Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 17:00:26 GMT
Scott Susin includes:
Maybe things will get better in the future, as you say. But
things will have to get _much_ better before the price of
fish falls to, say, its 1935 level. Back then, fish was two
and a half times cheaper than it is today, relative to the
CPI. Even since 1970, the price of fish has gone up 40%
faster than overall inflation. "We're running out of fish"
doesn't seem like such a bad summary to me.
1. "We're running out of fish" suggests that the absolute catch is
declining. It isn't. You can give it a different interpretation if
you like, but you will mislead people unless you include the
interpretation every time you make the statement.
2. The relative increase in the price of fish is related to the fact
that the productivity of fishing hasn't increased as much as the
productivity of other industries. The price of a haircut has
increased even faster relative to the CPI than has the price of fish,
because the productivity of cutting hair has scarcely increased at
all.
3. The demand for fish has increased, partly because of changes in
taste and beliefs about health, but also because improved
transportation has extended the market for fresh ocean fish into the
center of the U.S.
4. We shall see how the supply of farmed fish increases. When I was
in Oklahoma recently (giving a lecture about sustainability), I was
told of a start-up intending to farm lobsters in Oklahoma. American
farmers are very enterprising in looking for new crops that will fetch
a high price.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: There is hope in the world.
From: jamccoy@maurabrid.win-uk.net (John A. McCoy)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:17:27 GMT
Sometimes, when all is dark and the "leaders" are squabbling over
trivia, it is easy to despair.
Then comes a message like the one below,
Hope is not truely dead, not while people like Ed live.
Thank you, Ed.
John.
From: chattervox@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: THE SILENT VOICES
Date: 5 Nov 1996 06:55:16 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 32
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961105065800.BAA08462@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com
ALL I HEAR ABOUT IS THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY,THE GROWTH
OF PEOPLE .THERE IS TO MUCH GROWTH BY LARGE COMPANIES , THEY ARE TURNING
PEOPLE IN TO SLAVES , AND DESTROYING THE WILDLIFE. EVERY YEAR I SEE
LESS AND LESS ELK , DEER , MOUNTAIN LIONS , RAMS , AND , WILDLIFE IN
GENERAL .
I AM A RESIDENT OF COLORADO AND HAVE BEEN FOR MOST OF MY LIFE. I
LOVE THE OUTDOORS , CAMPING YEAR ROUND . I HAVE NOTICED THAT A LARGE
DECLINE IN THE WILDLIFE IN MOST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN AERAS .BACK EIGHT
YEARS AGO HERDS OF ELK USED TO RUN IN PACKS OF EIGHT TO TEN ; NOW YOUR
LUCKY TO SEE THEM. THE HERDS ARE ONLY TWO TO THREE AT THE MOST. I AM
CONSIDER AN EXPERIENCED TRACKER, I'M FINDING IT MUCH HARDER TO FIND
WILDLIFE. AFTER HUNTING SEASON I GO HIKING TO SEE WHAT DAMAGE ANIMALS
ARE LEFT. I FIND WOUNDED, BIRDS , ELK , DEER, AND DEAD ONES ALSO. ONCE I
FOUND A ELK LEANED UP AGINST A TREE BLINDED BY A HUNTERS BULLIT .
I BELEVE THAT SOON THE ONLY WAY PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO INJOY
WILDLIFE WILL BE IN ZOOS ,PARKES , AND PHOTOS. I WENT TO A NATIONAL PARK
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE THIS YEAR (ESTES PARK). THE EXPERIENCE
FRIGHTENED ME AND I'M NOT A PERSON THAT SACRES EASY. I PICTURED MY
EXPERIENCE AS IF THE PARK WAS A INDIAN RESERVATION. THE PARK WAS
ARTIFICIAL, LITTERED WITH PEOPLE . THERE WERE THIRTY OR MORE PEOPLE
STOPED AT ONE POINT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD-TAKING PHOTOES OF A HERD OF
ELK . I ADMIT THE ELK WERE BEAUTIFUL AND THER WERE TWENTY TWO OF THEM. I
THOUGHT I WAS IN A MOVIE THEATRE; KIDS CRYING, SMOKING CIGARETTES, LOAD
MUSIC FROM CARS, PEOPLE WALKING IN FRONT OF ME. IF THIS IS THE FUTURE I
DONT WANT IT .
IF I HAVE TO BE THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO CHANGE THIS I WILL. NOT
ENOUGH PEOPLE CARE, I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO THEM. IF YOU HAVE THE SAME
CONCERNS PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT Virutes I WOULD LIKE TO MEET OTHERS WHO ALSO
CARE.
ED
----
This is an entirely PERSONAL letter.
I speak for no other, no other speaks for me.
"It's only free verse 'cos I couldn't find anyone
dumb enough to pay." McCoy 67.
"Never lie to the Dog." Spencer 1996.
Take Note:
My usual and customary fee for bouncing unwanted junk e-mail
advertising is $500 U.S. per message. Sending me such e-mail
is a contract which acknowledges and accepts my fee schedule.
======+===+====+====<@ @>=======+=+====+=======
Subject: There is hope in the world.
From: jamccoy@maurabrid.win-uk.net (John A. McCoy)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:17:27 GMT
Sometimes, when all is dark and the "leaders" are squabbling over
trivia, it is easy to despair.
Then comes a message like the one below,
Hope is not truely dead, not while people like Ed live.
Thank you, Ed.
John.
From: chattervox@aol.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: THE SILENT VOICES
Date: 5 Nov 1996 06:55:16 GMT
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364) (1.10)
Lines: 32
Sender: news@aol.com
Message-ID: <19961105065800.BAA08462@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news-fddi.aol.com
ALL I HEAR ABOUT IS THE GROWTH OF THE ECONOMY,THE GROWTH
OF PEOPLE .THERE IS TO MUCH GROWTH BY LARGE COMPANIES , THEY ARE TURNING
PEOPLE IN TO SLAVES , AND DESTROYING THE WILDLIFE. EVERY YEAR I SEE
LESS AND LESS ELK , DEER , MOUNTAIN LIONS , RAMS , AND , WILDLIFE IN
GENERAL .
