Newsgroup sci.environment 114563

Directory

sdef! wrote:
> Humans can't even sort out this place. You are all nutters. It isn't
> even worth arguing about.
We judge others by ourselves.
Actually, exploiting space would be a dandy way of solving a lot
of the problems on the Earth.  For example, by getting the
refining of metals out of the environment alltogether.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

Regarding your article,  I work summers in a campground where black bears
are abundant.  We have never had an incident where people have been hurt. 
One case we did have a bear that pulled a sleeping bag out of a tent. 
Unfortunately, there was a little girl inside the sleeping bag.  We later
found out that the girl was eating popcorn balls in the tent the night
before.  The bears have become less intimidated by people over the past
few years but in no way do they pose a threat to humans.  People often
provoke the bears by going up to them to take pictures, or leaving food
around.  If there is no food around, the bears will stay away.  Bears also
have very good memories and if they find a place that has food, they will
surely come back to the same spot to see if they can obtain more food.

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> 
> You have stated there are mass extinctions, which you cannot prove,
> because you do not know the species involved.  Nonetheless you require
> some effort to stop them these extinctions of unknown species.
> 
> I will believe you are serious when you drop your internet access and
> spend your money to save the unknown extinct species.
What's wrong with counting the number of species wholly contained
within a given area and extrapolating to other similar ecosystems?
I don't believe estimates of any species' numbers anywhere are obtained by
simply counting snouts; efforts are made to take as many representative 
samples as neccessary, and these numbers are extrapolated to cover the relevant
territory. If only because it is impossible for an underfunded biologist
to crawl on his hands and knees across Texas counting every damn fire ant in
existence there.
I have no idea how many species disappear daily, but if a field ecologist
says x square kilometres of habitat contain on average y complete species,
I'm inclined to accept his extrapolation to z square kilometres of
destroyed forest.
It's the way things are done in other fields, anyway.
Opinion polls, estimating commercial fish populations, even the subject I
minored in, astrophysics: to estimate things like the number of stars
in the galaxy ( anybody think some poor undergrad somewhere sat down to
count all 400 billion of 'em?) or the rate of formation of stars (even
undergrads can't wait 12 billion years to watch 'em all forming individually).
Of course, you may not trust statistical methods completely, but
they *have* come a long way since the days of "lies, damn lies and statistics".
Elliott
Whi

Murray Brandon wrote:
> 
> Countries have an economic interest in keeping their populations
> expanding.  If you have an ever increasing population, you always
> have a lot of extra jobs available to cater for their housing needs
> etc.  So, pretty much every country has a population expansion
> programme to keep the economy growing artificially.
Er ... I kind of doubt that.
Not that the reasoning is 100% unsound, but practically all industrialised
countries are putting the big crunch on anything that smacks of
population expansion or immigration.
You can scarcely get into a European country as asylumseeker, the USA
has all but put machine-gun posts along the border with Mexico to
keep out immigrants; I don't think most governments have a vested interest
in pop. increase.
E

B. Alan Guthrie wrote:.
> >
> >I am at as loss to see the relationship between Paducah and the TVA.  If PDGP
> >was a function of the TVA, would it not make more sense to locate it in eastern
> >Tennessee, where the TVA is, instead of in northwest Kentucky on the Ohio river?
> 
>   Paducah is in southwest Kentucky, located at the mouth of the Tennessee
>   River.  It is located in TVA service territory.
> 
>   (OK, if you want to argue, Paducah is on the northern border of Kentucky,
>   but it is considerably south of the bulk of the state.)
> 
> --
At last, some one who knows some geography.  Yes Tennesse river flows
through Kentucky into the Ohio river.  The Ohio river is owned by
Kentucky, as Kentucky was a Commonwealth before Ohio was a state.
The question is, were the dams constructed to supply cheap power
for PGPD. A couple of the old timers that I work with have always
held this position.  Certainly, when the Shawnee coal-fired plant 
was constructed later on, the Defense complex was a player in the
politics.  Its sort of a moebeus strip, the dam was needed for certain
energy demanding industries, the enrichment plant, the Chloro-alkal 
cell at BF Goodrich, the aluminum industry and the HF plant.  Once
constructed, the enrichment plant was then able to force TVA to
construct an additional coal plant for power.
I don't know what this has to do with radiation acidents.  Other
than the fact that PGPD is a radiation accident that happens 
frequently.  But what is a little U between friends.  What I can't
figure out is why PGPD continues to perform enrichment when we have
a surplus.  Also, I love what the goverment did, spun off the enrichment
plant but DOE kept the liability of the site contamination.  Don't
you just love your tax dollars as work.
P.S.  The Colonel said to say hey to everyone.  His surgery went 
well, and he starts on chemo protocol today.  Don't ever get the 
Colonel started on TVA though, I made that mistake once.

