Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: "Don Dale"
Date: 26 Nov 96 12:59:01 -0500
Matt Kennel wrote (note trimmed newsgroup list),
>: Even today, we are able to harness only a tiny fraction of the energy
that
>: surrounds us. With current technology, our most efficient source of
useful
>: energy is the bonds that hold molecules of petroleum to one another.
But
>: there is no reason to assume that this will always be the case.
>
>Actually, yes there is.
>
>All the previous energy sources you mentioned (except wind) are
essentially
>chemical sources.
Water, too.
>With known chemistry (and we know a whole bunch about it now) oxidizing
>carbon and hydrogen bonds is close to the best that it gets, except
nuclear
>reactions. If the oxygen is free, gasoline is a damn good highly dense
>concentrated package of energy. It is quite hard to beat it. We're
>really really lucky we found geological quantities of petroleum.
>
>There remains only nuclear energy. Nuclear physics is now quite a mature
>subject and every gazzilionth reaction has been explored. The bottom
>line is that there are a few fissionable isotopes of uranium, thorium and
>plutonium which may serve as energy sources. That's it. Maybe D/D or D/T
>fusion if we get really clever (but it will cost a shitload).
You've said the magic word, "cost". Has it occurred to you that "cost" is
a function of technology?
>The discoveries of late-19 and 20th science are qualitatively different
>and more final than what has ever gone before. We can explain, at least
>at the fundamental level, an enormous variety of phenomena observed on
>Earth.
So chemistry is a complete body of knowledge? You'd better hurry and tell
all the chemists, before they spend their lives trying to understand stuff
we already know.
>: There is
>: energy everywhere; indeed, as Einstein's famous equation shows, matter
>: itself is but a form of energy (and vice versa). (Hey, look, I can cite
>: physicists, too!)
>
>This is quite meaningless, entropy considerations dominate the
extractability
>of energy sources.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental fact of the universe. It
says that the universe is ever moving toward equilibrium. With every known
physical process, the entropy of the universe increases. What, pray tell,
does this have to do with certain kinds of human activity, as opposed to
others? Whatever we do, entropy increases.
If you drive your car to work, the entropy of the universe increases.
If you ride your bike instead, the entropy of the universe increases.
If you visit a friend, the entropy of the universe increases.
If you sit and read a book, the entropy of the universe increases.
If you plant a seed, the entropy of the universe increases.
If you type an alarmist essay, the entropy of the universe increases.
What's your point?
>: The qualities of "extractablility [sic], transpotability [sic],
versatility
>: and cost" are not intrinsic to oil and exogenous to human activity, but
are
>: functions of human technology and therefore endogenous.
>
>Yes and no, there are fundamental scientific limitations, and we now know
>that we are hitting up upon them.
In other words, "This time, the wolf is really at the door."
Don
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 17:58:27 GMT
In article <329AF55D.5184BDB8@math.nwu.edu> Leonard Evens writes:
> John McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > As usual, few scientists considering the collapse of the Greenland and
> > Antarctic icecaps are oriented to trying to invent ways of reversing
> > the process. All the ways I can think of are expensive, but the
> > expense would be preferable to the rise in sea level that would be
> > caused by the melting of Antarctica.
> >
> > There is no rush at present, and if disaster threatens, attitudes will
> > change. There is nothing like the prospect of being hanged to
> > concentrate the mind.
> My intuition about the subject, meager as it is, suggests to me that by
> the time it was clear that either of these ice caps were about to
> collapse, there would be little to do to prevent it. There tend to be
> lag times built into climatic processes, so often measures must be taken
> many years in advance of the event. I hope Robert Grumbine will
> comment on this since my intuition is in fact rather poor in this
> subject.
>
> Fortunately, it does not appear likely that either of these ice caps
> will collapse catastrophically in the short term, thus raising the sea
> level many meters; at least I so understand. It is a possibility in the
> long term however for the west antarctic ice cap to so collapse, so it
> should be kept in mind and carefully monitored. I suspect however that
> other climate change will be obvious long before this is something to
> worry about seriously. Any comments from a glaciologist?
>
> The more general suggestion that few scientists are oriented towards
> preventing climate change, which John McCarthy makes repeatedly, suffers
> from the same flaws as it always has. First, when operating as
> scientists, their obligation is to understand the science and its
> implications. In so doing, they should as much as possible follow the
> science where it leads. I know that John has suggested that it is not
> possible to separate ideology from science---a typical Marxist position,
> by the way---but I think it is possible to do so. If the science
> suggests significant ways climate might be controlled without adverse
> effects through direct intervention, then such science should also be
> explored, and I beelieve it has. Of course, as citizens, scientists as
> well as others should express their opinions about what measures should
> or should not be taken on the basis of what we know.
> The most obvious such measures to take at present are those which
> involve increased energy efficiency and promoting the use of non-fossil
> fuels (and I DO include nuclear power among those). Somehow or other
> such measures don't qualify as means of controlling climate change by
> the critics of any action now. So it is not really a question of
> whether or not we should try to control climate change or whether we are
> predisposed not to but which methods of controlliing such change are
> acceptable and under what kind of time scale. John McCarthy seems to
> prefer waiting for disaster and then performing an engineering miracle.
> That this might be possible makes assumptions about what we can do
> through global engineering which may not be justified.
What Len misses is the importance of invention as an active
intellectual process and not just a byproduct of science. Len's
babble about "an engineering miracle" shows a disdain for engineering.
In case of Antarctica, the size of the icecap is regulated by a
balance between an extremely small amount of snowfall and its
evaporation and flow into the sea. If humanity needs to change that
balance, then pumping water onto the icecap to freeze can do it. It
would be very expensive, but a technologically progressive humanity
could do it. It would be beyond the capability of the cringing
humanity advocated by those who want to shrink human society.
Quite apart from global warming, sea level has been high before and
could rise again. The rate of change is slow enough now, so we can
afford to wait.
