Speak for the poor
Puppet_Sock
to be giving at a convention in a few weeks.
http://nuceng.mcmaster.ca/refer/poor.pdf
I think it makes an interesting talking point. For purposes of
self preservation, we ought to be thinking about ways that
we can lift most people out of the grinding poverty that is
usual around the globe, and at the same time avoid huge
impact on the environment. And hey, you know what? At the
same time there are just huge gobs of money to be made.
It's nice that the "nice" thing to do is also the ethical
thing to do and the selfish thing to do, all at the same time.
Socks
John Alway
Puppet_Sock wrote:
[...]
> I think it makes an interesting talking point. For purposes of
> self preservation, we ought to be thinking about ways that
> we can lift most people out of the grinding poverty that is
> usual around the globe, and at the same time avoid huge
> impact on the environment.
So long as the impact on the environment is that sort that improves
the lives of men, then we should be impacting it as massively as we are
able.
We could even engineer our own animal life! :)
...John
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> So long as the impact on the environment is that sort that
improves
> the lives of men, then we should be impacting it as massively as we
are
> able.
Well, I *think* I know what you mean. In the sense of not forcing
anybody to live in a wild state, sure. In the sense of making
living conditions as nice as reasonably achievable, sure. In the
sense of recognizing that the "natural" environment nearly anyplace
on Earth will kill a totally unprotected human in short order, sure.
(Think sunstroke, exposure, etc.)
In the sense of making things look like the face of the moon, no.
In the sense of dead forests, dead lakes, brown air like hangs over
many large cities much of the time, no.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1462595&forward=user
The golden hues in that photo are due to photochemical smog.
If it turns out to be easy, and money making, to get rid of
that smog, I'm for it. And it is, since the forms of energy
production that don't produce the smog turn out to be cheaper.
Also, I'm really happy that there are still chunks of wilderness
remaining. Or at least, what passes for wilderness. I'm an avid
hiker and an adequate camper. I hope to start in learning to
properly paddle a cannoe soon. I'm not sanguine about the fact
that they nearly all seem to be govt controlled parks. But I do
not want to see cable cars installed in the Grand Canyon. I don't
like it when I find that parts of the Bruce Trail have been made
"wheel chair accessible." I'm pleased when I hear that there are
grizzly bears in Banff that have reached adulthood and never seen
a human closer than a few miles.
At the same time, I'm a big promoter of high tech, big industry,
ambitious engineering works, and dreaming of newer bigger larger
of all of that. I think we should be working on a solar power
sattelite, just as an example.
> We could even engineer our own animal life! :)
Already have done, just done it the old fashioned way of waiting
for mutations and encouraging the ones that are good for something.
Such as race horses, high yield milk cows, and purple skunks.
Socks
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> [snip]
> > So long as the impact on the environment is that sort that
> improves
> > the lives of men, then we should be impacting it as massively as we
> are
> > able.
> Well, I *think* I know what you mean. In the sense of not forcing
> anybody to live in a wild state, sure. In the sense of making
> living conditions as nice as reasonably achievable, sure. In the
> sense of recognizing that the "natural" environment nearly anyplace
> on Earth will kill a totally unprotected human in short order, sure.
> (Think sunstroke, exposure, etc.)
> In the sense of making things look like the face of the moon, no.
> In the sense of dead forests, dead lakes, brown air like hangs over
> many large cities much of the time, no.
When I refer to men controlling their environment, I mean making it
good for man, which includes making it as esthetically pleasing as
possible.
The whole idea of untouched wild nature being the ideal is
fundamentally anti-man, because man needs to rearrange his environment
to survive. I'm not telling you anything you don't know!
> http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1462595&forward=user
> The golden hues in that photo are due to photochemical smog.
> If it turns out to be easy, and money making, to get rid of
> that smog, I'm for it. And it is, since the forms of energy
> production that don't produce the smog turn out to be cheaper.
>
> Also, I'm really happy that there are still chunks of wilderness
> remaining. Or at least, what passes for wilderness. I'm an avid
> hiker and an adequate camper. I hope to start in learning to
> properly paddle a cannoe soon.
