Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 06:39:04 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones includes:
On the other hand I am always amused to read Technocrat
types (capitalised in honour of the Technocracy movement, of
which they are often unwitting reinventors) who want to
measure this against that, and that against the other thing,
to get useable indices of what's the smart thing to do.
When I was a boy in Los Angeles, Technocracy Inc. was active.
1. Their doctrine was that engineers could and should seize power.
2. They had cars with yin-yang symbols on the sides and loud speakers
on the roofs. This was so that in some unspecified emergency, they
could drive their cars around the city and tell the citizens what to
do.
3. They had a maximal leader, and the movement collapsed when he died.
4. They wanted to measure value in terms of energy,
i.e. kilowatt-hours. I remember one of them who came frequently to
Caltech peddling magazines being pointed to the electric power socket
and being invited to put in his finger and extract as many
kilowatt-hours as he thought is magazine was worth.
In their fixation with energy as the measure of value, they were
precursors of the energy religion of today. I don't think they
imagined that there was a shortage, however, so they weren't quite as
dumb.
--
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: GUNS and nuts
From: petro@suba.com (Petro)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 02:17:16 -0600
In article <328B9C4F.4231@execpc.com>,
David Kurensky wrote:
>ALFRED A BADOWSKI wrote:
:> put up with two jerkoffs who were acting as if THEY were accosted.
:> Tensions were pretty high. We had to back off from the dog and ride
:> in another direction.
:> This situation wouldn't have been as dramatic for me if I was
:> packing properly. I don't think that I would have used it but it
:> sure would've eliminated some of the scenarios that were
:> real possibilities at that moment.
>No, this situation could have been MORE "dramatic" for you if you were
>packing. What, they'd just back off when you flashed your gun at them?
>I don't think so. As it was, you were merely inconvenienced by taking a
>different route. As it could have been, you could have been
>inconvenienced by loss of life, limb, your freedom (if you shot them),
>whatever. These bozos were obviously not the most even-tempered.
>Thinking that they would become instantly even-tempered and docile when
>confronted by you is misguided.
This is the problem with *concealed* carry. If the rider had been carrying
in the open, but did not _pull_ the gun he would most likely been able to
cross the bridge.
The assumption would have been "Cop".
--
Think Globally. Act Locally. Support your Local Politician. With a rope.
4 lines, it isn't the law, it is simple fire prevention.
Pain is a feature, not a bug.
petro@suba.com petro@encodex.com petro@netsight.net petro@smoke.suba.com
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Alastair McKinstry
Date: 15 Nov 1996 10:56:49 +0100
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>
> bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote:
>
> >I repeat my comment about energy stocks. I note that it went unanswered.
>
> Energy is not a stock, it's a flow. Incoming sun is a high fraction
> of a horsepower per square yard. Uranium and geothermal are both
> there for the next few billion years. In due course we shall no doubt
> tap the solar wind. In the meantime, we've got enough gas, oil, coal
> and peat to last us a few hundred years at an American scale of
> consumption, unlikely though that scale is to become general.
>
> Not a problem.
But it is a problem. A major cause of misunderstanding in this debate
is whether you do the calculations based on the rest of the world wanting
an American (or European) scale of consumption. If you do allow for the
rest of the worlds' aspirations, then we don't have hundreds of years
worth of gas,oil,coal,etc; we can't build fission reactors fast enough
(to western safety standards, at least) and fusion will not be here
near fast enough.
> -dlj.
--
Alastair McKinstry
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (Humour!)
From: Will Stewart
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 06:13:57 -0500
[I encourage the reader to also examine the posting by Micheal Turton.]
Mike Asher wrote:
>
> why is solar power so dangerous? Solar systems require vast
> areas of collection cells, covering with lens, mirrors, and or photovoltaic
> cells. (For instance, the Calfornia plant "Solar One", used one million
> square feet of mirrors, all computer-driven, covering 75 acres)
There are several different possible configurations of solar electrical
generation systems. Some of them include;
1. Centralized solar thermal: Mirrors are focused on a central
tower solar collector that drives a thermal engine.
http://www.eren.doe.gov/sunlab/
2. Centralized photovoltaic: Large arrays of flat photovoltaic
panels
located at a utility site or at a large facility.
http://www.smud.org/powres/ar&t.html;
3. Distributed photovoltaic: Small arrays of flat photovoltaic
panels
located on rooftops of residential and commercial building.
http://ocaxp1.cc.oberlin.edu/~lwalter/photovoltaic.html
> These
> vast collection areas must be kept free of dust,
Rain removes dust, wherever dust is a problem.
>grease,
If you cook with grease, make sure you keep it away from the panels;
otherwise, grease is not a problem.
>snow,
Not much snow in the desert where Solar Two is. Far to the north, snow
is a frequent occurence, though the tilt of the panels tends to slide
the snow off.
> leaves,
Most PV panels are not installed under trees.
> and
> other foreign material.
???
