabling fewer people to do
the work that is actually necessary for comfort and survival
#2 - Similarly, improved efficiency of household gadgets, relieving
the necessity for a family member to do full-time home maintenance,
leading to women entering the work force in enormous numbers
#3 - Improved ability to move labor offshore to cheaper labor markets.
All of these led to a labor glut. Thus the total wealth of western
civilization improves dramatically, while those who don't own any
capital are substantially worse off.
This in turn leads to enormous pressures to acquire capital, leading
the overworked public to participate in its own opression. Tax sheltered
"retirement" plans lead to even bigger "investments". Will the whole
bloody thing crash once the baby boom reaches retirement and tries
to cash in on this capital? I suspect so, but you don't hear much
about this from economists. You'd think people would learn from
history about overvalued markets, but mental models are incredibly
recalcitrant about accepting historical data which don't match current
conditions.
Followups truncated, sci.econ added.
mt
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:26:12 GMT
In article <569bn0$24s@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
> jw (jwas@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In <565ehv$qm9@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott
> : Susin) writes:
> : >If the absolute catch is constant, then there's fewer fish per capita
> : >every year.
>
> : Only if you ignore fish farming.
>
> If true, so what? My point is basically that we're managing our
> fisheries badly. Even if fish farming can compensate for that,
> that's no reason to screw up the oceans.
>
> In any event, fish consumption per capita in the US, though higher
> than in 1970, fell from 1987-1994. And fish farming hasn't
> kept prices from rising 40% faster than inflation since 1970.
Susin is painting with too broad a brush.
Some fisheries are being managed well - by enforced quotas - and
others are being managed badly. Gradually the nations that fish are
coming into agreement. It isn't so easy, because nations that haven't
fished in certain major fishing grounds until recently are taking what
they consider to be their share.
The Spaniards point out that they have been fishing for cod off the
Grand Banks for more than 500 years, i.e. since before Columbus, and
have acquired certain habits. This led to their squabbles with the
Canadians with the EEC giving the Spaniards lukewarm support.
According to the Canadians, the cod are recovering now - at least in
the areas under direct Canadian control.
Also the overfished species of whale are coming back, but the problems
there are complicated by the fact that many people don't want whales
fished, no matter how abundant they become. Unfortunately for them,
the international organization dealing with whales has a charter only
to make the fishing sustainable, not to abolish it for sentimental
reasons. This forces the whale lovers to lie, and they do it very
well.
--
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: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:42:37 GMT
Craig Mohn includes:
There is an almost total absence of alcoholism/drug
addiction among hunter/gatherer societies before they become
westernized.
I suspect this is more sentimental nonsense. What I have read
indicates that as soon as alcohol becomes available by trade to a
primitive society, drunkenness becomes a problem, however little their
way of life has changed in other ways.
--
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: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 16:35:41 GMT
Scott Susin includes:
I think I'm going to vow never to say anything about
technology again, except that it can't be measured.
Susin is exhibiting a willful ignorance of technology that is all too
common among economists. Economists like to regard technology as just
another factor of production characterized by one number - the return
on investment. I recently read _The Mosaic of Economic Growth_, and
all the articles but one (by a chemical engineer) exhibited that
fault.
Each technology has its own specific characteristics, and failure to
take them into account leads to absurdities.
One consequence of the economists' disdain for technology, more
broadly a disdain for specifics, is that it is apparently impossible
to get input-output matrices for the American economy these days. If
someone knows where they might be available, please let me know.
--
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: I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 17:27:44 GMT
In article <32889C11.6C6F@ilhawaii.net> Jay Hanson writes:
> charliew wrote:
>
> > you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap. We've
> > all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
> > connection between entropy and food production. Many of us
> > are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
> > same senseless, extremely long document.
>
> charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
>
> I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
>
> That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
>
> Jay
I am unable to accede to Jay Hanson's request that I not comment on
his posts. When I read a post that I consider mistaken, I respond to
it for what I imagine to be the benefit of the audience. Sometimes it
benefits the poster, but I am ready to give up on Jay Hanson changing
his mind on anything.
There is one way Hanson can reduce the number of replies I make to his
posts. When he posts a document he has posted before, he should note
that fact and note who replied to a previous posting. I would then
often skip the opportunity to reply to the same document again.
