ECOLOGICAL RULES OF MANKIND DEVELOPMENT? (Tetior A.]
tetior@aha.ru (Alexandr Tetior)
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:34:41 GMT
ECOLOGICAL RULES OF MANKIND DEVELOPMENT?
Why there are not special ecological rules (laws) or taboo for
interactions between mankind and nature? Why a mankind during
hundreds years created not ecological code similar to Bible
commandments?
Religious rules was created at civilisation dawn was interactions
code between mans and nature. The planet was in clean condition and
there was not problems of its pollution and overpopulation. Therefore
this religious code includes interactions between people (Bible
commandments "esteem your father and your mother", "don't steal",
"don't kill", etc., Bible mortal sins - licentiousness, smoking,
etc.). Many commandments was directed to mankind preservation.
According to Bible the planet was gave to people on God
benevolence: " And fill planet, and possess, and own,...". But a man
must was fear of God punishment for bed running of economy. A man
forgot possible punishments and "possession of Planet" idea was
transformed in anthropocentric model of World: a man is highest
creation of nature serves for his needs satisfaction.
Religious contains all experience of interaction between people
and nature of all mankind, but interactions by nature stand not in
first place in religious. The mankind collided with global ecological
problems in hundreds years. The problems foresaw not Bible creator.
Full unity between people and nature and prohibition of nature
destroy are at all times in primitive religiouses, in cults.
Now there is important necessity of new ecological moral postulates
creation and their implanting in mass consciousness similar to
religious postulates. Ecology examine a mutual between living
organisms and environment. This mutual formed in millions years and
brought to their sustainable interaction. The mutual described in many
ecological laws, rules and principles.
A man differs from other living organisms as regards to natural
environment. Development mankind history demonstrates it transformed
in global force changes a nature. Special ecological rules are
necessary for mankind development description. A separation of
special ecological "rules (laws) of mankind development" may help to
see catastrophic peculiarities of man interaction with nature and may
help to keep a life and nature on planet. New "ecological rules of
mankind development" are described below.
1.A "Rule of chaotic demographic increase" presents a danger for
all mankind. Multiplication of natural living organisms takes
place by speed provides their maximum quantity. The quantity
corresponds to environment capacity, to ecological rules of inner
uncontradiction, of food correlation, of mutual adaptation, etc.
Their multiplication speed always corresponds to food resources
quantity, to preservation of their environment, to mutual adaptation
of living organisms. A mankind multiplication is without of
environment preservation, a man has not a natural limitation of his
multiplication.
2. Religious row proved a "Rule of "hard" management a nature".
According to the rule a nature serves for satisfaction of mankind
needs. Ecological rules row ( rule of "soft" management a nature,
rule of chained reactions of hard management a nature, principle of
naturality) forestall "soft" (restoring an ecological balance)
management may bring desired natural chained reactions and the
management more better than hard technical management. But a mankind
transforms easily a nature by help of big technics. Animals adapt
themselves to changeable nature, a man adapt to herself a nature.
3. Mankind thinks during many years according to a "Rule of
ideal future" descendants will live more better and more clever.
According to principle of "event remoteness" a man thinks far
phenomenon is less essential and he can decide very well future
ecological problems. But ecological laws forestall( "law of nature
system development at the expense of environment", etc.) future
resources situation will more strained up to ecological-economical
revolution. Ours descendants will pay more expensive for our
prodigality.
4. During many years the mankind follows "Rule of seeming
infinity of natural resources". An use of natural resources grows very
quickly. Technologies of all countries are directed to unrenewal
resources. But there are laws "natural resources limitation",
"reduce of energy efficiency of nature use", "natural-resources
potential fall" forestall about all resources limitation, about more
complicated access to resource, etc.
Does have the mankind a right so carelessly to spend natural
resources belong not to him completely ( the resources belong also to
all future generations). The mankind must accumulates resources or
can spend with following resumption. But a man has not natural organ
for consumption limitation.
5. "Rule of reaction delay to negative ecological situations". It
is very difficult to foretell consequences of nature transformation
actions (according to ecological "principle of indefinity") in view
of eco-systems complexity and of chained natural reactions
unprediction. Therefore reaction is prepared not usually and it
arrives (for example, reaction on reduction of ozone stratum thick .