On 8 Jan 1997 00:55:38 GMT, richp@mnsinc.com (Rich Puchalsky) wrote:
>Harold Brashears (brshears@whale.st.usm.edu) wrote:
>: >Sam Hall wrote:
>: >> Any group of people that "have been subject to cultural and at times,
>: >> literal genocide" are a failure. If they were not they would have not
>: >> allowed it Tough language, but the truth. The rules in this world are
>: >> what the strong want them to be and all the " things should be___" are
>: >> just whining.
>: >> I assume you know what nature does with failures?
>:  
>: I am not sure that the concept of "justification" even fits the events
>: described.  The facts are that weaker cultures and groups do vanish as
>: time goes on.  Weaker cultures are those which do not lead to the
>: perpetuation of those who follow it.  
>
>A tautology.  First you claim that weaker cultures vanish.  Then you 
>explain this by defining "weaker cultures" as those that do not 
>successfully perpetuate themselves.
>
>What's going on is what usually goes on when right-wingers like Hall and
>Brashears take up pseudo-biological claptrap as a cover for their ideas.  
>In this case some vague concepts about "the strong surviving" lead to their
>usual Social Darwinist conclusions; i.e. that's there's no point in
>trying to protect people from those who wish to commit genocide or other 
>crimes.
>
Please read what I said. I noted that "Any group of people that have
been subject to cultural and at times, literal genocide  are a
failure." That is an observation of fact. You may not like it, but it
_does_ happen. I also fail to see where I stated that I approved of
such actions.
One of the many problems with liberals is that they see the world the
way they think it should be, not the way it is.
>: There are some religious cultures from early in the last century,
>: somewhat communistic and naturalistic in character, centered in the
>: northeast US, which no longer exist.  One of their primary tenets was
>: that they not have sex.  Eventually, they all died.
>
>Brashears is talking about the Shakers.  I'm glad to say that their memory
>will live on long after Hall, Brashears, and their idiotic philosophies
>have long since been relegated to forgotten footnotes.  The strength of a
>culture, if it means anything, does not mean mere physical continuation.
>Members of a culture may have other goals besides perpetuation.  We are
>not animals and we don't have to have perpetuation of our personal genes
>as our primary goal unless we use our intelligence to decide that we want
>that.  Not that I would ever expect that likes of Hall or Brashears to
>understand artistic, intellectual, or religious motivations.
>
"Members of a culture" can have goals other than perpetuation, but if
most of them do, goodby culture.
Since when are we not animals?
>: This is a simplistic example, and is meant only as one example.  I
>: would hazard the proposition that the American Indian culture was the
>: weaker culture, in the sense intended, and the evidence is that much
>: of it was indeed wiped out.
>
>Bah.  I suppose that if an asteroid had landed in Rome at the height of
>its Empire and completely wiped out Italy, that would prove that the
>Romans had a "weak" culture.  Mere chance and other factors having nothing
>to do with culture -- such as disease resistance -- can cause the demise
>of one population and the capture of its land by another.
>
True, but nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
>--
>sci.environment FAQs & critiques - http://www.mnsinc.com/richp/sci_env.html
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)