I once calculated the cost of moving the Greenland icecap to
Antarctica by melting it in place with coal dust and pumping a
corresponding amount of water onto Antarctica. I figure humanity will
be ready for such large projects in one or two hundred years.
--
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: HELP NEEDED SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN IRELAND
From: jcallan@tcd.ie (John Callan)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 12:37:04 GMT
In article <57d3qt$77p@news.inforamp.net>, dlj@pobox.com wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:13:35 -0500, Thomas Sheridan
> wrote:
>
> >Hello
> >
> >I have a small farmhouse in the west of Ireland that sits on an 0.5
> >arces of good land. I an very new to sustainable living and I am very
> >interested in fnding alternatives to 20th century wasterful
> >lifestyles. I suspect there are many experts in green living out there
> >who could give me a few pointers in the folling subjects:
>
> The reason there are so many Irish in North America is that Ireland
> has demonstrated how sustainable agriculture works under Irish
> conditions with pre-industrial agricultural technology: it doesn't.
> It produces horrible famine.
>
> On half an acre I'd think it would need _very_ high technology to
> produce a decent living: climate controlled lab conditions, basically;
> probably with electric lighting on the levels that don't get direct
> sunlight.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -dlj.
Please, before insulting Irish people about the causes of the famine, do a
little informed reading on the subject. It sickens me to think that there
are people out there who believe that so many of my ancestors and
compatriots left this country in the mid 19th century on the so-called
'coffin ships' to a frightening, and mainly unforgiving place, simply
because they were too lazy to incorporate different agricultural methods
to feed themselves. Would you call the famine-stricken Ethiopians of the
early 80's 'lazy'? Please be more aware of people's sensitivities in the
future.
Subject: Re: something approaching a religion
From: Dale Wagner
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:38:37 -0800
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
>
> >> I have the impression that these are to be found out in the great
> >> plains and around the world -- where the coordinating work of Wall
> >> Street has done its part to make them available to us.
>
> >Or take them away, or make us unable to purchase them, depending on what
> >makes more for the stockholders.
>
> Friezel,
>
> That's just stoo-pid. A.) There is no money to be made out of holding
> stuff off the market..
Only is it is perishable.
> B.) Itis empirically the fact that more plenty
> is being generated world wide every year.
> .
.
But not necessaraly the same amount every year and usually not at the
some cost of production every year.
The largest % of the basic producers-farmers, foresters, fishermen, and
miners- have lost their buying power. For example, in 65, a top of the
line pickup cost 2000 bu. of wheat, 300 lambs, or 30 wk labor. today
it is 4000 bu. of wheat, 2 yr labor.
The DJ went from 800 in 80 to 6600 today. The price-earnings ratio is
uncalcuable on many and the dividend earnings are basicly nonexistent.
This is because short-term earnings have over ridden long-term
intelligence. How can we keep the geese laying if we eat all the eggs?
Dale Wagner
Gardiner OR
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: Dale Wagner
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:53:50 -0800
Julia R. Cochrane wrote:
>
> mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
> >James A says:
>
> >>This is the creative destruction of capitalism: Power structures that
> >>use people and wealth inefficiently, that is to say, power structure
> >>which fail to serve peoples desires efficiently are destroyed, making
> >>space for efficient uses.
> >
> >I reply:
>
> >Your excuse has nothing to do with the situation. Stockholders want
> >stock prices up because they want more money. Any way of getting it is
> >fine. Kodak is an illustration of decades of bad management - first
> >creating a problem, then screwing up the solution.
>
> ....And companies that have "bad management" have long-term lower
> growth/growth of market share than companies that have "good management"
> (and long-term lower profits)----which translates to less *underlying
> value* of the stock, and a long term lower stock price, which is
> bad for the directors and officers of the company, who are usually
> required/expected to own a substantial chunk of company stock (so
> that their own money is intimately tied to the fate of the company).
>
> Management that listens to bad advice from short term market-timers
> instead of going for long term value investors---well, such management
> is ultimately a self-correcting problem, but it may take the company
> down with it when it goes.
>
> ,
It is only self-correcting if all segments play by the same rules and are
taxed the same. At this time, STOCK has the most faverable position due
mostly to the tax structure. If every year you had to pay tax on what
your stock was worth (your position) what would be the DJ ave? I believe
that if stock was taxed the same as the futures market the dowjones would
be at 100. And if corperations were taxed the same as individuals, where
would we be?
Dale Wagner
Subject: Re: How did nuclear testing affect environment?
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:08:51 GMT
Tracy W writes:
>
>How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
It affected the environment. I am not sure what you mean by deeply.
A simple example: After the Chernobyl reactor exploded, some
experimenters here in Florida were able to detect the I-131
from the radioactive cloud during its first pass around the
earth. They could not detect the Cs above the background
remaining from nuclear weapons tests! That is, even though
atmospheric testing ended around 1963 (so the shortlived Iodine
isotopes are long gone), there are still significant amounts
of long-lived isotopes floating around in the atmosphere.
However, apart from short-term effects to those of us exposed to
Sr-90 and the like and the contamination of particular places
(worst of all the production facilities), the remaining effects
are quite small compared to other natural sources of exposure.
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 20:34:12 GMT
scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> In article <57e1nd$bd5@nntp1.best.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...
>
> >This is the creative destruction of capitalism: Power structures that
> >use people and wealth inefficiently, that is to say, power structure
> >which fail to serve peoples desires efficiently are destroyed, making
> >space for efficient uses.
>
> Very vague and circular.
>
> By your logic any system in capitalism which isn't working is destroying
> capitalism, while anything that is efficient is capitalism. Capitalism is
> thus defined as anything which serves peoples' desires efficiently, thus
> making it true by definition. That's rhetoric. Those who deal with the real
> world know you can't create a utopia by definition. Capitalist utopians are
> about as sensible as Marxist ones.