Usually people would not think about future troubles. A man also
has not sometimes necessary organs for warning (for example, organ of
radioactivity increase), and there is not sometimes necessary
information about future negative situations. It increase ecological
situation.
6. The mankind interfered in nature constantly (cities and
towns, industry and agriculture, etc.) and acted by "Rule of long
artificial change of ecological components". A man recasted "hard"
a nature by his temporary needs and changed ecological components. But
very important laws ("inner dynamic balance", "biogenic
migration of atoms", "physical-chemical unity of living matter")
talk about existence eco-systems impossibility by artificial create
want or superfluity even though one ecological components (they
provide for matters circulation and energy stream going - water,
atmosphere, energy, soil with living organisms, etc.). A long change
of ecological components may bring to sudden catastrophe.
7. People can not forecast firmly consequences of big
interference in nature and acted in according of "Rule of
incomplete information use" by decisions taking. Even developed
countries make elementary economical and ecological
substantiation's by decisions acceptance for natural resources use.
Third law by B. Commoner talks about getting impossibility of
objective information about nature functions and its mechanic. " A
nature knows better" and man must previously research a problem with
natural processes dynamic calculation.
8. The mankind thought always nature resources are free of charge
and so "Rule of insolvent mankind" was created (Rule of maximum
removal of payment term for seized natural resources). Fourth law by
B. Commoner forecast about compensate necessity of all things was took
from global eco-system by help of human labour. It is inevitably.
The mankind must return very much : the people lost about half
productive arable land; the mankind use annual energy bearers was
accumulated during 1 million years.
9. "Rule of inner contradiction" is very unlogical rule for
"homo sapiens". An activity of all kinds in natural eco-systems
supports the eco-systems as their environment according to rule of
"inner uncontradiction". Natural species can not destroy their
environment. Mankind activity ruins environment in regional and global
scales. There is of principle contradiction between the
inhabitants interests(increase of production and use) and the nature
interests (reduce of antropogenic influence).
10. A wish quick to get effective results by economical activity
resulted in Rule of quick getting of results("Rule of impatience").
A man supposes to get usually necessary results during short time
(1-2 years), or project is not proved economical.
First successes in nature use are short according to principle
of "deceptive well-being", objective result may be reached during
10-30 years by long interaction of natural and antropogenic
factors. Attempts to hasten a nature are uselessly according to law
of "successive delay"; at first there is effect, but then
self-regulation begins to act and bio-production falls.
11. Constantly increase of needs results in appearance of "Rule of
level needs excess ("Ecological egoism"). Man needs in developed
countries begin to exceed ecology admissible middle level for all
mankind. The needs are fasten by producer of goods and services and
are not proved by ecology laws. Needs satisfaction is very unevenly
on planet.
There are not in nature species needs was not limited by
environment (according to law of eco-system development at the expense
of environment"). But inhabitants of developed countries want not
to reduce needs level may be not reached for all planet mankind.
12. A prodigal use of nature resources brought to realisation
of "Rule of unproductive use of natural resources". There is in
nature a consumption of renewal recourses only and nature remade a
basic part of needs waste without environment pollution. A man
consumes nature resources very ineffectively and throw out waste
mass. The prodigal mankind uses only 2% from got resources and 98%
throws out.
13. The mankind expands constantly their environment according
to "Rule of antropogenic expansion". Every species occupies in nature
their ecological niche. Consequences of antropogenic liberation may be
dangerously: more dangerous kinds may take a free niche.
Antropogenic expansion brings to breaks in "global life network"
(law of "physical-chemical unity of living matter")" and reduces
kinds biodiversity. It may challenge mass reproduction of new
dangerous organisms. A man don't occupy strange ecological niches to
provide biosphere stability.
14. "Rule of dissipation energy increase" is very injudicious
rule. Ecological principle of "direction of evolution" forestalls
development direction must guarantee minimum of energy
dissipation. Law "energy maximisation" talks that system may survive
promotes to energy entrance and uses it more effective, accumulates
high quality energy.
A man spends more and more energy for unit production getting from
nature systems (approximately 60 times as more than for far
ancestors). Basic part (about 2/3) of all energy became not to
consumers. Dissipated energy pollutes an atmosphere.
15. Aggression in people wars increased constantly. It allow to
separate a "Rule of aggression increase". There are not in nature
useful and harmful kinds (rule of "interadaptation"). All kinds are
one whole. A man annihilates similar to him and other kinds in mass
quantity.