Announcing the BVAR Regional Cave Project in Belize, 1997
The Belize Valley Archaeological Reconnaissance Project will be conducting
archaeological research within various caves in Belize, Central America in
May, 1997.  This regional study will involve caves previously investigated
in the 1996 season, including Actun Tunichil Muknal (Stone Sepulchre), and
a number of caves recently discovered.  The archaeological material under
investigation include elite burials, stone monuments, cave art and
carving.  The project will focus upon interpreting the role of caves in
the culture of the ancient Maya.  
Dr. Jaime Awe will be directing the archaeological investigations in the
caves, which will include extensive exploration of cave sites, survey,
mapping of rooms and artifacts, typing of pottery, artifact tabulation,
data recording, and excavation.  Dr. Awe was the first archaeologist to
explore Actun Tunichil Muknal, and his preliminary exploration of this
exotic cave site was featured in a 1993 National Geographic Explorer
documentary film titled, "Journey Through the Underworld."  
In addition to tabulation and mapping of the caves' numerous cultural
remains, the project will also include laboratory efforts where
participants will be exposed to ceramic and lithic analyses and
preliminary analysis of human remains.  Lectures will be held weekly and
will provide an overview of Maya civilization with a particular focus on
ideology and cosmology relating to the use of caves by prehistoric Maya.  
This Field Research opportunity will run for two sessions:
Session 1:   5 May to 16 May, 1997
Session 2:   19 May to 30 May, 1997
Due to the strenuous and dangerous nature of cave reconnaissance it is
imperative that volunteers be in excellent physical condition and at least
18 years of age.  Prior spelunking experience is preferred.  Registration
fees for the project are $800 U.S. which includes lodging, weekday meals,
and transportation to and from the cave sites.  Travel to and from Belize
and incidental expenses are the responsibility of the participant. 
For applications and more information, all interested parties should
respond via e-mail to Cameron Griffith, 
Co-Director, at:
BelizeMaya@aol.com
http://www.netzone.com/~xiolablu/CAVE.html

