Subject: Re: The Betrayal of Science and Reason
From: aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 96 18:49:51 GMT
In Article <568pgk$4fn@grissom.powerup.com.au>, gakp@powerup.com.au (Karen
or George) wrote:
>In article <3287C1C8.278A@ilhawaii.net>, jhanson@ilhawaii.net says...
>>
>>For Immediate Release
>>
>> Contact: Lisa Magnino at press@islandpress.com
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[hard-sell spiel deleted]
>
>>Betrayal of Science and Reason: How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric
>>Threatens Our Future
>>By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
>>Shearwater Books/Island Press
>>Publication Date: October 21, 1996
>>320 pages, Appendices, index
>>Hardcover: $24.95 ISBN: 1-55963-483-9
>>
>>Members of the press: please send two tearsheets of any mention of this
>>title to our Washington address: Island Press 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW,
>>Suite 300. Washington, DC 20009. When providing ordering information,
>>please use the following: Island Press, Box 7, Dept. 2PR, Covelo, CA
>>95428;
>>800/828-1302.
>
>Surely, this is commercial advertising that is supposed to be a no-no
>in discussion groups. Besides, it has no relevance for sci.econ, so it
>constitutes a double violation of netiquette.
>
>George Antony
You expected less? Isn't making money the point of writing the book?
Subject: Forest Policy in the 105th
From: eckl@eli.org
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 13:51:21 -0600
Apologies for cross postings, this is a non-commerical
announcement
November 5, 1996
For Immediate Release
Forest Policy Watch: What's Ahead in the
105th?
On November 19, the Environmental Law
Institute will convene an Associates Seminar to
discuss the outlook for forest policy following the
1996 elections. Please join Doug Crandall
(Director of Timber Supply, American Forest &
Paper Association), Brock Evans (President,
Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs, and former Vice President
for National Issues, National Audubon Society), James
Lyons (Undersecretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture), and Mark Rey (Professional Staff,
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources). ELI Staff Attorney Ivie B. Higgins
will moderate.
Federal forest policy was among the most
contentious environmental issues debated during
the 104th Congress, and a number of issues, such
as the Timber Salvage Rider, forest health
legislation, and "ecosystem management"
initiatives of the administration will certainly be
revisited following the 1996 elections.
This event is open to the public and there is no
charge to attend. Please bring your own "brown
bag" lunch. For more information, contact Eric
Eckl at (202) 939-3248 or eckl@eli.org.
When: Noon to 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 19
Where: ELI 7th Floor Conference Room, 1616 P
Street, NW,Washington, DC 20036
RSVP:(202) 939-3858
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mfriesel@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:34:22 -0700
Moore says:
>
> Gee, I don't remember ever not paying taxes on interest, but you might
> be right. So? I thought you socialists dudes wanted to tax everything
> in sight :-)
I reply:
There had been no tax on savings interest. What you remember doesn't
concern me. By the way, if you want to start playing with labels, I
can do it, too.
JM says:
>
> Duh
I note:
More than a single simple concept at a time and JM's brain stops.
He continues...
>
> I want it lowered. It has cost me a lot of money, especially when I
> received gains in uncontrolled lumps and then was taxed at brackets
> higher than my normal income would indicate. But that's personal.
I note:
All of my replies are personal.
JM says:
>
> Have you ever wondered why almost every other first world country has
> ZERO capital gains tax rate?
I reply:
No.
After proving he did not wonder either, JM says:
>
> Furthermore, why would you want to raise the tax rate on savings
> (capital gains taxes are taxes on savings for most people)? It is
> alreadly over 50% for the average personr, who leaves money in capital
> investments for a long time, because of the failure to index for
> inflation. Fortunately for the economy, most person don't realize
> this, or they would invest everything in tax free bonds or some such.
>
> So why do you want to penalize capital? It is employed to do
> productive things.
I reply:
Well, there are three reasons: a) the same people who taxed my S&L;
savings interest want to reduce capital gains, so to hell with them.
Actually, the remainding two aren't that important.
JM says:
>
> No, I never said the proportion of income paid by the wealthy dropped.
I reply:
You said the tax rate dropped. The conclusion above is obvious.
JM says:
>
> But frankly, I think it should. As one gets more skilled and higher
> paid, one's taxes paid go up exponentially (with the exception of a
> social security pedestal). This is fair???
I reply:
Skill and pay, taken in the general sense, are not correlated. Your
assertion is a myth.
JM says:
>
> I think taxes ought to be a government fee... the same per person.
>
> But for the less radical, maybe a person consumes more government
> resources if they have a higher income (not true, but let's pretend),
> then maybe they should pay a flat rate rather than a flat fee.
