An Urgent Appeal From GREENPEACE
John DiNardo
Excerpts of AN URGENT APPEAL FROM GREENPEACE
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dear Friend,
This is probably the most unusual "Bon Voyage" card you've ever
received -- for two reasons:
First of all, it's not for you. Instead of keeping it, I'm asking
you to sign your name to it and then return it to me so I can
convey your message of support to the captain and crew of our
Greenpeace ship, the Rainbow Warrior.
Second, this card is unusual because the Rainbow Warrior is not
bound for a pleasure cruise. Far from it. Actually, the captain and
crew of the Rainbow Warrior may be placing themselves at risk.
That's their resolve. And that's why they need all of the
encouragement and support we can give them.
As you may know, the original Rainbow Warrior now rests on the
ocean floor .... a hole blown in the starboard side, and another in
the stern. This act of despicable sabotage by French secret agents
took the life of one of our crew members.
The current captain of the new Rainbow Warrior, Joan Guidart, from
Spain, and his crew know the risks full well. Only recently,
baton-wielding French commandos boarded and seized our ship as it
sailed to protest French nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.
Fortunately, no one was hurt. And the Greenpeace crew is determined
to carry out the original mission of the Rainbow Warrior:
to prevent the needless slaughter of marine mammals, and to
prevent the contamination of our oceans.
In the past, Greenpeace crews have looked down the guns of the
Russian Navy while protesting an illegal whaling station.
They've even placed themselves between a 250-pound explosive
harpoon and the whales and calves being illegally hunted.
You see, here at Greenpeace we refuse to bow down in silent
acceptance of the destruction of our planet ..... The oil giants,
the chemical and timber companies, the pulp and paper mills, the
industrial fishing fleets .... these powers and superpowers are
destroying our Earth! Who will challenge them?
Who will hold them responsible?
And who will, when necessary, even jeopardize their physical safety
to put a stop to this senseless destruction? I'll tell you who:
Greenpeace!
And that's what the 1992 voyage of the Rainbow Warrior is all about.
The worldwide economic recession has hurt Greenpeace. We've been
forced to take some serious actions:
* Selling our ship, Gondwana
* Drastically cutting back on our budget for the floating
laboratory ship, Beluga, and putting its pollution-monitoring
equipment into storage.
* Keeping our ships Greenpeace and Moby Dick at dock for several
months simply because we did not have the funds to operate them
full time.
* Selling two helicopters critical to locating renegade whaling
fleets at sea.
Our mission is clear:
* Stop the killing of dolphins, whales and other marine animals
* Stop off-shore oil drilling from threatening our coastlines
* Stop waste dumping in the ocean
* Stop radioactive contamination from continued nuclear
weapons testing
OUR PLANET IS RUNNING OUT OF TIME !
(end of excerpted letter)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Please make photocopies of this appeal, sign one of them and
pass the rest out to people whom you think would really care.
Send your signed copy to:
Steve Sawyer, Exec. Dir.
GREENPEACE
1436 U St., N.W.
P.O. Box 96128
Washington, D.C. 20090
(202) 462-1177
Greenpeace needs one or more persons to post its appeals and its
activist news bulletins on a regular basis. Would you *care*
enough to help? If so, please contact Greenpeace and tell them
you want to report on their work.
[Transcription and appeal by John DiNardo]
Daniel Brown
>
> Excerpts of AN URGENT APPEAL FROM GREENPEACE
>
>
> [Transcription and appeal by John DiNardo]
Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism? Greenpeace, being an environ-
mentalist group, is not noted for its concern for individuals (at least not
human ones).
--
Daniel W. Brown (br...@pollux.cs.uga.edu)
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <1992Sep28....@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> j...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo) writes:
>> Excerpts of AN URGENT APPEAL FROM GREENPEACE
>> [excerpts of an urgent appeal from Greenpeace]
>> [Transcription and appeal by John DiNardo]
>Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism? Greenpeace, being an environ-
>mentalist group, is not noted for its concern for individuals (at least not
>human ones).
Actually, Greenpeace is even a collectivist group in the natural world.
They don't particularly care whether the little fixes kill the little
bunnies, they only care that humans not do anything to change the world to
be in line with human values. That makes them simply anti-human rather than
pro-individual animals. Actually, the folks like PETA are a bit better.
They are at least looking out for the welfare of individuals. Actually,
for many PETA folks, they are basically just against animals being used
to benefit people. I suppose that's why some people are members of both.
--Brian
Jym Dyer
(Daniel Brown) writes:
> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism? Greenpeace,
> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
> for individuals (at least not human ones).
=o= I don't know why it was cross-posted to alt.individualism.
I take exception with your claim, however.
=o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist. I can see how
somebody bearing a message about ecological interconnections
could be misrepresented -- and thus misconstrued -- as such,
but that's just a case of blaming the messenger.
=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
"Green" movements abroad). Environmentalists are doing more
real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
of power than anybody else.
=o= In the case of Greenpeace, one of the guiding principles
of the organizations is the Quaker imperative of "speaking truth
to power." The "speaker" is understood to be somebody without
power, i.e., a common individual. "Power" is typically some
sort of powerful institution, either public or private.
=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
in reference to. A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
on human individuals.
=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
how powerful) with individuals. Nothing I say will satisfy
these people. I just ask that they bear in mind that their
dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.
<_Jym_>
__
I am less interested in what the definition is. You might argue
technically, are we in a recession or not. But what there's this
kind of sluggishness and concern -- definitions, heck with it.
-- President George Bush.
Ken Arromdee
>=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
>readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
>variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
>have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
>how powerful) with individuals. Nothing I say will satisfy
>these people. I just ask that they bear in mind that their
>dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.
How interesting. I wonder if you'd support an unmoderation of misc.activism.
progressive on the same grounds: "progressives"' dogma is not the only thing
which is progressive just like "individualists"' is not the only thing that
is individualistic....
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of." -- K. Eric Drexler
Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Sep29.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
> (Daniel Brown) writes:
>
>> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism? Greenpeace,
>> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
>> for individuals (at least not human ones).
>
> =o= I don't know why it was cross-posted to alt.individualism.
> I take exception with your claim, however.