The J stroke! It takes a bit to learn, but that's how it's done.
> ...I'm not sanguine about the fact
> that they nearly all seem to be govt controlled parks. But I do
> not want to see cable cars installed in the Grand Canyon. I don't
> like it when I find that parts of the Bruce Trail have been made
> "wheel chair accessible." I'm pleased when I hear that there are
> grizzly bears in Banff that have reached adulthood and never seen
> a human closer than a few miles.
Sure, so long as they are not a threat to humans.
> At the same time, I'm a big promoter of high tech, big industry,
> ambitious engineering works, and dreaming of newer bigger larger
> of all of that. I think we should be working on a solar power
> sattelite, just as an example.
Yes, I know that you are. Just trying to caution against being
caught in the environmental premise that man is an unwelcome intruder.
> > We could even engineer our own animal life! :)
> Already have done, just done it the old fashioned way of waiting
> for mutations and encouraging the ones that are good for something.
> Such as race horses, high yield milk cows, and purple skunks.
> Socks
Quite so, though more direct methods are on the horizon!
...John
David Buchner
> I'm really happy that there are still chunks of wilderness remaining.
I'm pleased to say I just don't Get this anymore. Sure, nature -- trees
and rocks and such -- is pretty. But honest-to-golly "wilderness" is
just damned unpleasant, nasty and buggy. I prefer my nature rather more
tamed. Now, I know you're not one of those mush-headed eco-freaks, so
please keep that in mind if I seem overly argumentative.
> .... I'm pleased when I hear that there are grizzly bears in Banff that
> have reached adulthood and never seen a human closer than a few miles.
Well, good for them. But I have become quite irritated by wild animals
recently. There's a bear I might have to kill this spring if it comes
back. I tried to chase it away last year, firing over its head, and it
wasn't all that impressed. Bears is dangerous.
But I keep hearing the attitude, from otherwise reasonable people, even
in cities, even in positions of authority vis-a-vis "natural resource
management" -- that "they were here before us" and we have to be careful
not to inconveniece them. People keep being too willing to accomodate
critters.
Don't even get me started on deer. Goddamned giant fleabitten rats with
hooves...
>....I think we should be working on a solar power
> satelite, just as an example.
I think that would be dandy -- especially because of all the increased
space-busyness it would mean -- but: who is the "we" who should be
working on it?
> Such as race horses, high yield milk cows, and purple skunks.
There aren't really purple skunks ...right?
Puppet_Sock
> Puppet_Sock <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm really happy that there are still chunks of wilderness
remaining.
>
> I'm pleased to say I just don't Get this anymore. Sure, nature --
trees
> and rocks and such -- is pretty. But honest-to-golly "wilderness" is
> just damned unpleasant, nasty and buggy. I prefer my nature rather
more
> tamed. Now, I know you're not one of those mush-headed eco-freaks, so
> please keep that in mind if I seem overly argumentative.
If you don't get the value of nature, of wilderness, it's very
unlikely that I'm going to be able to communicate it to you.
Let me just say that I believe this is a shameful lack in you.
Wilderness provides a control case for the effects of moving
into technical society. Wilderness provides a backstop, a
bottom beyond which we cannot be forced. It can't get any
worse than being pushed back into the woods. And we can know
how valuable modern technical society is by looking at how
difficult and unpleasant the woods are without modern tech.
And that's one point. Wilderness allows us the opportunity
to go and see if we are as strong as our ancestors. Could you
have made it as a pioneer? As a fur trapper, oh say about 180
years ago some place around where the modern day Sudbury,
Ontario is located? Every camping trip I go on, with my
nylon and my aluminum and my GPS and my freeze-dried camp
food and my Whisperlight camp stove and my self-inflating
ground mat to sleep on, I have to wonder, how did those
people do it? How did they make it with canvas tents and
rifles and axes and only their own nose to guide them
through the woods?
There are lots of good, obvious, material reasons for wanting to
preserve wilderness. There's variety out there. Who knows just
what kind of drugs, for example, we might find by letting the
biologists sort through a rain forest. Learning to preserve
a rain forest will teach us lots about making our cows and
horses and sheep etc. produce better, live longer, breed more
effectively, etc.
