Newsgroup sci.environment 111210

Directory

eggsoft@sydney.DIALix.oz.au (Greig Ebeling) wrote:
>My viewpoint on this matter comes from extensive investigation.  I 
>find nowhere any conclusions to scientific studies which discount
>the idea that ozone depletion is a natural phenomenon,
I can only conclude, then, that you are either stupid or dishonest.
The evidence as presented in the literature is strong, that:
  (1) Photochemical reactions in the stratosphere involving
     chlorine (and perhaps bromine) are the proximate cause
     of the Antarctic ozone hole, and
  (2) The chlorine is overwhelmingly anthropogenic.
There is no credible theory in the literature holding that the
Antarctic ozone hole is a natural phenomenon (although the natural
environment there, particularly formation of ice particles, does
affect the reactions.)
Perhaps you could cite this supposed contrary opinion?
Please stick to refereed geophysics and atmospheric chemistry
journals, not trade rags like "Machine Design" or Lyndon Larouche
publications.
	Paul

scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote in article
<57f4sq$7j8@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
> Capitalist utopians are 
> about as sensible as Marxist ones.
> 
Agree.
I don't even use the term "capitalism" anymore.  Why?  Because the market
is not an "ism".  The market wasn't purposefully invented by anyone. 
Nobody sat down and penned a manifesto.  Instead, the market evolved with
human civilization over tens of thousands of years.  It is as much a part
of us as is family and language which were also not purposefully invented,
but rather evolved over time as well.
There are three basic reasons why socialism fails:
First, the 20th century view of the market has a big machine which can be
manipulated by government planners if they only new the right variables is
simple minded and wrong.  The economy is not a machine, it's a complex,
non-linear system like the environment.  Small changes in inputs can have
great and unpredictable changes in outputs.  There is no way that a central
planner can possibly account for all of the side-effects that might as a
result of the type of massive government intervention that usually
accompanies central planning
Second, the market has evolved a really simple distributed information
system used to transmit important facts about the economy while filtering
out extraneous details.  It's called the price system.  You as a consumer
don't have to know that a revolution in Columbia is preventing shipments of
bananas reaching the U.S. to decide how many bananas to buy.  You only need
to know that the price has changed.  The first thing that socialist
planners always do is circumvent the distributed price system without the
slightest chance of possibly being able to acquire all of the complex and
intricate information needed to price everything.  This causes market chaos
resulting in shortages in some goods and surpluses in others.
Third, socialism destroys technological progress.  Again, technological
progress is made as the result of the distributed nature of the market. 
People who quit big companies because they felt creatively stifled and
started entrepreneurial firms or people who just never bothered with large
organizations in the first place have been responsible for most of the
technological progress of the last 100 years.  Socialism creates
organizations which are owned by one organization – the government.  The
type of politically correct, credential driven bureaucracies that naturally
follow are not conducive to renegades who want to pursue their own vision. 
Under true socialism, the renegades have no where to go because the
government runs everything.
Humans are imperfect and so is the market.  There is no utopia.  However,
trying to centrally micro-manage the market either by nationalizing it or
heavily regulating it has proven to be a disaster everywhere that it's been
tried.  That certainly doesn't mean we should all turn into libertarians or
social Darwinists.  Government does have a legitimate role in society. 
Just what that role is will be endlessly debated.  However, one thing is
clear, the utopian fantasy that government can circumvent tens of thousands
of years of human societal evolution to purposefully create a better (read:
human nature changing) society through government action and central
planning is unsupported by reality.

scotterb@maine.maine.edu wrote in article
<57f4sq$7j8@sol.caps.maine.edu>...
>
> Capitalist utopians are 
> about as sensible as Marxist ones.
> 
Agree.
I don't even use the term "capitalism" anymore.  Why?  Because the market
is not an "ism".  The market wasn't purposefully invented by anyone. 
Nobody sat down and penned a manifesto.  Instead, the market evolved with
human civilization over tens of thousands of years.  It is as much a part
of us as is family and language which were also not purposefully invented,
but rather evolved over time as well.
There are three basic reasons why socialism fails:
First, the 20th century view of the market has a big machine which can be
manipulated by government planners if they only new the right variables is
simple minded and wrong.  The economy is not a machine, it's a complex,
non-linear system like the environment.  Small changes in inputs can have
great and unpredictable changes in outputs.  There is no way that a central
planner can possibly account for all of the side-effects that might as a
result of the type of massive government intervention that usually
accompanies central planning
Second, the market has evolved a really simple distributed information
system used to transmit important facts about the economy while filtering
out extraneous details.  It's called the price system.  You as a consumer
don't have to know that a revolution in Columbia is preventing shipments of
bananas reaching the U.S. to decide how many bananas to buy.  You only need
to know that the price has changed.  The first thing that socialist
planners always do is circumvent the distributed price system without the
slightest chance of possibly being able to acquire all of the complex and
intricate information needed to price everything.  This causes market chaos
resulting in shortages in some goods and surpluses in others.
Third, socialism destroys technological progress.  Again, technological
progress is made as the result of the distributed nature of the market. 
People who quit big companies because they felt creatively stifled and
started entrepreneurial firms or people who just never bothered with large
organizations in the first place have been responsible for most of the
technological progress of the last 100 years.  Socialism creates
organizations which are owned by one organization – the government.  The
type of politically correct, credential driven bureaucracies that naturally
follow are not conducive to renegades who want to pursue their own vision. 
Under true socialism, the renegades have no where to go because the
government runs everything.
Humans are imperfect and so is the market.  There is no utopia.  However,
trying to centrally micro-manage the market either by nationalizing it or
heavily regulating it has proven to be a disaster everywhere that it's been
tried.  That certainly doesn't mean we should all turn into libertarians or
social Darwinists.  Government does have a legitimate role in society. 
Just what that role is will be endlessly debated.  However, one thing is
clear, the utopian fantasy that government can circumvent tens of thousands
of years of human societal evolution to purposefully create a better (read:
human nature changing) society through government action and central
planning is unsupported by reality.