I AM A RESIDENT OF COLORADO AND HAVE BEEN FOR MOST OF MY LIFE. I
LOVE THE OUTDOORS , CAMPING YEAR ROUND . I HAVE NOTICED THAT A LARGE
DECLINE IN THE WILDLIFE IN MOST OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN AERAS .BACK EIGHT
YEARS AGO HERDS OF ELK USED TO RUN IN PACKS OF EIGHT TO TEN ; NOW YOUR
LUCKY TO SEE THEM. THE HERDS ARE ONLY TWO TO THREE AT THE MOST. I AM
CONSIDER AN EXPERIENCED TRACKER, I'M FINDING IT MUCH HARDER TO FIND
WILDLIFE. AFTER HUNTING SEASON I GO HIKING TO SEE WHAT DAMAGE ANIMALS
ARE LEFT. I FIND WOUNDED, BIRDS , ELK , DEER, AND DEAD ONES ALSO. ONCE I
FOUND A ELK LEANED UP AGINST A TREE BLINDED BY A HUNTERS BULLIT .
I BELEVE THAT SOON THE ONLY WAY PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO INJOY
WILDLIFE WILL BE IN ZOOS ,PARKES , AND PHOTOS. I WENT TO A NATIONAL PARK
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY LIFE THIS YEAR (ESTES PARK). THE EXPERIENCE
FRIGHTENED ME AND I'M NOT A PERSON THAT SACRES EASY. I PICTURED MY
EXPERIENCE AS IF THE PARK WAS A INDIAN RESERVATION. THE PARK WAS
ARTIFICIAL, LITTERED WITH PEOPLE . THERE WERE THIRTY OR MORE PEOPLE
STOPED AT ONE POINT ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD-TAKING PHOTOES OF A HERD OF
ELK . I ADMIT THE ELK WERE BEAUTIFUL AND THER WERE TWENTY TWO OF THEM. I
THOUGHT I WAS IN A MOVIE THEATRE; KIDS CRYING, SMOKING CIGARETTES, LOAD
MUSIC FROM CARS, PEOPLE WALKING IN FRONT OF ME. IF THIS IS THE FUTURE I
DONT WANT IT .
IF I HAVE TO BE THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO CHANGE THIS I WILL. NOT
ENOUGH PEOPLE CARE, I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO THEM. IF YOU HAVE THE SAME
CONCERNS PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT Virutes I WOULD LIKE TO MEET OTHERS WHO ALSO
CARE.
ED
----
This is an entirely PERSONAL letter.
I speak for no other, no other speaks for me.
"It's only free verse 'cos I couldn't find anyone
dumb enough to pay." McCoy 67.
"Never lie to the Dog." Spencer 1996.
Take Note:
My usual and customary fee for bouncing unwanted junk e-mail
advertising is $500 U.S. per message. Sending me such e-mail
is a contract which acknowledges and accepts my fee schedule.
======+===+====+====<@ @>=======+=+====+=======
Subject: Re: There is hope in the world.
From: jamccoy@maurabrid.win-uk.net (John A. McCoy)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:23:49 GMT
In article <3142@maurabrid.win-uk.net>, John A. McCoy (jamccoy@maurabrid.win-uk.net) writes:
>
>Sometimes, when all is dark and the "leaders" are squabbling over
>trivia, it is easy to despair.
> Then comes a message like the one below,
>
> Hope is not truely dead, not while people like Ed live.
> Thank you, Ed.
> John.
>
>
> From: chattervox@aol.com
>Newsgroups: sci.environment
>Subject: THE SILENT VOICES
>Date: 5 Nov 1996 06:55:16 GMT
Then, just after themessage above, we have the utter lunacy of photon
belts, and sane people actually debating the loonies.
And despair strikes again.
From: kfoster@rainbow.rmii.com (Kurt Foster)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: PHOTON BELT, THREE DAYS Of DARKNESS, COMING SOON
Date: 7 Nov 1996 15:44:51 GMT
Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet - (800) 900-RMII
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <55t05jœb3h@rainbow.rmii.com>
References: <19961107074800.CAA00381@ladder01.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rainbow.rmii.com
X-Newsreader: TIN version 1.2 PL2
photonblt@aol.com wrote:
: (Excerpted from "You Are Becoming a Galactic Human" by
: Virginia Essene and Sheldon Nidle, channeling Sirian Council
: members):
: "The photon belt, a huge torroid shaped object composed
: of photon light particles, was first discovered by your
: scientists in 1961 near the vicinity of the Pleiades by
: satellite instrumentation. The reality is that your solar
: system and the photon belt are moving toward each other and
: will merge sometime between March, 1995, and the end of
: 1996, or soon thereafter .
: big cut
This is raving lunacy. Photons (EM radiation) can't be detected till
arrival. The Pleiades are > 200 light-years away (the star Alcyone is
listed in my Field Guide as 240 ly away). Photons "in the vicinity" of
the Pleiades around 1960 won't arrive here to be detected, till around
the year 2200; whether the Pleiades even exist "now", nature forbids our
knowing till around 2236.
There's a whole SPHERE of photons leaving ANY star -- namely, the
star's light. And, of course, photons move at the speed of light.
........................................................
..........endquotes..............
The reponder is, of course, correct in his facts, but wrong for
bothering.
photoblt is obviously suffering from the disease called "religion".
An incapacitating mental disorder that causes violent and insane
behaviour.
Arguing with a victim of this disease is fruitless.
Best we could do is hospitalise them all.
Then the rational ones among us could get on with the job of
ensuring that fleas are not the only non-human lifeforms left on our
planet.
J.
----
This is an entirely PERSONAL letter.
I speak for no other, no other speaks for me.
"It's only free verse 'cos I couldn't find anyone
dumb enough to pay." McCoy 67.
"Never lie to the Dog." Spencer 1996.
Take Note:
My usual and customary fee for bouncing unwanted junk e-mail
advertising is $500 U.S. per message. Sending me such e-mail
is a contract which acknowledges and accepts my fee schedule.
======+===+====+====<@ @>=======+=+====+=======
Subject: Re: ...............
From: rtotman@oanet.com (r)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 18:23:42 GMT
In article <328496CE.549F@pianeta.it>, scienza@pianeta.it says:
>
>INTERNET
>
>Some people prefear to go on thinking that the Einstein’s relativity
>theory is right , thinking that matter cannot reach and substains light
>velocity, because in this case matter would have an infinitive mass ,
>and it would be necessary to transfer to it an infinitive quantity of
>energy.
>At the same time the physics substain that at elemental material level
>the time does not exist and that in normal conditions it is not possible
>to travel in the time.
>
>As opposite to what mentioned before, the writer, after 20 years of
>research out of the pubblic ufficial circuit of the physical research,
>can prove that things are different.