But the real reason for preserving wilderness is less tangible.
This weekend, I hung around the "rain forest" room at the
Science Centre, trying to get pictures of various plants,
animals, and insects. Still learning the camera so most of
the pics chame out crap.
I noticed something. As each group of people came in, the
kids would take a sniff and say "what's that smell?" And if
there was a grand-motherly type in the group she'd say "That's
fresh air son. That's fresh air."
Humanity is now largely a city dwelling species. People think
that food comes from a supermarket. They don't think that they
themselves could ever be food. They don't know where their own
waste goes when they are done with it. They think fresh air
smells funny.
Wilderness is a place where you can go and smell fresh air.
> > Such as race horses, high yield milk cows, and purple skunks.
>
> There aren't really purple skunks ...right?
There are purple skunks. They are a pale purple, the kind of purple
you find in grape flavoured ice cream. It's a fairly recent mutant,
and otherwise, the skunks seem to be pretty much similar to the
kind of wild skunk you might find just wandering around on its own
out in the woods. For example, they need to be de-scented before
they can be pets.
However, they are not too popular. Ferrets are way easier to keep,
don't need to be descented, and pet doctors have more experience
with them.
Socks
Agent Cooper
>
> If you don't get the value of nature, of wilderness, it's very
> unlikely that I'm going to be able to communicate it to you.
> Let me just say that I believe this is a shameful lack in you.
The problem is not whether it has any value, but how to assign a dollar
figure to it, which is inevitable. For an interesting perspective on
this, see environmental activist and free market fan William Ashworth's
_Economy of Nature_. I especially like his line, "nature is not a wax
museum."
There is some federal statute that gives standing to individuals to sue
on behalf of damaged nature stuff, and get compensatory damages. One of
the interesting things the courts must address is: what's the damages
theory? If someone ruins a beautiful piece of wilderness, say one acre
of it, is that standard the market value of one acre of raw land, say
the lot behind the strip mall over there, near the freeway? Why not? The
environmentalists instead think appraisal should be like the appraisal
of artworks: *expert* appraisal. There are arguments on both sides
(would you want the value of your Vermeer to be assessed at the going
rate for paintings generally? Dutch paintings? Vermeers? This Vermeer?
What?) There are obviously interesting/serious problems with both views,
but that doesn't mean that there is a coneptual shortcut that makes it
all go away. Even if we agreed that the government has *no* role in this
sort of thing, you could still have this conversation with David, and
the conceptual problem would still be there.
fred...@papertig.com
> Puppet_Sock wrote:
>
> >
> > If you don't get the value of nature, of wilderness, it's very
> > unlikely that I'm going to be able to communicate it to you.
> > Let me just say that I believe this is a shameful lack in you.
>
> The problem is not whether it has any value, but how to assign a
dollar
> figure to it, which is inevitable.
The problem is that environmentalists refuse to view it in such terms
and regard "nature" as having some kind of "intrinsic" value incapable
of monetary valuation, i.e. as "priceless". That puts it outside of the
market, which of course is precisely their objective.
The contradiction is that it is only since the advent of capitalism -
and the wealth, high standard of living, and leisure time it has made
possible - which has made "nature" a value to people. Prior to
capitalism our only concern was to tame nature as best we could to
provide for our bare existence. There wasn't such a thing as "going on
nature walks" or "going camping" as a leisure activity. A beach was not
a place to sun bathe or go swimming. It was a place from which to
launch boats for fishing. There was only nature as "how can we wrest
our existence out of it and prevent it from destroying us". Are there
any art historians among us? Because I don't believe that "landscape"
painting, i.e. the contemplation of the beauty of nature, started until
the 19th Cent. (that is until the advent of the Industrial Revolution).
I don't believe that "nature scenes" was much of a factor in
Renaissance art.
When the pioneers first crossed the continent did they stop to
contemplate the beauty of any of the scenery they encountered? Or did
they just regard the landscape as barriers to their progress? Were the
Rockies "beautiful" or simply a challenge to get through to get to good
farming or mining on the other side? Or, once valuable minerals were
discovered, just a place to find gold, silver, etc.?