On Wed, 27 Nov 96 13:11:30 CST, C369801@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Walker
on Earth) wrote:
>In article <57cn9m$qg1@news.one.net>
>api@axiom.access.one.net (Adam Ierymenko) writes:
> 
>>>And no, while there was causal evidence prior to 1996 that linked smoking
>>>with various lung diseases, there was none that demonstrated that smoking
>>>caused cancer - in fact tobacco companies have (successfully) fended off
>>>plaintiffs for years with defense that there was only a _correlation_
>>>between tobacco and cancer, _not_ a causal connection.
>>
>>True.. you do have a point.  Correlation does show a definite possibility of
>>a causal relationship, and the greater the correlation the more plausible a
>>causal relationship is.  However, correlation does not *prove* a causal
>>relationship "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Of course, it doesn't seem that
>>you're claiming that correlation can prove something beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
>Of course not.  What I am objecting to is the tactic of attempting to
>ridicule evidence for global warming on the grounds that it is
>merely corroborative in nature when the very same people making this
>argument see nothing contradictory in drawing the inference that
>cigarettes cause cancer from what are essentially statistical cor-
>relations. 
Corroborative in nature?  You mean, I assume, correlative.
>I count some of these people as being knowingly deceptive
>because they refuse to point out any specific correlation that would
>have to be dis/proven before they would accept the hypothesis under
>discussion.
Improper deduction. Cigarette evidence is vastly stronger than global
warming evidence. In the absence of a perfect chain of cause and
effect (rare in many areas of science), one has to look at the
strength of the evidence, the strength of the theories, and how they
correlate.
Put simply, global warming does not have a long enough time series in
the records (ie, the time since mankind started significantly
increasing CO2) to warrant a solid conclusion. The evidence is at best
suggestive, and certainly not conclusive.
OTOH with cigarette smoking, there is voluminous statistical
information establishing an extremely strong case. In addition there
are good (if not totally complete) explanations for the various
mechanisms that cause the damage, themselves based on extremely strong
statistical evidence.
There is no comparison between the two cases. Most people would agree
that cigarettes have been *proven* to cause cancer. I doubt it you
will find one global warming researcher who would say that global
warming has been *proven.* 
>>Smoking is an activity that has been all-but-proven to be harmful, yet gives
>>close to *zero* benefits to individuals or to our society as a whole.  The use
>>of fossil fuels, on the other hand, is generating the energy which is running
>>this computer in front of me.
> 
>Actually, I know several smokers who are fully aware of what they are
>doing to themselves who would disagree with you :-)
>Of course, those devilish details . . . does Senator Bilge's retention
>of his seat based upon his proposed policy goals in re this issue
>count as a cost or a benefit?  Or how about the industrialization of
>some slobbery mangy stupid third world dictatorship?
Exactly. Global warming involves a very complex, nonlinear and
contrary system: humankind.
Those who imagine that they can control mankind in its use of fossil
fuels are deluded, or they are willing to commit mass murder. There
isn't much room in between.
You could no doubt force people in the US to cut CO2 consumption
*some*. Try it in Russia or China! How about Indonesia? India?
>>Of course, we could use nuclear energy in place of fossil fuels in almost all
>>cases, with the only possible exceptions being aviation and large ocean vessels.
>>Greens block this however, so we have to keep using greenhouse-gas-producing
>>sources of energy.
> 
>Ummmm . . . this is one of those tech-driven issues.  You have lithium
>or boron based aneutronic fusion burners that fit under the hood of
>your car, this whole debate is just another one for the history books.
>Btw, I believe it a mischaracterization of the majority of those who
>would call themselves greens to say they oppose nuclear power.  I
>suspect that most of the legions of these granola snuffling, wood-
>burning flower power leftovers exist mostly as a sort of rhetorical
>club used by right-thinking individualists.
More like a religion operating on their own divine inspiration.
>  Any 'environmentalist'
>I know who has opposed nuclear energy has definitely been a fringe
>character who usually bears a self-inflicted name like 'Sunfish,'
>and has had no known power or influence that I could discern.
This is nonsense. Major environmental groups have shown, by their
actions, that they will instinctively act to stop nuclear power,
regardless of the merits.
One amusing thing about the global warming debate is that it pits
greenies against greenies, since the easiest way to cut down on CO2 is
with widespread nuclear.
>Who are these greens?  Who do they purport to speak for and how
>influential are they?  They don't speak for me and mine, and we're
>'green' enough that we do curbside recycling and sometimes partici-
>pate in Arbor Day.
I would say that you are very light green by the standards of the
activist and effective Green movement.
>You're kidding.  The lunatic greens I know - the ones who appear
>to oppose nuclear power on principle - are usually just grubby
>little leftovers who either have too much pride at stake to admit
>they were wrong, or else are just plain interested in getting
>some young thing into the sack.  Not that there's anything wrong
>with that ;-)
If you really think it is grubby little leftovers, why is it that we
have been unable to bury nuclear fuel, but instead leaving it sitting
around in cooling ponds threatening all of us NOW rather than maybe,
perhaps, sometime threatening a few people in the future?
Environmental groups are, in *general*, obstructionist. For example,
there was a plan to build a hazardous waste dump and hazardous waste
incinerator here in Arizona, out in the desert and at least 20 miles
from any population concentration. A great place to do it, it also was
right on the Southern Pacific railroad tracks.
The greenies, including that minor ineffective group Greenspeace,
blocked it, costing the taxpayers $40,000,000. Greenspeace sent people
from San Francisco to Phoenix to illegally distrupt the project.
This probably hurt the environment by eliminating a safe disposal
system for those wastes.
You are right, they are nuts. But they are not little leftovers, they
are gigantic global organizations with budgets in the tens to hundreds
of million dollars per year!