>Some examples of his theories follows:
>
>-The comception of time and space given by Einstein Relativity is
>completly inconsistent applied to the case of light velocity of the
>matter , out of light along with the physical and heavy consistance of
>the material invisible particles that translate the time , (towards the
>future or the past).
>In many cases the theories substained by the physics are uncomplete or
>inadeguated to describe the reality, but because of their lack to give
>an explanation to the real phaenomenouses, they go on thinking their
>concept as the only truth.
>
>-Some information about: To travel in the time , to travel at light
>velocity , to know the explanation of the forces unification, to know
>the natural formation of the sub-elemental particles of the electricity
>of the magnetism and of the gravity.
>The writers brings explanations and cases which confutates the
>Einstein’s relativity theory , substaing that the matter can travel at
>light velocity
>The contrary is possible and it is the right explanation of the world.
>
>End of December 1996 it will be ready a book , entitled "THE
>QUADRIDIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE", where in about 420 pages with colour
>photos and pictures , the writer explains these theories and many other
>concepts not already reached by the officials science.
>Shipment: per Airmail.
>Possible markets :All countries except for Italy , switzerland ,
>Japan, Cina , URSS Countries
>DEPOSITED AND PROTECTED CONTENTS
>
>PLEASE REPLY FOR MORE INFOS :
>
>scienza@pianeta.it
>
This is an inappropriate newsgroup for such a topic. This should appear in
alt.sci.fiction or some similar group.
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 18:50:11 GMT
In <01bbce74$d16f96a0$89d0d6cc@masher> "Mike Asher"
writes:
>
>sdef! wrote:
>>
>> Mainstream environmentalists, especially the famous ones, are pretty
>strange
>> creatures. So are some of the other nutters I've seen quotes from...
>> If primitive people didn't die they would all still be here. People
still
>die
>> now. OK they live a bit longer but what use is that as a measure of
>sucsess?
>
>Andy, you're a good guy; I can't actually believe you said that. "Ok,
they
>live a bit longer, but what use is that as a measure of success?" The
>length of our lives, multiplied by the enjoyment of each moment, is
the
>_only_ measure of success. Technology applied against resources
allows us
>to increase both.
And, since, of these two, one (longevity)
is easy to measure, the other (enjoyment) impossible
to measure; and, since the same factors, by and large,
increase and decrease both, - longevity is practically
the *only* measure of social success.
Primitive hunter-gatherers' life was
"brutish, miserable and short". The three go together.
Our savage ancestors deserve credit and eternal
gratitude for wading through that hell,
not giving up, living and procreating, and finally
progressing towards better times. In *this*
sense, they *were* noble savages, in spite
of all their savagery.
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 18:58:01 GMT
Bob Bruhns (bbruhns@newshost.li.net) wrote:
: Patrick Reid (pjreid@nbnet.nb.ca) wrote:
: : If the "no threshold" model is correct, why have there been no excess
: : cancers observed in those populations which recieved higher doses than
: : the general population, such as the liquidators?
:
: Well, Mr. Reid, would you care to comment on claims by James M.
: Gould and Benjamin A. Goodman that the number of live human births in
: Poland in 1986 dropped 10 percent below 1985 figures, especially
: considering that the 1986 figures include births during the first four
: months of 1986 which were _before_ the Chernobyl event? Gould and
: Goodman state that if all of 1986 were as bad as the latter half, this
: drop would have been more like 14%. (Gould, Benjamin, Millpointer,
: "Deadly Deceit," Pub: Four Walls Eight Windows, New York, 1990;
: ISBN: 0-941423-35-2.)
Since you fail to give enough information in your post, i.e what about
the *other* years before and after Chernobyl, etc. it is impossible to
disprove your quote. If this *research* is anything like Gould's other
shlock, he selectively picked data to support his premise like he did
with his breast cancer scare that has been refuted. What about *other*
countries, what about other factors? Why is it that the anti-nuclear
crowd must hang their hat on two primary researchers that have no peer
support (at best) or have been thouroghly refuted (at worst)?
: I think you and a few others are guilty of big-lie here, sir. Why
: do you persist in this fraud, claiming that nuclear power is safe, and
: that the results of the Chernobyl disaster were insignificant?
Since you have turned up refernces that conflict with those who you disagree
with, they are guilty of the "big lie". I see the scientific method is
alive and well on Long Island! Let us *assume* that there are hazards
associated with low levels of radiation, how does that prove nuclear
power unsafe? Do you have any idea what the population dose
committments from US nuclear plants are? Do you have any idea how that
compares to other sources? Your arguement is nothing more than a
strawman to attempt to discredit nuclear power. I don't remember anyone
stating Chernobyl was *insiginificant*. It was the just about the worst
conceivable nuclear accident possible with a large fraction of the total
curie content being released to the environment. With that, the
*accepted* death toll among the general public (as of a year ago) was
about 5.
: What I am finding indicates that low-level radiation is most
: immediately injurious to newborn life, human included. New birdlife
: seems to be the most sensitive; I read that it was down substantially
: across North America in the summer of 1986, specifically during the
: months following Chernobyl, with reductions in the range of 10
: standard deviations from the 10 year mean - which is quite
: significant. (Kate Millpointer, "Silent Summer," Chapter 3 of
: "Deadly Deceit," loc. cit.)
What you are finding is shoddy science based on pandering to ignorant
people like yourself to serve an adgenda.
tooie
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:53:02 -0500
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
: >You might also ask Nudds to reply to posts from me and at least one
: >other pointing out that the French have been doing reprocessing of
: >spent nuclear for quite a number of years.
Not in the manner or to the extent described by the original author.
Do you actually follow these threads Mr. McCarthy? Or do you simply
comment without knowing the subject to promote your politics?
jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy) writes:
: >One of the Greenpeace
: >fraudulent scares was about shipping back to Japan plutonium extracted
: >from Japanese spent nuclear fuel.
It occurs to me that a scare can not be fraudulent. Either one is
frightened or one is not. Statements can be fraudulent, and McCarthy
has provided us with many such examples, but a emotional state - a scare
- can not be fraudulent.
So what does McCarthy consider fraudulent? Perhaps he is of the
opinion that plutonium was not shipped from France to Japan.
He is a denialist... This is a real possibility...
Now here is an example of one of McCarthies attempts to defraud.