>
> =o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist. I can see how
> somebody bearing a message about ecological interconnections
> could be misrepresented -- and thus misconstrued -- as such,
> but that's just a case of blaming the messenger.
The individualist difficulty with at least past environmentalism
is that it was in favor of using government to force individuals to stop
actions that were not harming actual individuals (in which category I
include chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and whales, but not such
amorphous concepts as "the environment").
>
> =o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
> the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
> "Green" movements abroad). Environmentalists are doing more
> real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
> of power than anybody else.
>
> =o= In the case of Greenpeace, one of the guiding principles
> of the organizations is the Quaker imperative of "speaking truth
> to power." The "speaker" is understood to be somebody without
> power, i.e., a common individual. "Power" is typically some
> sort of powerful institution, either public or private.
Environmentalits today do indeed have many positive aspects.
However, in the case of organizations such as Earth First, they have gone
too far. Trees are not sentient beings, and do not have rights; attempting
to kill lumberjacks (by tree spiking) is not within what I, at least,
would call permissible behavior. On the other hand, the activities of the
Sea Sheperds (sp?) seems perfectly fine given the premise that whales,
dolphins, etc., are individuals with individual rights.
>
> =o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
> for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
> in reference to. A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
> opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
> on human individuals.
And those activities are ones that individualists should fully
support, since they are that of reducing harm to individuals.
>
> =o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
> readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
> variety of conservative ideology, and that these ideologies
> have a tendency to conflate private institutions (no matter
> how powerful) with individuals. Nothing I say will satisfy
> these people. I just ask that they bear in mind that their
> dogma is not the alpha and omega of individualism.
First of all, Libertarianism is not conservative. How many
conservatives (with some rare, sensible exceptions) do you know who are in
favor of removing vice laws? of removing drug laws? of removing sodomy
laws? Libertarianism is not properly placeable on the liberal/conservative
axis. I can sympathize with your apparant desire to limit institutions;
that is one reason I am a Libertarian, since that party is the only one in
favor of removing limited liability, thus placing responsibility for the
actions of a corporation squarely in the hands of the stockholders who
control that corporation.
Libertarianism may have different means of controlling abuse of
the commons (a preference for privatizing the commons as opposed to
regulating usage of the commons), but this does not neccessarily conflict
with the goals of environmentalism. The Nature Conservatacy (sp?), for
instance, follows methods that no Libertarian would disagree with-
individuals getting together to accomplish a goal they agree on, without
forcing their beliefs on others.
-Allen
W. Brewster Gillett
>In article <1992Sep29.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
>(Daniel Brown) writes:
>> Why was this crossposted to alt.individualism? Greenpeace,
>> being an environmentalist group, is not noted for its concern
>> for individuals (at least not human ones).
>I take exception with your claim, however.
>=o= Environmentalism is not anti-individualist. I can see how
>=o= I realize that a good portion of alt.individualism's
>readership subscribes to a libertarian, objectivist, or some
Jym, I know you're sincere in your beliefs, and sorry if I seem to be
attacking them, but there are other interpretations that may have some
validity. True, most green talk has to do with expressing concern about harm
to individuals, and can thus be read as individualist in that light.
However, I've been following the green movement with great interest for over
twenty years, and where the "individualist" perspective sort of begins to
fall to pieces, IMNSHO, is in the area of proposed solutions. I won't beat
the same dead horse (from some of our previous conversations) too much, but
it seems clear to me that most of the solution/response profile of greens to
ecological "problems" seems to focus on devolving more power to government,
as if that is the only way to "solve" the particular problem. This attitude
appears to be so pervasive in the environmental movement generally as to
constitute grounds for a belief that much of the environmental drum-beating
is yet another way to expand the role of "the state" in our lives. While you
may not agree, many of us believe that the state is one of the last entities
in society demonstrating any great concern for the well-being of the
individual citizen.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force!
Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--- George Washington ---
--
_________________________________________________________________
br...@mtek.com
MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
Walk the talk.
Daniel Brown
>
>=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
>the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
>"Green" movements abroad). Environmentalists are doing more
>real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
>of power than anybody else.
I cannot agree with that statement. Environmentalists have been the driving
force behind the destruction of property rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting
the usage of properties that are defined as "wetlands").
>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>in reference to. A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>on human individuals.
I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
By the way, I am grateful for your civil response to my original posting,
which really bordered on being flamebait, though I thought it made a good
point. :-) Furthermore, I am pleased with the other responses to your reply --
the discussion has been flame-free so far. Let's hope this starts a trend!
Ben Fulton
>I cannot agree with that statement. Environmentalists have been the driving
>force behind the destruction of property rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting
>the usage of properties that are defined as "wetlands").
True enough.
>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
not regulation or use restriction on private property.
--
ben ful...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
"A tight bunch of bastards who want to win while loving each other,
if they don't destroy their knees first, or start sleeping with
each other's girlfriends." - Rigler, about Indiana Ultimate
Dean Alaska
>In article <1asd4k...@agate.berkeley.edu> j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>>
>>=o= Indeed, I find a strong streak of individualism within
>>the movement, at least in my country (and, nominally, in the
>>"Green" movements abroad). Environmentalists are doing more
>>real work to effect individual autonomy and the decentralization
>>of power than anybody else.
>
>I cannot agree with that statement. Environmentalists have been the driving
>force behind the destruction of property rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting
>the usage of properties that are defined as "wetlands").
>
from harm that is not so obvious. The wetlands issue, and property
rights in general is more complex than this. Property owners cannot
use their property in a way which harms others. The loss of wetlands
in Louisiana is causing huge environmental damage which will have
enormous _economic_ impacts on humans. Since you don't seem to extend
the value of the individual past human individuals, I won't address that
issue. here.
>>=o= I'm not sure what the comment about a lack of concern
>>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>>in reference to. A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>>on human individuals.
>
>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human. It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
_jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem. Furthermore, non-sustainable
logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry. Is a loggers job
more valuable than a fisherman's?
>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
>
>By the way, I am grateful for your civil response to my original posting,
>which really bordered on being flamebait, though I thought it made a good
>point. :-) Furthermore, I am pleased with the other responses to your reply --
>the discussion has been flame-free so far. Let's hope this starts a trend!