In article <329CA6AA.73CD@ix.netcom.com>,   wrote:
>Because most of what Mark D. Vincent says is garbage, I've reduce my 
>response to only a few illustrative issues so as to minimize the waste 
>of my time:
>
Translation: Since Mr. Vincent has had the audacity to disagree with me
I will resort to snyde comments and insults to bolster my lame argument 
and snip out the parts I have no response for so my reply looks better.
>Vincent says:
>
>>Society does NOT determine my standard of living. I do, through my
>>own efforts.
>
>I reply:
>
>OK.  Assuming you don't have extensive investments that allow you to 
>increase your wealth without any effort and without producing a thing, 
>increase your net worth by 40%.  Let me know when it happens.  How long 
>do you want?
>
Heh, heh. Got news for you son. I have already done this over the last
3 years without ANY investments at all. And it was more like 200%. And
I did it by only investing my time and effort. Granted, the percentage
was easier since I had little to start with but nevertheless it happened.
For the next 40% increase? Hmm...... I'll bet about another 3 years.
This will hopefully be helped by more investment than the last increase
but still not to be considered 'extensive'.
>later - I said:
>
>>> Secondly, there is nothing in capitalism that makes improved
>>>standard of living or value desirable in any general sense.  The
>
>You state:
>
>>There isn't??! Actually it does not make it "desirable" (human nature
>>does that) but it makes it possible by the individual without seeking
>>some sort of permission from 'society'.
>
>I note:
>
>To illustrate what I'm talking about, if I can make an extra million or 
>two and drive you into poverty doing it, I will.  I have no desire to 
Is it necessary to drive anyone into poverty to do that or are you just
a sadist who would enjoy that as a side benefit?
>improve your standard of living, and your 'value' as an individual is 
>zero.  What are you going to do about it?  Go ahead and re-define these 
>things any way you wish.  Now, if I had sufficient power and resources, 
>it would happen now.  Generally speaking, I'm only concerned about >my< 
>value and >my< standard of living.  If you're not increasing my net 
>worth you're a either a competitor or your not on the playing field.  In 
>either case who gives a flying * about you?
>
This of course states it rather crudely, however it is correct. BUT, I 
ask, how will you do this (assuming theft is not the method). Would you
do it by working or investing or a combination? If you work, you get paid
and increase your standard. However, you also provide a good or service
that benefits another or at minimum benefits a company which if owned 
publicly would then provide dividends or value growth to investors. So,
as you say, you may not give a * about these other people but you will
benefit them nonetheless. As for investment, by investing in a company 
you provide capital for the company to expand, create jobs, make goods
provide services - all to the benefit of the ones you don't care about. See,
'caring' about the beneficiaries of the capitalist system is totally
unneccessary, but they benefit regardless.
>I said:
>
>>>objective of capitalism is to improve the value of >your< possessions
>>>and perhaps, but not necessarily, improve >your< standard of living, 
>>>at
>>>any cost including lowering these things in others.  There is no
>>>'search', except for a way to achieve this objective.
>>
>
>Vincent says:
>
>>Here you make your biggest logic error. Your assumption is that an
>>improvement in one person's living standard results in a corresponding
>>decline in another person's standard. This is patently false. Wealth
>>CAN be created. A rising tide lifts ALL boats. If I get a 15% raise it
>>mean that someone else does not get as high a raise but as long as it
>>is because my performance is better than there is nothing wrong with >that.
>>The other person sees a higher standard to aspire to and also sees by
>>example that the extra effort will be rewarded.
>
>This I can't resist. I reply:
>
>Where do I assume that there is a corresponding decline in another's 
>standard of living?  Nowhere!  What's your reading comprehension? 
Excuse me, but not only did you snip the part where you again state
the negative effect of your increased value in this last bit but you
again made reference to such above. Good try to deny it though. But not
strategically sound as it appears to be the basis of your anti-capitalist
argument. What was that about 'driving people into poverty....'?
>Kindergarden?  What I said was improve your own '...at any cost 
>including lowering these things in others'.  Read it yourself!  What 
I did. Are you now ready to admit that improving your own does not
neccessarily lower another (except in cases of theft)?
>this says is that for my own benefit or out of simple whimsy, with 
>sufficient resources and power I could reduce your value to zero and 
>your standard of living to a cardboard carton under a viaduct.  In our 
Here you repeat this theme. Do you have a desire to do so? Is there a 
burning desire you have to reduce others standards of living in order to
benefit yourself? Or would you be content to function in a mutually 
beneficial system of free enterprise as I described above? If indeed 
you have a desire to destroy then YOU are the problem - not the system.
>'capitalist' society who would say this is unethical?  It's right up 
>there!  Read it for yourself!
>
It depends on how you did it. If you did so in violation of the law then
clearly you would be found not only unethical but also criminal. However,
assuming you are speaking of legal means then I must ask what chain of
events would precipitate such a transition from productivity to poverty.
Be careful not to assume that a simple layoff neccessarily means instant
poverty. Because remember, the employer has no obligation to pay for 
services if they are deemed unneccessary (although there are more and more
people who think they do and want to make it part of the law) therefore
one's value cannot be viewed only in terms of current salary or position.
It must be viewed as a service that is in some demand in multiple places
and is therefore 'portable'. Of course in the case where there are few 
who have a certain capacity or rare skill then maybe that is an exception
but generally one must maintain and constantly improve a skill set to
avoid dependence on a single employer or position. This promotes constant
improvement and thus a more productive work force. Remove this incentive
by guaranteeing work even when such work is not needed and stagnation is
the result as well as a drag on an otherwise productive system that must 
now subsidize labor not in demand.
>You say later:
>
>>...Those at the lowest levels of these items
>>usually are the ones who demand that 'society' provide for them.
>
>I reply:
>
>You tell this to one of scientists, engineers, or others laid off during 
>the last decade of corporate and government downsizing and you're liable 
>to find out just how much your opinion is worth.  What you say is 
>actually true of the highest income levels in our society.
>
>Having read the first half of your excuses and thoughtless twaddle, I 
>think I'll skip the rest.
Not only did you skip 'the rest' but you also snipped the part where I
state what the referred to 'items' were. For those who did not read the
original article I will remind you that those 'items' were effort and
responsibility. Come to think of it I used those words several times and
I see you have snipped them all. I must therefore assume that these concepts
scare you and thus you avoid dealing with them. This proves my assertion
about demands on society and who they originate from. It also helps to
solidify your socialist credentials. Incidentally, any scientist or 
engineer who fears downsizing would do well to follow my methods described
above. Those who do will and have had no problems transitioning to other
employment. Last I checked, engineers in particular are still in high 
demand - though perhaps not in the corporations and government contracts 
they used to be. Thus, flexibility is also a key element of portability 
of skills. Also, effort must again play a role in the transition. 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mark D. Vincent    |   -- Insert profound quote     
  mdv@shore.net      |                            or clever phrase here -- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If any company is interested in placing a banner add on www.groundwater.com
please contact me for further information.
We are getting 25,00 to 30,00 hits a month.
This is a prime marketplace for environmental software and equipment.
Ken Bannister
--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Kenneth E. Bannister
 President -    Bannister Research & Consulting
 Owner     -        GROUNDWATER Mailing List
 Charter Member -       Digital Dowsers
 http://www.groundwater.com   kenbannister@groundwater.com 
                      Indago Felix 
--------------------------------------------------------------