------- McCarthies Dishonest bet ---------
Would Jay Hanson like part of the seven year bet I proposed? How about
Puchalsky or Nudds? - John McCarthy 1996/03/20
Why does Mark Friesel regard my challenge as fake? - John McCarthy
1996/03/20
When I made the challenge before I put in the proviso that the resource
be vital to civilization, because the doomsters on the newsgroup were
predicting that civilization would collapse. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
...
(After seeing that he has lost the bet)
So I'll amend the challenge. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
When his welshing is raised...
No, I don't owe Josh Halpern a dinner, because I reserve the right to my
correct errors. When I posed the challenge before, I referred to
resources essential for human life and it was a slip to leave out that
qualification. - John McCarthy 1996/03/27
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:56 -0500
(David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
: 1.) What's your problem with Windscale?
1957 Oct 7, 3 tonns of uranium caught fire in the Windscale plutonium
production reactor north of Liverpool, England spread
approximately 50,000 curies of radioactive material
thoughout the countryside. In 1983, the British government
said that 39 people probably died of cancer as a result.
Initially, Britain's plutonium was produced in the two Windscale atomic
piles(graphite moderated, air-cooled low temperature reactors) which
operated from 1952 but which were abruptly closed down in 1957 following
the Windscale Fire.
: 2.) There is nothing the matter with the general Amerian idea: just
: dump it all down some random hole.
Perhaps you will offer your backside as a test site. You already have
your brain stored there.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:59 -0500
(Magnus Redin) wrote:
: That 200 000 reactor figures is meant to demonstrate that it is
: possible to provide our culture with plenty of power indefinately.
: Its not a building program to replace all power production with
: nuclear power immediately even if that would be desirable.
Well, lets see. If we must reduce fossil fuel consumption to 1/6th
its current level, and world energy consumption is projected to grow by
a factor of 2 to 4 by 2100, either we must reduce per capita energy
consumption to a factor of 1/12th to 1/24th its current level - which
McCarthie and other luddites, appears to oppose, or we must rely on some
mixture of renewable/nuclear power.
You would be wise to ask Mr. McCarthy what fraction of the worlds
energy he sees being generated by solar, and what fraction he would like
to see generated by nuclear. McCarthy is on record as rejecting any
large scale plan to capture solar energy.
It is a simple matter to conclude from these facts that McCarthy must
support the manufacture of well over 100,000 reactors at the very least.
Rod Adams has suggested that many times more would be preferable.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: > Quite simply, the scale of construction proposed is 200 times the
: > scale of construction going on now.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: For the electrical infrastructure, power lines, transformers,
: generators and so on the factor is _one_.
Of course, no one is suggesting otherwise.
Scott Nudds wrote:
: To
: replace current power production with for instance solar power gives a
: factor larger then one since more equipment is needed.
More in what regard? Larger surface area to be sure. But containment
buildings, and entire mountains (waste storage) need not be
constructed/assaulted for solar.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: To get the steam to turn the turbines one needs more constructioning
: when building a nuclear powerplant then a coal or oil powerplant. But
: you need less equipment and energy for handling the fuel.
This is totally unclear. Can you provide any factual information to
back up this claim? On first consideration it would appear very
incorrect.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: It takes
: five years to build a BWR 1100 MW nuclear powerplant like Forsmark 3
: in Sweden, it would have taken slightly less to build a 1100 MW coal
: powerplant.
Construction time is really insignificant. Operational lifetime is
more important to our analysis of how fast reactors would have to be
built in order to reach 200,000. We know that 4,000 new reactors would
have to be constructed each year to maintain the number at 200,000.
This would mean that at any moment - given your 5 year figure - 20,000
reactors would be under construction worldwide.
This is a rate of reactor construction that is about 2,000 times
faster than we have seen before.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: I find it reasonable to assume that a nuclear infrastructure would
: cost about twise as much and definately less then four times as much
: as a corresponding fossil infrastructure for generating electrical
: power.
And what is the cost of improving efficiency so that less energy is
required in the first place?
Magnus Redin wrote:
: Btw, it would take about 500 nuclear reactors to supply all the
: electricity USA currently needs. USA has 1/20 of the world population.
: To supply the same ammount of electricity to everybody with nuclear
: power would mean 10,000 nuclear reactors.
Thank you Magnus, but we have already gone over the numbers. By the
time you finish constructing a fraction of those reactors, the world's
population will have doubled and energy consumption per person (world
average) will have increased by a factor of 2 to 4.
More importantly, non-electrical power generation must also find
substitutes for carbon based fuels over this interval if we are to avoid
significant changes in climate.
McCarthy has stated in his promotion of nuclear power that it can
supply of mans energy needs for billions of years.
What McCarthy likes to avoid is a discussion of the vast extend of his
public works program - many times larger than the world military budget,
not only for reactor construction, but also needed for the processing of
vast areas the earths crust to obtain the nuclear material he requires
for his nuclear paradise.
Excuse me if I hold McCarthy to his word.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: During the building time the
: population would increase but power will be saved with more efficient
: technology and a lot will be produced with hydro power and in sparcely
: populated areas wind power.
You will find Magnus, that virtually all of the worlds hydro
generating capacity is already tapped. Further you blind faith that
some invisible force will magically improve efficiency overnight does
not impress me.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: Assume a 50 year life lenght of the
: reactors, that means that 200 would have to be built each year.
200 * 50 = 10,000 Magnus, not 200,000. You are low by a factor of 20.
Magnus Redin wrote:
: This indicates
: that one needs 40 times Sweden to build reactor vessels and 400 times
: Sweden to build the powerplants. We were roughly eight million then,
: even it out to ten. This means the steelmill industry of 400 million
: people and the general building industry of 4 billion people withouth
: having either part dominating the steel or building industry.
800 times Sweden for vessels, and 8000 times Sweden to build the
powerplants. Giving a steelmill industry of 8,000 million (8 billion)
people.
---
Nuclear energy is not right for every application. Because of the
inherent weight of shielding, it is not good for a light-weight
personal vehicle like a car. However, it can be readily used in
a heavy-weight, fuel intensive vehicle like a large truck, an earth
mover, a tractor, a locomotive, or a ship. Very large aircraft are
a distinct possibility. - Rod Adams - 1996/06/12
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Responsible comments wanted on DRAFT essay
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:53:21 -0500
(John McCarthy) wrote:
: It is just a matter of time (30 billion years?) until we run
: out of energy.
Earlier I wrote how those seeking to deceive the public often make
gradious claims, refer to the beginning of time, or employ references to
infinity... etc.
McCarthy provides us with a further example of such a post.