> The 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US is from falls;
> accidents from workers climbing onto collecting surfaces or supporting
> structures will be high. In an industrial setting, this could be lessened
> somwhat by automatic mechanisms (which must themselves be cleaned and
> maintained) but, in an homeowner situation, there is no recourse but that
> Joe Handyman climb up and clean. And, unlike rain gutters, this must be
> done often, as a dirty collector will refuse to heat your home.
This rhetoric truly identifies Mike Asher as a troll.
One of the best benefits of photovoltaic arrays is the extremely low
maintenance. Even if dust or leaves manage to settle on the arrays, Joe
Handyman simply hoses them down while standing on Terra Firma. Visit
alt.solar.photovoltaic and ask owners of photovoltaic systems how often
they have to climb on their roofs.
Mike Asher seems to confuse solar photovoltaic collectors with solar
thermal collectors. Both will operate even if 'dirty'.
> The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount of
> material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels, glass,
> chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear or coal
> plant requires.
Of course, Mike presents no data to support his allegation. If you
bother to, Mike, please present the data for thin film photovoltaic
panels, which are now becoming the PV panel of choice.
> Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic.
I assume you refer to cadmium and possibly chromium (better get rid of
all the mirrors in your home!), neither of which are needed in PV
systems.
> Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light.
Of course, we have rooftops that are going to waste that can be used to
power most residential and light commercial buildings.
> For
> example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
> size of the city itself. What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
> mirrors, for the next solar power station?
Again, rooftops allow for the space required. Also, vast amounts of
virtually lifeless desert exists in the southwest US if greater amounts
are desired.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
"Troll:
A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
generate a flurry of responses from people called
"billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
strangulation. Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
by facts or logic." - bashford@psnw.com
Subject: Chinese energy efficiency and generation
From: Will Stewart
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 06:27:02 -0500
Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> The problem in China is not as much one of wastefulness, but one of
> growth. If the Chinese increase their energy efficiency by the
> phenomenonal amount of 50%, they will only be able to expand their
> industrial economy by a factor of two before they are right back where
> they started again.
They will have reduced their energy costs. If they need more, then they
can add renewable energy sources in order to reduce pollution, CO2, and
dependence on non-renewable resources.
> Over the next generation, their industrial
> growth is most certainly going to exceed a factor of two, not to
> mention their residential energy use.
>
> The Chinese will need a good mixture of heavy, reliable energy
> sources.
No support for such a statement? A naked pronoucement such as this
truly belongs only in talk.advocacy.heavy-energy...
> Hydroelectric, coal, gas, and nuclear are well understood
> and very large scale sources of power. The number of people worldwide
> with experience desigining/building/operating/decomissioning such
> plants is literally in the millions.
If these were the heuristics for technology adoption, we would still be
squatting around open fires outside.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
"Troll:
A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
generate a flurry of responses from people called
"billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
strangulation. Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
by facts or logic." - bashford@psnw.com
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (was Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!)
From: Rod Adams
Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:21:17 GMT
William Royea wrote:
>If solar panels were mounted on every rooftop of every buisness and
>home, there would be no need to use "vast collection areas" dedicated to
>energy collection. The cleaning for such systems could easily be
>accomplished by trained individuals- not Joe Handymans, thereby reducing
>this risk substantially.
William, do you really expect that cleaning
solar cells will be a lucrative profession that attracts the most
careful individuals provided with the latest and greatest in safety
equipment? Have you ever tried to find someone to clean windows in
a small scale situation like a house?
>
>> The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount of
>> material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels, glass,
>> chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear or coal
>> plant requires. Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic.
>> Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light. For
>> example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
>> size of the city itself. What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
>> mirrors, for the next solar power station?
>
>Environmental damage from solar power? The silicon comes from the sand
>as does the glass. The containment system for a nuclear plant uses far
>more concrete than any equivalent-power producing solar array.
William, you are dead wrong on this comment. The amount of concrete
needed to build a containment vessel is well documented, but even if
it were not, you could do a rough calculation based on the size
of the building and the thickness of the walls.
If you even attempted to run the numbers, you would find that even a
thin layer of concrete spread over 75 acres (Solar 1) uses
more concrete than a typical 1000 MW nuclear power plant containment
building. Solar 1, however, only generates about 50 MW peak power.
The steel
>frames are completely recyclable. The cadmium is used in storage of the
>energy and is also both recyclable and replaceable with other,
>less-hazerdous materials. Besides, you have to store the energy no
>matter how you generate it. The generation of other hazardous materials
>in manufacturing the solar cells is far less than the amount of nuclear
>waste you produce on a per kwh basis.
>
Again, there are numbers that refute your claim. If you put all of
the high level nuclear waste produced in US nuclear plants over their
entire operating lives into approved storage containers and lined the
containers up on a football field, you would not completely cover
the field. (The containers are about 15 feet tall.)
That material, as well as most other material often referred to as
nuclear waste, is also just as recycleable as the cadmium needed
in the batteries of your solar system.