--
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: If You Can Keep It
From: John MacConnell
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:58:34 -0800
John MacConnell wrote:
A CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUICIDE
Thoughtful and knowledgeable people now recognize that we have brought
the Earth to an 11th
hour where the environment is concerned. Earth's outer protective ozone
layer has been
breached. Rainforests, the lungs of the planet, are being torn out.
Rates of cancer and other
degenerative diseases are rising dramatically. Toxin-induced morbidity
in the population is
making us less human and less capable. We are headed toward a brute
society of unimaginable
proportions. In the words of William Shakespeare, we truly did "write
sorrow on the bosom of the
earth." (Richard II, Act 3, Scene 2, line 147)
The question is how can we go from an economy based on waste and war to
one based on
peace , public health, and the survival of our future generations.
Michael Diamond, a visionary
lawyer and poet, has written a book entitled If You Can Keep It: A
Constitutional Roadmap to
Environmental Security. The book provides the answer to that question.
The framers of the United States Constitution knew in 1787 that we, in
the end, not some foreign
enemy, would be the engines of our own demise. They created a federal
government with
emergency powers to keep us secure from "invasion" and from harms that we
would do to
ourselves. They called such internally-generated harms "domestic
violence." In the 20th century
the form that Constitutional domestic violence has taken has been
environmental degradation.
If You Can Keep It shows us how to use this Constitutional phrase to
change our economy and
direct our resources to ensure survival. You can get a copy of this most
important book by
sending $15.00 plus $3.50 shipping and handling (NJ residents add $0.90
sales tax) to Brass
Ring Press, P.O. Box 2697, Westfield, NJ 07091. You may send a check (in
U. S. funds,
payable to Brass Ring Press) or use your MasterCard, Visa, American
Express, or Discover
Card. If you wish immediate shipment, you may call Brass Ring Press at
1-800-777-8145.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:21:15 GMT
l.mcfadden@mail.utexas.edu (Loretta McFadden) wrote for all to see:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> >Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
>> >asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
>> >high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
>> >companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
>> >yield explosion here within the next decade.
>
>OK - I promise to butt out after this - in fact I don't think I'll be able
>to stand reading this outdated debate. Mike, why are you acting as if the
>"Green Revolution" hasn't been debunked years ago?
Really, who debunked it and when? If this were the case, would we not
be seeing declining yields/acre? Do you have evidence of this, or do
you consider your assertion sufficient? See "world Crop Production",
USDA/FAS, WCP 5-87, May, 1987 or "World Agricultural Production",
WAP-1-91, Jan 1991.
>Why are you ignoring the real reason farmland is declining in this country
>(ie: being covered in suburpia) - because so much of it has lost it's
>value as farmland, thanks to the ignorant short-term strip-mining approach
>of petro-chemical farming?
USDA has been studying soil erosion for years, and would like nothing
more than to prove it to be a large problem, and hence generator of
programs for them to administer. Their survey found the average loss
to be 7 tons a year per acre of farmland, while natural regeneration
runs at 5 tons a year/acre. Call it a net loss of 2 tons per acre.
Two tons an acre is 1/65 of an inch. Thus, in 65 years, the average
farmland will lose 1 inch of topsoil. Assuming it has been farmed the
entire 65 years. Some fallow years will make up for this loss.
>Hey - even the popular press (GASP) has heard
>the news. Much of the best farmland in this country eroded into the ocean
>years ago. Biggest question of all - why are you on this list? Is it just
>to bait people who acknowledge these facts?
I don't know about Mike, but I understand your arguments. You make
assertions, present no references, state that even the press agrees
with you (like that's a good reference!), then question the motive of
the character of the previous poster. Too typically an example of
modern postings on the net.
>Betsy
Is your name Loretta or Betsy? Or both?
Regards, Harold
----
"Monster one minute. Food the next."
Kiakshuk, Inuit Hunter
Subject: Re: The Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: 99@spies.com (Extremely Right )
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:19:47 +0100
In article <568pgk$4fn@grissom.powerup.com.au>, gakp@powerup.com.au (Karen
or George) wrote:
> In article <3287C1C8.278A@ilhawaii.net>, jhanson@ilhawaii.net says...
> >
> >For Immediate Release
> >
> Surely, this is commercial advertising that is supposed to be a no-no
> in discussion groups. Besides, it has no relevance for sci.econ, so it
> constitutes a double violation of netiquette.
>
> George Antony
Jay Hanson
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
* there is no extinction crisis
Jay is performing a valuable service and I for one don't have time to read
much more than abstracts.
ER> Erlich incredibly is whing about the problem HE CREATED. This time the
sky is absolutely positively without a doubt cross my heart and hope you
die...