>
> What the heck is wrong with that?
I reply:
I think it's essential to prevent the runaway concentration of wealth.
An economy limiting the distribution of wealth to a sigmoidal curve
seems like a good solution, where steps are taken to ensure that the
wealthier members of society are those who contribute the most to it.
The maximum accumulatable wealth can be tied to the median wealth, and
there can still be a minimum achievable by anyone for the asking.
The difficulty in implementing such a system comes from the wealthy
themselves, and other unfortunate results of our current system which
will take more time to explain than I have right now, even to someone
who's brain does not slip a cog like yours did above.
JM says:
>
> I think you simply want to punish the rich for being rich, regardless
> of the iimpact on everyone else.
I reply:
Punish? Hardly, since this seems to imply a form of negative
reinforcement intended to induce a behavioral change. I'm just
looking for a constructive outlet for my violent tendencies, and the
policies implemented by the wealthy have attracted my attention.
Pretty simple, really.
JM continues...
That would be the result of the
> policies you have pushed, on those few times when you made suggestions
> rather than just pick at capitalism from a lofty pedestal.
I reply:
Hardly. But you seem unable to understand even simple arguments, so
most of what I say goes completely over your head. The impression
you're left with is no more than you're capable of understanding. You
seem to forget the inconsistencies in your position about what
capitalism is, what the free market is, and your defense of monopolies
and inheritance, among others.
JM says:
>
>
> I thought we were talking about responsibility here. But if that is
> true, then it makes no difference what Reagan proposed... it is
> everyones fault.
I reply:
Then you have no objectiong to my attacking the most evident source of
the problem, and the one most accessible to public response? I'm
happy to hear that.
JM continues..
>
> >Ross Perot obtained $3B from the state of California and $1B from the
> >state of Nevada. I may be able to find my source, but it's been
> >awhile so you can disagree with me all you want with relative
> >impunity.
>
> That means his company received the fees, which is far different than
> Ross personally ending up with all the money.
I reply:
No, what I said was that Ross Perot obtained the money. How much they
paid to the company is anyone's guess, but the statement I made can be
checked.
JM says:
> Ross had all sorts of
> costs, after all. He was a tough businessman, and maybe he shaved some
> edges here or there, but I haven't seen that in this discussion. So
> please explain, again, what is wrong with Ross Perot's company, or any
> other company, getting a bunch of money from the government for doing
> something that, at the time, NO ONE ELSE including the government,
> could do?
I reply:
You're making a number of errors above. First, you interpreted my
statement regarding Perot's money as assuming it went to the business
rather than to his personal forture, second, you seem to think shaving
edges was an essential element of the discussion we've had which it is
not; third, you think no one else could do the same job Perot did for
less; Fourth, you think the government has the right to make an
indiviual wealthy using public funds. All of these are incorrect.
JM continues...
>
> Medixxx was a mandate on the states that did not give them time to set
> up the capability to administer it. Ross, through very skilled
> management, very hard work, and some luck, was able to do it. For
> this, he is being attacked?
I reply:
I wasn't attacking Perot in particular. I was attacking incompetent
administration that permits businessmen to become exceptionally
wealthy through entitlement programs at the expense of the general
public. I was attacking your fabricated characterization of welfare
queens. I was attacking your tendency to promote capitalism and
free-markets on the one hand, while defending the characteristics
these lead to in practice of piracy, abuse of the system, and the
incompetence which allows it in practically the same breath.
JM continues:
>
> I have reasons to not like HR Perot, but that isn't one of them.
I note:
I have no reason to dislike Perot, except that he is not a responsible
member of my society.
JM says:
As an
> ex employee I was planning on suing him (reasons not to be discussed,
> obviously), and was told to forget it - he could use his money to
> crush me financially. That was unpleasant.
>
> But he has done some very good things (I have seen the american flag
> in his office signed by all the POWs who returned from Vietnam).
>
JM says:
>
> I never said they mismanaged in favor of the poor.
Do I need to dredge up your comments about people taking advantage of
welfare, or do you remember now?
JM says:
>
> But you fail to appreciate the magnitude of these efforts.
I reply:
I doubt it.
JM:
And the
> profits were for work from MANY state governments, and other
> businesses, and the billionaireness came from a stock market which
> valued his company quite highly. It seems to me that you are just
> slinging mud, without the information necessary to justify it.
I reply:
Quite the contrary, you are wholly unwilling to accept any information
which threatens your opinion.
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:32:19 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson (steinn@sandy.ast.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
: ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
: > These figures are from the Consumer Price Index, so it's the price
: > of fish in supermarkets in US metro areas. It's a weighted average
: > of all types of fish, and includes products like canned tuna.
: > Also, I could have been clearer about how I calculated these figures.