But I wonder if he still thinks it an impossible task to insulate an
automobile.
---
2. If we want to avoid unpleasant surprises in the future then human
technological capability must be increased, and the economy must be
capable of supporting large scale geo-engineering. - John McCarthy
1996/04/10
Now that I think about it, I have serious doubts about the possibility
of insulating a car, because of all the glass it needs. - John McCarthy
1996/02/28
Maybe such windows could be used in cars. I suppose them to be rather
thick, which might make some problems of weight and ability to roll up
and down. - 12 Jul 1996
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:53:13 -0500
(B. Alan Guthrie) wrote:
: A government makes laws, whether it is communist, fascist, monarchial,
: republican, or democratic. It can enforce those laws. A corporation
: can make no laws.
Corporations control what their employees say, what they do, what they
wear, and with growing frequency, what they can and can not do outside
the workplace.
Further corporations have a ridged pecking order, within any given
class, all employees are treated equally. Advancement in this pecking
order comes from performing political favors to the upper management.
This does sound very much like the old Soviet state. In fact, it
sounds significantly more restrictive of personal freedom.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:45 -0500
(Tooie) wrote:
: So, the "rich elitist" are prohibiting you, or anyone else, from
: purchasing your own wind turbine? The "rich elitist" would also spurn a
: technology that could make them more money (to roll in naked no doubt!)
: than current sources?
It is very clear that corporations are engaged in activities that
prevent products from reaching the marketplace, and which create an
environment where consumers are coerced to purchase rather than service
existing products.
Examples of this form of coercion are to be seen everywhere.
Automobiles designed to rust, exhaust systems designed to corrode away,
product life cycles that are several months long that make replacement
parts impossible to find or more expensive than purchasing a new unit.
There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car that has a
standard and unchanging design that is intended for long life and simple
repair. No such automobile is currently in production, and none is
planned. The reason is not that it is impossible. The reason is simply
because the automotive industry knows that a standard design for an
automobile will destroy the profitable marketplace they have created for
themselves.
(Tooie) wrote:
: Actually,
: the high level waste from reprocessing (assuming the Purex process and no
: further treatment, i.e. "burning" any leftover actinides) would reach the
: equivalent hazard level of natural uranium ore in 3-5K years.
And at the rate at which Yucca is going, it should just about be ready
to receive waste in 3,000 to 5,000 years. But of course, in John
McCarthies 200,000 nuclear reactor paradise, the world should have
30,000 times more radioactive waste then as we do now.
(Tooie) wrote:
: Now *I* know you're being facetious, but some readers may not.
Oh, I'm not so sure about that... What is the estimated cost of
cleaning up Rocky Flats and Hanford?
(Tooie) wrote:
: I take it the *you*
: are all for removing tax credits, DOE funding, etc. for your obviously
: superior sources of power since they don't need any of those crutches to
: compete with nuclear power.
Abandoning development of renewable energy sources and methods of
improving efficiency, is nothing more than a plan to have the coal
industry decide what the best energy source is for the country.
---
Big business is less trustworthy than Big Brother.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Recycling Thermostats Containing Mercury
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:51 -0500
(John McCarthy) wrote:
: If the thermostat contains .5 grams of mercury instead of the
: milligram I guessed, then disposing of it in the ocean would add one
: part in 1.2 x 10^14 to the amount in the ocean rather than one part in
: 5 x 10^16 of my previous calculation.
I accept and appreciate Mr. McCarthies admission of his factor of 100
error.
Given Mr. McCarthies history of making such "errors", it would seem
prudent to look for any other errors in his response.
The post which initiated Mr. McCarthies response, asked if it was
environmentally sound to dispose of a mercury filled switch by simply
throwing it into the garbage. McCarthies (ocean dilution) response
seems entirely irrelevant to the question being asked, unless McCarthy
is under the impression typically municipal waste is simply dumped into
the ocean.
McCarthy should know that most municipal waste is deposited in
landfills, and not in the ocean, his ocean dilution estimate is
therefore not only numerically incorrect, but meaningless.
A rough estimating how much mercury will be deposited in a municipal
landfill as a result of mercury filled switches is not difficult. If a
typical city of 500,000 deposits its garbage in a landfill one kilometer
to a side and allows it to pile 20 meters deep, and if we can expect
only one mercury filled switch to be deposited per person in such a
landfill, say over a 30 year period, the density of mercury in the
landfill will be roughly .0125 grams/m**3. The actual volume of mercury
deposited will be many times this value due to the inclusion of mercury
filled batteries, and various compounds containing mercury.
To compare, the maximum allowable concentration of mercury vapor in
air is .0001 grams / m**3.
We could expect such a concentration to be a problem if it were not
for the fact that in general mercury switches will remain intact for
decades in the landfill provided they are not broken during disposal.
---
It is now very clear from even this very crude analysis that
McCarthies statement on the disposal of mercury is extremely foolish.
Thinking individuals are obviously wondering to themselves why he would
make such statements.
As was the case in his orders of magnitude underestimate of the number
of nuclear reactors needed to supply the world with energy, I see only
three possibilities.
1. Mr. McCarthy has made a simple error in the reading of the question.
2. Mr. McCarthy is a fool.
3. Mr. McCarthy is being purposely deceitful, through misrepresentation.
As McCarthy has now responded to the question at least twice, I think
it is clear that unless he repeatedly makes errors reading
comprehension, he thinks his response is genuine.
As McCarthy is a member of the Hoover Institution, and a faculty
member of Stanford University, I think we should conclude that he is not
a fool.
The most probable possibility therefore appears to be that his
statements are designed to misrepresent the truth.
The same conclusion was reached during the reactor debate, and during
his refusal to honor a bet that he made earlier this year.
-------- McCarthies Dishonest bet ---------
Would Jay Hanson like part of the seven year bet I proposed? How about
Puchalsky or Nudds? - John McCarthy 1996/03/20
Why does Mark Friesel regard my challenge as fake? - John McCarthy
1996/03/20
When I made the challenge before I put in the proviso that the resource
be vital to civilization, because the doomsters on the newsgroup were
predicting that civilization would collapse. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
...
(After seeing that he has lost the bet)
So I'll amend the challenge. - John McCarthy 1996/03/13
When his welshing is raised...