You also stated that no matter how you generate electricity, you still
need to store it. That is false, my friend. The other option, the
one that is used with nuclear and fossil power plants is to generate
electricity from fuel sources (concentrated energy storage media) AS
NEEDED. Electrical power stations were the first in Just In Time
delivery methods and never had to worry too much about storage costs
for their product.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE
Subject: Passive solar; reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources
From: Will Stewart
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 06:55:14 -0500
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
> : mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
> : > By the way, check out passive solar. This approach uses things like
> : > properly designed overhangs, oriented walls and windows, ordinary
> : > convection, etc. etc.
>
> This, even ideally, would only work for home heating.
Home heating is a large energy requirement. Many people use oil, gas,
or electric baseboard heating, hence the use of passive solar heating
can reduce the need for consuming fossil fuels.
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
http://syssrv9.nrel.gov/documents/erec_fact_sheets/4.html
> And it is still
> no solution for people living in existing homes.
There are renovation techniques available to incorporate passive or
active solar heating in existing homes.
http://www.psic.org/books.htm
Fine Homebuilding: Energy-Efficient Houses
This collection of articles from Fine Homebuilding features
passive solar and high-efficiency new homes and retrofits
from across the country. Numerous illustrations, color, and
black and white photographs.
> I had a friend who was
> living in a 500-year old house (there is some other poster's low
> ceiling!) in Oxford. Built out of stone, that house will be there at
> least another 500 years.
Stone is an good thermal storage medium, but a poor insulator; if you
spend thousands of dollars heating and cooling your home every year,
then savings from rebuilding are lost many times over.
Cheers,
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
"Troll:
A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
generate a flurry of responses from people called
"billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
strangulation. Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
by facts or logic." - bashford@psnw.com
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (Humour!)
From: Rod Adams
Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:44:42 GMT
Will Stewart wrote:
>[I encourage the reader to also examine the posting by Micheal Turton.]
>
>Mike Asher wrote:
>>
>> why is solar power so dangerous? Solar systems require vast
>> areas of collection cells, covering with lens, mirrors, and or photovoltaic
>> cells. (For instance, the Calfornia plant "Solar One", used one million
>> square feet of mirrors, all computer-driven, covering 75 acres)
>
>There are several different possible configurations of solar electrical
>generation systems. Some of them include;
>
> 1. Centralized solar thermal: Mirrors are focused on a central
> tower solar collector that drives a thermal engine.
> http://www.eren.doe.gov/sunlab/
>
> 2. Centralized photovoltaic: Large arrays of flat photovoltaic
>panels
> located at a utility site or at a large facility.
> http://www.smud.org/powres/ar&t.html;
>
> 3. Distributed photovoltaic: Small arrays of flat photovoltaic
>panels
> located on rooftops of residential and commercial building.
> http://ocaxp1.cc.oberlin.edu/~lwalter/photovoltaic.html
>
>> These
>> vast collection areas must be kept free of dust,
>
>Rain removes dust, wherever dust is a problem.
Will, later on in this post you conduct an ad hominem (sp?) attack
on Mike, calling him a troll for an illogical post.
Please tell me, where are solar power systems (no matter which
configuration you choose) most effective? Answer: they are most
effective in areas where there is a lot of sunshine and minimal
rain, aka deserts. Please do not tell us that you think that
such places do not have any problems with dust or sand storms.
>
>>grease,
>
>If you cook with grease, make sure you keep it away from the panels;
>otherwise, grease is not a problem.
Grease is not just released from cooking. It is also released by a
variety of industrial processes.
Most readers on this board probably have a car. If so, they know how
dirty it can get in a city or suburb, even if there is rain and even if
the car simply sits in the driveway. Some of the dirt is easily
removed, while other components are more difficult, especially if
you happen to live in a reasonably industrialized city.
>
>>snow,
>
>Not much snow in the desert where Solar Two is. Far to the north, snow
>is a frequent occurence, though the tilt of the panels tends to slide
>the snow off.
Gee, Will. Being from Florida I do not have too much experience
with snow, but it sure looks pretty on all of those slanted roofs
up north. Why doesn't it just slide off of them.
>
>> leaves,
>
>Most PV panels are not installed under trees.
>
>> and
>> other foreign material.
Most PV panels are not installed under trees, but many rooftops in
many areas happen to be under trees. In order for solar power to make
much of an impact in our energy supply picture, there would have to
be some serious cutting done.
>
>???
>
>> The 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US is from falls;
>> accidents from workers climbing onto collecting surfaces or supporting
>> structures will be high. In an industrial setting, this could be lessened
>> somwhat by automatic mechanisms (which must themselves be cleaned and
>> maintained) but, in an homeowner situation, there is no recourse but that
>> Joe Handyman climb up and clean. And, unlike rain gutters, this must be
>> done often, as a dirty collector will refuse to heat your home.
>
>This rhetoric truly identifies Mike Asher as a troll.