: > From 1970-1995, overall inflation was 393%, while the price of fish
: > rose 548%. I quoted 548/393 = 1.4, or a 40% higher relative price.
: Those will then include a different bunch of fish
: in the initial and final figures. Eg in the 80's significant
: amount fresh fish was airlifted to restaurants on the East
: Coast, at a considerable premium, a practise that would
: have been unthinkable in 1970.
The fact that the basket of fish changes implies that the
price change is _understated_. If people hadn't compensated
for the price increase by switching to cheaper fish,
the index would have increased by more than 40%.
Also, the index I quoted doesn't include restaurant food
(that's why I described it as "the price of fish in
supermarkets").
: Penetration of ocean fish to markets in the central US
: increased, as did market penetration of prepared fish,
: both practises involve higher cost retail in exchange
: for consumer convenience.
I doubt that this effects the CPI. I think you're
confusing the price level with price changes.
: A number of different species of fish were introduced to
: US markets in that interval, some "exotics" that again
: commanded a premium price.
You misunderstand how new goods are introduced into the CPI.
Expensive new varieties of fish won't increase the index,
unless they are also _increasing_ in price rapidly.
: Finally, exchange rates fluctuated in the interval,
: and a fair chunk of US consumption is imported.
This is totally irrelevant. The CPI people check out
the price of fish in retail establishments, and
don't make any distinction between domestic and
imported.
: BTW, there has been substantial technological improvement
: in fist cathcing. This has been dampened both by high
: capital cost of replacing equipment, and, more significantly,
: very high subsidies of inefficient fisheries by many nations.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Scott Susin "Time makes more converts than
Department of Economics Reason"
U.C. Berkeley Thomas Paine, _Common_Sense_
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:37:15 GMT
masonc@ix.netcom.com (Mason A. Clark) wrote:
>4. The acidity of the "no limits" posters is not buffered by
> the fact that the worriers may have some points and may, by
> their anti-Pollyanna program be a major factor in postponing
> the time of reckoning.
Mason,
This is perfectly plausible, but is not in fact true. Us acid tongued
ones are the people who are in fact creating useful and usable
mechanisms or reckoning -- cost benefit analysis, international
treaties, arrests on the high seas, etc. etc. There is of course more
to be done, and we're doing it.
The people you quite conservatively call Pollyannas are doing nothing
useful; if anything they harm the cause they claim to support,
bringing legislation, regulation, and negotiation into disrepute by
demanding laws and rules which are harmful and impotent. The
Environmental Protection Agency in its first flush of ukases is an
example of such laws and rules, and it is only now, 20 years later,
that the agency is becoming practical enough to do more good than
harm.
-dlj.
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 20:37:24 GMT
Jay Hanson wrote:
>In other words, if humans are greedy, stupid and violent
>now, then science must assume that they will remain so.
And if, stupid and violent though we be, more of us live better every
year, and our reserves of resources continually increase, then things
look pretty good for the future, don't they.
>Conversely, if humans actually DO manage to somehow
>change their behavior for the better, then carrying
>capacity goes up. For example, Earth might be able
>to support 6 billion Amish.
Your problem with the Amish is that they don't watch television, and
keep themselves is seventeenth century ignorance of technology. If
you had six billion Amish right now, you'd have 18 billion Amish to
feed in twenty years. The economic, technical and social breakdown
would really be Armageddon of some sort.
Indeed Amish society is hitting major crisis right now, with appalling
levels of violent and financial crime, disaffection, and family
breakdown among the young.
-dlj.
-dlj.
Subject: On-Line Environmental Tradeshow
From: rmills@libby.org
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:41:05 -0600
Environmental Tradeshow
On-Line
Exhibitor Information Page
The Environmental Tradeshow On-Line is an ongoing experiment to harness the power of the Internet to bring buyers and sellers together as well as to discover the new Environmental Solutions and Services being developed worldwide.
The Environmental Tradeshow On-Line brings together a cross section of Products, Technologies, Solutions, Service Companies and Consultants to the Environmental Marketplace. It is our mission to bring these suppliers together with the Professionals and Industries striving to deal with Environmental Issues.
In this, our first show, we will have 50 exhibitors in each of three categories:
Environmental Products and Technologies
Environmental Service Companies
Environmental Consultants
The Tradeshow will run for 3 months and will then begin again to give new exhibitors a chance to come in.
We will be showing a list of exhibitors, with ad copy describing each company, Their name or Graphic logo will be a link to their homepage on the Internet .
The Product and Services List will show a grouping of graphic buttons with headings that will take you to a table listing of those products and services. Again ad copy will describe each product or service and a link will take you directly to the web page that demonstrates each.