That's not the implication of the statement at all. Think of capitalism
as comparable to the scientific methohod. Both are seeking results which
improve on previous results. Occasionally, they veer off into the
occasional cold fusion fiasco, but overall, the march is toward better
and smarter. Capitalism is to the economy what the scientific
method is to biology/physics/chemistry/etc. Lots of trial and error,
with the best results rewarded. You can try to let the church declare
that the sun goes around the earth, but eventually, it is exposed for
the fraud it is.
[Wow, my colorful-metaphor generator is working overtime today :-) ]
hblask
Subject: Dowie: "Reporting or Public Relations?"
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 13:43:20 -0800
From July-August 1996 Blazing Tattles**
All rights reserved.
REPORTING OR PUBLIC RELATIONS?
Mark Dowie 1 *
"PR [public relations] has become a communications medium in
its own right, an industry designed to alter perception, reshape
reality and manufacture consent . . . Academicians who study media
now estimate that about 40% of all `news' flows virtually unedited
from the public relations offices, prompting a prominent PR exec to
boast that `the best PR ends up looking like news.'
"Also disconcerting is the fact that 150,000 PR practitioners
in the US outnumber the country's 130,000 reporters (and with the
media downsizing its newsrooms, the gap is widening).
". . . Add to that some of the other standard services offered
by most PR firms -- including `crisis management,' industrial
espionage, organized censorship, and infiltration of civic and
political groups -- and you have a formidable combination of
persuasive techniques available to large corporations and anyone
else who can afford to hire the services of a PR firm."
_____________
1. Introduction, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Lies, Damn
Lies and the Public Relations Industry, by John Stauber and Sheldon
Rampton, 1995.
* "Mark Dowie . . . is the recipient of 14 major journalism awards,
including an unprecedented three National Magazine awards." (Page
4 in book cited above.)
================================================================
** For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-
addressed, stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half
Moon Bay, CA 94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to
go to your post office and purchase a postal coupon which I can
take to the U.S. Postal Service and exchange for air postage. --C.
Gilbert
Subject: "Is air getting cleaner?"
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 11:57:15 -0800
From July-August 1996 Blazing Tattles*
All rights reserved.
IS AIR GETTING CLEANER?
By Claire W. Gilbert
A study by the U.S. EPA is reported to say that air quality is
improving. The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) recently
were quoted as saying "yes," but we need new criteria for air
quality. I have heard that NRDC has been coopted by polluters and,
if so, one must be cautious about accepting their statements.
I get confused about "improved" air quality because it looks
dirtier to me every year, no matter where I am or where I am
visiting. I get confused because I read that more and more toxic
chemicals are invented and released into the environment every
year. Toxic pesticide use increases yearly in the U.S. and likely
many other countries; and some of that goes in the air, as well as
releases from industry and utilities, to say nothing of autos. The
officials who measure air quality only measure a very small number
of chemicals, while thousands go unmentioned. There are sophisti-
cated ways to measure more chemicals, I believe, by light
spectroscopy, but I never read of any findings which result from
them.
Asthma and respiratory diseases are increasing yearly. All of
this is reported in the scientific respiratory journals and the
American Lung Association can support this claim. It is directly
correlated with air pollution, so if pollution is improving, why
are asthma and respiratory illnesses getting more prevalent and
more severe? The question doesn't need an answer because the
answer is -- pollution is increasing. There are simply no measures
for most of these pollutants; so if you don't measure them, does
that mean that they don't exist?
Nexus Magazine, part of the alternative press, has published
several articles about pollutants related to modern autos. There
is reason to believe that some of the exhaust from catalytic
converters combines in such a way as to produce nerve gasses. I am
not a chemist and I don't even recall the process or the names of
the chemicals. Also, there was an article on what happens to the
rubber that wears off your tires. Where do you suppose it goes?
Apparently, according to a Nexus article, these particles are finer
on belted radials and the newest, strongest tires: The tiny, tiny
particles go into the air, and are not good for creatures that
breathe.
Grand Canyon and every place else seems to be hazier every
year. I've travelled all over the U.S. and parts of Canada, and
even from where I am, right off the Pacific Ocean, the haze is more
prevalent with time. What's in the haze?
I cannot believe the EPA or anyone else who claims air is
getting cleaner. I do believe that certain pollutants have been
reduced because of the Clean Air Act and that is to the good. But
overall, because more and varied pollutants are going into the air
over time, air is not good and not getting better as far as I can
determine.
================================================================
* For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-addressed,
stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay,
CA 94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to go to your
post office and purchase a postal coupon which I can take to the
U.S. Postal Service and exchange for air postage. --C. Gilbert
Subject: Re: something approaching a religion
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 21:01:28 GMT
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:38:37 -0800, Dale Wagner
wrote:
>The largest % of the basic producers-farmers, foresters, fishermen, and
>miners- have lost their buying power. For example, in 65, a top of the
>line pickup cost 2000 bu. of wheat, 300 lambs, or 30 wk labor. today
>it is 4000 bu. of wheat, 2 yr labor.
The decrease in the price of wheat and lambs is the obverse of the
ongoing and wonderful conquest of hunger. A top of the line pickup
truck today last much longer, gets twice or more miles to the gallon,
pollutes much less, and kills far fewer people per million miles
driven than did the one made in 1965.
However there have been some genuine inequities in the period: between
1980 and the second quarter of this year there was a sharp change in
the annual distribution of income. The poor and the middle class make
less, both in real terms and proportionally. The ten percent make
more, and they make more more, thanks to policies of the nutso
right-wing Reagan and Bush Administrations.
>The DJ went from 800 in 80 to 6600 today. The price-earnings ratio is
>uncalcuable on many and the dividend earnings are basicly nonexistent.
>This is because short-term earnings have over ridden long-term
>intelligence. How can we keep the geese laying if we eat all the eggs?
I take no position on prices freely arrived at. If people want to buy
or sell any given stock at any given price, that's their business.
Regardless of what the Dow Jones _index_ is, I still think there are
stocks worth buying, and I am doing so.