No, I don't owe Josh Halpern a dinner, because I reserve the right to my
correct errors. When I posed the challenge before, I referred to
resources essential for human life and it was a slip to leave out that
qualification. - John McCarthy 1996/03/27
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Nuclear madness (Extremely safe nuclear power)
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:55:01 -0500
(Tooie) wrote:
: I find it interesting that Dudds would (or has) dismiss claims from
: others (global warming, etc.) based upon the fact that their source was a
: lone individual going against the "mainstream" consensus but is eager to
: trot them out when it serves his purpose.
First let me say that I am pleased to see Tooie finally admit that
those who oppose global warming are in the minority, and oppose the
consensus view among scientists.
Let me also state that by Tooie's form of conspiratorialist logic, the
west can not be trusted to honestly estimate the depth of the Chornobyl
tragedy since they are being asked to help pay for repairs. The more
they can minimize the damage done, the less they will need to pay the
victims.
Fortunately, I am not a conservative, so I will not resort to the
invention of lunatic conspiracy theories.
Tooie, does however ignore the fact that radiation levels received by
the tens of thousands of liquidators who stabilized the site, were never
adequately recorded. The same can be said for the population
surrounding the reactor.
Personally, I trust scientists who live in the area more than I trust
american propagandists.
(Tooie) wrote:
: Gee, *Ukranian ambassador*, sounds like a politician.
Like most conservatives, Tooie's hate dominates his thinking pattern.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:47 -0500
(Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
: I'd really like to hear a good argument that all nuclear power is bad and
: should never be considered as a source of energy.
I don't think there is one. Nuclear power should be considered, but
it is clear that it should be considered only after renewables and
efficiency gains prove to be inadequate. It is clear I should add that
solar can provide adequate amounts of power already.
(Adam Ierymenko) wrote:
: Perhaps they have recieved word from Gaia, the one true God, that "thou shalt
: not covet the energy of thy nucleus; be content only with the generosity
: bestilled upon you by electrons in chemical processes."
If nuclear reactors didn't explode, and operated with the safety and
efficiency they were sold to the public as having. If the nuclear
industry had not engaged in secrecy and most probably murder, if it were
not affiliated with the military use of nuclear weapons, and if the
waste problem were solved, I am sure the nuclear industry would be
accepted by the majority of the population today.
When people look at Rocky Flats, or Chornobyl, they see the nuclear
establishment. This is a good thing, as they are creations of the
nuclear establishment.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Environmentalists responsibility for human deaths (was Re: Major problem wi
From: af329@james.freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 08:54:52 -0500
(George J. Karalunas) wrote:
: The disposal costs should be less than 1/10 of 1%, but some persons,
: with a agenda object. Using low cost Space Technology, any residue
: radioactive material, can be launched Sun ward and be destroyed by the
: greatest Nuclear Power Source within 4 Light Years. This was proposed
: in the 50's & 60's, but again, some very vocal persons with a agenda,
: and a large bankroll (via govt grants, and donations), who would not
: pollute space (their words, not mine), continue to this day object. I
: do not follow every released report or every news article, but
: consider myself farily well read.
Scientists again line up to oppose 1997 blastoff
------------------------------------------------
- Marilyn Meyer - Florida Today -
Horst Poehler has been watching rocket launches for 37 years,
usually from the beach near his home.
But in October 1997, when NASA sends up a Titan-Centaur rocket from
Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Poehler plans to be on the mainland.
Indoors.
He wants to put some distance and shelter between himself and the
rocket, which will blast off carrying the nuclear-powered Cassini
satellite toward Saturn.
Poehler, a retired senior scientist with decades of work in the
space industry, fears the rocket will explode, the concussion will
vaporize some of the nuclear fuel, and winds from the ocean will spread
a potentially cancer-causing radioactive mist over Brevard County and
other parts of Florida.
NASA scientists say yes, Pohler's scenario would be devastating -
but it won't happen.
...
The United States has launched spacecraft carrying plutonium dioxide
24times, usually in amounts of 1 to 10pounds. There were problems on
three of the 24 spacecraft; plutonium dust was released from one of the
three.
The first time, a navigational satellite performed as designed, and
the spacecraft burned up on re-entry, releasing radioactive vapors over
the Indian Ocean in April1964.
After that accident, the protective coverings around the plutonium
dioxide were redesigned, and since then no plutonium has been released.
The second time, a radioactive heat source was retrieved intact
after a meteorological craft failed in May1968.
And finally, when the Apollo13 moon mission was aborted, the
radioactive heat source aboard the craft fell undamaged deep into the
Pacific Ocean, where it remains.
--
<---->
Subject: Re: Lawnmower Emissions
From: conover@tiac.net (Harry H Conover)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 19:45:06 GMT
J Aggarwal (saggarwa@direct.ca) wrote:
: Harry H Conover wrote:
: >
: > If you really want to fix the pollution problem, you're going to
: > have to focus on the major source of pollution, which isn't
: > lawn mowers!
:
: Why do we have to fix the "major source of pollution" only?
Because fixing the 'minor' problem (even totally) cannot solve the
mainstream issue since it isn't the cause. If I cannot go to work
because my car is broken, fixing my lawn mower is not a solution!
: It seems to
: me that testing new "environmentally friendly" solutions on power lawn
: equipment would show more direct results than putting DIRECTLY into
: cars. It makes no sense, to me at least, why either of the problems
: should be ignored. It should be easy enough to work on both problems, as
: their engines work on the same premise (burn fuel -> turn crankshaft).
Do you realize that the pollution control features on a modern car cost
more than the basic engine itself? (Doubt this? Price a replacement
engine against the combined cost all your car's pollution reduction
adders, including the catalytic converter, air pump, engine control
computer, multiple sensors, egr valve, etc.)
Now, how much cost do you estimate that the addition of features
like these would add to the cost of a basic $300 lawn mower? (Of
course, the stores and manufacturers would simply love it...and
rental firms would boom since many people could not afford the
purchase price of such a product.
Then too, consider maintenance. We already have a generation of
cars on the road in poor maintenance, since few mechanics are
capable of fixing them properly. Why not add an entire fleet of
poorly functioning lawn mowers as well?
Harry C.
Subject: Refrigeration Tech Certification
From: rps@mainstream-engr.com (Bob Scaringe)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:53:03 GMT
The EPA requires that techs servicing A/C, heat pumps, refrigerators,
and car AC be certified and without the certification you can buy the
R-22, reclaimed R-12, new blends, or any other CFC or HCFC
refrigerant. Free Traing on line or down-loand the training manual.