>
>--
>Daniel W. Brown (br...@pollux.cs.uga.edu)
--
dingo in boulder (de...@vexcel.com)
Dean Alaska
I think you are confusing green with Green. The traditional environmental
movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
solutions, which is traditional among liberals. The _G_reen movement,
at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
to local jurisdictions. The central concept to the Green Party USA is
not environment, it is community. I believe that there are _some_ areas
where state activity is needed. I also think that many of the things the
state is trying to do today could be done better at a local level.
I don't claim that this view dominates environmental thinking. Its obvious
that the lobbying of the mainstream organizations fits your complaints
fairly well. The debate then becomes whether ineffective government
regulation is better than the blind trust in the market exhibited by
Libertarians. While the Green solution is complex, the exercise of
gevernment power locally gives the individual a much greater voice and
makes the impacts of those decisions more personal, both of which should
help to limit government coercion.
>
>"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force!
> Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
>
> --- George Washington ---
>
>
>--
>_________________________________________________________________
>br...@mtek.com
>MTEK International, Inc. Throughput Technology Corp.
>Walk the talk.
Daniel Brown
>In <1992Oct7.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>
>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>>human animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted owl issue).
>
>But the spotted owl issue is for the most part a debate over _public_ lands,
>not regulation or use restriction on private property.
>
Okay -- bad example. :-) How about sinking whaleboats?
Eric E. Johnson
>I think you are confusing green with Green. The traditional environmental
>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>solutions, which is traditional among liberals. The _G_reen movement,
>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>to local jurisdictions.
What the greens and the Greens quibble over is who gets to enforce the
laws. One says the federal government, the other one says local
communities. The debate is over not freedom versus dictatorship, but
how many dictatorships do we want? My answer? Zero.
Eric Johnson
ejoh...@a.cs.uiuc.edu
John McCarthy
Most of the land in the Western states is public. This is much too
much. The Government should sell off most of it.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Oct7.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>In article <1asd4k...@agate.berkeley.edu> j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes (among other things):
>>>for individuals (at least not human ones) is supposed to be
>>>in reference to. A lot of what Greenpeace does involves
>>>opposition to things that have a direct an negative impact
>>>on human individuals.
>>
>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>
> The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human. It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
> _jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem. Furthermore, non-sustainable
> logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry. Is a loggers job
> more valuable than a fisherman's?
Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important
than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the
government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
-Allen
Allen Smith
one considers whales to be intelligent individuals or not. I'd say yes,
and so would agree with not only sinking (without loss of human life, so
far as I know) but torpedoing whaleboats. By my viewpoint, whalers are
committing murder.
-Allen
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <1992Oct7.0...@mtek.com> br...@mtek.com writes:
>>j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep29.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
>>>(Daniel Brown) writes:
>I think you are confusing green with Green. The traditional environmental
>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>solutions, which is traditional among liberals. The _G_reen movement,
>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>to local jurisdictions.
But never to the individual to control HIS OWN life, right? It's just as
wrong for a mayor to run your life as it is for the President to do so.
>The central concept to the Green Party USA is
>not environment, it is community.
The collective over the individual again.
>I believe that there are _some_ areas
>where state activity is needed. I also think that many of the things the
>state is trying to do today could be done better at a local level.
>I don't claim that this view dominates environmental thinking. Its obvious
>that the lobbying of the mainstream organizations fits your complaints
>fairly well. The debate then becomes whether ineffective government
>regulation is better than the blind trust in the market exhibited by
>Libertarians.
What is so "blind" about allowing people to run their own affairs? Individual
people are far less "blind" the the facts of the economic affairs than
any government agency...even a "local" one. By the way, I'm NOT a Libertarian
and I am a radical capitalist. The two are not identical.
>While the Green solution is complex, the exercise of
>gevernment power locally gives the individual a much greater voice and
>makes the impacts of those decisions more personal, both of which should
>help to limit government coercion.
I suppose that's why the "local government" of Salem Mass. what such
an exemplar of limted coercion, tolerance, and good judgement, right?
What matters isn't the size of the area covered, heck, there are a lot of
simple pairs of people who have abusive relationships, and that doesn't
stop them! On the other hand, the US government did a pretty good job
of staying out of people's way until the "New Deal", and most of the
worst abuses of the early 20th century were by the smaller units of
government (say, with racial segregation laws) not with the feds.
What matters is the philosophy of the government, not it's size.
--Brian
Dean Alaska
It might be wrong for govt to _stop_ the automobile, but govt is not
really _stopping_ logging. Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests. By making
certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
the subsidies. The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
the fisshing industry.
I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement. It has
been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
to add to it.
Dean Alaska
If you are a hard-core Libertarian, then this opinion makes sense.
Libertarians prefer the dictatorship of the corporate enterprise to
democracy. This blind faith in the marketplace is just as idealistic
as Marxist attitudes towards property, IMHO. The inevitablilty of
the concentration of economic power in a Laissez faire system will
eventually leave most people with far less control over their lives
than the current (and imperfect) democracy that we have.
>
>Eric Johnson
>ejoh...@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Ben Fulton
>The inevitablilty of
>the concentration of economic power in a Laissez faire system will
>eventually leave most people with far less control over their lives
>than the current (and imperfect) democracy that we have.
This is unproven, and, IMHO, incorrect. However, currently we have very
little control over our lives and are losing more every day. I would
rather we regain our liberties now and take the chance on losing them
later, than continue to lose them now.
bill nelson
:
: Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important
: government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
: intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
: difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
: Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
: about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
So, you feel it is ethical to destroy a rock - just because it is there
and cannot retaliate?
The Spotted Owl is not the real issue - although you would think it was,
from all the publicity. The real issue is the rapidity at which the
forests are being clear-cut. This is threatening to destroy far more than
the spotted owl.
Bill
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct7.1...@vexcel.com> de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.0...@mtek.com> br...@mtek.com writes:
>>>j...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep29.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux
>>>>(Daniel Brown) writes:
>
>>I think you are confusing green with Green. The traditional environmental
>>movement (essentially synonomous with green) does look to government
>>solutions, which is traditional among liberals. The _G_reen movement,
>>at least in the US, is for a radical decentralization of government powers
>>to local jurisdictions.