andrewt@cs.su.oz.au (Andrew Taylor) wrote:
>Paul Dietz has misread my postng, I didn't conclude John McCarthy
>was incorrect about thermodynamics.  I concluded he was incorrect
>in an old statement regarding conservation of mass and trophic levels.
Since the statement he was critiquing had to do with thermodynamics
(read it!), and since you admit you have no knowledge of
thermodynamics, how could you have concluded he was incorrect?
BTW, his point that the 2nd law does not imply that mass of organisms
at higher trophic levels must be lower than the mass at lower trophic
levels is correct.  Now, it may be that in all natural ecosystems that
mass decreases going to higher levels, but that's irrelevant to his
point; if that is true, it isn't due to the 2nd law.
	Paul

In article ,
   jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>America has spent enormous amounts of money on "cleaning up the
>environment", including direct Government expenditures at all levels,
>making all activities morre expensive with delays and impact
>statements, and costs imposed on companies and the public.  Doubtless
>Lester Thurow, MIT liberal economist, favored these measures.
>Thurow's comments on the standard of living going down doesn't 
mention
>these benefits and whether they were worth what they cost in 
spendable
>income for the public.  My own opinion is that many of these measures
>are worth less than what they cost.
>
>Primitive liberals value regulations if they can regard them as
>imposing costs on bad guys, e.g. companies, or as making the public
>shape up, e.g. walk more, smoke less or sort trash.  The primitive
>liberal point of view is probably incapable of admitting that favored
>measuers have imposed costs on society.
>
	You confuse.  On the other newsgroups I've seen you on,
you post reasonable, well-written posts.  On this one, you post
ideologically-oriented trolls.  What gives?  You know perfectly
well there are no such thing as primitive liberals, and that
many regulations address real and urgent problems, and that the
people who think about them are trying to solve complex problems
with limited resources in the face of vociferous opposition from
entrenched interests on all sides.  So why write this?
Mike

Jan Schloerer (JSCHLOER@rzmain.rz.uni-ulm.de) wrote:
: In  <5750rd$i95@access5.digex.net>
:     Robert Grumbine  (rmg3@access5.digex.net)  wrote ...
: 
: ... about sea level during the last (Eemian) interglacial:
: 
: > The sea level may have been about 5 meters higher, for various
: > good reaons, and it may have been about the same, for other
: > comparably good reasons (so far as I can tell).  I get the
: > feeling this will be resolved some time after the matter
: > of whether the tropics were about the same temperature as
: > now or were significantly colder at the last glacial maximum.
: > If the tropics did cool significantly at the lgm, it is more
: > believable that they warmed significantly more than this
: > interglacial at the last interglacial (though that wouldn't
: > buy you 5 meters sea level change, it is at least in the
: > right direction).
: 
: 
: About 15 years ago some people hypothesized that
: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet might have disintegrated
: during the Eemian.  Has that idea been studied further,
: discarded, or ... ?
	See:
	http://igloo.gsfc.nasa.gov/wais/illus_sum.html
	for related information.
	Jim Acker
===============================================
|  James G. Acker                             |
|  REPLY TO:   jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov  |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.