        FROM: Alan Macnow
                      Consultant, Japan Whaling Association
                       Amacnow@igc.apc.org
        The Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR) strongly protested
        demands last month by Australian and New Zealand government of-
        ficials for Japan to stop its research in the Antarctic.
        ICR is the lead scientific institution appointed by the Govern-
        ment of Japan to carry out research programs on whales.  Its re-
        search program in the Antarctic includes sightings surveys and
        ecological studies along with biological research.  The program
        involves the random annual sampling of 400 minke whales, plus or
        minus 10%, from a minke population of over 760,000 animals.
        The International Whaling Commission's Revised Management Proce-
        dure (RMP) indicates that at least 2,000 whales per year could
        be taken from the minke population for 100 years without any ad-
        verse effects on the population.
        Both Australia and New Zealand have been among the most vocal
        opponents of whaling internationally and in the IWC.
        Interestingly, a news report from New Zealand indicates that
        country's position has been shaped primarily by animal rights
        and like-minded environmental NGOs, with no input from other
        sectors of the country.  MANA News reported that when the
        government finally got around to hearing from others, at a whal-
        ing policy seminar in Wellington on December 18 last year, NZ
        IWC Commissioner Jim McLay heard a Maori group call for the
        right of indigenous people to kill whales for trade.  Then rep-
        resentatives of the country's fishing industries criticized the
        government's anti-whaling stance as indefensible.  They pointed
        out that New Zealand allows some take of protected species and
        endorses sustainable use domestically.
        Despite the fact that its indigenous people eat whale meat and
        trade whale products, usually obtained from stranded or beached
        whales, and the obvious contradictions between its domestic and
        IWC policies, the New Zealand government seems unlikely to
        change its anti-whaling stance.  Commissioner McLay affirmed
        that he would seek the greatest protection for whales, oppose
        commercial whaling, and defend the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and
        commercial whaling moratorium against challenges to their
        legality.
        Commissioner McLay's statements to the press, demanding that
        whale research in the Antarctic stop, are particularly irritat-
        ing to the Japanese because McLay misrepresents the facts.  The
        Southern Ocean Sanctuary does not ban whale research, or even
        aboriginal whaling, only commercial whaling.  IWC votes to end
        lethal whale research in the area are in the form of non-binding
        resolutions and are nothing more than an anti-whaling propaganda
        exercise.  IWC members have an absolute right to carry out whale
        research without restriction under the international whaling
        convention.
        Following is a statement from the Japanese to explain the pur-
        poses and some of the results of the research:
              JAPAN'S RESEARCH INDISPENSABLE TO WHALE MANAGEMENT
        What percentage of whale stocks die from natural causes every
        year?   Are whale stocks producing enough young each year to
        replenish their populations?  Is pollution or environmental
        change affecting reproductive functions, growth or mortality?
        Are any diseases spreading among whale populations?  Are popula-
        tion trends favorable or unfavorable?  How many minke whale
        stocks forage in Antarctic waters and what areas do they occupy?
        To what extent do minke whales compete for food and territory
        and what effect, if any, does this have on other whale species?
        These and other questions must be answered if the International
        Whaling Commission is to carry out its mission of "safeguarding
        for future generations the great natural resources represented
        by the whale stocks," as called for by the International Conven-
        tion on the Regulation of Whaling.
        In waters off Alaska, where American Eskimos conduct annual
        hunts on a small population of bowhead whales, US scientists
        study the biological data from the whale kills to ensure that
        the level of take does not deplete the stocks.  Without the
        biological data from the 52 or so whales caught each year, no
        one could ever be sure that the population, which numbers only
        about 8,200 animals, is not being harmed.
        Japan's whale research in the Antarctic, focusing on the
        abundant minke whale, covers a much broader area.  The IWC
        Scientific Committee estimates that there are over 760,000 minke
        whales in the Antarctic, of which about 400 are taken annually
        for examination.  But although Japan's sample size, only 5
        whales taken for every 10,000 whales in the population, is pro-
        portionally much smaller than that available to the US
        scientists for their research (6 out of 1,000), the scope of
        Japan's research is much broader.
        Japan's Antarctic research program includes sightings surveys to
        provide data on population numbers, densities, and distribution.
        A DNA sampling program is being developed to aid in stock
        identity and provide information on sex ratios and pregnancy
        rates.  Oceanographic data are collected to provide information
        on water temperature changes, current flow, salinity, and the
        presence of pollutants.  But by far the most important part of
        the studies is the biological research, which yields such essen-
        tial data as changes in the age composition of the stocks, natu-
        ral mortality rates, age at sexual maturity, pregnancy rates,
        heart and liver function, nutritional status, health status,
        growth rates, biological changes caused by changes in the en-
        vironment or pollutants, and the composition of the stocks.
        The research program was started in 1988 and is due to end in
        2004.  The reasons for conducting it over a 16 year period
        reside both in the fact that: (a) changes and trends can only be
        determined by tracking them over a time continuum, and (b) the
        Antarctic is a vast area and the annual sample size is only a
        very small fraction of the minke whale population, 0.05%.
        But although the study is only half way through the research pe-
        riod, it has already begun to reveal some important facts.  For
        one thing, the minke whale population appears to be very
        healthy.  If global warming or the thinning of the ozone layer
        is occurring, it has not produced any effects on the minke whale
        stocks.  The minke whale population is producing many young and
        there do not appear to be any factors - - such as disease, mal-
        nutrition or predation - - causing undue mortality.  Studies of
        minke whale tissues and organs also reveal that pollution is not
        yet a problem.  There are little to no organocloride or heavy
        metal residues detected.
        Other findings include the discovery of a dwarf species of minke
        whale, confirmation of two minke whale stocks in the research
        area, each distributed over a much wider range than originally
        anticipated, and an unusual pattern of sex and age segregation
        in the feeding areas.
        The Japanese whale research has so far produced over 120
        scientific papers.  The Scientific Committee of the IWC regu-
        larly commends the research program, which it reviews each year.
        Unfortunately, the majority of the IWC members come from coun-
        tries under political pressure from animal rights activists and
        rarely reflect the views of the organization's Scientific Com-
        mittee.  They oppose Japan's research on the grounds that it is
        not necessary for the management of whaling, i.e., allocating
        catch quotas.  A recently devised computer program can generate
        safe catch levels for baleen whale stocks without the need to
        input such biological data as reproduction rates or population
        trends.  The anti-whaling commissioners apparently would rather
        not know about the condition of the whale populations, or fac-
        tors affecting the whale stocks.
        Their attitude towards whale science resulted in the resignation
        in 1993 of the then chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr.
        Philip S. Hammond of the U.K.
        Japan's whale research is authorized by Article VIII of the
        whaling Convention.  It is conducted by the Japan Institute of
        Cetacean Research under government supervision.
                                  -end-