Our Hospitality Suite will be a multimedia Presentation site for those companies wishing to present their products in a more powerful way. Animation, movie clips, Audio Presentations , etc,
The Message Center will give you a chance to leave a comment or chat with others that are viewing the site at that moment, you can even leave messages for others to pick up later.
Our Conference Center will post a schedule of On line Live Conferences covering various Environmental Topics, where you can ask questions on the conference topic that will be answered by your host at that particular conference.
Plans even include a Coffee Shop/Rest Area where you can link to entertainment sites featuring Art, Light shows , movie clips and music. It give attendees a chance to grab a cup of coffee and kick back and relax for a few minutes.
We will begin advertising the show on November, 15, 1996. The show will start December 1, 1996 and run until February 28, 1997. The show will be advertised through a number of Environmental Maillists and Newsgroups as well as over 100 Search Engines and News Releases to the various groups on the internet inter6ested in new happenings and methods of using the World Wide Web. We have already generated an exciting amount of interest on just three of the mailists where I sent a note regarding exhibitors.
Costs:
Our charges for the Tradeshow are based on the following categories of exhibitors:
Products and Technologies $ 200.00
Service Companies $ 100.00
Consultants $ 75.00
These are total costs for the three months.
Special Offers:
Since this is our first show we are offering free web page development to those companies who do not have a presence on the Internet now. We will design and host up to 7 pages for the cost of the Tradeshow Booth alone. We will continue to host your web pages at our site for $ 20.00 per month and will register your site with 20 major search engines, if you wish. All leads can be sent to you by fax if you do not have an email account or we can set one up for you. Domain Name Registration is also available.
Rotating AD Banner Space is available at $ 50.00 for the duration of the show. Size and placing of the Banners are still being determined.
Interested parties may send me an email to get further information on the show or phone me directly.
Raymond Mills
National Sales Coordinating Center
1-404-765-0842 Fax or phone
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]
Subject: Tree Trouble
From: "John A. Keslick, Jr."
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 19:58:46 -0800
Dear Editor:
It has come to my attention that some people do not understand the value
of avoiding digging near ornamental trees. Recently in Radnar, I
visited an educational demonstration where good hearted people had
properly planted a group of trees in memory of those lives lost in the
Oklahoma City Bombing. What I observed was a great deal of damage done
by other good hearted people who simply did not understand tree
biology. The damage was to a birch tree. It's very sad in many ways.
One is on Earth Day the person who planted the tree two years ago
explained to me how pleased and happy he was that the tree had lived for
one year. He went on to explain how everything else he planted died.
Recently flowers were planted in a tree planting site in the non-woody
root area and the birch tree had both woody and non-woody roots
disrupted when a good-hearted person thought it would look pretty to dig
around the tree to edge the mulch. Birch trees do not tolerate this
treatment. I am sad for the person who planted the tree properly. I am
sad for the ones who did not understand that the rhizosphere is very
sensitive. And last I am sad for myself and for my friends who planted
the demonstration because in a sense I have failed to communicate with
parties involved. A question one might ask is "How is it possible that
we can cause pest and fungus problems and kill a tree by planting
flowers at the base and digging up roots (woody and non-woody) of our
trees, now known as flowers disease worldwide? This is a very very good
question. I will try to give you one of many explanations or
concepts. First let me define some terms. Non-woody roots and woody
roots. Non-woody roots have different basic functions then woody
roots. Here are some of the features and functions. Non-woody roots
facilitate the absorptions of water and elements from the rhizosphere.
Woody roots support the tree, store energy (starch and oils) and
transport elements and water from the non-woody roots toward the
leaves. Food from the stem is transported toward the non-woody roots
by way of the woody roots. And the list goes on. On most trees most of
the time the non-woody roots can be found in the rhizosphere in the
upper four inches of the soil.
The way a non-woody root dies naturally is much different from how it
dies by wounding when planting flowers and bulbs at the base of the
tree. Naturally a boundary will form (abscission layer) first where
the non-woody root meets the woody root (which will resist entrance of
pathogens). After the boundary (abscission layer) is formed, the
non-woody root will then die and be digested by microorganisms.
Now on the other hand when we dig (one way we as people intervene) we
often wound and kill non-woody roots before a boundary is formed and now
the pathogens which infect woody roots have an open door. I call this
predisposition. In a sense the tree is in a receiving mode for pest and
fungus. Then we find many other factors to blame the decline and death
of the tree, e.g., borers, twig dieback, mites, insects, fungus, weather
and the list goes on. Then when we see these problems we tend to dose
the tree with nitrogen which in a sense can turn beneficial
microorganisms into pathogens when the tree is in a predisposition state
or condition. I will not go into detail about all the chemical
pesticides used to fight the pest and fungus. This works much the same
as the death of mycorrhizae during flooding, soil grade change, soil
compaction and the list goes on.