ericbl wrote:
> 
....
> 
> Agree.
I note:
You sound more rational than most others on this topic.  Let's check it 
out....
> 
> I don't even use the term "capitalism" anymore.  Why?  Because the market
> is not an "ism".  The market wasn't purposefully invented by anyone.
> Nobody sat down and penned a manifesto.  Instead, the market evolved with
> human civilization over tens of thousands of years.  It is as much a part
> of us as is family and language which were also not purposefully invented,
> but rather evolved over time as well.
I interject:
Good start.  I agree.
You continue:
> 
> There are three basic reasons why socialism fails:
I sigh:
Uh-oh....
> 
> First, the 20th century view of the market has a big machine which can be
> manipulated by government planners if they only new the right variables is
> simple minded and wrong.
I note:
This seems to be an attitude adopted by capitalist planners as well.  
haven't you noticed how layoffs, Greenspan's response, and share price 
are all related?  It seems some have identified the right variables for 
inflating share price doesn't it?
You conitnue:
>  The economy is not a machine, it's a complex,
> non-linear system like the environment.  Small changes in inputs can have
> great and unpredictable changes in outputs.  There is no way that a central
> planner can possibly account for all of the side-effects that might as a
> result of the type of massive government intervention that usually
> accompanies central planning
I note:
Greenspan represents the epitomy of government intervention - a market 
czar puppet master of stock prices.  The tax code also seems to favor 
market investment.
You continue:
> 
> Second, the market has evolved a really simple distributed information
> system used to transmit important facts about the economy while filtering
> out extraneous details.  It's called the price system.  You as a consumer
> don't have to know that a revolution in Columbia is preventing shipments of
> bananas reaching the U.S. to decide how many bananas to buy.  You only need
> to know that the price has changed.  The first thing that socialist
> planners always do is circumvent the distributed price system without the
> slightest chance of possibly being able to acquire all of the complex and
> intricate information needed to price everything.  This causes market chaos
> resulting in shortages in some goods and surpluses in others.
I add:
This may be true - the first part certainly.  Whether the second part - 
I don't know that Cuba was short of anything not brought about by the 
U.S. boycott.  Are the Chinese short be cause of this?  The soviets had 
another problem that seems to be pan-economic system, called corruption.
You continue:
> 
> Third, socialism destroys technological progress.  Again, technological
> progress is made as the result of the distributed nature of the market.
I note:
Perhaps you should name some socialist systems so we can see if this is 
true.  I think there are some significant current examples of capitalism 
retarding progress as well.
You continue:
> People who quit big companies because they felt creatively stifled and
> started entrepreneurial firms or people who just never bothered with large
> organizations in the first place have been responsible for most of the
> technological progress of the last 100 years.
I reply:
I think this is hogwash.  Around the turn of the century there were a 
number of individuals who contributed to technological progress but this 
was a transition period.  Here's some big technological progress from 
people working through large companies and other large institutions:  
the entirety of the space program, the transistor, the Internet, most 
aerospace developments, nuclear power.  Further, most of these 
developments were directed and funded by the government.  What examples 
do you have in mind?
You continue:
>  Socialism creates
> organizations which are owned by one organization ­ the government.  The
> type of politically correct, credential driven bureaucracies that naturally
> follow are not conducive to renegades who want to pursue their own vision.
> Under true socialism, the renegades have no where to go because the
> government runs everything.
I ask:
Let's have an example of true socialism.  Perhaps the USSR?  But 
socialist countries also provide incentives for development.  To do 
otherwise is not socialism, just bad management.  You may note our own 
corporations and businesses often do the same.  Battelle owns any 
invention an employee comes up with, and although they've recently 
increased the benefit an employee can get from an invention the whole 
approach and it's implementation is very self-serving and 
anti-development.  Are our other corporations so different?  Sure you 
can leave and start up on your own - the government sometimes will help 
you to do so, and this may be a difference.  Do most socialist countries 
forbid this?
You continue:
> 
> Humans are imperfect and so is the market.  There is no utopia.  However,
> trying to centrally micro-manage the market either by nationalizing it or
> heavily regulating it has proven to be a disaster everywhere that it's been
> tried.
I note:
It seems that leaving it to regulate itself yields the same result.
You continue:
>  That certainly doesn't mean we should all turn into libertarians or
> social Darwinists.  Government does have a legitimate role in society.
> Just what that role is will be endlessly debated.  However, one thing is
> clear, the utopian fantasy that government can circumvent tens of thousands
> of years of human societal evolution to purposefully create a better (read:
> human nature changing) society through government action and central
> planning is unsupported by reality.
I note:
Do you claim that the utopian fantasy of the free market is less absurd?  
Do you claim that government intervention - sometimes extensive 
intervention - in the market is less old than the market itself?  I 
agree with you that there is no 'ism' which can be followed blindly.  
The only question is where it should intervene, how it should intervene, 
and how much it should intervene.  Anyone with influence will claim the 
govenrment should or should not intervene in any way that increases his 
wealth.  The government, however, also has as its responsibility the 
good of society as a whole.

sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis) writes:
>>According to the FAO Web page, China grew 45 million tons of
>>potatoes in 1995, which was the largest potato production in the
>>world.  
>>The Chinese yield per hectare on potatoes was 1/2 that of the US and
>>1/3 that of the UK, indicating that the Chinese can get a lot more
>>potatoes if they treat their peasants better.
>You have a knack for ignoring the point. Whatever they are growing,
>they are not growing on US or UK cropland. 
Traditionally potatos in China have been grown on marginal land. The
introduction of the potato meant that a lot of hill sides in the south
of China could be used for food production and as they probably caused
a large part of the massive population increases in the Ming and early
Qing periods. So you have a point here to some extent. Potatos have not
been grown on the same sort of land as they have been in the West. They
are grown on mountain sides too steep to terrace for rice paddy. That is
asuming there has been no change in tradtional cropping practises.
>Attempts to match these
>yields are what is causing large areas of land to be rendered useless
>by salinization due to over-irrigation and continuing depletion of
>non-renewable aquifers, among other things. 
I would like a source for this claim though. Potatos don't like dry
climates. They have always been mostly grown in the South and above
all the South-West. Places where average rain fall is measured in
feet rather than inches. The chances of Guizhou ever having a problem
with salinization due to over-irrigation or that they would need to
use aquifers is amusing.
Joseph
--
      "Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall inherit the Earth"
                        - President Bill Clinton

D. Braun wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Scott LaRoche wrote:
> 
> > It's good that wealthy rock star, noted scientist and environmental spokesperson Sting
> > is so environmentally-sensitive. It's really important that Sting, who luvs the
> > rainforest (not jungle!) and birds and wetlands (not swamps!) uses his private jet to
> > flit between concerts.
> 
> I see you believe that wilderness is a wasteland. Sad.
I believe that "rainforest" and "wetland" are PC terms for "jungle" and "swamp". Coming 
next year from Disney: Mowgli and his friends star in "The Rainforest Book". And don't 
forget next summer's release: "The Wetland Thing".
> > Gosh, we can't have Sting slumming it on commercial flights with the rest of us. He's
> > worth that extra 20,000 gallons of jet fuel every day because, well, he's
> > environmentally-sensitive.
> 
> And? Should all small jets be grounded (or helis) because mileage/personm
> is low? What have you done to preserve indigenous people and the
> rainforests they live in, something that will benefit all people?
I've done a lot more than Sting. Want proof?
Gallons of fuel burned per week for transportation:
            Scott                            Sting (3 round-trips/week)
            16 gallons unleaded gasoline     120,000 gallons jet fuel
Sting cares so. 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My World: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/HOMEPAGE.HTM
Home of the Psychic Web Challenge and Exon Awards!
"Absence of evidence is absence of evidence."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On 25 Nov 1996 06:32:38 GMT jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
>Yes, from thinking what it is like to the hundreds of millions
>who have been saved from misery. 
>Statistrics of hunger and disease matter a lot;
>but the numbers of healthy, happy people in the world,
>of children with a future of hope, matter the most, and are
>increasing the fastest. We are living in times of wonderful progress 
Also remember that this has been accomplished on a minimum of arable
land thereby preserving the genetic diversity and fragile ecosystems
on the great majority of the planet.
>The main obstacles on the way are environmentalists
>and regulators.
For which we have only ourselves to thank.  High-yield agriculture is
the only true environmentalist solution.  We elected the regulators.