Thant Tessman wrote:
> "I'm someone who has a deep emotional attachment
> to 'Starsky and Hutch.' " -- Bill Clinton, 1996
That should be "Husky and Startch."  Thank you.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

In article <32D83CA0.4D98@easynet.co.uk>,
	"sdef!"  writes:
>colonies in Space?
>
>Humans can't even sort out this place. You are all nutters. It isn't
>even worth arguing about.
If by "sort out" you mean perfect people living in cities with streets of gold
and no disease, no pollution, perfect population stability, no crime, no war,
and 100% literacy... then no, we have not and will never sort out this place.

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 11:11:42 -0800, "D. Braun"
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 8 Jan 1997 17:24:33 -0800, "D. Braun"
> >>  wrote:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Sam Hall wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:59:47 -0800, "D. Braun"
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> >off-topic newsgroups snipped
> >> >> >
> >> >> >subject line changed to a more appropriate one
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> John McCarthy wrote:
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > We got by without use of nuclear arms for 50 years now.  Can those who
> >> >> >> > want to abolish all nuclear arms offer evidence that their success
> >> >> >> > would make the world safer.  Wouldn't their world put a premium on a
> >> >> >> > rush to recreate nuclear arms and achieve world domination?
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> >> > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> >> >> >> > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> >> >> >> > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> The reason why mutually assured destruction (MAD) works is because
> >> >> >> it is the only peace treaty which does not rely upon honesty.
> >> >> >> It relies upon the unequivicable statement, "if you violate this
> >> >> >> 'treaty' of MAD, you will, without question, die."  No other
> >> >> >> form of 'treaty' works as well.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
> >> >> >is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
> >> >> >nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
> >> >> >disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
> >> >> >disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
> >> >> >"friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
> >> >> >continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
> >> >> >nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
> >> >> >phased fashion, would seem to be the answer. And a less hypocritical
> >> >> >foreign policy as well, in regard to human rights, would go a long way in
> >> >> >reducing terrorism.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >		Dave Braun
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> -- 
> >> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
> >> >> >>   Ross C. K. Rock
> >> >> >>   Reactor Safety and Operational Analysis Dept.
> >> >> >>   Ontario Hydro, Toronto, CANADA
> >> >> >>                                     ross.rock@hydro.on.ca
> >> >> >>                            http://www.inforamp.net/~rrock
> >> >> >> o--------------------------------------------------------o
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >
> >> >> How does disarmament effect this? Stop the spread of nuclear weapons
> >> >> and disarmament don't seem to have anything in common. We are reducing
> >> >> our weapons in a deal with the Russians. That seems to be a good idea,
> >> >> but it doesn't have anything to do with stopping other countries from
> >> >> building a bomb. In fact, it may encourage them.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sam 
> >> >
> >> >I thought the connection was apparent.  Disarmament means no more weapons
> >> >production, and destruction/recycling in energy plants of the
> >> >delivery vehicles/plutonium, or other scenarios.  Eventually, the Russian
> >> >mafia or the like will find it more difficult to procure a bomb. 
> >> 
> >> The countries that built bombs, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Israel
> >> and those that tried (are trying) , North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Japan(?)