So, now that we've tamed nature sufficiently to have the leisure to
contemplate it, why shouldn't a (monetary) value be put on it? If
someone thinks Yellowstone now is beautiful, buy it. Obviously many
people do, so the price will be high. And very likely since the beauty
is part of its value, it will not be destroyed.
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
>
> When the pioneers first crossed the continent did they stop to
> contemplate the beauty of any of the scenery they encountered? Or did
> they just regard the landscape as barriers to their progress?
When they stopped (as they must have to rest their horses) it is quite
likely that they enjoyed the scenery. Obviously they did not Go West for
the scenery, but they could have enjoyed it since they were there anyway.
In fact some of the diaries of the Lewis and Clark expedition have
passages describing the beautiful scenery. Lewis and Clark were sent out
by Pres. Jefferson specifically to look over the country and map it, as
well as describe the various peoples that they met along the way.
Have a care with invalid exclusive alternatives.
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> If you don't get the value of nature, of wilderness, it's very
> unlikely that I'm going to be able to communicate it to you.
> Let me just say that I believe this is a shameful lack in you.
Well. Naughty, naughty me. Just to be clear: I don't have some kind of
zealous rage against the existence of wild places; I just don't have any
use for them personally.
And keep your damn wild animals out of my yard, please. ;-)
Keep in mind that I'm blabbing out this opinion, from the luxury of
sitting at my computer, running on yesterday's solar power, surrounded
by hundreds (thousands?) of acres of basically-"wild" state forests. I'd
probably miss it if it wasn't there. But I'm pretty sure the value, for
me, is in the plain emptiness of it -- the lack of neighbors -- not the
"wildness" as such. Except for occasional walks during the two brief
moments of the year when it's not hellish, I don't USE it for anything.
> ....we can know how valuable modern technical society is by looking at how
> difficult and unpleasant the woods are without modern tech.
..This is an interesting idea, however...
> And that's one point. Wilderness allows us the opportunity
> to go and see if we are as strong as our ancestors. Could you
> have made it as a pioneer?
But I already know the answer: no way. Nor would I probably want to,
even if I could have.
> There are purple skunks. They are a pale purple, the kind of purple
> you find in grape flavoured ice cream. It's a fairly recent mutant,
Well, I'll be. That is nuts.
> and otherwise, the skunks seem to be pretty much similar to the
> kind of wild skunk you might find just wandering around on its own
> out in the woods. For example, they need to be de-scented before
> they can be pets.
Disappointing. Give them time --- maybe they'll figure out how to smell
grapey eventually.
Agent Cooper
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
>>
>> When the pioneers first crossed the continent did they stop to
>> contemplate the beauty of any of the scenery they encountered? Or did
>> they just regard the landscape as barriers to their progress?
I take the point.
One of the more interesting documentaries that you've probably not seen
is Burns' _The Donner Party_. I recall a moment in it when they are
describing ostracizing a party member (for killing someone)--that means
he's off the wagon train, which at that point was in the middle of some
immensely vast, boring prairie. And I remember thinking: I've seen
prairies like that all my life, but he can't hop in his car and drive to
the nearest town, muttering profanities against his former buddies, and
he can't say "to hell with *all* of this" and drive to the nearest
airport and fly back home. There is no car, there is no town and there
is no airport. In fact, all he can really do, well, is die. That prairie
will kill him dead dead dead after a couple weeks.
This point was also driven home by the gruesome ending. I must have
driven with my parents past that (beautiful) lake dozens of times when I
was a kid, on the way to skiing. But no car, no town, no highway, it's
just a deathtrap, a particularly horrific one, in fact. Unless you have
a real taste for shoe leather, tree bark, and Indian liver. Oh yes, and
death, when those run out.
Reggie Perrin
A bourgeios pursuit, hmm? It's a tempting thesis, but I'm not so sure.
Claude Lorraine is one of the most famous landscape artists (and was in
his own day as well) - b. 1600 d. 1682. Man has a fascination with the
pastoral that dates back at least to Ancient Greece (home of the
original Arcadia). That said, I think it's true to say there was a
resurgence of interest around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
Blake's poetry springs to mind.