>
>But never to the individual to control HIS OWN life, right? It's just as
>wrong for a mayor to run your life as it is for the President to do so.
Its not so easy for a mayor to run your life in a direct democratic
town. Individuals can control their lives within a direct democracy.
In a laissez faire system, people are controlled by the few who have
great economic power.
>
>>The central concept to the Green Party USA is
>>not environment, it is community.
>
>The collective over the individual again.
And how is the individual to control ones life in a society with many
people contesting for power? How does the individual protect ones
self from larger non-governmental institutions? Through voluntary
collective association. The government may be a source of coercive
power, but it is by no means the only one. Anyone who thinks the
limitation of the market will more effectively control coercive
behavior have lost the lessons of the late 1800's.
>
>>I believe that there are _some_ areas
>>where state activity is needed. I also think that many of the things the
>>state is trying to do today could be done better at a local level.
>>I don't claim that this view dominates environmental thinking. Its obvious
>>that the lobbying of the mainstream organizations fits your complaints
>>fairly well. The debate then becomes whether ineffective government
>>regulation is better than the blind trust in the market exhibited by
>>Libertarians.
>
>What is so "blind" about allowing people to run their own affairs? Individual
>people are far less "blind" the the facts of the economic affairs than
>any government agency...even a "local" one. By the way, I'm NOT a Libertarian
>and I am a radical capitalist. The two are not identical.
What is blind is assuming that laissez faire will permit each individual
to run their own affairs. Local government that limits executive power
provides the individual with a strong say. I'm not sure what the
difference is between a Lib and a radical capitalist. Does that mean
you are an anarchist? Do you support laissez faire economic structures?
If not, then what?
>
>>While the Green solution is complex, the exercise of
>>gevernment power locally gives the individual a much greater voice and
>>makes the impacts of those decisions more personal, both of which should
>>help to limit government coercion.
>
>I suppose that's why the "local government" of Salem Mass. what such
>an exemplar of limted coercion, tolerance, and good judgement, right?
>What matters isn't the size of the area covered, heck, there are a lot of
>simple pairs of people who have abusive relationships, and that doesn't
>stop them! On the other hand, the US government did a pretty good job
>of staying out of people's way until the "New Deal", and most of the
>worst abuses of the early 20th century were by the smaller units of
>government (say, with racial segregation laws) not with the feds.
>What matters is the philosophy of the government, not it's size.
Salem witch burnings were not so different than non-governmental lynchings
in the old west. No system will ever be better than the people who
populate it. There is no magic structure such as no government or
no private property. The abuses that we suffer under today must be
compared with abuses under other systems we have experience with.
Were the abuses of the Robber Barons less than those of today? Of
course I am not a supporter of what we have today, but the
idolization of times when the national government was smaller ignore
the fact that people demanded such government because of the terrible
conditions of the day. That choice may not have been optimal, but it
was better than what they had.
>
>--Brian
Allen Smith
> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
> :
> : Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important
> : than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the
> : government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
> : intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
> : difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
> : Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
> : about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
>
> So, you feel it is ethical to destroy a rock - just because it is there
> and cannot retaliate?
Just because it is there and cannot retaliate? No, because it
can't/doesn't _think_. Now, obviously one can get into some questions with
this with: 1. members of a species that cannot yet think (i.e., at what
point does abortion turn from contraception (meaning preventing a human
from coming into existence) to infanticide?); 2. members of a species that
cannot think, although that species can in general (i.e., severe mental
retardation); 3. at what point one divides species between intelligent and
unintelligent. My dividing point on the third tends to be closeness in
level of general intelligence (admittedly a vague term) to human, since
humanity is the only species that we can generally agree has the requisite
level of intelligence.
>
> The Spotted Owl is not the real issue - although you would think it was,
> from all the publicity. The real issue is the rapidity at which the
> forests are being clear-cut. This is threatening to destroy far more than
> the spotted owl.
>
I was objecting in the paragraph you quote to someone claiming
that it was good to stop lumbering because the lumbering was destroying
the fishing industry. Economic harm should not be protected against; that
is the risk one is taking in return for making a profit.
Now, the question in the clear-cutting issue, as I understand it,
is the proper usage of public lands. Selling them off is one option, and
the one I favor.
-Allen
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Oct9.0...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct7.1...@athena.cs.uga.edu> brown@pollux (Daniel Brown) writes:
>>>>I have no complaint with a group trying to protect the environments of
>>>>_humans_. However, Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-
>>>
>>> The issue is not 1 owl vs 1 human. It is a few hundred (or thousand) human
>>> _jobs_ vs an entire species and its ecosystem. Furthermore, non-sustainable
>>> logging negatively impacts jobs in the fishing industry. Is a loggers job
>>> more valuable than a fisherman's?
>>
>> Is the job of someone at a horse-and-buggy plant more important
>>than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the
>>government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
>>intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
>>difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
>>Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
>>about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
>
> really _stopping_ logging. Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
> The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
> for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
> the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests. By making
> certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
> the subsidies. The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
> the fisshing industry.
The question on federal land usage is a different one entirely, at
least in the case of the spotted owl. But in those cases in which it is
the federal government stopping private usage of land- usage that
doesn't, for instance, cause pollution that gives others cancer- that I
object to.
>
> I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
> to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement. It has
> been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
> to add to it.
As long as you don't try, say, to stop me from eating meat
(including veal) whenever I wish and have the cash, feel free to have your
viewpoint. It only becomes wrong when you try to enforce it on others.
-Allen
John McCarthy
However, the owls have more lawyers and more movie stars than the
loggers do.
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct9.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the
>>>government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
>>>intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
>>>difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
>>>Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
>>>about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
>>
>> It might be wrong for govt to _stop_ the automobile, but govt is not
>> really _stopping_ logging. Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
>> The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
>> for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
>> the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests. By making
>> certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
>> the subsidies. The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
>> the fisshing industry.
>
> The question on federal land usage is a different one entirely, at
>least in the case of the spotted owl. But in those cases in which it is
>the federal government stopping private usage of land- usage that
>doesn't, for instance, cause pollution that gives others cancer- that I
>object to.