###8up
Jay Hanson
At the core of Betrayal of Science and Reason is a systematic
debunking of the myths advanced by the brownlash, such as:
* there is no extinction crisis
Subject: Re: forests
From: steve@concourse.com (Steve Conley)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 14:36:36 -0500
>karl1971@aol.com writes:
>: 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.
Marcus Agua wrote:
>Hmm, I've never really been able to interact with a tree.
You mean you've never breathed? Or are you connecting from an offworld
site? Hmmm, we need to get those top-level planetary domains implemented
to clear up this sort of confusion!
>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?
Oh, I see, he's trying to be clever! And here I was, starting to feel
sorry for a poor sod who had never sat in the shade on a hot day or
climbed a tree as a child.
Steve
--
Steve Conley It's now safe to turn off your television.
steve@coil.com http://www.coil.com/~steve
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:25:20 GMT
jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote for all to see:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
[deleted]
>: The two parties share the
>: responsibility for the budget deficits, and the consequent increase in
>: the public debt.
>
>Your basic horseshit. Defense spending increased. Domestic
>spending not associated with entitlement programs (Social Security,
>Medicare, etc. ) decreased or stayed constant.
Sorry Joshua, but I think you are wrong. If you wish, I will go to
the library and retrieve some of the figures for you, but I think they
are available, even in Germany.
Defense spend did go up under Reagan, as I said before, but so did
social spending, even outside of "entitlements" like Medicare and
Social Security.
Incidently, what would be your rationale for excluding "entitlement"
programs, anyway? DO you not consider that to be social spending? I
certainly do.
[deleted]
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: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:25:19 GMT
api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) wrote for all to see:
>In article <3285212E.2912B584@math.nwu.edu>,
> Leonard Evens writes:
>>Actually both the major newspapers I read, the N. Y. Times and the
>>Chicago Tribune also got the story right. I didn't check what the
>>typical local TV news sations said, but I wouldn't be surprised if they
>>exaggerated. If Mr. Lermenko insists on getting his news from shoddy
>>sources, he is going to continue to get shoddy news.
>
>Speaking of local news.. a few years ago a local news station broke a story on
>a toxic waste spill. Hundreds of pounds of Sodium Chloride had been spilled on
>the highway! Toxic Sodium Chloride!!!
>
>BTW, My last name starts with an I not an L
I remember being in Denver on night on a trip and hearing of a truck
carrying liquid nitrogen was involved in an accident. The police
evacuated for miles around, noting that "that stuff can suck the
oxygen right out of the air"!
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: I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:23:51 GMT
Jay Hanson wrote for all to see:
>charliew wrote:
>
>> you're taking up a lot of bandwidth with this crap. We've
>> all had ample opportunity to learn of your opinion about the
>> connection between entropy and food production. Many of us
>> are not convinced, no matter how many times you post your
>> same senseless, extremely long document.
>
>charliew, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANYTHING I WRITE!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> PLEASE PUT ME IN YOUR KILLFILE!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>My posts are not indended for our four-footed-friends.
>
>I will no longer respond to barks from the kennel.
>
>That includes you, jw, Harold and McCarthy -- so far.
>
>Jay
If you are referring to me, I am sorry you do not agree with me, but I
admit you could be correct in that the best thing for you is to no
longer read what I post. I think that is an excellent idea, which you
should pursue with vigor.
I will not necessarily be doing the same, but I may, on occasion.
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: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:25:18 GMT
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Sun, 10 Nov 1996 11:10:22 -0700, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>In 1983, the year I left Denver, was the first year that interest on
>>my savings account was taxed.
>
>Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
>be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
>in sight :-)
You are correct. Interest on savings has always been taxable in the
US (though at times, I think variable percentages have been
deductible).
As a matter of interest, it has been a Republican idea that savings
interest should be tax free (as in Japan) to encourage accumulation of
capital and lower interest rates. A few, like Dick Armey, even argue
that savings themselves should be deductible.
[edited]
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(ozone bit)
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:25:22 GMT
ozone@primenet.com (John Moore) wrote for all to see:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996 23:02:10 GMT, brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold
>Brashears) wrote:
>
>>I have no idea what elemental sodium would be used for in weapons
>>production. Does someone have a clue?
>
>The only thing I know of is as a coolant in nuclear submarine
>reactors. But that is only a tiny amount of sodium.
Thank you, I forgot about that.
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.