16. A man perfect during hundreds years his weapons of mass
defeat to accordance "Rule of excessive efficiency of attack weapons".
Natural attack and defence organs (tusks, claws, a poison, an armour,
etc.) are effective only by defence or attack to small quantity of
animals. Their efficiency has humane principle for nature. A man
created a huge quantity of very effective weapons are not proved by
ecological norms may annihilate all living organisms frequently.
17. Many years mankind thought about ideal "pink" future and
acted by "Rule of future unforesight". It is apparently a basic rule
of mankind development. A future may be not foresaw accordance to any
ecological laws in view of exceptional complexity of
antropogenic-natural systems. But existing results of interaction
between man and nature allow to foresee nearest future. This
unsuccessful interaction bring to rise of global ecological problems
instead regional problems.
I'm of the opinion that new ecological rules of mankind development
must be learned and must be proposed to people for use in their
actions. New ecological rules must forestall about possible negative
consequences of unecological activity. For example new ecological
commandments may be added to Bible 10 commandments: " 11. Respect
and don't destroy a nature; you are a part of nature. 12. Give
back all things took from nature and leave for descendants. 13.
Restore a broken nature. 14. All natural living organisms are equally.
New ecological sins resulted to global ecological problems may be
added to Bibles sins: 8. Nature pollution. 9. Ecological egoism
(consumption above ecological admissible level for all mankind). 10.
Unlimited reproduction.
Very truly : Alexandr Tetior
1
Re: Whaling Action Alert: Urge Clinton to Sanction Canada for Pirate Whaling
David Eitelbach
28 Jan 1997 00:07:11 GMT
Stephen Best (sbest@inforamp.net) wrote:
> Anders Jelmert wrote:
> > How could you expect an organisation to survive, which have
> > neglected its own scientific committee, and so profoundly
> > has defied it's own _raison d'etre_ ?
> The Int'l Whaling Commission (IWC) never neglects its own
> scientific committee.
Sure it does!
You're playing with words, verging on a fallacy of equivocation.
Dr. Hammond, the head of the Scientific Committee, seemed to feel
the Scientific Committee had been plenty neglected. I'll attach his
letter of resignation at the end so the readers can decide for themselves....
> It takes advice from the committee and considers that along with
> other information, the objectives of the parties, etc. and then
> formulates a position or recommendation, which the parties to the
> treaty then vote on and either accept or reject. The scientfic
> committee of the IWC provides advice; it is not the decision making
> body.
The IWC *is* supposed to listen to its Scientific Committee. It has
the Scientific Committee just for that reason -- to provide the
scientific basis for decision making that the IWC charter says should
be the basis for decision making. Here's what the founding charter of
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) says in the copy at:
:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. The Commission may amend from time to time the provisions of the
Schedule by adopting regulations with respect to the conservation and
utilization of whale resources, fixing (a) .....
[...]
2. These amendments of the Schedule
(a) shall be such as are necessary to carry out the objectives
and purposes of this Convention and to provide for the
conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the
whale resources; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
==>(b) shall be based on scientific findings;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sure looks to me they're supposed to listen to their Scientific
Committee. And, that they did not do so...
=============BEGIN LETTER OF RESIGNATION===========================
The letter of resignation from the Chairman of the
Scientific Committee of the International Whaling
Commission (IWC), Dr. Philip Hammond, UK, 26. May 1992.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. R. Gambell
Secretary IWC
The Red House
Stations Road, Histon
CAMBRIDGE CB4 4NP
Dear Ray,
As you know I have been an active member of the Scientific
Committee since 1981, chairing various working groups and
sub-committees and being elected vice-chairman in 1988. When I was
elected Chairman in 1991, the highest priority for the Committee was
to complete the Revised Management Procedure (RMP..ed. com.). By that
time it had long been recognised that the NMP (New Management
Procedure adapted in 1974 ..ed. com.) was unworkable so that,
although there was a management procedure defined in the Schedule,
the Commission effectively had no mechanism in place for the
management of commercial whaling, an unacceptable situation for an
international organisation with such a mandate. It was my job to
guide the Scientific Committee to finalise the RMP as soon as
possible.