Now the leaf works somewhat the opposite. What happens with the leaf is
the leaf will die first and then the abscission layer is formed and then
the leaf is shed. That's also why the leaves on young beech and oak do
not drop their dead leaves some times in the fall. One reason being
that the abscission layer did not form. I hope someone will learn from
this article and not believe it because I said it but because they see
it for themselves.
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Tree Biologist
Web Site: http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/
610-696-5353
--
John A. Keslick Jr. If you are not OUTRAGED you're not
Tree Anatomist & Tree Biologist paying attention.
Phone: 610-696-5353 Support ORGANIC FARMERS.
organic tree treatment web site:
http://www.ccil.org/~treeman/ OR http://www.ccil.org/~kenm/env/
Subject: Recycling is Garbage
From: Scanlon
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 14:43:07 GMT
This is to add a footnote to this subject which appeared a few months
ago shortly after an article appeared in the New York Times Magazine by
John Tierney. The Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani used arguments
advanced by Tierney (as well as his own) to avoid compliance with a
state deadline for recycling 25% of the city's garbage. The city had
reached 15% but dropped back to 14% then 13% and there is a law suit
over the gap.
The Tierney article, which attacked recycling as a kind of mindless
do-gooder religious ritual, provoked the largest letter response the
N.Y. Times Magazine ever had and there was also lively discussion in
this electronic forum.
I was amazed by by the attack on recycling as I had written an article
about the dump several years before and it was my understanding, based
on a conversations with NYC Sanitation Department Public Relations
staff that the city was promoting recycling as a practical means of
prolonging the life of its dump.
What got left out of the recycling discussion was that N.Y. City was
dependent on just one dump site, the Fresh Kills Sanitary Landfill, the
largest dump in the history of the world, an enormous mountain of
garbage slowly rising over the southshore of Staten Island the largest,
but least populous Borough. The unusual smell pervades much of Staten
Island and it is, at times, overpowering.Staten Islanders I have spoken
to fear and loath it. Rightly or wrongly the dump is blamed for the high
cancer rates and childhood illnesses. A few years ago a national furor
erupted over medical waste from the dump washing up on popular New
Jersey shore beaches.
The Mayor, a Republican had promised Staten Islanders the dump would be
closed in 2002, however there were, and are, no plans on where the
city's 30,000 metric tons of garbage it produces each day would go. As
one can imagine, there is some skepticism on the part of people who live
on Staten Island on the validity of this promise. Some have even gone so
far as to suggest the Mayor made an empty promise to his Republican
supporters on Staten Island who hate the dump as much (if not more) than
sandal wearing tree huggers from Berkeley California hate chain saws.
I recently visited New York and learned that the City is rehabilitating
the piers that it uses to load scows where garbabe trucks dump their
loads into barges to be towed to Staten Island where they are off
loaded. It seems hard to understand how a city so short of money would
waste it on a system due to be closed in a few years.
I also came across an interesting article in the Staten Island Advance
(Oct 10, 1996) "Landfill panel reaching out to recyclers" which states,
"The city-state task force working on a plan to close the Fresh Kills
landfill by 2002 is actively seeking feedback from the waste industry on
available markets for recyclables.
"...Though the work of the task force has been largely conducted in
secret, there have been reports that state officials were pressing for a
greater focus on recycling. (The Chairwoman's)..comments, in the eyes of
some observers confirmed that the state message had gotten through.
The Chairwoman was quoted saying that the city, "was never unwilling to
look at the issue of recycling"
"Sanitation officials say shipping all 13,000 (sic.) tons of household
garbage out of the city, as opposed to burying it at Fresh Kills, could
cost as much as $200 million a year even after subtracting the $100 a
year it costs to operate the Island dump.
A Sanitation Commissioner is quoted saying city official still had faith
in refuse export. "We think there's a lot of capacity out there [to
accept city garbage]. The problem is you can't just throw 13,000 tons of
refuse out overnight."
(I assume there was no irony, except, perhaps Freudian)
Our society has a fundamental, unresolved problem---how to safely
dispose of the waste products we produce so casually.
The cost of disposal is not accounted for by its user (us). We all live
a lie, some comfortably, some, like me, not.
This waste includes that which we can see and smell (as in Staten Island
and in traffic jams) and that which like CFCs and carbonyl fluoride, are
barely undetectable even with sophisticated instruments.