It is of course notorious that the stock market reflects the feelings
of middle aged males, a spectacularly flighty and emotional bunch.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:50:36 -0800
On 26 Nov 1996, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
> > In article <57e1nd$bd5@nntp1.best.com>, jamesd@echeque.com says...
> >
> > >This is the creative destruction of capitalism: Power structures that
> > >use people and wealth inefficiently, that is to say, power structure
> > >which fail to serve peoples desires efficiently are destroyed, making
> > >space for efficient uses.
> >
> > Very vague and circular.
> >
> > By your logic any system in capitalism which isn't working is destroying
> > capitalism, while anything that is efficient is capitalism. Capitalism is
> > thus defined as anything which serves peoples' desires efficiently, thus
> > making it true by definition. That's rhetoric. Those who deal with the real
> > world know you can't create a utopia by definition. Capitalist utopians are
> > about as sensible as Marxist ones.
>
> That's not the implication of the statement at all. Think of capitalism
> as comparable to the scientific methohod. Both are seeking results which
> improve on previous results. Occasionally, they veer off into the
> occasional cold fusion fiasco, but overall, the march is toward better
> and smarter. Capitalism is to the economy what the scientific
> method is to biology/physics/chemistry/etc. Lots of trial and error,
> with the best results rewarded. You can try to let the church declare
> that the sun goes around the earth, but eventually, it is exposed for
> the fraud it is.
Hmmm. And because value in capitalism is based on the marketplace, what is
hard to value has no value. That is not very scientific. Science says "we
don't know"; capitalism says: "no value demonstrated, so its worthless".
Real world example: primary forest. Value = what can be sold by its
destruction. I guess that's why we have environmental laws--- to
legislate value where the market dosen't recognize any. Good thing, too.
Any ecologist will tell you that the myriad life forms and complex
interactions ina forest--- many of them by fungi and microarthropods---
are what holds the system together. Value only trees, and risk damaging
the ecosystem. In the real world, removing primary forests has been
realized significantly all over the globe; the effects of which are
becoming apparent--- and none of them good for long-term ecosystem
functioning which is somewhat stable and predictable, as well as some
obvious short term losses.
Dave Braun
>
>
> [Wow, my colorful-metaphor generator is working overtime today :-) ]
>
> hblask
>
>
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Are Carrying GUNS!
From: BOULL@AgResearch.cri.nz (Lawrence Boul)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 23:49:53 GMT
In article <579rh9$t4l@csun1.csun.edu>,
hbbusb61@huey.csun.edu (david au) wrote:
>> On another note, for those of you who think that guns save lives, I
>> suggest you go to a war torn country to see all the orphans, people
>> crippled from land mines (do land mines save lives?), 14 year old soldiers
>> who are messed up for life, AK-47s for sale for 20 bucks, people shot
>> for the clothes off their back.....If you have a gun it may save your life,
>> but it kills someone else.
>
>So are you saying that if someone breaks into your house at 3am, rapes
>your wife, beats your kids, takes the car, the T.V., etc., well, it's okay
>'cuz nobody got hurt, since a gun wouldn't have 'saved your life' anyhow.
>Give me a break. Canada is a different land, your values do not apply in
>America. Although having a tightly regulated gun ownership program TO
>BEGIN WITH just MAY curb violence a little bit, it's too late for that
>here. We're stuck, and the fact of the matter is, if the 'good guys'
>aren't allowed to protect their families, the only people with guns will
>be criminals. Tell me if it isn't easy to import illegal guns through
>Mexico, and if they really could go house to house and go gun collecting..
>I didn't think so.
Goodness. It's hard to see why Superman was so keen on upholding the American
way!!
It's amazing with your firearm foreshortened lives that you manage to find the
time to think about the environment.
[I gotta admit though, that sometimes people get shot in NZ too.]
Lawrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The above is a personal opinion and does not reflect the
official view of AgResearch Ltd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:58:51 -0700
hblask says:
>That's not the implication of the statement at all. Think of >capitalism
>as comparable to the scientific methohod. Both are seeking results >which
>improve on previous results. Occasionally, they veer off into the
>occasional cold fusion fiasco, but overall, the march is toward better
>and smarter. Capitalism is to the economy what the scientific
>method is to biology/physics/chemistry/etc. Lots of trial and error,
>with the best results rewarded. You can try to let the church declare
>that the sun goes around the earth, but eventually, it is exposed for
>the fraud it is.
I reply:
Interfering with an experiment is the antithesis of science. The
scientific method is an approach to exploring and interpreting nature,
not a means of interfering with ro controlling it. It would be more
true to say that capitalism is a set of constraints on the distribution
of wealth and hence is closer to an experimental apparatus or a set of
boundary conditions, continually adjusted while the experiment is
underway in order to force a desirable result. There's really no
comparison between capitalism and the scientific method.
Furthermore, most of those who extol capitalism have already decided
that capitalism is the economic system of choice, so they are really
asking no questions about it at all. It is a dogma, not an hypothesis.
It's proponents are strident and rather shallow-minded priests, not
scientists.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:18:26 -0700
John McCarthy wrote:
>
....
>
> What Len misses is the importance of invention as an active
> intellectual process and not just a byproduct of science. Len's
> babble about "an engineering miracle" shows a disdain for engineering.
>
> In case of Antarctica, the size of the icecap is regulated by a
> balance between an extremely small amount of snowfall and its
> evaporation and flow into the sea. If humanity needs to change that
> balance, then pumping water onto the icecap to freeze can do it. It
> would be very expensive, but a technologically progressive humanity
> could do it. It would be beyond the capability of the cringing
> humanity advocated by those who want to shrink human society.
etc..