> >> did so without materials or help from us or the Russians. I don't see
> >> that anything that we do, or not do, will have any effect on others
> >> that wish to build nuclear weapons.
> >
> >Think about how international diplomacy is practiced. There are many
> >levers available: MFN trading partner status, loans, grants, technology
> >sharing, AND military pressure--either of a country directly, or its
> >enemies within or outside. This is nothing new. 
> >
> >> 
> >>  The
> >> >second part of my post is important, too; a more progressive foreign
> >> >policy would tend not to produce terrorist pissed off at the US, for real
> >> >or perceived insults.  Abandoning MADD would mean that we would actually
> >> >have to negotiate and have political solutions worked out. 
> >> 
> >> What it would mean is more work for the Army. Some aims can not be
> >> negotiated (those that want to push Israel into the sea, for example).
> >
> >True. Negotiating with extremists dosen't work. Through diplomacy, these
> >elements can be isolated. There is no perfect solution. What WOULD the US
> >do if Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or the recent band of Japanese wackos that
> >gassed a subway set off a tactical nuke in a US city? Nuke their parent
> >countries? I don't think so.
> >
> >> 
> >> It certainly
> >> >would not be an over-night process. Once the major powers agree to disarm,
> >> >international sanctions could be brought against those countries that
> >> >persist in having nuke weapons programs. 
> >> >
> >> 
> >> Before or after they use them on us?
> >
> >Still in the cold-war mind-set, I see.
> >
> >> 
> >> >Any comment on my hypothetical? How useful are our nukes if they have few
> >> >usuable scenarios today? Do you think MADD works in my scenario?  
> >> >Who does it work against then? I suppose the Chinese-- however, I would
> >> >think that an argument for phased reduction would go a long way with that
> >> >capital-starved country, so that resources could be spent elsewhere.
> >> >Disarmament may well take 30 years, but the sooner we have it as a
> >> >stated goal, the better. At least one US cold-warrior (one of the
> >> >ex Pentagon brass) has come out and said that it shold be our goal.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> What works is the idea that we will kick the shit out of you if you
> >> piss us off. That was the great value of Desert Storm.
> >
> >And we didn't use nukes.
> >
> >> 
> >> >I would even settle for a token "MADD" policy after disarmament-- say, one
> >> >nuke under each country's capital---with the "red button" in the other
> >> >major powers' control. Why not? It would be simple, cheap, and
> >> >instantaneous. Easy to detonate---you could set them off via
> >> >the internet with the proper codes. 
> >> >
> >> >Of course, disarmament would require international peace and cooporation
> >> >more than we have now.  That is an end in itself.
> >> 
> >> The _only_ way you will have world peace is if some big bad mother is
> >> sitting on it. I don't want the U.S. to do it and I sure don't want
> >> anybody else to.
> >
> >Well,that is your opinion. The world is becoming multi-lateral, through
> >trade and greater access to information, whether we like it or not. These
> >trends will eventually diffuse power, beyond what one country can control. 
> >Literacy, and the ability to rapidly communicate to millions,  has a
> >direct, positive correlation with democracy. The more
> >countries that are democracies, the more peace we will have.
> >
> >		Dave Braun
> >
> 
> You did not mention the subject of this discussion, which is: How does
> the US and the former USSR disarming effect other countries's desire
> to become nuclear powers? I maintain that it either has no effect or
> it encourages them. You have not shown where I am wrong.
I never stated the issue in this way.  I did address it somewhat, in
saying that if it is in the major powers interest to work towards
world-wide nuclear disarmament, there are
avenues available to pressure other countries to disarm as well.
It certainly would be difficult to pressure other countries to disarm, or
abandon nuclear arms development projects if the country doing the
pressuring is not working towards the same goal.
		Dave Braun
> 
> 
> --
> Samuel L. Hall
> Systems Engineer
> (communications systems)
> 
> 