Jim Scanlon
(Note:I will check out the discrepancy between the 30,000 tons/day and
13,000 tons a day)
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:03:28 GMT
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
>mohn@are._delete_this_.berkeley.edu (Craig Mohn) writes:
>> There is an almost total absence of alcoholism/drug addiction among
>> hunter/gatherer societies before they become westernized. From
>This is a puzzling comment. It would seem impossible for
>a hunter/gatherer society to have alcoholism, however as
>soon as you get to pastural societies brewing alcohol is
>uibiquitous and with it, presumably, the problem of alcoholism.
Any society which stays put for even a period of days can ferment
alcoholic beverages. I recall reading an article about a group of
Amazonian Indians, who were being disrupted by oil company activities
(this is not relevant to my point, but explains why the New Yorker
would care about them). They did have a traditional fermented
beverage they consumed regularly, apprently not to excess. I don't
have the exact reference, but I believe it was in the New Yorker
magazine about a year and a half ago. Having made the apparently
irreversible transition from hunter/gatherer to agricultural is not a
precondition to the creation of alcoholic beverages.
>As for drug addiction, that begs the question. Do we know
>that societies with natural psychopharmaceuticals readily
>available did not experience substantial drug addiction?
Many indigenous groups in Mexico used the most powerful
psychopharmaceuticals, but not to excess. In my office I have several
pieces of Huicholi religious art, most of which are not only inspired
by peyote, but contain explicit representations of the cactus buttons.
They have no problem with excessive use of the substance. It is
possible that the fact that it is used in a religious context serves
to deter abuse, but that is not a universal protection, as the
relatively high rate of alcoholism among Roman Catholic priests and
brothers shows. We also have to remember the psychoactive weed hemp,
which grows almost anywhere, yet has rarely caused problems with
indigenous populations. I recall articles published during their
civil war about kaat (a weakly psychedlic stimulant??) being chewed
routinely by Somali tribesman.
>Presumably there would in most cases be severe maladaptation
>for hunter/gatherers to spend much time stoned, so we'd be
>strongly selected not to observer much such behaviour, even
>if it was common.
Several people have mentioned that in locations where population is
comparatively sparse, being a successful hunter/gatherer takes only a
few hours per day, less time than required for survival in most modern
industrial societies. In these places, there would be plenty of time
for being stoned, but it doesn't seem to be as big a problem.
However, you are obviously right in many cases - survival for quite a
few hunter/gatherers would require a clear head. In these situations,
junkies would almost certainly be cast off from their groups and die.
The key problem to pursuing this thread any further is that it isn't
obviously possible to compare happiness and satisfaction between
hunter/gatherers and agriculture/industrialists. There is a very
large gap between the ways of thinking required to thrive in each
culture, and it is impossible for us to think like them. The real
interesting question isn't "do WE think that we are better off than
'primitive' people", but "how come we are (in aggregate) so unhappy
given that we have so much of what we want compared to our
predecessors?"
Craig
Note that my email address in this message header is incorrect,
to foil email spammers. If replying to me use my real email address:
mohn@are.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Give'em Hell, Helen!
From: "D. Braun"
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:06:02 -0800
On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Extremely Right wrote:
> In article <563ien$98g@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>
> > I notice that Helen Chenoweth, the freshman representative
> > from Idaho, so demonized in the green usenet groups, has been
> > re-elected.
> >
>
> > Pay it back, with interest, Helen.
> > You are stronger now, not a freshman
> > any more. Your party is bound to increase its
> > majority substantially in 1998, a midyear always
> > works that way. You are almost sure to be re-elected.
> >
> > This is the time for some healthy triumphalism.
> > Rub it in, let them know you feel their
> > pain. Your enemies are the enemies
> > of mankind. Give'em hell.
>
> I second the motion with interest... ###8up
Do you also believe that a shrimp is a mammal, salmon come from Safeway,
and that the UN has already taken over the National Parks?
Dave Braun
>
>
Subject: Re: Stone Age Economics - part two
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:06:58 GMT
brshears@whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears) wrote:
>bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce Scott TOK ) wrote for all to see:
>>John McCarthy (jmc@Steam.stanford.edu) wrote:
>[edited]
>>: The Canadian Northwest Territories had a population of 35,000 not too
>>: many years ago. You can be a hunter-gatherer there if you can take
>>: it.
>>
>>: I should think this population density would be low enough for
>>: J.D. Weiner also.
>>
>>Try that in the US and you will find that all the land is owned, and you
>>will be in the tank for tresspassing.
>"All the land is owned"? In the US, no more than in Canada. MOst of
>Nevada is public land (some 80%, last I looked). The same is true for
>most Western states.
"Public land" has been reduced to a euphemism for federally owned
government land. Try homesteading on this "public" land, and you
will still be in the tank for tresspassing.