In 1992, the Committee unanimously recommended the adoption of
the draft specification for the RMP, whilst recognising that work
remained to be done on documentation of the computer programs, on
specifying minimum standards for data required for the RMP, and on
outlining guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing data from
them. In a resolution, the Commission accepted the draft
specifications, thus recognising that the RMP should replace the NMP,
and highlighted these other aspects which needed agreement before
umbrella Revised Management Scheme could be completed.
This year, the Scientific Committee completed its part of that
work and unanimously recommended it to the Commission for adoption
and endorsement. Although a minority view had been expressed stating
that the RMS required further monitoring than that implicit in the
RMP itself, the Scientific Committee even agreed unanimously on other
data which should be required under the RMS. The question of whether
or not monitoring of the RMP's performance should be a minimum
requirement of the RMS was, therefore, elevated to a policy decision
for the Commission to make; the practical scientific implications had
already been dealt with.
Thus one of the most interesting and potentially far-reaching
chapters in the science of natural resource management came to a
conclusion. The Commission could now put in place a mechanism for the
safe management of commercial whaling, regardless of whether or not
the "moratorium" was lifted.
The reality was somewhat different. At the Commission meeting,
the work of the Scientific Committee was praised and acknowledged by
several delegations to be complete, but it remained unadopted. The
future for this unique piece of work, for which the Commission had
been waiting for many years, was left in the air. This has left the
Commission in the incongruous position of having accepted the draft
specifications of the RMP but having neither accepted nor adopted the
final version.
Of course, the reasons for this were nothing to do with science.
Although, despite the unanimity of the Scientific Committee's
recommendation, some Commissioners used selective quotations out of
context from the Committee's report to justify not adopting the RMP
on "scientific" grounds.
But the matter of substance is, what is the point of having a
Scientific Committee if its unanimous recommendations on a matter of
primary importance are treated with such contempt? And in what
position does this leave the Chairman?
I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer justify to
myself being the organiser of and spokesman for a Committee whose
work is held in such disregard by the body to which it is
responsible. Nor can I justify asking other members of the Committee
to spend their valuable time working hard during the year and even
harder at annual meetings knowing how the results of this work may be
treated. And I cannot justify to my employer spending a significant
amount of my own time on such an unproductive end.
I am left with no alternative, therefore, but to resign as
Chairman of the Scientific Committee.
The morale of the Scientific Committee is lower than at any other
time in my experience and I think many members will understand my
position. I hope that some Commissioners will, too.
I am, of course, prepared to continue as Chairman for a short
time until the new Chairman is able to take over and to help, if
needed, in the development of the work plan for the coming year.
I plan to maintain my scientific participation in the work of the
Committee and I am willing to continue as Convenor of the Steering
Group on management procedures if the new Chairman so desires.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Hammond
====================END INCLUDED LETTER OF RESIGNATION===============
from:
--
David Eitelbach
dseitel@spams.r.us.com
Re: Global warming/climate change: a new appoach
Hugh Easton
Mon, 27 Jan 97 03:01:04 GMT
In article <5c8kse$29k@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
tobis@scram.ssec.wisc.edu "Michael Tobis" writes:
>
> Dan Evens (dan.evens@hydro.on.ca) wrote:
> : Hugh Easton wrote:
> : > One of the possible effects - not necessarily the worst - of a large
> : > increase in global temperatures is the breakup of the Antarctic ice cap.
>
> : What global temperature increase would be required for this?
>
> Obviously, no *global* change in particular is necessary. How much
> temperature increase would be required at the fringe of Antarctica is
> another matter. Even how much temperature change locally is still the
> wrong question - the right question is how much temperature change
> for how long. It isn't entirely clear that the West Antarctic glacier
> isn't unstable *already*, but the time scale of the natural background cooling
> might have sufficed to keep it intact. Since we are now almost certainly
> (despite various specious arguments) overriding this cooling, the loss of
> a large chunk of Antarctic ice is entirely plausible.
>
> On the other hand, it appears to be implausible on the time scales
> of interest to political types - if this happens it's likely to take
> a few centuries.
Can you remember back to the news reports a couple of years ago, when the
Larsen ice shelf disintegrated? There was apparently a team of scientists
working nearby, when without warning a 40 mile long crack in the ice opened
up in front of them. Within the space of a week a large part of the ice
shelf had broken off, forming a huge iceberg. Catastrophic disintegration
events involving large volumes of ice do not generally give much advance
warning that anything is amiss. For instance, the recent news about 300 ice
fishers trapped on a lake when the ice they were standing on broke away from
the shore.