>
>One of the best benefits of photovoltaic arrays is the extremely low
>maintenance. Even if dust or leaves manage to settle on the arrays, Joe
>Handyman simply hoses them down while standing on Terra Firma. Visit
>alt.solar.photovoltaic and ask owners of photovoltaic systems how often
>they have to climb on their roofs.
Gee, Will, how long have these rooftop PV systems been in operation
with just hosing down cleaning?
I tried that once with my car. Without a little soap and scrubbing,
the deposits soon got so bad that I could not see out the window.
I know, maybe the people you know who are doing this live in a
place where distilled water comes out of the hoses!!
>
>Mike Asher seems to confuse solar photovoltaic collectors with solar
>thermal collectors. Both will operate even if 'dirty'.
My car will also operate if dirty. It just does not operate
very well.
>
>> The environmental damage from solar power comes from the vast amount of
>> material required to build it: aluminum, concrete, copper, steels, glass,
>> chromium, cadmium, etc, etc-- far more than a corresponding nuclear or coal
>> plant requires.
>
>Of course, Mike presents no data to support his allegation. If you
>bother to, Mike, please present the data for thin film photovoltaic
>panels, which are now becoming the PV panel of choice.
Will, why don't you present the data for "thin film" PV and tell us
just how you are going to protect this material from the influences
of weather over a 30 year operating lifetime. Please do not neglect
to include the foundation in the calculation of the weight.
>
>> Many of the materials are dangerous and highly toxic.
>
>I assume you refer to cadmium and possibly chromium (better get rid of
>all the mirrors in your home!), neither of which are needed in PV
>systems.
>
>> Also, huge amounts of land must be suborned to collection of light.
>
>Of course, we have rooftops that are going to waste that can be used to
>power most residential and light commercial buildings.
Most rooftops are NOT aimed properly for solar collection. Also, many
of them are not vacant, they contain many systems for atmosphere control
and light collection. Finally, most of them are not necessarily
reinforced properly to support a lot of additional weight.
>
>> For
>> example, to power New York City, you must cover an area greater than the
>> size of the city itself. What forest, I ask, shall we raze to cover with
>> mirrors, for the next solar power station?
>
>Again, rooftops allow for the space required. Also, vast amounts of
>virtually lifeless desert exists in the southwest US if greater amounts
>are desired.
Will, do you really think that the rooftops of New York City, (or
Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington D. C. or any
other large city) would be an appropriate place for massive solar
power development? Do you really think that they are properly located
in sunbelts or in areas where the sun is direct and not filtered by
pollution and clouds? If not, just how do you propose getting the
power from the desert southwest to the industrialized energy markets?
BTW, I think Mike Asher's arguments are reasoned and well though out.
He is most definitely not a troll and not even a marketer of a
concept that demands significant inputs of taxpayer money for
even a smidgen of economic viability.
Rod Adams
Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.
http://www.opennet.com/AAE
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 23:23:09 +1100
In article <01bbd113$75058360$89d0d6cc@masher>,
Mike Asher wrote:
>The first two come from "Journalists and Others for Saving the Planet",
>quoted in Wall Street Journal, David Brooks, they're also in "The
>Apocalyptics", by Edith Efron, 1984, ..33-35.
As I said, you are parroting other's fabrications. How about a primary
reference. Ehrlich is a prolific writer. He must have written
20+ books and 100+ other publications. Surely you can cite where
he made these claims.
>Of course, I noticed you didn't challenge any of the many other examples
>I provided.
I'm afraid you spew out fabrications too fast too keep up. One
obvious fabrication among the second lot of claims is this:
> Erhlich's inaccurate prophecies are numerous. In 1968 he said: "My
> examination of the trend of India's grain production over the last eighteen
> years leads me to the conclusion that the present 1967-1968 production...is
> at a maximum level."
Ehrlich didn't say this, it was Louis Bean at the Second International
Conference on the War on Hunger.
>I provided. Instead of allowing you to metastasize the argument, I'd
>like to ask you for a good example of ANYTHING Ehrlich has been right
>about....other than butterfly counts, of course.
Ehrlich has many publications in top peer reviewed journals. As
I've said his 1964 paper on co-evolution is considered a landmark
paper in ecology. If you want an example from his popular work.
Ehrlich predicts the resurgance of Cholera and Malaria Current
state in the Population Bomb.
Andrew Taylor
Subject: Re: GUNS and nuts
From: madcycle@interlog.com
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 08:02:58 -0500
Don Staples wrote:
>
> Jim Green wrote:
> >
> > R Mills wrote:
> > >
> > > This is a real flame topic....