Harold Brashears wrote:
> 
> Jim  wrote:
> 
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >>
> >> Jim  wrote:
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >> In other words, you do feel that you have the information and the
> >> intelligence to decide for other people what rights are "major" and
> >> which rights are minor, hence you may advocate that a government must
> >> enforce your definition of important rights.
> >>
> >> What do you do if someone disagrees with you definition of what is a
> >> "minor" right?
> >
> >I do not. Such matters are issues of personal philosophy, but I believe
> >there are some points we can agrees on, and from those points, we can
> >logically work upward to practical real-world policy.
> 
> Like what points?
> 
> >I think most
> >conflicts have more to do with skewed logic than basic philosophical
> >points. I tend to avoid philosophical tangles about who owns what, who
> >is infringing on who's rights, who was here first, and so on. I simply
> >wish for the greatest number of people to benefit the most. In other
> >words, the more good we can do for the world, the better.
> 
> While there are circumstances where I could agree with this general
> philosophy, in this case you appear to simply be saying that rights
> mean absolutely nothing, if, in your opinion, more people would
> benefit by the loss of a right than would be hurt.  This philosophy is
> lacking, when it comes to actual application.
> 
> The problem would be, of course, the fact that you believe that you
> can figure this all out.  Let's examine a simple test case, to see how
> you might apply the philosophy.  Assume that you are indeed the all
> powerful Poobah In Charge of Increasing Good, and you are apprised of
> a situation where some process serves to keep 100 people alive, but
> harms 101 (or a million) others in some specified fashion that they
> consider extremely important.
> 
> Clearly, you, as the all powerful Poobah In Charge of Increasing Good,
> must balance the harm by the process to the greater number by the good
> to the smaller.  You must determine if their right to life is of
> greater consequence than the right to unharmed existence.  What do you
> do?  Do you take the number helped, multiply by your estimate of the
> amount of help to get the "good" on their side.  Then multiply the
> harm done to the other side by the number on the other side to arrive
> at the "greater good"?
> 
> If you attempt this, are you not deciding who has the right to live
> and who has the right to avoid some harm?  How is this not entangling
> in "rights"?
> 
> [edited]
> 
> >> But you have put yourself in the postion of deciding what constitutes
> >> a good thing.  I must admit I do not feel comfortable with you
> >> deciding what rights I can keep and what I may not.  Possibly you
> >> would consider the alternative.  I will decide what rights you can
> >> keep for the good of the majority?  Is that satisfactory to you?
> >
> >No, public policy should be decided by a majority opinion.
> 
> In this extreme of public opinion, we see that the 101 can indeed
> overrule the 100, and decide that the 100 must suffer, or even die,
> since they are not the majority opinion.  Is this your intent?  If
> not, does it take the Poobah In Charge of Increasing Good to come
> along and rule that the lives of the 100 are worth the harm to the
> majority?
> 
> >If I am
> >overruled in that forum, I can handle that, but I will always seek to
> >alter the opinions of others, as I am doing now. At this point, neither
> >of us have any power to significantly control the rights being debated
> >here, so yours is an empty offer.
> >By the way, there are basically 2 values I can identify that we should
> >serve:
> >1. Quality of life-When a person is happy, that is good.
> 
> How do you judge "happy"?  It makes some people happy to use the
> property of others without compensation.  Is this OK?  Do you use the
> self appraisal of "happy", and let each person determine how happy
> they are, compared to other's happy?  What is two people are made
> happy by opposite results?
> 
> >2. Inherent values-This is the inherent value of life and nature.
> 
> How do you define this?  It appears here that you are saying that
> there are some inherent values, which may trump your earlier "greater
> good for the greater number" philosophy.  Is this your intent?  Are
> there cases where you think that the majority opinion is incorrect?
> Are you competent to figure these out?
> 
> >This is getting philosophical, and that is a matter of personal outlook,
> >so I will leave these ideas for you to judge.
> 
> Sorry, I cannot judge, as it is incomplete.
> 
I decline to be drawn into a theoretical debate with make-believe
charachters. My opinions on real-world affairs show how my philosophy
works. I don't claim to have all the answers, and even if I did, it
wouldn't solve real-world problems unless others agreed. That is why (as
I said earlier), that if we can agree on a few practical goals, use of
logic and reasoning can allow us to find ways to meet those goals, even
if we have differing motivations.