Peter Stroot wrote:
> > Gosh, we can't have Sting slumming it on commercial flights with the rest of us. He's
> > worth that extra 20,000 gallons of jet fuel every day because, well, he's
> > environmentally-sensitive.
> >
> > Same with noted environmental scientist Woody Harrelson. We should all be so glad they
> > care about the world we live in.
> 
> wasn't sting the one who believes in population control?
> i recall that his wife has squeezed out a few puppies...
Well, Sting's different. See, he cares. Maybe he only believes in population control for 
brown, black and red babies. He and Trudy obviously feel there's plenty of room for more 
lily-white devourers of the Earth's resources. 
> actions speak louder than words....
> 
> could someone list the enviro-stars' credentials?
> neil young is another one....
I like Neil, and he's usually not too preachy.
> love his music, don't want to hear his views.
> yet another one.....rem.
Stipe sucks. I liked REM better when he mumbled. 
> went to a concert to hear music and all i got
> was a bunch greenpeace and amnesty international crap.
Yup. I will say that I can't lump Amnesty International in with the rest of the fruits. 
With the exception of their opposition to the death penalty for convicted murderers, I 
support their position on political prisoners.
> to all entertainers:
> entertain, don't lecture.
> i'll go to school for a lecture.
Bingo! I agree 100%. If they wanna preach, they should become politicians. 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
My World: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/HOMEPAGE.HTM
Home of the Psychic Web Challenge and Michael Stipe Unfan Club!
"Absence of evidence is absence of evidence."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In article <578gg5$tl5@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
wrote:
>charliew@hal-pc.org (charliew) wrote:
>well there's examples worldwide where technology has lead 
to enviro
>problems and the correction has only made the situation 
worst
> 
There are also examples worldwide where technology has 
increased peoples' lifespans, cured illnesses, reduced their 
amount of manual labor, transported them long distances in 
short amounts of time, enabled them to communicate globally 
for *very* little expense, etc., etc.  I don't read where 
you complain about the benefits of high technology.  I 
suppose that you think that there are some things in this 
world that only have benefits to them, and no drawbacks?  
Perhaps you think the environmental movement fits into this 
category?

In article <579rsd$4rp@sun3.uni-essen.de>,
   jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE (Joshua B. Halpern) wrote:
>John Moore (ozone@primenet.com) wrote:
>: On 22 Nov 1996 22:33:42 GMT, jbh@ILP.Physik.Uni-Essen.DE 
(Joshua B.
>: Halpern) wrote:
>: >Nope, you have the cart before the horse here.  The 
science
>: >indicates that continuing as we are will most probably 
>: POSSIBLY, not probably.
>
>Ah yes, but the possibility/probability is well over 10 
>or 20% in the near future, and much higher than that in
>100 years or so (based on current understanding).  
And here we have an excellent example of a genius who can 
give concrete probabilities from an unproven theory.  I 
suppose for you that the existence of theory and computer 
models based on theory are sufficient to provide proof in 
and of themselves.

In article <57i740$2th@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
   tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>Mike Asher (masher@tusc.net) wrote:
>: Raymond D'Antuono  wrote:
(cut)
>: Simply because a chaotic system refuses to converge, does 
not mean that its
>: behaviour is unbounded.  In short, a butterfly flapping 
its wings in China
>: may well cause rain two weeks later in Iowa.....but it 
won't raise average
>: world rainfall by two inches.   
>
>Thanks for making this point so succinctly. I have tried to 
explain this
>in the past, but invariably end up getting much too 
verbose. This answer
>captures the answer to the naive application of pop chaos 
theory to
>the climate prediction question very well.
>
>mt
>
>
Michael,
you also helped many people with your reply.  It is a fact 
that "pop chaos theory" has attracted the attention of many 
laymen who think that merely by naming something, they are 
qualified to debate about it.  Naturally, these debates are 
usually extrapolated to illogical extremes that have no 
relevance to the facts that exist today.
Have a happy thanksgiving.

In article <57ial3$2th@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
   tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) wrote:
>charliew (charliew@hal-pc.org) wrote:
>
>: Wrong!  I have much knowledge of thermo and quantum 
>: mechanics.  I also have much knowledge of human nature 
and 
>: the effect of pessimistic/liberal attitudes on peoples' 
>: outlooks on life.  I find it amusing that you pessimists 
>: think mankind is intelligent enough to get into trouble 
with 
>: his inventions, but too stupid to find a way out of the 
>: trouble that has been created from those inventions.  Oh, 
>: yee of little faith!  Based on your outlook and 
assumptions, 
>: it is a miracle that humans have existed on this planet 
for 
>: this long!
>
>I can't speak for other pessimists, and I find it 
irritating
>that people respond to perceived social groups rather than
>actual arguments. 
>
>For myself, I think people are smart enough to find
>solutions, but not smart enough to figure out a way to 
implement
>them. I think that the evidence that we should avoid 
increasing
>emissions (NOTE - avoid increasing the annual rate of 
emission,
>not cut of all emissions) in particular is prudent and 
cost-effective,
>but fuzzy thinking like charliew's will likely prevent us 
from
>doing this, and in the end, the price to be paid will be 
much
>larger than otherwise. This is not because of insufficient
>understanding as a maximum among the society - the usual 
measure
>of scientific and engineering progress, but because of 
insufficient
>understanding among the broad reaches of democracy.
>
>If someone as bright as charliew can't be brought to 
understand
>risk management in the face of uncertainty, how can we hope 
for
>society as a whole to accede to up-front costs to avoid 
much
>larger risks, especially when those risks which will be 
proven 
>without doubt only in the event that the policy is 
unsuccessful???
>
>At least in conventional insurance situations there's 
usually someone
>around to say "thank goodness I had the flood insurance". 
We only
>have one biosphere to play with, and so long as we avoid 
serious
>problems there will be those who argue that the problems 
were always
>imaginary. I don't see that society's ability to identify 
legitimate
>expertise versus junk science is improving, and ultimately 
that's
>a necessary precursor to a logical response. And even that 
necessity
>is far from sufficient.
>
>mt
> 
Let's see why I seem to exhibit "fuzzy" thinking.  The last 
time I checked, we were all practically doomed by 50 parts 
per trillion of freon in the stratosphere, CO2 is going to 
lead to catastrophic climate change, I can't expect to 
remain healthy if I eat red meat, chicken, fish, traces of 
any kind of pesticide, cholesterol, etc., my drinking water 
has traces of every contaminant known to man in it, bacteria 
are now eating human flesh and getting so strong that no 
antibiotic can affect them, AIDS will kill us all if we 
don't immediately find a cure, and so on, ad nauseum!  All 
of these catastrophes are occurring in a time when I am 
statistically living longer and healthier than ever before, 
due largely to the technological progress that many 
environmentalists seem so hell-bent to eliminate!
I am sick and tired of the "boy who cried wolf".  If 
positive proof exists that something harmful needs 
attention, I don't have a problem in taking action.  
However, for all the chicken littles out there, I say it's 
time to put up or shut up!  Show me a real problem that will 
ultimately lead to catastrophe, or stop preaching your same 
tired droning sermon!  I'm getting very tired of hearing the 
same sad song, especially in a day and age when an optimist 
would say that things have never looked better.
BTW, have a happy thanksgiving.