> > > After being back in several miles and coming across some poachers on an
> > > old logging road, in a beat up 4wd, drinking and shooting from the back
> > > of thier truck (they had removed both license plates),
Same thing happened to me (no guns, but drunk pinheads, in a fairly 4x4,
and no plates). After forcing me off the dirt road they started to tell
me to f*** off and throw beer bottles at me. I took off into the woods,
pinheads got bored and took off. Phoned the cops when I got back to the
farm, cops told me not to ride on the sideroads anymore, but they will
look for pinheads. This did not happen out in the backwoods, but around
an hours drive from a large city. Since then I moved back to the city,
and believe it or not I feel a little safer riding there.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Alastair McKinstry
Date: 15 Nov 1996 12:09:24 +0100
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> In article Alastair McKinstry
writes:
> > jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
> > >
> > > Making energy efficiency a general goal is foolish. What counts is
> > > the labor efficiency that permits two percent of the American
> > > population to grow food for all of us and then some for export.
> > Does this labor efficiency include those working in energy creation
> > (oil extraction, fertilizer manufacture) or just those directly
> > involved in agriculture ?
> It includes only the people working in agriculture. Americans spend
> (if I recall correctly) 16 percent of our income on food, but this
> includes restaurant meals. In general, we spend much more on making
> our eating convenient and pleasant than on the food itself.
True, but missing my point. My point is we should measure efficiency of a
process in terms of energy usage, this being a fixed size resource that
we cannot avoid using. Measuring in terms of labor efficiency (which can be
varied depending on the technology used) or money hides the true costs of
the food production.
> John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
--
Alastair McKinstry
Technical Computing Group, Digital Software, Ballybrit, Galway, Ireland
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulding, economist.
Subject: Re: forests
From: GL.FRIEDRICHSHAIN@IPN-B.comlink.apc.org (GRUENE LIGA Friedrichshain)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:30:00 +0100
I have just started to follow this discussion here and am quite struggling
with all the perfect english vocabulary. So please have patience with an
Eastgerman who is trying to participate in this discussion.
I am not a forest-specialist such as you all seem to be but enjoy
wandering through old forests that are not managed by commercial
interests.
donb@rational.com wrote at /CL/GRUPPEN/GREENPEACE:
> In article <328BBE0A.2F13@livingston.net>,
> Don Staples wrote:
> >Don Baccus wrote:
> >Sorry, the old ways work
> To maximize timber harvest, perhaps, though even that point is under debate
> in the field, as you probably know but refuse to acknowledge.
> And the need to provide for the future is one of the concerns driving
> research into forests, which are far more complex than the simplistic,
> cornfield model adopted by European foresters. Those European cornfields
> which are in at most their fourth rotation under truly modern European
> forestry, which became formalized in the mid-1800s, I do believe.
As well as "donb@rational ..." I agree that the "old ways" do not preserve
anything than the maximum profit that one can make by fast-growing
monocultures. I know that I am not quite in the position to demand the
preservation of old forests for example in British Columbia on Vancouver
Island since there is almost no primary forest left in Germany. But I
would rather invite you to keep your eyes open when you are on a possible
travel from West- to East-Germany. For some reason there are serveral
primary forests left in the East, even more in Poland. Although the "real
existing socialism" -such as GDR-styling- was anything else than
environment-friendly the lack of capital and interest in maximum profit
safed relatively large areas of "untouched" nature, such as primary
forests. The difference between even those small areas of primary forests
and the huge monocultures is so obvious that I just wonder how one can
seriously defend managed forests as the ultimate best possible environment
for human beings, animals and anything else that lives.
If you worry about your jobs in the forest industry: I guess there are
always managed forests necessary because wood is one of the most ecologist
materials. But does that mean that we have to cut all primary forests for
a machine-based monoculture? Do we need all those useless catalogues,
blending white paper and further luxury products which need a high energy-
input for their production and also depend on increasing clearcuts of
primary forests? Do we need all those 4-lane-streets that are still being
built right through ancient forests for that we can drive our cars to the
new supermarket which was built on the green field right behind the
forest? What about establishing a non-machine-based forest industry that
could give far more jobs to people and would perhaps even preserve more
nature than todays industry does?
You are fighting with "scientistic proofed" arguments but cant you think
of the things that scientists do wrong because they think "to short"? Just
think of the nuclear-technology or the science-product gen-food. See how
many animals and different species of plants used to live in forests and
see what remains today. Dont be so foolish to beleive in books while you
can see the results of your "industrialised behaviour" by doing one step
out of your car.
never mind
starfish
GRUENE LIGA Friedrichshain
GrueneWeltLaden Mueggelstr. 6 10245 Berlin
f a x / f o n 0 3 0 2 9 1 7 9 6 9
!FREE MUMIA ABU JAMAL!
## CrossPoint v3.1 ##
Subject: Re: Greens harm the environment
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:32:09 GMT
bill@ripag1.fmr.com (Bill Duncan) wrote for all to see:
>In article <01bbd05d$74277720$89d0d6cc@masher>, "Mike Asher" writes:
>|> "WASHINGTON -- Inserting a gene into the cotton plant may allow farmers to
>|> grow a fiber that is wrinkle-free and as warm as wool, researchers report.