Exam available on line at epatest.com rpa@mainstream-engr.com
Subject: Re: the economist/elephant joke (was Re: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Date: 10 Nov 1996 22:13:37 GMT
Jay Hanson writes:
> While the dollar price of extracting minerals may have been falling,
> the energy cost of extracting minerals is steadily climbing -- as
> the laws of thermodynamics predict that it will. See:
> http://www.aloha.net/~jhanson/metal.gif
What if that is correct? Run a power line to the nearest hydro
powerplant, nuclar powerplant, or large windmill farm and perhaps in a
few decaed solar powerplant. Problem solved. And if there is no power
nearby build a powerplant. The easets to find suitable nearby
locations for are probably nuclear powerplants.
Regards,
--
--
Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600
Subject: Re: forests
From: Steve Shook
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:54:53 -0800
Don Staples wrote:
>
> Marcus Agua wrote:
> >
> > karl1971@aol.com writes:
> > :
> > : ... when the subject of forestry comes
> > : to mind it sees only lumber, paper products, and recreation....
> > :
> > : Forestry, in the truest sense of the word, means all human
> > : interactions with trees and not some short sighted dualistic concept of
> > : either a crop...or a lovely little place to go for a hike.
> >
> > Hmm, I've never really been able to interact with a tree. What should my
> > first step be? Should I address it politely? Send it flowers and candy?
> > Would a kiss on the first date be correct, or am I just asking for a
> > mouthful of splinters?
> >
> > ==========================
> > Marcus Agua magua@dbtech.net
> > ==========================
>
> How about just giving respect to another life form on a very small space
> craft.
How trite!
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 10 Nov 1996 23:07:36 GMT
Scott Susin wrote:
>
> How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
> to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
>
Large-scale fish farming will become practical if and when demand pushes
prices to appropriate levels. It may never happen if we keep producing
cheaper rice, grain, chicken, and other staples at the rate of the past few
decades.
People who claim we'll empty the oceans of fish, then turn around and cry
doom over exponential models of human growth, are amusing. Even heavily
overfished areas can be restored in a very few years; such areas become
incredibly fertile breeding grounds. Competition and predators decrease,
while food supply increases. Larger, slower-breeding fish will decline in
demand as lower-priced, more efficient species dominate the market.
If and when fish farming predominates, and we abandon the hunter-gatherer
system of ocean use, expect to see the same sort of production increases
land agriculture has shown. As an example, let me quote some statistics on
a food staple for many years, the potato:
Year Yield/Acre (in 1000 lbs)
1500's 2 (estimated)
1920 7.5
1950 16.5
1960 20.8
1970 24.6
1985 27.5
Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
yield explosion here within the next decade.
Agricultural productivity is a major influence in living standards. When
the average farmer could produce only enough food to feed one family, the
entire world must farm (A situation very close to ancient history, where
even politicians and warriors were required to farm, lest they starve.)
The declining number of American farmers-- so bemoaned in certain
segments-- is actually symptomatic of the heath of the nation's
agricultural sector. Food production is increasing faster than population
levels.
As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
double world food production. All without an additional acre being farmed,
though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
for many years. Perhaps you have some statistics here?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"Economists quote their GNP predictions to the 1/10 point to show they have
a sense of humor..."
- Unknown.
Subject: Re: CFCs ...and the THEORY of Ozone Depletion
From: rps@mainstream-engr.com (Bob Scaringe)
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 06:46:57 GMT
On 8 Nov 1996 14:58:19 GMT, bbruhns@newshost.li.net (Bob Bruhns)
wrote:
>Dave (wingnut@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>: Leonard -
>: Quite simply the whole Montreal Protocol on CFC's is a sham.
>
>: 4. The new stuff has 2 atoms of chlorine, which through a process
>: changes O3 (ozone) to O2, free oxygen.
>: The old stuff had 3 atoms. WOW, a 33% drop.
>
> Dave, a small change in chemical structure can make a large change
>in chemical action. In this case, the small change causes HCFC to
>break down BEFORE it reaches the ozone layer, so its chlorine is not
>released where it will damage it. CFC delivered the chlorine directly
>to the ozone layer, because it is so resiliant that it basically does
>not break down into its constituent elements until it encounters the
>unfiltered sunlight near the top of our much-needed ozone layer.
>
> In an even more critical chemical system, DNA, it is only a tiny
>(less than 1%, I believe) difference that distinguishes human DNA
>from chimpanzee DNA. A small difference can produce a big effect.
>Please study the issue more thoroughly.
>
> As for the increase in price - well, maybe if the chemical companies
>had begun their sliding two-year research program back in the mid-70's
>when they should have, we would not be paying the big bucks now.
>
> Bob Bruhns, WA3WDR, bbruhns@li.net
The real truth about the depletion of the ozone by chlorides and
bromides is that it is just a theory by two professors from Calif.
(Rowland-Molina theory). Acutally one volcano dumps more Cl and Br
into the atmoshphere that all the CFC's ever made. To make it
worse, the HFC's (zero Ozone Depletion) provide lower performance so
you use more energy and make more emmisions (Nox, CO,...) producing
the energy.
>
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions, WARNING: LONG BORING POST
From: "Mike Asher"
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:14:48 GMT
Scott Nudds wrote:
> Corporations control what their employees say, what they do, what they
> wear, and with growing frequency, what they can and can not do outside
> the workplace....
>
> This does sound very much like the old Soviet state. In fact, it
> sounds significantly more restrictive of personal freedom.
>
Socialist rhetoric. An employer makes conditions of employment. If you
don't like them, work elsewhere. Just as the employee makes requirements
to the employer: pay me this amount and give me these benefits or I won't
work. A husband and wife set conditions on each other; breaking the
conditions can result in termination of the marriage. Is this restrictive
of personal freedom?
What does your idea of personal freedom encompass? Employees skipping
afternoons to play golf, allowing everyone to set their own salary, barring
supervisors from requiring work standards? Sorry, Scott....I've already
been to Disneyland.
The old Soviet state also set requirements; not for employment, but for
life itself. Do this or we will shoot you or imprison you. Not the same
thing as withdrawing employment. The argument that employees are coerced
into working by the demands of their body is fallacious. Coerced they are,
but not by man, but by nature, which cannot be legislated.
Most of the conditions a company sets are necessary. Some are borderline,
like refusing to allow employees to slur their employer publicly. You call
this a free-speech violation, I call it freedom. If you badmouth your wife
enough, should she be free to withdraw the marriage contract? Or are you
having your freedom trampled with her callous disregard for your first
amemdment rights?