However, it is the example you offered. Land usage for private land is
quite different. I do believe certain limitations apply and they are
similar to yours, though I imagine we might define harm differently.
Pollution-induced health impacts are hard to prove, they have long
latency periods. Is it appropriate to limit the use of private land
when the use _might_ cause cancer, but we don't know? If so, how
much proof is needed. What if there is damage to the biosphere is ways
that do not directly harm humans but _do_ harm natural _services_.
For example, if you own private beach land and want to build but that
building will end the buffering function which that land serves to
protect others from storms? Many wetlands serve the purpose of
filtering water and preventing salt intrusion to farmlands and aquifers.
Are people who destroy such wetlands responsible for the enormous costs
entailed in manmade solutions for these problems?
>>
>> I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
>> to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement. It has
>> been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
>> to add to it.
>
> As long as you don't try, say, to stop me from eating meat
>(including veal) whenever I wish and have the cash, feel free to have your
>viewpoint. It only becomes wrong when you try to enforce it on others.
The problem comes when the majority do agree on a moral cause and force
it on the minority. Based on this principle, and not on its specific
application, how would you have responded to slave owners who might say
to an abolitionist: `fine, you don't have to own any slaves'?
I am not trying to force my ecocentric posistions on anyone. You can keep
eating your meat (I am not a vegetarian, anyway). If the ecocentric
position one day is a majority position, it will likely be imposed.
I don't have an easy answer for justifying when this becomes
acceptable. I can say I believe that it was acceptable not to pay
slave owners.
> -Allen
Jeff Frane
>The issue is one of a subspecies of owl vs. a subspecies of logger.
>However, the owls have more lawyers and more movie stars than the
>loggers do.
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
They apparently let just about any simpleton teach down at Stanford
these days, huh? Does the phrase "indicator species" mean anything to
you, or shall we look it up for you? You might take into consideration
the fact that that particular subspecies of logger is doomed at any
rate, since the forest products industry has lied for decades about the
effectiveness of their replanting efforts, since they insist on shipping
logs overseas, and since they are rapidly -- and irreplaceably --
cutting down the old growth timber the subspecies of logger relies on
for its livelihood.
Conservatives are willing to cut it all down and then will undoubtedly
shed a few crocodile tears for the workers who will then definitely be
out of work. They (conservatives) are also unwilling to provide funds
to retrain those same workers, but will abandon them as soon as they
stop doing the grunt work for the big corporations -- the same
corporations that will simply move on to some other business when the
trees are all gone.
Jeff Frane
--
gumm...@techbook.COM Public Access UNIX at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400)
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Oct9.1...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>>than that of someone at an automobile plant? It would be wrong for the
>>>>government when horse-and-buggies are being driven out by automobiles to
>>>>intervene to stop the development of automobiles, I believe. What's the
>>>>difference? Species? It isn't intelligent, so so what? It's an animal.
>>>>Animals aren't intelligent- we should feel ethically free to treat them
>>>>about as we would treat a hunk of rock.
>>>
>>> It might be wrong for govt to _stop_ the automobile, but govt is not
>>> really _stopping_ logging. Logging is a totally subsidized activity.
>>> The arguments about whether to make certain federal lands available
>>> for logging are side-issues to the fact that we essentially pay
>>> the timber industry to take old trees out of our forests. By making
>>> certain areas off-limits to logging, all we are doing is stopping
>>> the subsidies. The government is _supporting_ the destruction of
>>> the fisshing industry.
>>
>> The question on federal land usage is a different one entirely, at
>>least in the case of the spotted owl. But in those cases in which it is
>>the federal government stopping private usage of land- usage that
>>doesn't, for instance, cause pollution that gives others cancer- that I
>>object to.
>
> However, it is the example you offered. Land usage for private land is
I didn't offer that example; someone else did.
> quite different. I do believe certain limitations apply and they are
> similar to yours, though I imagine we might define harm differently.
> Pollution-induced health impacts are hard to prove, they have long
> latency periods. Is it appropriate to limit the use of private land
> when the use _might_ cause cancer, but we don't know? If so, how
> much proof is needed. What if there is damage to the biosphere is ways
> that do not directly harm humans but _do_ harm natural _services_.
> For example, if you own private beach land and want to build but that
> building will end the buffering function which that land serves to
> protect others from storms? Many wetlands serve the purpose of
> filtering water and preventing salt intrusion to farmlands and aquifers.
> Are people who destroy such wetlands responsible for the enormous costs
> entailed in manmade solutions for these problems?
It's an interesting question at what point one starts harming
other intelligent beings enough for government (or others) to be justified
in coercively stopping one. The problem in going too far is that one
starts saying things such as that one can't open up a competing business
because it harms an already existing business.
My point on environmentalism and libertarianism being opposed
frequently (at least traditional environmentalism, as opposed to people
such as the Nature Conservatacy) is that environmentalists are, as far as
I can tell, frequently more concerned with non-intelligent beings than
with humans and other intelligent beings.
>>>
>>> I personally find your attitude towards less/non-intelligent things
>>> to be abhorrent but I recognize that it is a value judgement. It has
>>> been debated in depth in these groups and I don't really have anything
>>> to add to it.
>>
>> As long as you don't try, say, to stop me from eating meat
>>(including veal) whenever I wish and have the cash, feel free to have your
>>viewpoint. It only becomes wrong when you try to enforce it on others.
>
>
> The problem comes when the majority do agree on a moral cause and force
> it on the minority. Based on this principle, and not on its specific
> application, how would you have responded to slave owners who might say
> to an abolitionist: `fine, you don't have to own any slaves'?
>
> I am not trying to force my ecocentric posistions on anyone. You can keep
> eating your meat (I am not a vegetarian, anyway). If the ecocentric
> position one day is a majority position, it will likely be imposed.
> I don't have an easy answer for justifying when this becomes
> acceptable. I can say I believe that it was acceptable not to pay
> slave owners.
Certainly; I agree on the slave owners. Slaves were obviously
intelligent, no matter how much some (even some calling themselves
"scientists") tried to claim otherwise. Slave owners were harming others,
and should be at the minimum prevented from doing so further.
Unfortunately, the political situation at the time did not allow for
further punishment of the former slave owners.