>|> "
>|> - AP, November 11, 1996
>|>
>|> This is interesting, as a followup to my post discussing the environmental
>|> damage caused by environmentalists paranoia on genetic engineering.
>|>
>|> This new form of cotton has the capability to wear longer (reducing
>|> demand), replace wool (reduce sheep populations in favor of less damaging
>|> cotton plants) and require less washing/drying/ironing (saves water and
>|> energy). This technology is currently being fought by many major
>|> environmental organizations.
>|>
>|> Other genetically-improved plants have the ability to vastly increase
>|> foodstocks and lower our dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
>|> Again, introduction of these new species are being held up. Truly, fear
>|> and superstition are dangerous forces.
>|> --
>
>Are there ones being held up that use less fertilizers and pesticides? I
>know that some plants are being genetically altered to become pesticide/
>herbicide resistant, allowing much higher applications (and purchases) of
>chemicals. Corps do this stuff to make money - less consumption means less
>profits.
You say "I know that some plants are being genetically altered to
become pesticide herbicide resistant". How do you know this? What
companies are doing this work?
I would like to know, in case I have their stock, so I can sell it. I
have heard many reports of plant biologists attempting to create
insect and disease resistant stocks. These would compete in the
market place with the seeds that you mentioned.
I have a hard time seeing some saleman tellin a farmer, "Hey buy this
seed, then you can buy even more insecticide from us." You seem to
think farmers are pretty dumb.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 13:31:29 GMT
"Ross C. K. Rock" wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> Patrick is taking my name in vain: the only transmutations I have
>> proposed are the routine two, the first nuclear, the second simply
>> physical: 1.) Let stuff cool off for a while in pools; then 2.) dilute
>> it with rock, cement, glass or whatever is useful to make it easy to
>> store.
>
>I'm not quite sure how you plan to dilute nuclear fuel bundles. Do
>you propose to remove the spent fuel from the metallic sheaths, or
>'melt' down the whole mess? I'm not trying to be adversarial...
>I'm really curious to know.
Not my specialty, but I understand that part of the present
reprocessing of rods consists of dissolving them -- ziconium, uranium,
all the little nasties, the whole shebang -- presumably in aqua regia,
or some such. So clearly getting it all into liquid form is no big
deal. At that point you could dilute it with anything you want --
cement, rock, seawater...
The experiments that have been done with melting it with silicaceous
frit to make a glass seem pretty appealing to me. You can run trains
over the stuff, drop it out of airplanes, whatever, and it doesn't get
any nastier than when a gravel truck goes off the road.
Cheers,
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:00:38 GMT
dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>Again this is not true. Socialists have been aware of the necessity
>for signalling systems in the economy since the twenties -- and have
>invented all the equivalents which are used in such socialist
>economies as Sears Robuck, the US armed forces, US Steel, GM and so
>on.
I have a problem with using the word "socialist" with regard to the
entities you list above. Possibly I should insure you know my
definition of socialism: "a social system in which the means of
producing and distributing goods are owned collectively". Socialism
is then an economic system, one of several which is collectivist in
nature.
If you are talking about management problems encountered in a large
organization, or the solutions utilized, we may have something to talk
about, but I do not see that the, say customers or employees of Sears
or the US Army, for example, own the means of producing or
distribution. They also differ in that, if they disagree with
superiors, they can leave fairly readily if they desire (at least they
can when their enlistment is up, for soldiers).
I would disagree, in fact, with the idea that either the US Army or
Sears constitute an economy at all, certainly not in the meaning of
your phrase "in such socialist economies as Sears Roebuck", etc. In
the cases you mention, the range of economic activity by these
entities is simply too limited. Sears is essentially a retail
distributor of items manufactured by someone else. The US Army is a
minimal producer of anything, and usually hires private organizations
to move the massive amounts of food, clothing and other items
purchased from the private economy.
>The Soviet Union was not a disaster of existing socialism, Ronald
>Reagan's vain claim. It was the disaster of centralism, tyranny,
>price fixing, censorship, and the warfare state: anti-socialism five
>ways.
Possibly in some sense, you may say the USSR was not Socialist, but if
you simply use the standard criteria from the dictionary, as I quoted
above, the USSR certainly fits into the niche of owning the means of
production and distribution for society.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:08:33 GMT
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
[edited]
>: The book, a marvellous tale if only because of his story of his
>: marking off territory by pissing on rocks, wolf style, when he lived
>: in the wild to study them, exculpated wolves from attacks on caribou,
>: said that they lived on mice, basically, and that caribou bones were
>: only found around human settlements. All three of these are lies.
>:
>: It may or may not be the case that human over-hunting are a threat to
>: the caribou -- but this question has been obscured for the next year
>: or so, until Mowat's dishonesty works its way through the system and
>: through the public's consciousness. In the meantime, if there is harm
>: being done to the caribou, Mowat is the person responsible for it.
>
>Perhaps, then, you can offer a principled discussion of the scientific
>literature on ozone and the effect on it of CFCs.