I reply:
I suggest a proof-of-principle experiment on a small glacier - say
expand the seasonal average size of St. Mary's glacier by a factor of
1.2 and maintain it for, say, ten years. Having shown a great deal of
faith in innovativity (to use a Battelle word) I suggest that you
appoint yourself program manager. Do the analysis, write up and submit
the proposal. I'd be happy to review it for you at $50/hour or
$400/pound whichever is less. Be sure to state clearly your objectives,
deliverables, your justification for the program in terms of the problem
it addresses, and the CB advantage relative to other solutions. Should
we set a deadline for the first draft...say December 20?
Subject: Re: The Netherlands Fallacy
From: Tony Plate
Date: 27 Nov 1996 11:02:26 +1300
alnev@midtown.net (A.J.) writes:
>
> On 24 Nov 1996 22:30:09 GMT, jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
> wrote:
>
> >What has created the jams in Yosemite and in front of the Mona Lisa is
> >not population growth but increased general prosperity and improved
> >transportation. The crowding of unique facilities would get worse
> >even if population were drastically reduced.
>
> That's preposterous! Cars, planes and trains all existed ten years
> ago, so transportation is not the issue.
Are not the increases in visitor numbers way higher than the
increases in population? I understand there has been a big
increase in interest in visting national parks (in terms of
percent of population). It does seem plausible that this is
a result of increased general prosperity.
> You cannot convince intelligent people that 9 or 10 billion more
> inhabitants will have little effect on congestion. I'm still waiting
> for a cornucopian to define exactly what we will gain by supporting
> such a massive population. Headaches are certainly a given.
>
> - A.J.
Not that many cornucopians actually say that a larger population
is a desirable goal, do they? They just say that a larger
population is supportable, and that drastic coercive measures
to reduce population growth are not justified.
--
Tony Plate Voice: +64-4-495-5233 ext 8578
Dept of Comp Sci, Victoria University Fax: +64-4-495-5232
P.O. Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand Email: tap@comp.vuw.ac.nz
http://www.comp.vuw.ac.nz/Staff/Tony-Plate.html
Subject: Re: Hanson's latest and Yuri's added errors.
From: wfhummel@netcom.com (William F. Hummel)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:09:18 GMT
David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: On 26 Nov 1996 16:35:05 GMT, yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky) wrote:
: >Scarcity is not just something that happens to "them" out there in
: >Africa. The real wages have been dropping steadily in the US and Canada
: >in the last 20 years.
:
: This is not correct.
:
: The real wages of working class families in the US dropped from 1981
: until the second quarter of this year.
:
: There were two reasons for this: the reduction in the sizes of such
: families through the multiplication of single person and sigle parent
: families, and the right wing policies of the Reagan and Bush
: Administrations which reshaped the distribution of income sharply in
: favour of th wealthy. Total wealth, however, grew over the whole of
: this period.
---------
Real wages of working class families in the U.S. have fallen almost every
year since 1972, as shown in the data below:
The following table is based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(for earnings) and the 1995 Yearbook of Ibbotson Associates (for inflation
index). The wages are the average weekly earnings of production workers
in mining and manufacturing; construction workers in construction;
non-supervisory workers in transportation and public utilities; wholesale
and retail trade; finance, insurance, and real estate; and services.
Real earnings are expressed in 1965 dollars and show a general decline
since 1972.
Weekly Infltn Real
Year Earngs Index Earngs
65 95.45 1.000 95.45
66 98.82 1.034 95.62
67 101.84 1.065 95.63
68 107.73 1.115 96.60
69 114.61 1.183 96.85
70 119.83 1.248 96.00
71 127.31 1.290 98.67
72 136.90 1.334 102.61
73 145.39 1.452 100.16
74 154.76 1.629 95.02
75 163.53 1.743 93.83
76 175.75 1.827 96.21
77 189.00 1.950 96.90
78 203.70 2.127 95.79
79 219.91 2.410 91.26
80 235.10 2.708 86.81
81 255.20 2.950 86.49
82 267.26 3.065 87.21
83 280.70 3.181 88.24
84 292.86 3.307 88.56
85 299.09 3.431 87.16
86 304.85 3.470 87.85
87 312.50 3.623 86.25
88 322.02 3.783 85.11
89 334.24 3.959 84.42
90 345.35 4.201 82.20
91 353.98 4.330 81.75
92 363.61 4.455 81.61
93 373.64 4.578 81.62
William F. Hummel
Subject: Re: Mountain Bikers Are Carrying GUNS!
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:18:57 GMT
In article <57fs6s$bcs@wnnews1.netlink.net.nz>,
Lawrence Boul wrote:
>It's amazing with your firearm foreshortened lives that you manage to find the
>time to think about the environment.
Another thing... I used to sell motorcycles and some of the people buying were
a little, uh, not-quite-legitimate. One of these guys owned a car garage
and while I was there getting some work done for my car I discovered that
this guy sold all of the parts to make certain weapons fully automatic.
(BTW it was perfectly legal to sell the parts as long as you didn't
assemble them into a machine gun.)
Who were this guy's chief (almost total) customers? The cops. While I was
there a cop bought a quite illegal bazooka. I didn't see the thing and
so couldn't swear to it, but that was what he asked for and he received
a box of the appropriate size.
I just remember that gun nuts like to collect these things for fun and
the investment potential. If you use the parts/weapons you destroy their
considerable value. (i.e. I sold one (1) Luger pistol, collector's version
for $2,500 and this was considered to be one of the more common and
cheap varieties. A friend sold a Sharp's baffalo gun for $25,000. I
don't know much about this stuff and only invested on advise which obviously
turned out to be quite QUITE correct.)
Subject: Re: So just why is capitalism so great?
From: scotterb@maine.maine.edu
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 96 20:57:02 EST
In article <57fk84$g36$2@news3.microserve.net>, jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net
says...
>
>scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote:
>> By your logic any system in capitalism which isn't working is destroying
>> capitalism, while anything that is efficient is capitalism. Capitalism is
>> thus defined as anything which serves peoples' desires efficiently, thus
>> making it true by definition. That's rhetoric. Those who deal with the
real
>> world know you can't create a utopia by definition. Capitalist utopians
are
>> about as sensible as Marxist ones.