>Large parts of the West are rarely seen by anyone, and you would be
>free to make your living on it if you can. Your biggest problem would
>be game laws.
Rarely seen, yes. Unowned, no. Besides, this land is available
because it is the least habitable land in the country. Even the
oases of fertile valleys are sandwiched between rugged, almost
impassable mountains, making trade difficult, and subject to
harsh vagarities of weather.
>"Freedom is the by-product of economic surplus."
> -----Aneurin Bevan (1962).
Actually, I thought economic surplus was a by-product of freedom.
It is, if anything, the lure for tyranny, as there is no point
exploiting people who do not produce a surplus for you to
expropriate.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: Will Stewart
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:30:07 -0500
Bob Falkiner wrote:
>
> Harry - I think you've missed the point of these postings....
No, Harry was right on track.
> New cars are clean, and tend to stay clean because of the computerized
> controls.
'Clean' is a misnomer here; all internal combustion engines pollute.
New cars will always get dirtier due to wear and tear, regardless of
computerized controls. The sensors themselves wear or become coated
with dust, exhaust particulate, etc, and drift away from their initial
calibrations.
> Old cars are dirty, and tend to get dirtier with age without computer
> controls.
Oversimplification.
> 2 cycle engines are very dirty and tend to get very very dirty
Lawnmowers tend to be 4 cycle. If your argument is based on 2 cycle
lawnmowers, then you really don't have an argument.
> so.... if you own a brand new car and an old lawn mower, they are now
> about equivalent in the overall pollution equation.
Sorry, your premises are unsupported and do not logically result in the
conclusion above.
> or ... if you own an old van delivering things 10 hours per day, it is
> the equivalent of about 5000 new cars in a typical commuter driving
> cycle.
Extreme oversimplification. Many older vehicles are cleaner than cars
one and two years old.
> This is just one of many consumer beliefs that will have to be accepted
> as the typical automobile becomes so clean that it removes itself from
> the urban pollution equation.
It sounds like you are most interested in building a perception than
anything else. Try presenting empirical data next time.
Cheers,
--
William R. Stewart
http://www.patriot.net/users/wstewart/first.htm
Member American Solar Energy Society
Member Electrical Vehicle Association of America
"The truth will set you free: - J.C.
"Troll:
A deliberately disrupting, confused and incorrect
post (or one posting trolls) to a Usenet group to
generate a flurry of responses from people called
"billygoats" trying to set the record straight.
Other trollers enter the fray adding more and more
misinformation so that the thread eventually dies of
strangulation. Trolls/trollers cannot be affected
by facts or logic." - bashford@psnw.com
Subject: Re: Death Threat for Opposing Mountain Biking
From: drh92@aber.ac.uk (DANIEL ROBERT HOLDSWORTH)
Date: 12 Nov 1996 21:35:46 -0000
In article <3286A404.31CD@pacbell.net>, Mike Vandeman writes:
:DANIEL ROBERT HOLDSWORTH wrote:
:> It was tried on the Kaibab Plateau region of the USA (I forget which state),
:> where all coyotes, mountain lions, wolves and grizzley bears were shot within
:> the confines of the plateau area.
:
:That is on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Thanks for the interesting
:information.
I didn't know that; thankyou for that piece of info.
All ecosystems seem to operate in this way; they all seem to need predators to
operate well, and removal of predators generally reduces diversity as a whole.
The ratio of predators to prey is also interesting; warm-blooded animals have
much greater energy needs than do cold-blooded ones; therefore as a general
rule ecosystems of warmblooded animals have few predators as a proportion of
total animal numbers, whereas ecosystems of coldblooded animals have many more
predators.
As a point of some interest, dinosaur ecosystems seem to have been ecosystems of
warm-blooded animals, though dinosaurs were otherwise very like reptiles.
Adding humans to an ecosystem WILL alter it, but the degree of alteration will
alter. It is probably that there is no part of Europe which has not been altered
in some way by humans; this is also the case for much of the North American
continent, if only indirectly (via addition of new, alien species).
As a result of this, I do not think that your stated policy of complete removal
of humans from selected ecosystems is feasible. I would instead attempt to do
this by a "sneaky" approach, confining humans to defined trails within the
wilderness areas, forbidding tresspass off these trails, and attempting to
hide the trails.
It would also be valuable to find out which wildlife is most damaged by
putting trails through a habitat. In tropical rainforest, a road is a
major barrier, and many arboreals will not go down to the ground to cross
it. Even a partially cleared path is a barrier to some insects, which will
not (cannot?) cross even a metre of sunlit airspace.
This is not quite as likely in the USA as in rainforest, but I still think that
it should be taken into account.
A final factor in the equation is the problem of zoonotic diseases. Many tick-
vectored diseases are increases in prevalence if deer are allowed to proliferate.