Talk about changing the subject Bruce, WOW! I would have to believe
that you don't like that one.
I would suggest, if you wish to start such a discussion, you should do
so. I have to warn you though, that there was recently a long
discussion of that, maybe you could get some newbies interested. It
would be nice if you started a new thread to do so though, we have
gotten far enough off of this one already.
Subject: Re: forests
From: donb@rational.com (Don Baccus)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:09:06 GMT
In article <328BFDF4.1ED3@livingston.net>,
Don Staples wrote:
>Ah, the would be Dr. Braun has fashioned the weapon of his own
>distruction, keep him talking and we can lose one more talking
>environmental head from our future.
Mr. Staples seems to spend at least as much time on the net as in
the woods, no matter what he claims.
>D. Braun, if you read any of the posts, you will note that I have
>repeatedly said there is little difference in our philosophy. There is a
>great deal of difference in how we apply our abilities. I do mine in the
>woods, you will end up in the class room.
How do you know that? I meet academic biologists in the woods all
the time, which is where so many of them do there research. You
could perhaps learn a bit from science, rather than simply espousing
your own industrial training and intuition as being superior.
> I create for the future, with
>your narrow views you will create problems for the future.
This is yet one more way of stating that forests cannot survive without
human intervention. There's ample evidence to the contrary, in the
form of late-successional forests in the PNW which have existed for
literally thousands of years, while 100 years of management has led
to the disapperance of 90%+ of them in my region.
> No coin is
>one sided, even occaisionally has an edge, you need to look at both.
You know, it would be really, really sweet if you'd take your own
advice for a change.
>Old ways are not bad, new ways not always better, sort them out and come
>back.
Who says old ways are not bad? Often they are. Certainly old ways
of doing surgery, in filth, before we understood the sources of infection
were bad, weren't they? I would claim that large-scale clearcutting,
with no replanting, is bad for the long term health of the industry,
not to mention for conservation - and this was a common "old way" in
my state until laws were passed to force replanting (over the
vehement opposition of the industry).
Some old way are bad, some aren't.
OK, on to new ways: which of the new ways is worse than the old?
Is it the leaving of snags you object to? The leaving of some
green trees to provide structural complexity at an earlier date?
Just what the hell do you object to?
>The genie of ecosystem management lives on one substance, money, when you
>get out of achadamia, and into the productive world, create that money
>for us in the field so that we can do what we know how to do.
Ecosystem management lives not only on money, but on regulatory power
based on the public ownership of resources which co-exist on private
land along with that private timber you cherish. Please do keep in
mind that wildlife and water both belong to the public, and the
public (through government) has regulatory power to protects its
legal interest in those resources.
Sorry 'bout that, but it's true.
> I dont
>plant row crops, I manage mixed stands, for as long as economics allow,
>and occaisionally longer.
Then I guess you're not much of an old-style forester after all, despite
your claims, since even-aged, single-species, short-rotation silviculture
has been the forestry taught in school for decades.
>When you get that Phd remember there are troops in the field that have
>gotten us to where we are, good are bad, but what we have east of the
>Rockies is far better than it was 50 years ago.
Not universally true, having been to the row-crop pinelands of the
southeast.
Perhaps I can summarize the difference in our view of the health
of these forests in three words: Ivory-billed Woodpecker.
> Don't narrow your view to the old age stands.
Strawman. D Braun, and most conservationists, argue that we
should preserve the 10% left in the PNW. In a real sense, it is
more accurate to state that we are narrowing our view to the
newer stands which are already in the matrix. Manage the timber
in the matrix and live off of what we can harvest of that second
growth, managed forest land and leave the remaining old-growth stands
alone.
It is industry which has narrowed its view to the old-age stands,
which they wish to liquidate, for purely economic, not forestry,
reasons. If they can liquidate these stands, they can delay
mill conversions needed to handle baby sticks - a one-foot chuck
does little good on a 10-inch stick. Etc etc etc.
> We need all the competent help we can get, and
>there is a strain of common sence in your writtings.
If you weren't in such a state of denial, not to mention thoroughly
arrogant, you might learn to craft posts full of common sense as well.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at:
http://www.xxxpdx.com/~dhogaza
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: Steinn Sigurdsson
Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:38:13 +0000
ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : >
> : > Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> : > : ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
> : >
> : > [deletions: use of the CPI to measure the price of fish]
> : > : What I'm asking is "same" defined consistently.
> : > : That is when evaluating "fish" prices, do the good
> : > : people adding up the CPI(fish) separate out
> : > : Mackerel fillets and Lousiana Spiced Mackerel fillets
> : > : (to use DLJs example). If you sell 1000tons of plain
> : > : Mackerel one year and 500 tons plain and 500 tons
> : > : Loisiana at three times the price, will that show
> : > : up as a rise in the cost of "fish",
> : > Conceptually, this should not be an increase in the price of fish,
> : > and should not show up in the CPI. If it does, it would be
> : > because the BLS made a mistake.