>
>That's not the implication of the statement at all. Think of capitalism
>as comparable to the scientific methohod. Both are seeking results which
>improve on previous results. Occasionally, they veer off into the
>occasional cold fusion fiasco, but overall, the march is toward better
>and smarter. Capitalism is to the economy what the scientific
>method is to biology/physics/chemistry/etc. Lots of trial and error,
>with the best results rewarded. You can try to let the church declare
>that the sun goes around the earth, but eventually, it is exposed for
>the fraud it is.
Not really. The scientific method is about the search for truth, capitalism
is just one way of producing value. It has positive and negative effects.
Since there is no pure capitalist system in the world today, that is a sign
that the negatives of pure capitalism are obvious to even its proponents,a nd
governments act to try to mitigate those problems.
That's because markets are not perfect. To claim they are would be to
compare capitalism not to science, but to magic. It's not a utopia, markets
work better than planned economies, but also have distortions that are due to
psychology, lack of information, and inattention to human needs over the
desire for profits. So government can act to create a better alternative
than pure markets and pure plans. After all, history shows how workers can
be exploited if capitalism is allowed free reign. It may be efficient at
producing goods at low cost, but people were treated inhumanely.
-scott
Subject: "Ants, ants, ants"
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 14:38:20 -0800
From July-August 1996 Blazing Tattles*
All rights reserved.
Ants, ants, ants
By Claire W. Gilbert
Outside ants are good for the soil. Let them be.
Inside . . .
Residues of vinegar on their trails will dispel them in three
weeks. Use your sponge or dishrag, and put a small amount of white
vinegar on it while damp. Wipe around.
In the meantime, don't leave dishes in the sink, etc. Try
disturbing their trails with almost anything . . . rub soap cross-
wise, or vinegar, or try essential oils, or whatever you have. I
mean trails in your kitchen, bathroom, or wherever they are
indoors.
I used to have them coming in all the time. There were always
"scouts" looking for something. If I cooked certain foods, the
smells would attract hoards. I even had them trying to build a
nest under my dish drainer! Since I used the vinegar, they have
disappeared. Not even scouts come around any more! I thought for
certain all ants had left the area . . . but in cutting weeds the
other day, I saw plenty of ants . . . so they are still outside.
================================================================
* For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-addressed,
stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay,
CA 94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to go to your
post office and purchase a postal coupon which I can take to the
U.S. Postal Service and exchange for air postage. --C. Gilbert
Subject: Re: Ocean thermal conversion
From: jim blair
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 20:01:01 -0800
If OTEC can generate electricity with such a small temperature
difference, why not use similar techniques to extract energy from the hot
water from conventional power stations, rather than wasting it via
cooling towers? Is the reason why not technological, physical,
economic, or simply that no-one thought of it?
>
> Power stations have "bottoming cycles" that work to as low a
> temperature as they consider economically viable. The problem is that
> the equipment gets bulkier and slower as the temperature difference
> gets smaller. I suppose it might be considered a strike against OTEC
> that it proposes to use temperature differences too low for the
> bottoming cycles of conventional power plants.
> --
> 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..
Hi,
Yes it would take very large a very large "boiler" to get a lot of energy
from this small difference in temperature. But the ocean IS big.
PHYSICS TODAY published a letter from me on this topic back in the late
1960's. I proposed the idea being discussed: electricity plus fishing
"down current" from the power plant. With the added twist of, since the
power is needed so far from the floating plant, the cuttent be used to
split water and pipe hydrogen as the fuel.
The Hindenburg Society had been promoting H2 as the replacement for
natural gas (methane): no CO2 and when burned catalytically to heat
houses, no venting is needed and it humidifies as well.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu)
for a good time, call http://www.execpc.com/~jeblair/
Subject: Automobile Fuel Vaporizer. More MPG, Power, Less Pollution.
From: rmoreno@obelix.helix.net (Rodolfo V. Moreno)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 00:56:33 GMT
From the desk of Wyoming Instruments/ Victory Marketing:
This fuel vaporizer converts liquid gas into a vapor before
entering the carburator and spark chamber.
This means less fuel is needed, since a spark ignites only fuel vapor and
often leaves much liquid fuel uncombusted.
Supplements the Catalytic converter which vaporizes fuel after it has
left the engine, and is very inefficient and causes pollution.
It also includes a sludge collector chamber device which removes the
unburnable sludge that usually clogs up engine parts is highly polluting
when burnt by a catalytic converter.
Case Examples:
1991 Metro 50MPG to 80MPG
Ford 460 Fuel Injected 10MPG to 24MPG
1983 Cutlass 3.8 V6 4 BBL Carbureted Engine 20.5 to 34.3 MPG
1993 Nissan V-6 4L 18MPG to 24MPG.
50% to 100% increase in gas mileage, more (140%) with fuel injection due to
gas vapor engine sensors which reduce fuel injected into the engine
dramatically.
More Power and performance means less Gas Pedal pressure is needed, saving
gas.
Cleans engine of deposits.
It will cut your gas bills in half, help your car meet emissions
requirements, and increase power and engine durability.
None of our competitors have a sludge collection chamber or vaporize as
much fuel. One noted competitor is one-fifth of the performance at
one half of the price.
E-Mail me for more info. or send fax number or mailing
address for information package, diagrams etc.
A Mail Box Etc. or so fax or box is sufficient. Rodolfo Jr.
Much thanks.
Subject: Re: Entropy (was Re: the economist/elephant joke)
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 01:38:31 GMT
In article <57g02u$o9n@sloth.swcp.com> snark@swcp.com (snark@swcp.com) writes:
>
> In article ,
> John McCarthy wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >There are other lessons from Biosphere 2. The idea that having enough
> >species would produce a stable ecology didn't work out. Most of the
> >species died out. A designed system with few species and human
> >adjustable parameters could have worked.
>
> What do you mean by "human adjustable parameters?"