If I remember correctly, the Larsen ice shelf was several hundred metres
thick, and yet it already warmed enough to disintegrate. How much longer
before the Antarctic icecap itself goes the same way? I think several
centuries is being very optimistic, particularly if the CO2 level is allowed
to rise as high as 540 ppm (I think the latest estimates are that this level
will be reached around the year 2025, if current trends continue).
(snip)
>
> Regarding the correlation between CO2 and temperature over the glacial
> cycle, it's not news. It's well established, in fact, and is illustrated
> in an alarming (but in my opinion appropriate) way in VP Gore's book
> "Earth in the Balance".
>
> There are caveats, though.
>
> We know with virtual certainty that the glacial cycle is synchronized
> to long-period variations in the earth's orbit. Accordingly, the increase in
> CO2 must have been triggerred in some way by those variations, almost certainly
> through a mechanism involving temperature increases.
The orbital changes do not affect the total amount of sunlight arriving at
the Earth, what they do affect is its distribution between low, mid and
high latitudes. Warm, intergalcial periods such as the one we are in now
occur when the quota reaching high (polar) latitudes is particularly
generous, while the ice ages occur when the poles receive less sunlight.
Climatologists have concentrated on the reduced polar sunlight as the
cause of the ice ages.
However, less sunlight in polar regions means more in low and mid latitudes,
since the total amount reaching the Earth is constant. Most plant life is
found at low and mid latitudes, and higher light levels are known to
increase the rate of photosynthesis (and thus removal of CO2 from the
atmosphere). Therefore, a plausible mechanism exists which can explain how
orbital changes could directly affect the CO2 level without involving
temperature changes. The ice ages could be entirely a side effect of a
reduced CO2 level, brought about by increased photosynthesis.
> Furthermore, there are
> indications in the record that some periods of temperature increase preceded
> the comparable CO2 rise slightly. (More precisely, had a slight phase lead -
> the periods of increase do overlap.)
>
I have just updated the "methods used" page on my web site
(ie http://www.daflight.demon.co.uk/science/methods.htm)
to show the effects of plotting slightly older and more recent temperature
values against the CO2 data. I thought that, if temperature changes were
occurring before the CO2 changes, by using temperature data that was
slightly older (1000 years in this case) the correlation between temperature
and CO2 level should be improved. Conversely, if the CO2 changes were
occurring first then a graph plotted using temperature data 1000 years more
recent than the CO2 data should show the improved correlation. Both these
graphs can now be viewed at the above URL, and one does indeed show a much
better correlation than the other.
> From this, we may conclude that Mr. Easton's claims of *imminent* large
> temperature rise are overdrawn. However, it is a serious mistake to conclude
> that the paleoclimate evidence weighs in on the side of very small greenhouse
> gas sensitivity.
>
> The main reason for this is that the solar forcing alone is unable to account
> for the temperature variation of the glacial cycle absent a greenhouse effect
> forcing.
> (Similar comments may be made for the still warmer epochs of the more distant
> past,
> which correlate with high CO2 periods). This is true both for simple
> back-of-envelope
> type calculations as well as for full GCM calculations.
>
> The obvious conclusion is that some sort of temperature-mediated biogeochemical
> feedback exacerbates the orbitally forced glacial cycle. Until we identify this
> mechanism, it isn't clear whether it will operate if the warming is trigerred
> by greenhouse forcing without the astronomical component. Perhaps the higher
> concentrations of CO2 will shift the equilibrium such that this feedback
> mechanism
> is slowed or even reversed, but perhaps not. If the feedback remains
> operational,
> our long range predictions of the CO2 trajectory may be serious underestimates,
> and matters may be worse than anticipated.
The bottom line is that all the evidence points to CO2 level being the single
largest factor determining how warm the Earth is. This doesn't just apply
to the Vostok ice core record, it also applies to the much warmer Cretaceous
climate (fossilised dinosaurs have been recovered from sites which at that
time were very near the poles, and appear to have been covered with forests).
This is despite the fact that the sun gave off less heat during the
Cretaceous era than it does now.