> [ deletions ]
> : How about
> : BF FF FI
> : p q p q
>
> : 1995 2 20 10 1 100
>
> : 1996 2 15 11 5 170 <- WRONG: 102 is correct.
I'd like to see that calculation explicitly.
My assumption was FI = 100*(2*15+11*5)/(2*20+10*1)=170
I assumed the price of fancy fish would rise a little
due to increased demand, but that most of the
price difference reflects labour intensive value
added (ie BF and FF are the same raw fish, but FF
has value added as it is, say spiced&ready; to cook,
while BF is just a plain fillet).
> : 1997 2 10 12 11 178(since1996)
> : 304(since 1995)
> You really should understand the basics before you make esoteric
> criticisms. A price index holds the bundle of goods constant over
> time. This is the whole point. Because you don't understand this,
> your calculations are wrong.
> I've corrected your 1996 value. You've calculated a 70% increase in
> _expenditures_ on fish, but this is not the same as an increase in
> price. The increase in expenditures mostly occurred because quantity
> increased. The _price_ only rose 2%.
Ah, the quantity in the above calculation actually
_decreased_ from 1995 to 1996, there 21 units
of "fish" sold in 1995, and 20 units in 1996.
That was a deliberate assumption - and a realistic
one. The mean retail cost of fish in this example
increases sharply because of value added at the retail
level, not because of a supply-demand response.
Since the basket or retail good used to calculate
consumer price indices includes specifically
processed, value added goods, not generally wholesale
raw materials, some of the variation in the index
must be due to this.
As it happens this actually happened with fish
sold in the US over the period where you noted
a CPI rise above inflation. They sold cod in both
1970 and 1995, but in 1995 the cod was more likely
to be frozen, breaded and ready to nuke.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK )
Date: 14 Nov 1996 17:37:39 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) posted this .sig:
: >"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
: >statements, and make little mention of the doubts we may have.
: >Each of us has to find a balance between being effective and
: >being honest."
: > - Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning.
: > "Our Fragile Earth", Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47
:
: I'm glad Harold has brought attention to this stream of
: environmentalist thought. It highlights the genuine contempt which
: many soi-disant environmentalists hold for the rest of us.
:
: Here in Canada there has been a recent scandal when Farley Mowat,
: boozer, happy-go-lucky, nationalist agitator, and general hail-fellow
: well-met, confessed to fiction in his supposedly factual book on
: wolves.
:
: The book, a marvellous tale if only because of his story of his
: marking off territory by pissing on rocks, wolf style, when he lived
: in the wild to study them, exculpated wolves from attacks on caribou,
: said that they lived on mice, basically, and that caribou bones were
: only found around human settlements. All three of these are lies.
:
: It may or may not be the case that human over-hunting are a threat to
: the caribou -- but this question has been obscured for the next year
: or so, until Mowat's dishonesty works its way through the system and
: through the public's consciousness. In the meantime, if there is harm
: being done to the caribou, Mowat is the person responsible for it.
Perhaps, then, you can offer a principled discussion of the scientific
literature on ozone and the effect on it of CFCs.
--
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: GUNS and nuts
From: TL ADAMS
Date: 15 Nov 1996 14:25:10 GMT
mfriesel@ix.netcom.com wrote:
and a whole lot of other people.
>
>
> I reply:
>
> The holier-than-thou crowd seems to be accepting no other opinion than
> his own. Here, have some incense.
>
> He cont
> You can check pretty easily to see if those were the words. But this
> 'greennie things' is what? A man from mars? Something on your nose?
> What...?
>
> You continue:
Ok peoples, you know this is an uncivil topic and nothing is going
to be gained except longdistance carries might get some tolls out
of the increased traffic.
As a friend, I will advise all of you bikers out there to be careful
of "deliverence" types. They maybe hemp farmers, they may be better
armed than you are. The super six that I'll carry for the occasional
varmit will lose in a battle with a good rapid fire shotgun.
And please, as I am a country yokel myself, and my neighbours are bubas
I don't know that if its us that y'all city scum have to worry about
as much as the redneck wantabee that decent from yankeeville every
weekend.
I'll agree with the statement that redneck wantabees are all supporters
of Pat Baucanan. (sp?)
Us rural folks don't like city people much, you're upity, arrogrant,rude,
You have no respect for property lines, fence rows, crops, pet deers
my horses, my good dog or my system of values. As we already have a
bad opinion about you, at least prove us wrong by being respectful
and courtious.
After all, some of your brethern cut my fence on the creek, they
driven through my Iroquois seedcrop corn, tipped my bee hives, stole
my ginseng, broke my gourds growing in the forest, dug up my wildflowers
(including some Ky protected dwarf mustard that I was trying to
start in a new clime), shit in my meditation sweat house, etc.
Geez, no wonder I don't like city people.
Only thing I like less than city people, is deer hunters.
So if you see one us deliverance types in the woods, have a little
sympathy.
And a nice snubnosed 38 wouldn't be bad either.