I don't really care whether the majority wants something or not.
I'm interested in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled upon.
-Allen
Jym Dyer
> gone too far. Trees are not sentient beings, and do not have
> rights; attempting to kill lumberjacks (by tree spiking) is
> not within what I, at least, would call permissible behavior.
=o= Point of information: Tree-spiking is not an attempt to
kill or injure lumberjacks. No lumberjack has been killed or
injured by tree-spiking, because (1) EF! only spikes trees that
are not being actively logged, (2) EF! places spikes high in
the trees, where chainsaws won't go near them, and (3) chainsaws
are designed to withstand hitting cruft, because they hit cruft
all the time.
=o= Also, the non-sentience of trees is not the point (ditto for
the Spotted Owl and the Marbeled Murrelet). The idea is to save
the *forest*. While one faction of EF! does not bring this up,
saving forests has demonstrable benefits for human beings.
> First of all, Libertarianism is not conservative.
=o= So I've heard. But on the point of conservative dogma that
conflates private institutions with individuals, they are hard
to tell apart.
<_Jym_>
__
I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
and democracy --- but that could change.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle.
Jym Dyer
> profile of greens to ecological "problems" seems to focus on
> devolving more power to government, as if that is the only way
> to "solve" the particular problem. This attitude appears to be
> so pervasive in the environmental movement generally as to
> constitute grounds for a belief that much of the environmental
> drum-beating is yet another way to expand the role of "the
> state" in our lives.
=\= I don't find environmentalism to be very politically homo-
genous. Most Americans call themselves environmentalists --
George Bush included. I recognize, though, that a good number
are political liberals, with a penchant for regulations.
=\= I share your concerns about the expanded role of the state
in our lives, but I'm also very concerned about the expanded
role of powerful private institutions in our lives. My own
emphasis has been on local and individual empowerment so folks
can counter or free themselves from powerful institutions of
any stripe.
<_Jym_>
__
On the surface, selling arms to a country that sponsors terrorism, of
course, clearly, you'd have to argue it's wrong, but it's the
exception sometimes that proves the rule.
-- Vice President George Bush, August 1987.
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct11.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct9.1...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>
>> However, it is the example you offered. Land usage for private land is
>
> I didn't offer that example; someone else did.
Sorry for the misattribution.
>
>> quite different. I do believe certain limitations apply and they are
>> similar to yours, though I imagine we might define harm differently.
>> Pollution-induced health impacts are hard to prove, they have long
>> latency periods. Is it appropriate to limit the use of private land
>> when the use _might_ cause cancer, but we don't know? If so, how
>> much proof is needed. What if there is damage to the biosphere is ways
>> that do not directly harm humans but _do_ harm natural _services_.
>> For example, if you own private beach land and want to build but that
>> building will end the buffering function which that land serves to
>> protect others from storms? Many wetlands serve the purpose of
>> filtering water and preventing salt intrusion to farmlands and aquifers.
>> Are people who destroy such wetlands responsible for the enormous costs
>> entailed in manmade solutions for these problems?
>
> It's an interesting question at what point one starts harming
>other intelligent beings enough for government (or others) to be justified
>in coercively stopping one. The problem in going too far is that one
>starts saying things such as that one can't open up a competing business
>because it harms an already existing business.
Can you offer a suggestion for what the limit might be? Its easier to
condemn the extreme than to suggest solutions.
This parallels the discussion between Dietz and McGowen. I think it is easy
_today_ to claim a qualitative difference between the morality involved in
slave ownership and the treatment of non-sentients but I would claim
that this is merely an artifact of the moral development of humans.
If we replaced the word "intelligent" in slave-owner arguments with
"sentient", the arguments, moral and economic, would be virtually
identical.
Steven R Fordyce
>not regulation or use restriction on private property.
Obviously you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. The debate maybe
primarily over public lands (75% of the state of Oregon), the spotted owl
issue has been used to stop or restrict logging on private land, so the
last line of your sentence is not correct.
--
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef I am the NRA Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef . . . Deer are for Dinner
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Oct11.2...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct11.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>> In article <1992Oct9.1...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>> quite different. I do believe certain limitations apply and they are
>>> similar to yours, though I imagine we might define harm differently.
>>> Pollution-induced health impacts are hard to prove, they have long
>>> latency periods. Is it appropriate to limit the use of private land
>>> when the use _might_ cause cancer, but we don't know? If so, how
>>> much proof is needed. What if there is damage to the biosphere is ways
>>> that do not directly harm humans but _do_ harm natural _services_.
>>> For example, if you own private beach land and want to build but that
>>> building will end the buffering function which that land serves to
>>> protect others from storms? Many wetlands serve the purpose of
>>> filtering water and preventing salt intrusion to farmlands and aquifers.
>>> Are people who destroy such wetlands responsible for the enormous costs
>>> entailed in manmade solutions for these problems?
>>
>> It's an interesting question at what point one starts harming
>>other intelligent beings enough for government (or others) to be justified
>>in coercively stopping one. The problem in going too far is that one
>>starts saying things such as that one can't open up a competing business
>>because it harms an already existing business.
>
> Can you offer a suggestion for what the limit might be? Its easier to
> condemn the extreme than to suggest solutions.
My personal way for determining such things looks upon liberties
(or the ability to choose, another way of looking at it) as being in
conflict. Sure, you've got the right to shoot that gun. But someone else's
rights are kind of violated (choices are limited) when they die by the
bullet. Take the parties involved. See on each possible outcome whose
liberties are violated the most (whose choices are limited the most).
Select the outcome as best as the one in which that party's (the
most-choice-limited) liberties are violated the least.
Admittedly, this contains a considerable amount of subjectivism
and possible debate over extent of violation, etc. But all government has
that problem. And I'm not willing to trust human beings enough to let them
be without a government; anarchism is utopianism, and "utopia is not an
option". I favor limiting that government so as to limit the wrong that
can be done with it.
Uh-huh. Right. The difference between an animal and a true
individual (I do not limit true individuals to humans; in order to be safe
and not leave out any, I include chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and
whales) is that the individual can make choices without those choices
being dictated by instinct and impulse; it can decide to do something and
know the consequences of its actions.