The Vostok ice core data shows, not just how closely global average
temperature is associated with CO2 level, but how large a temperature change
can be expected from a given change in CO2 level. This makes it ideal for
predicting the effects of current and projected increases in CO2 level. My
analysis of this data is available at:
http://www.daflight.demon.co.uk/science/index.htm
--
Hugh Easton
Re: Reintroducing the grizzly to California
chrisclarke@igc.apc.org (Chris Clarke)
Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:09:06 +0100
In article <5civ3u$oe2@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
powlesla@freenet.calgary.ab.ca (Jim B. Powlesland) wrote:
> In article <32EBF589.137C@pacbell.net>,
> Mike Vandeman wrote:
>
> > I don't know if ANYONE, human or animal, has absolute "rights". But we
> > are 98% genetically IDENTICAL with a chimpanzee, so there aren't much
> > grounds for saying that we have rights and they have none! I think that
> > IF we have rights, THEN wildlife have the same rights. It is the only
> > logical position.
>
> ROTFL!!! What nonsense. I take it you flunked out of Logic class,
> Vandeman.
>
> The predator Homo sapiens has a set of adaptive advantages that are an
> expression of the functional capacities of our greatly enlarged cerebral
> cortex. These advantages include our capacity to reason, to develop and
> use languages, to think creatively and in the abstract, etc. It does not
> matter to what extent these higher intellectual functions may be shared,
> in part, by a few other nonhuman species. The fact that we are the only
> species that has all of these capacities and we use them to create our
> overwhelming technology makes us superior to any other animal on Earth. By
> equating a human being with a labratory rat, you are demeaning humans.
>
The pachyderm Loxodonta africana has a set of adaptive advantages that are an
expression of the functional capacities of our greatly enlarged nose and
upper lip. These advantages include our capacity to snorkel, to pick
peanuts off the ground without stooping, to trumpet mating songs across
the savanna, to throw feces at zoo visitors, etc. It does not matter to
what extent these higher prehensile functions may be shared, in part, by a
few other nonelephant species. The fact that we are the only species that
has all of these capacities and we use them to uproot acacia trees makes
us superior to any other animal on Earth. By equating an elephant with a
human being, you are demeaning elephants.
[paraphrased from: J. Powlesland, /A Specious and Essentially Religious
Argument that Displays Ignorance of Current Thinking in Evolutionary
Biology, Even Though Mike Vandeman Isn't Any Better/, No Hope For
Communication Press, 1997.]
--
Chris Clarke
Editor
Terrain, Northern California's
Environmental Magazine
Re: Black Bears
donb@rational.com (Don Baccus)
28 Jan 1997 00:29:59 GMT
In article <19970126211600.QAA18895@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
NATURLRUSH wrote:
>Black Bears are definitly not human killers. Like you said the only
>problem that someone can encounter is when the mother black bear is with
>its cubs.
Strangely, black bear moms are not those which are responsible for human
fatalities due to attacks by black bear in most circumstances. Predatory
attacks are. Note that these are very, very, very (VERY!) rare however.
Predation is a relatively rare cause for fatalities due to attacks by
grizzlies.
This may seem counter-intuitive but really isn't. Black bears are
essentially wimps, and when attacking due to feeling threatened usually
bluff and rarely follow through. Thus there are very few instances
of fatalities due to black bear moms with cubs, or any black bear with
a food source (carcass or whatever), feeling threatened. A griz in
such scenarios, though, is very unpredictable and very dangerous.
On the other hand, an extremely small proportion of black and grizzly
bears will attempt a predatory attack on a human in extremely unusual
circumstances. It just happens that the likelihood of a black bear
killing as a result of a perception of threat leads to fewer fatalities
tnan those which predate. In the case of grizzlies, fatalities due to
attacks by "threatened" bears happen frequently enough to outnumber those
due to predation.
Of course, in all cases we're speaking of small numbers, and there is no
doubt that the grizzly is far more dangerous.