Examples: Plant more of this, harvest that, exterminate insects that
have turned out to be pests, raise some animals in protected
environments - like fish in hatcheries and chickens in incubators.
Weed the plants, use pesticides. Not all of the above would be
required. The inhabitants need to be farmers, not just another species.
In a small environment like Biosphere 2, the time scale is faster than
on the surface of the earth. Therefore, it is necessary to react
faster. I admit the same attitude toward the earth as a whole; it is
humanity's garden - not property on which humans are trespassers.
--
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 Netherlands Fallacy (was: Christianity and indifference to nature)
From: andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor)
Date: 27 Nov 1996 11:45:28 +1100
In article ,
John McCarthy wrote:
>5. Ehrlich and Holdren are great at making up slogans but not so good
>on facts. There was a major error in thermodynamics in _Population,
>Resources and Environment_. When it was pointed out, Ehrlich referred
>me to Holdren who just got angry, saying "Of course, there are inverted
>pyramids". Holdren is a physicist.
Well I had to go to the library yesterday so I checked out what I could
about this. The quotation John McCarthy provides [1] is not a major
error. Ecologists do believe the second law is important in
explaining the trophic structure of ecosystems, see for example [2].
I'm not sure if [1] is an over-simplification or not. This area of
ecology is an old one (for ecology) and has seen a lot of work which I
only understand at a ugrad level.
Certainly some researchers believe the second law explains a great
dela more more [3] and analysis of ecosystems from a thermodynamic
viewpoint seems an active research area e.g. [4]. I don't have
sufficient background to properly understand [3] and I didn't even both
trying for [4].
What I do understand is in that trying to discredit Ehrlich et al. in
his sci.environment posting on this subject John McCarthy made a number
of errors.
First he misquoted Ehrlich et al. in a form that he could easily
falsify [5], then he confused consumption with biomass [6], then
confused metabolic rate with growth rate [7], then didn't know there
is an important relationship between biomass and energy flow [8].
Not understanding undergrad ecology is no crime. Even then presuming a
perceived discrepency in an explanation of undergrad ecology by a
well-known ecologist is a mistake on the ecologists behalf is merely
foolish.
Broadcasting this claim with an accompanying defamation is much worse.
It seems to me John McCarthy's defamation is instead a fair summary of his
contribution here:
"great at making up slogans but not so good on facts."
Andrew Taylor
[1] ,
> "It follows from this application of the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics that in most biological systems the biomass
> (living weight) of predators will be greater than that of
> primary consumers; the biomass of primary consumers will be
> greater than that of secondary consumers; and so forth. The
> weight of organisms possible at any trophic level is
> dependent upon the energy supplied by the organisms at the
> next lowest trophic level; and some energy becomes
> unavailable at each transfer."
[2] Ecology, Individuals, Populations and Communities, Begon, Harper
and Townsend, Blackwell Science(1996), p731.
[3] Life as a Manifestation Of The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics, Schneider ED
Kay JJ,Mathematical & Computer Modelling. 19(6-8):25-48, 1994 Mar-Apr.
[4] From a Theory of Local Processes In Aquatic Ecosystems to a Theory At The
Ecosystem Scale, Mauersberger P., Science of the Total Environment
183(1-2):99-106, 1996 Apr 12
[5]
>I found _Population, Resources and Environment_ flakey in a number of places.
> For example, it says that the second law of thermodynamics requires that
>the biomass of a prey species exceed that of a predator. The conclusion
>is usually true though not always and has nothing to do with the second
>law of thermodynamics, Ehrlich's venture into physics. To the
>extent that humans are a predator on chickens, it isn't true for us.
[6] sci.environment article shortly after [5]
>the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with it and is added as
>an incantation to science. Mere conservation of mass is all that is
>actually required.
[7] ,
> In the above cases, the metabolism rate of the prey was much higher
> than that of the predator.
[8] ,
>The switch from energy flow to mass is inadmissible.
Subject: "Universal health?" Letter: Gold
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 17:39:24 -0800
From September 1996 Blazing Tattles*
All rights reserved.
LETTER: GOLD: UNIVERSAL HEALTH?
Claire,
Thank you for telling about the statement of Dr. Nakajima of
the World Health Organization (WHO). I can't be sure why Dr.
Nkajima neglected to mention the very important role played by
industrial chemicals and consumer products in weakening the health
of the general population. I think that some people may be well-
meaning but are reluctant to take on such powerful special interest
groups as the Chemical Manufacturers Association and the
politicians controlled by them. They may simply decide that they
will lose their position or influence and keep quiet so that they
will at least accomplish something. The reality is, I believe,
that unless people like Dr. Nakajima speak out, often very little
or nothing is done. There is just an enormous amount of lip-
service and endless research leading nowhere.
Keep up the good work! Best Wishes,
Mark Gold
Cambridge, Massachusetts
================================================================
*For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-addressed,
stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay, CA
94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to go to your post
office and purchase a postal coupon which I can take to the U.S. Postal
Service and exchange for air postage. --C. Gilbert
Subject: Sanford: Fouling the collective nest
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 17:21:48 -0800
From September 1996 Blazing Tattles**
All rights reserved.
FOULING THE COLLECTIVE NEST
THE WORLD'S BEESWAX
By M. (Tom) Sanford, Ph.D.*
Most beekeeping products are consumable items. They can be
looked at as transitory (i.e., short-term assets on the beekeeping
balance sheet). One, however, traditionally has been in the long-
term asset category. This is beeswax, that marvelous substance
only the honey bee can produce. Although it can be converted into
other products (waxes, cosmetics), a huge amount is recycled by the
beekeeping industry and given back to the industrious insects that
made it as foundation for their nest.
Along with those of honey, beeswax prices have escalated,
though not necessarily for the same reasons. In the February
issue of Bee Biz (No. 2, 1996, p. 3), Editor Matthew Allen
analyzed this phenomenon. For many years, the market was
split. Top-quality wax from Africa, the Americas and Australia was
viewed differently than that of the Far East, mostly from China.