In article <578hir$tnj@News2.Lakes.com>,
   gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com (gdy52150@prairie.lakes.com) 
wrote:
(BIG CUT)
>i have to agree with Ken's  overall assement of cancer 
risk. But for
>the look at the first enviromental problem of the 21st 
century start
>looking at endocrine blockers. The chemicals that pose as 
endocrines
>will be a greater problem than ozone depletion and cancer 
risk
>combined. There is a fair amount of info available on the 
wweb, just
>set your search engine to endocrines.
Oh, boy!  Here we go with the next catastrophe in the 
making!  I suppose that fertility rates are falling as a 
result of these endocrine blockers.  Funny that this would 
be a problem in an otherwise over-populated world.
Some of you pessimists remind me of a bunch of sheep, 
searching for the next story to blindly follow.  Enjoy your 
pessimism.

In article , 
rkish@ivory.trentu.ca wrote:
>In article , "Don Dale" 
 writes:
>>>> This is false.  Genocide is the result not of any 
"economism,"
>>>> whatever that may be, but of reversion to pre-economic 
racisms. In
>>>> Rwanda as in Germany, it is the expression of ancient 
tribalism.
>>>>  
>>>>                                      -dlj.
>>> 
>>>This is simply not correct, sorry.  The problem in 
Bosnia, Rwanda, 
>>>Burundi, Azerbajan, Los Angeles and many other places is 
that a 
>>>relatively affluent minority rules.  As in the French and 
Russian 
>>>revolutions, a point comes when the majority revolts and 
sets about
>>>killing off the minority.  This is political economics, 
not tribalism.
>>>The tribal differences are historic and lie behind the 
minority rule 
>>>but are not the cause of the revolt.
>>
>>Los Angeles?  *That* was a class revolt?
>>
>Absolutely- the median income in the US for white 
households is over 
>$43,000, while the median income for black households is 
$4,170.  This is 
>relevant because it helps explain some of the frustrations 
of the African 
>American minority- which includes poverty, discrimination 
and the feeling 
>of being powerless.  
>
>>So Damian Williams threw his brick at the head of Reginald 
Denny because
>>the truck driver was a rich man?
>
>Actually, that was an exhibition of frustration....and it 
was barbaric.  
>However, in the US, where black men are less likely to 
reach their 65th 
>birthday than white men, where the income disparity is so 
extreme, when 
>discrimination is so far reaching and deplorable, those 
types of reactions 
>shouldn't surprise anyone. 
I say we should make it illegal to prosecute a black 
perpetrator.  Turn them all loose, because they are victims 
of their society.  
Naturally, I will make every attempt to reside as far from 
these victims as possible.  Thus, they will have to 
victimize other victims to gain the valuables needed to 
support their drug habits, pay for prostitutes, etc.  How 
this can be considered justice is difficult for me to 
understand.
Thus, you can hopefully see what I love so much about you 
flaming liberals.  Your compassion leads you to do stupid 
things, because justice must often be devoid of compassion 
if it is to work.  Think about it.

In article <57bbjd$l4p@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
   jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>In  rkish@ivory.trentu.ca 
writes: 
>>>Los Angeles?  *That* was a class revolt?
>>>
>>Absolutely- the median income in the US for white 
households is over 
>>$43,000, while the median income for black households is 
$4,170.  
>
>Median family income, 1994:
>
>White       39,300
>Black       21,542
>Hispanic    23,654
>
>(The Universal Almanac, 1996)
These numbers look *much* more believable.  Thanks for the 
feedback, and have a happy thanksgiving.

jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) wrote:
>McGinnis says that China doesn't grow potatoes, and I say the FAO says
>that China grows the most potatoes in the world, and McGinnis says I
>have a knack for ignoring the point.  He has a knack for ignoring the
>facts.
I readily admit my mistake in assuming that China doesn't grow
potatoes. I was disputing Mr. Asher's view that China is capable of
matching the same increases in yields, (to all crops), that have been
enjoyed in the US and elsewhere. They are already trying and realizing
that it's not possible. If you have some facts to disprove this, I
promise not to ignore them.
The imbalance of food distribution throughout the world corresponds in
part to where the lands best suited to agriculture are, not just where
the best technology is being used. Sure, technology and money can
increase yields anywhere, (to a point), but if it costs more to
achieve the same production in Africa for example, this puts them at a
disadvantage - and they already have little enough advantage.  
It is a fact that the developed nations are on land naturally, (ie -
regardless of technology), suited to agriculture. This is no
coincidence obviously, it is part of what allowed these countries to
become successful in the first place.
For interests sake, consider this summary on the effects of global
warming from the book 'Food for All'.
----
In short, global warming is likely to accentuate the existing
imbalance in world food production as the cooler temperate
regions - the industrialized countries - are likely to benefit on the
whole, while the tropical and subtropical regions seem likely to
suffer most. 
----
As global warming is purely the fault of the industrialized nations,
maybe you should ask yourself again if we have any responsibility to
those who are having trouble producing food.
Jason McGinnis