--
Mike Asher
masher@tusc.net
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements,
and make little mention of the doubts we may have. Each of us has to find
a balance between being effective and being honest."
- Steven Schneider, proponent of CFC-banning. "Our Fragile Earth",
Discover, Oct. 1987. pg 47, op. cit.
Subject: Re: Major problem with paul Ehrlich
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 03:08:54 GMT
"sdef!" wrote:
>Well, if it wasn't for Paul Ehrlich, I wouldn't know about the species of fish
>who go around in shoals of about 20, with 19 femalea and one male, but if the
>male gets topped the dominant female becomes a male!
I knew that from my childhood of having aquariums and reading
books on tropical fish. It's not peculiar to a single species.
>And the species of spider where the male finds a juicy bit of food and drags
>it off to find a female whom he woos with this morsel. While she is eating it
>he has his wicked way, but when he's finished he takes it off her and goes off
>in search of another female.
Sounds like a fraternity party.
>Without this man my world would be a far more impoverished place...
The library is full of books with a better ration of information
to misinformation than Ehrlich has.
An excellent book on well-intended population planners in India
was written by Mahmood Mamdani, titled *The Myth of Population
Control; Family, Caste, and Class in an Indian Village*.
The introductory passage sums up the intellectual bias of Paul
Ehrlich:
"Much has been written about the 'population problem' in recent
years. 'Overpopulation' is said to be the major reason for the
poverty of the 'underdeveloped' countries; overpopulation is the
'malaise' and family planning is the 'remedy.' Such thinking has
been popularized in various neo-Malthusian writings, including
Paul Ehrlich's best selling *Population Bomb*. Ehrlich describes
how the significance of the 'population problem' dawned on him
suddenly 'one stinking hot night in Delhi':
"'As we crawled through the city [in a taxi], we entered a
crowded slum area. The temperature was well over 100, and the air
was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with
people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People
visiting, arguing and screaming. People thrusting their hands
through the taxi window, begging. People Defecating and
urinating. People clinging to busses. People herding animals.
People, people, people, people. As we moved slowly through the
mob, hand horn squawking, the dust, noise, heat, and cooking
fires gave the scene a hellish aspect. Would we ever get to our
hotel? All three of us were frankly frightened...since that night
we have known the FEEL of overpopulation.'"
"The fact is that a hot summer night on Broadway in New York or
Picadilly Circus in London would put Ehrlich in the midst of a
far larger crowd. Yet such an experience would not spur him to
comment with grave concern about 'overpopulation'. On the other
hand, with a little more concern and a little less fear he would
have realized that what disturbed him about the crowd in Delhi
was not its numbers, but its 'quality'--that is, its poverty. To
talk, as Ehrlich does, of 'overpopulation' is to say to the
people: you are poor because you are too many. As this essay will
show, people are not poor because they have large families. Quite
the contrary: they have large families because they are poor."
To take this a step further the two groups who oppress the poor
are the patrician families of the world who have stolen the earth
from its users and who extract tribute and keep these people
poor, and the government bureaucrats who tax the production of
wealth, making that wealth more expensive. It should be no
surprise, then, that "population control" is endorsed by
organizations like the Club of Rome, which is itself
overpopulated with bureaucrats and aristocrats.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: Rob Robinson
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 17:09:39 -0800
Mr. Felton -
You were right, of course, to ask what Reagan cum Stockman's phony
budget numbers have to do with the climate. But since a lot of people
out there are affluent teens and twenties whose mommies and daddies
could afford to give them this toy...and who are too young to remember
Reagan et al...and who believe all the anti-Clinton, anti-liberal hype
because they were weaned on it...it's a good thing to remind them of the
truth. From the poison pens of people like Limbaugh et al, they have
come to believe Clinton & Co. are not trustworthy. The fact is, Clinton
*has* erred badly on several issues (the middle-class tax break, for
one). But compared to Watergate, Irangate, and the offenses of 100
Reagan appointees indicted for crimes during his administration, Clinton
is a saint. And the fact that he's the smartest President we've had in
the White House since Wilson is just a bonus.
rob robinson
Subject: Re: Major problem with climate predictions
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:35:32 GMT
Nudds writes:
There is undoubtedly a huge market for an inexpensive car
that has a standard and unchanging design that is intended
for long life and simple repair. No such automobile is
currently in production, and none is planned. The reason is
not that it is impossible. The reason is simply because the
automotive industry knows that a standard design for an
automobile will destroy the profitable marketplace they have
created for themselves.
Nudds is repeating and old half-witted song.
The VW Beetle is such a car. It is still in production in Brazil, but
its sales in the U.S. and other rich countries declined until VW
decided that the Rabbit would be more profitable.
Others have tried to make a basic car profitably and have failed.
The reason is that such a car cannot be sold more cheaply than a used
version of a car with more features.
Three used cars change hands for every new car bought.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:40:01 GMT
I have no objection to solar energy, but I see it as enough more
expensive than nuclear energy that I don't expect it to become the
major source unless world-wide ideologically motivated stupidity comes
to dominate.
See my Web site
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
and its subsidiaries for my actual opinions about nuclear and solar
energy. New readers of sci.environment that Nudds often lies about my
opinions.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Limits to Growth
From: jmc@Steam.stanford.edu (John McCarthy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 01:44:42 GMT
My review of _The Stork and the Plow_ by Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich
and Gretchen Daily is available on my web site as
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/ehrlich.html
It doesn't cost $9.00 but is free.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.
Subject: Re: Global oil production could peak in as little as four years!
From: tooie@sover.net (Ron Jeremy)
Date: 11 Nov 1996 02:11:43 GMT
Leana R Benson (leana@iastate.edu) wrote:
: Coal and nuclear energy are pollutants, pure and simple. We should work
: on developing alternatives to polluting our environment and save coal and
: nuclear energy as a last resort. Why is this such a difficult idea for
: some people to understand? Would it be that much trouble and money to
: change to a pollution-free way of producing electricity?
I suppose you are keeping your solution (you do have one, don't you?) to
yourself so the oil industry doesn't bump you off like that guy with the
carburetor that let cars run on water. Your *good* power sources have
*no* environmental impact, right? I'm sure you've studied the subject
(you are at a center for higher learning, aren't you?) enough to post
more than empty rhetoric.
In fact it *would* be a lot of trouble and a tremendous amount of money to
eliminate fossil/nuclear power production. Geez, I really tire of these
Iowa State invasions every semester.
tooie