I would also point out that I, for instance, happen to like cats
very much. I would emotionally love it if anyone who harmed a cat was put
to death. But I have to admit that cats aren't intelligent (unfortunately)
and thus aren't true individuals with rights.
There's also the difference that slave-owners had a lot of BS
about that slaves weren't sentient, and tried to back it up with
pseudoscience. The science this time around, insofar as we can judge
intelligence, is on the side of the humanists (indeed, many would say that
including whales, for instance, on the true individual list is incorrect;
I include them so as to not leave out any true possibilities).
-Allen
Ben Fulton
>Obviously you don't live in the Pacific Northwest. The debate maybe
>primarily over public lands (75% of the state of Oregon), the spotted owl
>issue has been used to stop or restrict logging on private land, so the
>last line of your sentence is not correct.
Can you provide more information? Sounds like something the readers of
alt.individualism, at least, would be interested in. (For that reason,
I've directed followups there)
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct12.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>> Can you offer a suggestion for what the limit might be? Its easier to
>> condemn the extreme than to suggest solutions.
>
> My personal way for determining such things looks upon liberties
>(or the ability to choose, another way of looking at it) as being in
>conflict. Sure, you've got the right to shoot that gun. But someone else's
>rights are kind of violated (choices are limited) when they die by the
>bullet. Take the parties involved. See on each possible outcome whose
>liberties are violated the most (whose choices are limited the most).
>Select the outcome as best as the one in which that party's (the
>most-choice-limited) liberties are violated the least.
> Admittedly, this contains a considerable amount of subjectivism
>and possible debate over extent of violation, etc. But all government has
>that problem. And I'm not willing to trust human beings enough to let them
>be without a government; anarchism is utopianism, and "utopia is not an
>option". I favor limiting that government so as to limit the wrong that
>can be done with it.
This is an adequate rule when the participants already have rights, but
application of it to the case when one does and one doesn't is difficult.
>>
>>> Certainly; I agree on the slave owners. Slaves were obviously
>>>intelligent, no matter how much some (even some calling themselves
>>>"scientists") tried to claim otherwise. Slave owners were harming others,
>>>and should be at the minimum prevented from doing so further.
>>>Unfortunately, the political situation at the time did not allow for
>>>further punishment of the former slave owners.
>>> I don't really care whether the majority wants something or not.
>>>I'm interested in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled upon.
>>>
>> This parallels the discussion between Dietz and McGowen. I think it is easy
>> _today_ to claim a qualitative difference between the morality involved in
>> slave ownership and the treatment of non-sentients but I would claim
>> that this is merely an artifact of the moral development of humans.
>> If we replaced the word "intelligent" in slave-owner arguments with
>> "sentient", the arguments, moral and economic, would be virtually
>> identical.
>
> Uh-huh. Right. The difference between an animal and a true
>individual (I do not limit true individuals to humans; in order to be safe
>and not leave out any, I include chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins, and
>whales) is that the individual can make choices without those choices
>being dictated by instinct and impulse; it can decide to do something and
>know the consequences of its actions.
How can we define what animals actually use instinct versus intelligence?
I still don't accept that this is the right criteria but I also claim that
it is an ambiguous criteria. Many of the animals you give credit of
intelligence to would not have gotten such credit just a couple of
decades ago. Intelligence is not binary, it is relative. Some animals
have more than others and others have less.
> I would also point out that I, for instance, happen to like cats
>very much. I would emotionally love it if anyone who harmed a cat was put
>to death. But I have to admit that cats aren't intelligent (unfortunately)
>and thus aren't true individuals with rights.
Your cat certainly has _some_ intelligence. It is certainly sentient
(at least mine is). Are all of its actions based on instinct?
> There's also the difference that slave-owners had a lot of BS
>about that slaves weren't sentient, and tried to back it up with
>pseudoscience. The science this time around, insofar as we can judge
>intelligence, is on the side of the humanists (indeed, many would say that
>including whales, for instance, on the true individual list is incorrect;
>I include them so as to not leave out any true possibilities).
Positively determining sentience requires knowing what an animal is
thinking within the framework of its perceptive abilities. This is
impossible for humans to do. Sentience is generally granted to cetacians
and mammals, but this is a recent development. Is a bird aware of
its existence? Do the many animals that vie for harems and the apprarent
status that goes with them have an ego?
Gary Coffman
>j...@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>
>>The issue is one of a subspecies of owl vs. a subspecies of logger.
>>However, the owls have more lawyers and more movie stars than the
>>loggers do.
>>--
>>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>>*
>
>They apparently let just about any simpleton teach down at Stanford
>these days, huh? Does the phrase "indicator species" mean anything to
>you, or shall we look it up for you? You might take into consideration
>the fact that that particular subspecies of logger is doomed at any
>rate, since the forest products industry has lied for decades about the
>effectiveness of their replanting efforts, since they insist on shipping
>logs overseas, and since they are rapidly -- and irreplaceably --
>cutting down the old growth timber the subspecies of logger relies on
>for its livelihood.
Does the phrase "sham abuse of the legal process" mean anything to you?
"irreplaceably"? When does new growth become old growth? How long
*does* it take for forest products to reach marketability? Old growth
could also be called "mature", "market ready", or even "senile". The
"old growth" either decays or burns, or is harvested. Which is the
least waste?
Gary
Allen Smith
> In article <1992Oct13.0...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.1...@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>
>>> Can you offer a suggestion for what the limit might be? Its easier to
>>> condemn the extreme than to suggest solutions.
>>
>> My personal way for determining such things looks upon liberties
>>(or the ability to choose, another way of looking at it) as being in
>>conflict. Sure, you've got the right to shoot that gun. But someone else's
>>rights are kind of violated (choices are limited) when they die by the
>>bullet. Take the parties involved. See on each possible outcome whose
>>liberties are violated the most (whose choices are limited the most).
>>Select the outcome as best as the one in which that party's (the
>>most-choice-limited) liberties are violated the least.
>> Admittedly, this contains a considerable amount of subjectivism
>>and possible debate over extent of violation, etc. But all government has
>>that problem. And I'm not willing to trust human beings enough to let them
>>be without a government; anarchism is utopianism, and "utopia is not an
>>option". I favor limiting that government so as to limit the wrong that
>>can be done with it.