Ron Schmitz wrote:
>> 
>> I am interested in getting info related to stack emission standards
> >for waste incinerators in Canada and the U.S., specifically for
>> benzene, toluene (methyl benzene), furan (oxole) and thiophene
>> (thiofuran).  Can anyone help?
>None of the United States standards, either existing or proposed,
>contain any numerical emission limitations for the compounds 
>named.
The state of Connecticut has regulations for "Maximum Allowable Stack
Concentrations"  for specific toxic pollutant species --- more specific
than most other states.  Do not know where the Connecticut DEP regulations
are on the Web.
George H. Aronson, Principal
CommonWealth Resource Management Corporation
gharonson@aol.com

Vincent says:
....
>Translation: Since Mr. Vincent has had the audacity to disagree with me
>I will resort to snyde comments and insults to bolster my lame argument
>and snip out the parts I have no response for so my reply looks better.
I reply:
More garbage.  The rest ignored and unread.

Can somebody tell me what environmental engineering entails? I am considering an
environmental engineering major an so far I've only been given a general overview of
what it entails.

charliew wrote:
> 
.....
> 
> I say we should make it illegal to prosecute a black
> perpetrator.  Turn them all loose, because they are victims
> of their society.
> 
> Naturally, I will make every attempt to reside as far from
> these victims as possible.  Thus, they will have to
> victimize other victims to gain the valuables needed to
> support their drug habits, pay for prostitutes, etc.  How
> this can be considered justice is difficult for me to
> understand.
> 
> Thus, you can hopefully see what I love so much about you
> flaming liberals.
I note:
Here I thought the so-called conservatives were responsible.  I doubt 
that your flaming liberals screwed up the Simpson trial.  Fahrakkan's 
(sp?) demonstration planned to take place shortly after the trial and 
certain to draw more and angrier demonstrators if Simpson were found 
guilty certainly gave some presumably very conservative politicians and 
administrators sleepless nights.  Is Fahrakkan liberal or conservative?  
Anyone care to make an assessment?
Here are some more questions for both sides of this discussion:
I've heard a lot of self-appointed conservatives blaming the nation's 
ills on liberals over the past decade or so, and I've heard some of the 
people who have been labelled 'liberal' spouting some pretty 
conservative thought. I've really hardly heard or read anything 
representing liberal thought anywhere - some in the Nation.  What if 
'conservatives' have been throwing bricks at conservatives and calling 
them liberals, when actually liberals no longer exist?  Would this be 
class warfare, tribal warfare, or what?
According to the paper, the 18th street gang is now bigger than the 
crips or the bloods.  Are they conservative or liberal?
Is this group a class or a tribe?
Are major drug importers liberal or conservative?
charliew continues:
>  Your compassion leads you to do stupid
> things, because justice must often be devoid of compassion
> if it is to work.  Think about it.
I reply:
I agree with you 100%.  I have some specific things to do and I am 
working myself up to be absolutely devoid of compassion so that I can 
carry these things out properly.  I think, in fact, that this is the 
solution to a major social problem: we can't leave lawbreakers on the 
street, and at the same time I don't want to pay for their incarceration 
- which in many cases is nothing but welfare (welfare for the prison 
owners as well if they get to gouge the government like the hmo's). What 
is your suggestion?  I've got a solution which neither conservatives nor 
liberals will like, is absolutely devoid of compassion, about which I'll 
tell you later.

Tracy W wrote:
> 
> How did nuclear testing affect environment deeply?
It didn't.
-- 
"I Love Animals.  They taste great!" - Me
"Society has the obligation to bring no harm to those not accepting the
prevailing morality.  Society doesn't have the obligation to accept
contrary moral beliefs." - Me
"I didn't inhale!" - Bill Clinton
"Yes, I'm a member of the 'religious right.'" - Me
Homepage:  http://users.deltanet.com/~tandrews

Leonard Evens wrote:
> [snip]
> Sea level rise is only one potential harmful effect of climate change.
> Also, what exactly are we supposed to be waiting for?  There aren't
> likely to be any sudden catastrophic events which will tip the balance
> inevnitably in favor of action.   Of if they are, they will probably be
> due to misunderstandings of the causes of the actual events.   I agree
> that as far as sea level rise is concerned, we can afford to wait before
> taking drastic measures.  I don't see why we have to wait before taking
> any measures, no matter how moderate, particularly if they make sense in
> their own right.
> The Australian Government, at the prompting of industry, has been pushing the "no 
regrets" options for years, and doing a lot to implement them.  The level of criticism 
from the scaremongers has been extreme at times, resulting in an increasing isolation.
Regards, Martin

In article <329C845C.2850@facstaff.wisc.edu>,
Don Libby   wrote:
>About that lesson from Biosphere 2 regarding the assumption that
>ecological diversity leads to ecological stability.  I found this
>amusing, having read theory/research presented at the Cold Spring Harbor
>Symposium in the mid-70's (author's name escapes me, but I believe it
>was Hutchinson) disputing this common notion in favor of the alternate
>hypothesis that stability leads to diversity.  
The relationship between diversity and stability is a long running
question.  Hutchinson's famous part is his 1959 paper "A Homage to
Santa Rosalia", (American Naturalist 93 145-149).  One quote is:
"We may, therefore, conclude that the reason why there are so many
species of animals is at least partly because a complex trophic
organization of a community is more stable than a simple one, ... "
I believe this general tenor prevailed into the 1970 until Robert May's
theoretical work shook things up.
More recently, ecologists seem to think problems in earlier work
partly stems from the questions being poorly defined, poorly chosen
or both.  It seems to me they are getting somewhere but the answers
won't be simple but they will be very interesting.
There are a couple of nice accessible books:
The Balance of Nature?, Stuart Pimm, Uni of Chicago(1991).
Species Diversity in Space and Time, Michael Rosenzweig, Cambridge Press(1995).
Andrew Taylor