In semi-urban fringe areas deer can proliferate where large predators cannot be
tolerated, and thus the conditons for a minor zoonotic epidemic can be created.
If the reservoir population for such a disease is one of your "pristine wildlife
habitats", then I fear that it's pristine-ness would not last.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java
that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a
warning, it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Dan Holdsworth, drh92@aber.ac.uk Note that spammers will be killfiled,
mailfiltered and buried by the dead of night in /dev/null
Subject: J.W.'s refusal to acknowledge LIMITS (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)
From: alnev@midtown.net (A.J.)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:29:51 GMT
On 11 Nov 1996 07:15:07 GMT, jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) wrote:
>Four hands can do *more than twice* the work of two hands -
>for many, many reasons. One of them is division of labor;
>another is economy of scale; still another is
>that *two heads are better than one*.
We *already* have economies of scale! The problem now is a surplus
of menial jobs and falling real wages as too many people try to share
the same pie. You think we can increase the scale of the economy
indefinitely, and are ignorant of the physical limits that prevent it.
>>Growth-addiction never allows us
>>to stop and breathe (as a society), and it prevents us from truly
>>refining the quality of our economy, since so much effort is put into
>>growing it. It's like Sisyphus forever pushing the stone up the hill.
>
>Growth or no growth, daily bread has to be always produced
>again. This fact of life is not at all due to growth.
>Getting up, brushing your teeth are also among
>such cyclical, Sysiphus-like tasks. If you feel tragic about
>it, perhaps writing a tragedy would help.
You completely missed my point, and I am getting tired of repeating
it. Of course brushing one's teeth is not a Sysiphusian task, but I
wasn't talking about economic *maintenance*, which any idiot knows
must continue. I was talking about economic SCALE, i.e. our struggle
to accommodate 90 million more people annually, and the fact that
no one has shown any intrinsic value in it.
>> If you inherited a pristine desert island, would your first order of business
>>be to pack it with as many people as possible so you could "live better?"
>
>Of course! This is what _Robinson Crusoe_ is all about:
>yearning for company. First he is all alone, going half-crazy,
>but surviving by prayer and hard work;
>then Man Friday appears; then
>others; then return to civilization follows - and
>each step makes life more worthwhile.
I am talking about *specific* numbers. If the island was five square
miles in size, it could be argued that a few hundred people might make
life more pleasant there, but a few THOUSAND people would just be an
added burden, and an *endlessly growing* number of people would be an
impossibility. What part of this don't you understand?
>(As I recall, Crusoe's real-life prototype, Alexander Selkirk,
>actually went mad from loneliness.)
>
>>How is the Earth any different except for the scale?
>
>Same thing. The more the merrier.
Define "more." Would 50 people living is a house create a "merrier"
situation than 5 people living in the same house? Would 5,000 people
living on a small island be preferable to 500 people? Don't you
understand the basic concepts of scale and limits?
Read up on the legacy of Easter Island, which was destroyed
because they removed all the trees to build shelters and roll their
statues. It is a documented case of an ecological catastrophe
caused by overpopulation. I imagine you'll claim they "improved"
Easter Island by clearing all those nasty trees . Check out:
http://www.netaxs.com/~trance/rapanui.html
>>As for more people doing a job better, how well would a team of 90
>>baseball players do, vs. 9? The old adage "too many cooks in the
>>kitchen" comes to mind.
>
>But more kitchens can be built - a restaurant - a chain of restaurants.
I was talking about the FINITE confines of a baseball field. I ask
you again, on a finite baseball field, how would 90 players be more
efficient than 9? If that's too complicated a question, answer this
one: Would 100 cooks be more efficient in a 20 x 20 ft. restaurant
kitchen than 10 cooks? And NO, this kitchen cannot be expanded,
just as the Earth cannot be expanded.
>> Every time a fly ball was hit, a dozen
>>players would collide trying to catch it, and most of the players
>>would not have anything to do except yield to the better ones.
>
>Then split into many teams; or invent a new game.
Again, I was talking about the FINITE confines of a baseball field.
Why do I have to explain this? A baseball field is finite and the
Earth is finite. We have no reason to make a baseball field larger,
and the Earth has been the same size for billions of years. How
much clearer do I need to make this?
>>A team (and an economy) will cease to function unless it respects
>>the physical limits of the playing field.
>
>One can do better than respect the physical limits:
>expand them. People choose their
>playing fields - and make their playing fields -
>and their games, too.
OK, explain how we can "expand" the Earth itself. And answer
my "trillions of people" question while you're at it. I feel like I'm
debating a pull-string doll that repeats the same nonsense
over and over and over.
- A.J.