For more information on this subject, I suggest Stephen Herrero's
"Bear Attacks: Their Cause & Prevention". He's a leading bear researcher
and, among other things, has studied every documented case of bear-caused
fatalities in the US & Canada.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR
Nature photos, site guides, and other goodies at
(NEW) http://donb.photo.net
Re: Whaling Action Alert: Urge Clinton to Sanction Canada for Pirate Whaling
David Eitelbach
27 Jan 1997 21:49:43 GMT
In article <32ee14fe.27982987@news1.on.sympatico.ca>, on Mon, 27 Jan 1997
21:07:48 GMT, Stephen Best (sbest@inforamp.net) wrote:
> pls.see.addr@my.sig (Bill Gross) wrote:
> >Only if Cuba remains a
> >Communist Nation can we enjoy a stirling example of how to abuse
> >people. We owe you a debt of gratitude.
> Is this off the topic of Pelly amendment sanctions over Canadian
> whaling policy or what!
Yes.
> Like Iran, like Nicaragua, like Viet Nam, Cuba is a bastard child
> of America.
Yes.
> The Castro and Guevara led Communist revolution on New Years day
> 1959 happened because of Batista's corrupt and authoritarian regime,
> a regime which was propped up and only made possible by America.
> America making common cause with corrupt and brutal dictators like
> Batista, like the Shah, like Somoza to not only deny but also crush
> the civil and economic rights of ordinary people has created the
> conditions for many revolutions and much misery.
> American foreign policy that serves America's corporate and
> economic objectives at the expense of local peoples' human rights
> and economic aspirations is the norm. [...]
YES!
Allow me to give a potent and grisly example:
"For many years, repression, torture and murder were carried
out in El Salvador by dictators installed and supported by our
government, a matter of no interest here. The story was
virtually never covered. By the late 1970s, however, the US
government began to be concerned about a couple of things.
"One was that Somoza, the dictator of Nicaragua, was losing
control. The US was losing a major base for its exercise of
force in the region. A second danger was even more threatening.
In El Salvador in the 1970s, there was a growth of what were
called 'popular organizations' -- peasant associations,
cooperatives, unions, Church-based Bible study groups that
evolved into self-help groups, etc. That raised the threat
of democracy.
"In February, 1980, the Archbishop of El Salvador, Oscar Romero,
sent a letter to President Carter in which he begged him not to
send military aid to the junta that ran the country. He said
such aid would be used to 'sharpen injustice and repression
against the people's organizations' which were struggling 'for
respect for their most basic human rights' (hardly news to
Washington, needless to say).
"A few weeks later, Archbishop Romero was assassinated while
saying a mass. The neo-Nazi Roberto d'Aubisson is generally
assumed to be responsible for this assassination (among
countless other atrocities). D'Aubisson was 'leader-for-life'
of the ARENA party, which now governs El Salvador; members of
the party like current Salvadoran president Alfredo Cristiani,
had to take a blood oath of loyalty to him.
"Thousands of peasants and urban poor took part in a commemorative
mass a decade later, along with many foreign bishops, but the
US was notable by its absence. The Salvadoran Church formally
proposed Romero for sainthood.
"All of this passed with scarcely a mention in the country
that funded and trained Romero's assassins. The _New York
Times_, the 'newspaper of record,' published no editorial on
the assassination when it occurred or in the years that
followed, and no editorial or news report on the commemoration.
"On March 7, 1980, two weeks before the assassination, a stage
of siege had been instituted in El Salvador, and the war against
the population began in force (with continued US support and
involvement). The first major attack was a big massacre at the
Rio Sampul, a coordinated military operation of the Honduran
and Salvadoran armies in which at least 600 people were butchered.
Infants were cut to pieces with machetes, and women were tortured
and drowned. Pieces of bodies were found in the river for days
afterwards. There were church observers, so the information
came out immediately, but the US media didn't think it was
worth reporting.
"Peasants were the main victims of this war, along with labor
organizers, students, priests, or anyone suspected of working
for the interests of the people. In Carter's last year, 1980,
the death toll reached about 10,000, rising to about 13,000 for
1981 as the Reaganites took command.
"In October 1980, the new archbishop condemned the 'war of
extermination and genocide against a defenseless civilian
population' waged by the security forces. Two months later they
were hailed for their 'valiant service alongside the people
against subversion' by the favorite US 'moderate,' Jose Napoleon
Duarte, as he was appointed civilian president of the junta.
"The role of the 'moderate' Duarte was to provide a fig leaf for
the military rulers and ensure them a continuing flow of US
funding after the armed forces had raped and murdered four
churchwomen from the US. That had aroused some interest here:
slaughtering Salvadorans is one thing, but raping and killing
American nuns is a definite PR [public relations] mistake. The
media evaded and downplayed the story, following the lead of the
Carter Administration and its investigative commission.