On 12 Jan 1997, Robert Hubby wrote:
> D. Braun (dbraun@u.washington.edu) wrote:
> : off-topic newsgroups snipped
> : subject line changed to a more appropriate one
> : On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Ross C. K. Rock wrote:
> : > John McCarthy wrote:
> : > > We got by without use of nuclear arms for 50 years now.  Can those who
> : > > want to abolish all nuclear arms offer evidence that their success
> : > > would make the world safer.  Wouldn't their world put a premium on a
> : > > rush to recreate nuclear arms and achieve world domination?
> : > > John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
> : > > http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
> : > > He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
> : > The reason why mutually assured destruction (MAD) works is because
> : > it is the only peace treaty which does not rely upon honesty.
> : > It relies upon the unequivicable statement, "if you violate this
> : > 'treaty' of MAD, you will, without question, die."  No other
> : > form of 'treaty' works as well.
> : Except times have changed. One rebel faction of a country may believe it
> : is in their best interest to set off a "suitcase bomb" (perhaps a tactical
> : nuke bought from the Russian mafia) in Central Park, NYC, because they
> : disagree with US policy in regard to the government with which they
> : disagree. Examples of this scenario abound, based on our immoral
> : "friendly dictators policy", aka the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which has
> : continued under Clinton, weasel words to the contrary. Then what? Do we
> : nuke the country these people came from? Probably not. Disarmament, in a
> : phased fashion, would seem to be the answer. And a less hypocritical
> : foreign policy as well, in regard to human rights, would go a long way in
> : reducing terrorism.
> 
> And how, precisely, would disarmament prevent terrorists from using a
> "Suitcase Bomb?" (Or the legitimate government of a fanatical country like
> Iran, for that matter?)
Read the other posts in the thread.  In short, by marginalizing terrorist
groups or countries attempting nuclear blackmail, by showing them that
they have nothing to gain (and lots to lose) by persuing that course.
Also, by reducing the supply of materials and technology.
> All together now (Tom Lehrer song): "...and we'll all go together when we go.
.."
We'll all bake together when we bake, there'll be no one left to attend
the global wake;
We'll all fry together when we fry,  etc. 
Hey, maybe someone can post the lyrics?
I've always been a fan of Lehrer, BTW.
		Dave Braun
> R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
>      "When you sit on a hot stove for a minute, it seems like an hour.
>       When you sit with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute.
>       That's relativity." - Einstein
> 
> 

In article 826589435@Newshost.grace.cri.nz, B.Hamilton@irl.cri.nz (Bruce Hamilton) writes:
Total = 3.02x10^20 J,   Year = 3.156x10^7 seconds
>So the maximum possible average annual heat flux from
>fossil fuels is 9.6 x 10^12 W. I've no idea how that relates
>to the Earth's various incoming and outgoing fluxes.
>The actual average annual heat flux will be much lower 
>than my calculation, as crude oils and lignite coals
>will have lower calorific values than those assigned. 
Well, insolation is about 1300 w/m2, area of earth is about 6370,000^2*pi and
the earths albedo is about 30% (I think) so solar radiation absorbed (mostly at
the surface) is:
  (1-0.3)*1300*6370,000^2*3.14
which comes out to 1.2e17.
---
William M Connolley | wmc@bas.ac.uk | http://www.nbs.ac.uk/public/icd/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | Disclaimer: I speak for myself