The latter was often adulterated by paraffin and, thus, restricted
to polish and candle use. The price differential between these two
wax sources is now closing, Mr. Allen concludes, as demand for use
in luxury items, confectionery and fancy food products increases,
and so the price may remain high for some time. That's the good
news. The bad news is that the world's beeswax is becoming more
fouled each day, a trade-off for controlling the Varroa mite.
Ever since beekeepers began using pesticides inside living bee
colonies (see APIS, 12/87), there have been concerns voiced about
colony contamination. Most had to do with honey; these are reduced
considerably now with appropriate use of Apistan. Few, however,
considered the possible effect of long-term widespread use of the
contact pesticide fluvalinate on the beeswax supply.
No longer is this the case. Writing in the same issue of Bee
Biz as Mr. Allen (p. 4) about the 1995 Apimondia meeting in Lau-
sanne, Switzerland, Clive de Bruyn reported that high residue
levels of fluvalinate have been found in beeswax. Because of the
nature of the molecule, he concluded, it bonds with the wax, making
it almost unremovable. The Australian Bee Journal (quoted from
6/96, Bee Culture, p. 376) says virtually every kilogram of
European wax is contaminated, most likely because of beekeepers
recycling fluvalinate-impregnated wax for foundation.
European beekeepers, therefore, are examining their beeswax
more closely than in the past, and not using heavily contaminated
product for foundation. Dr. Peter Rosenkranz, University of
Hohenheim, reported at the Fifth Ibero Latin American Beekeeping
congress in Mercedes, Uruguay (6/1/96) that residues from two to 20
milligrams of fluvalinate per kilogram of beeswax have been found.
He says these levels might be enough to cause pesticide resistance
to develop in Varroa. Mr. de Bruyn says that so much resistance
can already been seen in certain districts of Italy, France and
Germany that beekeepers are being advised to abandon all pyre-
throids (chemical relatives of fluvalinate) in favor of other
chemicals.
If levels of fluvalinate get too high, might there not be
concern that honey bees themselves will be poisoned by the chemical
designed to rid them of Varroa (see 4/92 APIS)? There is some hope
that beeswax from places that don't have Varroa would dilute the
worldwide supply, according to the Australian Bee Journal, as
referenced in Bee Culture. However, it concludes that a return to
flavalinate-free wax would take an estimated fifty years, provided
there was no chemical usage for that time period.~
*Professor and Extension Apiculturalist, University of
Florida. Article from APIS (8/96).
================================================================
** For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-
addressed, stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half
Moon Bay, CA 94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to
go to your post office and purchase a postal coupon which I can
take to the U.S. Postal Service and exchange for air postage. --C.
Gilbert
Subject: "Deepsea parks"
From: blazing@crl.com (Claire Gilbert)
Date: 26 Nov 1996 17:59:11 -0800
From September 1996 Blazing Tattles*
All rights reserved.
DRAFT IUCN RESOLUTION ON DEEPSEA PARKS
By Don McAllister
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Here is a draft resolution which might be placed before the
IUCN's World Conservation Congress. The IUCN is the International
Union for Conservation of Nature or "the World Conservation Union."
It is the world's biggest NGO (non-governmental organization)
environmental organization with thousands of members at government,
NGO and individual levels. It will hold its giant meeting in
Montreal this year in October.
About half of the Earth has virtually no areas fully protected
for biodiversity, the waters beyond national boundaries. Poten-
tially there should be considerable support given that half the
Earth has no protected areas. But one can expect opposition from
those nations that want unfettered freedom of the high seas.
Draft resolution on Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs)
offshore beyond national
boundaries
[MPAs are "marine protected areas." MPAs covers parks, re-
serves and other categories of areas protected to some degree from
human influence.]
Given that:
~About 65% of the planet is covered by water over the
deep seas (54.6%) and continental slopes (10.8%), beyond the
continental shelves.
~The biodiversity of many groups is higher in mid-depths
of the oceans beyond the shelves. Much of the higher
taxonomic and hence genetic level of diversity lies in the
oceans.
~The offshore waters and biodiversity are threatened by
pollution, some components of which are more concentrated
offshore, by radioactive compound disposal, and increased UV
radiation exposure and petroleum pollution of the neuston
layer of the ocean in which many shallow and deepwater life
forms pass at least their egg or larval stage, by increasing
surface and bottom debris, and by climate warming which may
disrupt the polar supply of cold, oxygenated and saline water
to the deep sea. Activities like mineral recovery and
biotechnology sampling of unique deepsea ecosystems such as
hydrothermal vents may affect deepsea biota.
~Only a few offshore deepwater sites and their overlying
water columns have their biodiversity fully protected in
regards to inclusiveness of taxa and or by surveillance and
enforcement of human activities. Perhaps 1% of the offshore
ecosystems are protected, in contrast to 5.4% of the conti-
nental shelf area, mostly at its inshore edge.
Be it therefore resolved, that the World Conservation Congress
recommends to states and to signatories of international legal
instruments such as the International Convention on Biological
Diversity, that they examine the options for establishing
representative marine protected areas lying beyond national
boundaries which would encompass all species and ecosystems, and
that they proceed to implement such a system of protected areas.
--Proposed by Ocean Voice International
Documentation
A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas,
1995, 4 volumes.
Offshore and Deep-sea Marine Reserves and Parks: A major gap
in protected area networks. 1995. Ocean Voice International, Sea
Wind 9(3): 4-14.
Status of the World Ocean and Its Biodiversity, 1995. Ocean
Voice International, Sea Wind 9(4): 1-72.
================================================================
* For sample copy of Blazing Tattles, please send self-addressed,
stamped envelope to Blazing Tattles, P.O. Box 1073, Half Moon Bay,
CA 94019, USA. For people outside the U.S., you need to go to your
post office and purchase a postal coupon which I can take to the
U.S. Postal Service and exchange for air postage. --C. Gilbert