"The incoming Reaganites went much further, seeking to justify
the atrocity, notably Secretary of State Alexander Haig and UN
ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick. But it was still deemed worthwhile
to have a show trial a few years later, while exculpating the
murderous junta -- and, of course, the paymaster.
"The independent newspapers in El Salvador, which might have
reported these atrocities, had been destroyed. Although they
were mainstream and pro-business, they were still too
undisciplined for the military's taste. The problem was taken
care of in 1980-81, when the editor of one was murdered by the
security forces; the other fled into exile. As usual, these
events were considered too insignificant to merit more than
a few words in US newspapers.
"In November 1989, six Jesuit priests, their cook and his daughter,
were murdered by the army. That same week, at least 28 other
Salvadoran civilians were murdered, including the head of a
major union, the leader of an organization of university women,
nine members of an Indian farming cooperative and ten
university students.
"The news wires carried a story by AP correspondent Douglas
Grant Mine, reporting how soldiers had entered a working-class
neighborhood in the capital city of San Salvador, captured six
men, added a 14-year-old boy for good measure, then lined them
all up against a wall and shot them. They 'were not priests or
human rights campaigners,' Mine wrote, 'so their deaths have
gone largely unnoticed' -- as did his story.
"The Jesuits were murdered by the Alacatl Battalion, an elite unit
created, trained and equipped by the United States. It was formed
in March 1981, when fifteen specialists in counterinsurgency were
sent to El Salvador from the US Army School of Special Forces.
From the start, the Battalion was engaged in mass murder. A US
trainer described its soldiers as 'particularly ferocious....
We've always had a hard time getting [them] to take prisoners
instead of ears.'
"In December 1981, the Battalion took part in an operation in
which over a thousand civilians were killed in an orgy of murder,
rape and burning. Later it was involved int he bombing of villages
and murder of hundreds of civilians by shooting, drowning and
other methods. The vast majority of victims were women, children
and the elderly.
"The Alacatl Battalion was being trained by US Special Forces
shortly before murdering the Jesuits. This has been a pattern
throughout the Battalion's existence -- some of its worst
massacres have occurred when it was fresh from US training.
"In another case, an admitted member of a Salvadoran death
squad associated with the Alacatl Battalion, Cesar Vielman Joya
Martinez, detailed the involvement of US advisers and the
Salvadoran government in death-squad activity. The Bush
Administration has made every effort to silence him and ship him
back to probably death in El Salvador, despite the pleas of
human rights organizations and request from Congress that his
testimony be heard. (The treatment of the main witness to the
assassination of the Jesuits was similar.)
"The results of Salvadoran military training are graphically
described in the Jesuit journal _America_ by Daniel Santiago,
a Catholic priest working in El Salvador. He tells of a peasant
woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her
mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own
decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the
body, the hands arranged on top 'as if each body was stroking
its own head.'
"The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found
it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so
they nailed the hands on to it. A large plastic bowl filled with
blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.
"According to Reverend Santiago, macabre scenes of this kind
aren't uncommon.
"People are not just killed by death squad in El
Salvador -- they are decapitated and then their
heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the
landscape. Men are not just disemboweled by the
Salvadoran Treasury Police; their severed genitalia
are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women
are not just raped by the National Guard; their
wombs are cut from their bodies and used to cover
their faces. It is not enough to kill children;
they are dragged over barbed wire until the flesh
falls from their bones, while parents are forced
to watch.
"Reverend Santiago goes on to point out that violence of this
sort greatly increased when the Church began forming peasant
associations and self-help groups in an attempt to organize
the poor.
"By and large, our approach in El Salvador has been successful.
The popular organizations have been decimated, just as
Archbishop Romero predicted. Tens of thousands have been
slaughtered and more than a million have become refugees. This
is one of the most sordid episodes in US history and it's got
a lot of competition."
--from: :
--pp. 34-40 in _What Uncle Sam Really Wants_, by Noam Chomsky,
1995, (Berkeley, California: Odonian Press) ISBN 1-989825-01-1.
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at MIT.
Now that that's over, can we get back to the bowhead whaling?
--
David Eitelbach
dseitel@spams.r.us.com