>
> This is an adequate rule when the participants already have rights, but
> application of it to the case when one does and one doesn't is difficult.
Huh? If one side isn't truly intelligent (can't make true
choices), then it doesn't have any rights. No problem.
Yes, it may be an ambiguous criterion. So are any others that we
may use, unless one is going to be so impractical as to claim that every
organism should have rights as humans. The situation has its similarities
to determining when a minor is capable of knowingly exercising rights; we
use age, but age is often not a good determinant. It is simply the best
one we've got around currently (I would love for someone to have other,
practical solutions). Side note: I am irritated by the way in which a
minor can be found sufficiently mature to take responsibility for crimes
when the same minor would not be found sufficiently mature to exercise
full rights (voting or drinking, for instance).
>
>> I would also point out that I, for instance, happen to like cats
>>very much. I would emotionally love it if anyone who harmed a cat was put
>>to death. But I have to admit that cats aren't intelligent (unfortunately)
>>and thus aren't true individuals with rights.
>
> Your cat certainly has _some_ intelligence. It is certainly sentient
> (at least mine is). Are all of its actions based on instinct?
Insofar as I have been able to (biased for the pro-intelligence
side) observe and get from other information, yes. There doesn't seem to
be anything in there "operating" other than the combination of environment
and genetically coded instinctual behavior.
>
>> There's also the difference that slave-owners had a lot of BS
>>about that slaves weren't sentient, and tried to back it up with
>>pseudoscience. The science this time around, insofar as we can judge
>>intelligence, is on the side of the humanists (indeed, many would say that
>>including whales, for instance, on the true individual list is incorrect;
>>I include them so as to not leave out any true possibilities).
>
> Positively determining sentience requires knowing what an animal is
> thinking within the framework of its perceptive abilities. This is
> impossible for humans to do. Sentience is generally granted to cetacians
> and mammals, but this is a recent development. Is a bird aware of
> its existence? Do the many animals that vie for harems and the apprarent
> status that goes with them have an ego?
Interesting question. As you point out, positively determining
sentience without knowing what the animal is thinking is not possible.
Thus, language usage capable of communicating thoughts is generally taken
as being reasonable proof of sentience (or at least I'd accept it). I am
not that concerned with awareness of one's own existence as I am with the
ability to make moral decisions- to make decisions which are not forced by
environmentally-guided inherited instinct, and which are done in
recognizance of the consequences of such actions.
-Allen
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct13....@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>
>>> I would also point out that I, for instance, happen to like cats
>>>very much. I would emotionally love it if anyone who harmed a cat was put
>>>to death. But I have to admit that cats aren't intelligent (unfortunately)
>>>and thus aren't true individuals with rights.
>>
>> Your cat certainly has _some_ intelligence. It is certainly sentient
>> (at least mine is). Are all of its actions based on instinct?
>
> Insofar as I have been able to (biased for the pro-intelligence
>side) observe and get from other information, yes. There doesn't seem to
>be anything in there "operating" other than the combination of environment
>and genetically coded instinctual behavior.
Then this might close the debate because I strongly disagree with this. I
think my cat reacts to stimuli on a qualitatively similar way that humans
do. It lacks a wide variety on analytic capabilites that humans have but
these tend towards dealing with abstractions, which is not required for
basic intelligence, IMO.
>
> Interesting question. As you point out, positively determining
>sentience without knowing what the animal is thinking is not possible.
>Thus, language usage capable of communicating thoughts is generally taken
>as being reasonable proof of sentience (or at least I'd accept it). I am
>not that concerned with awareness of one's own existence as I am with the
>ability to make moral decisions- to make decisions which are not forced by
>environmentally-guided inherited instinct, and which are done in
>recognizance of the consequences of such actions.
> -Allen
Awareness of one's existence is a central part of sentience, but sentince
and intelligence are not equivalent. Although detemining both are
problematic, sentience lends itself better to yes/no answers than
intelligence does. It also indicates self-value and possibly ego at some
level, which many people think are relevant to whether an animal can be
killed wihtout compunction.
I would suggest that using the ability to make moral decisions is self
serving since the definition of this is based on human-type decisions.
I think there may be many intelligent life forms somewhere in the
universe that may not make moral decisions like we do but still should
have rights and/or inherent value.
all...@yang.earlham.edu
> In article <1992Oct16.2...@yang.earlham.edu> all...@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13....@vexcel.com>, de...@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>>
>>> Your cat certainly has _some_ intelligence. It is certainly sentient
>>> (at least mine is). Are all of its actions based on instinct?
>>
>> Insofar as I have been able to (biased for the pro-intelligence
>>side) observe and get from other information, yes. There doesn't seem to
>>be anything in there "operating" other than the combination of environment
>>and genetically coded instinctual behavior.
>
> Then this might close the debate because I strongly disagree with this. I
> think my cat reacts to stimuli on a qualitatively similar way that humans
> do. It lacks a wide variety on analytic capabilites that humans have but
> these tend towards dealing with abstractions, which is not required for
> basic intelligence, IMO.
>
for any coherent moral system, which I require to be possible for sentience.
>>
>> Interesting question. As you point out, positively determining
>>sentience without knowing what the animal is thinking is not possible.
>>Thus, language usage capable of communicating thoughts is generally taken
>>as being reasonable proof of sentience (or at least I'd accept it). I am
>>not that concerned with awareness of one's own existence as I am with the
>>ability to make moral decisions- to make decisions which are not forced by
>>environmentally-guided inherited instinct, and which are done in
>>recognizance of the consequences of such actions.
>
> and intelligence are not equivalent. Although detemining both are
> problematic, sentience lends itself better to yes/no answers than
> intelligence does. It also indicates self-value and possibly ego at some
> level, which many people think are relevant to whether an animal can be
> killed wihtout compunction.
You were using sentience/intelligence interchangeably, or appeared
to, so I was following along. I am not particularly interested in the
question of sentience as you define it above. Abstract reasoning
(neccessary IMNHO for moral decisions) is the sub-portion of intelligence
that seems the most applicable here. Of course, this depends on what
grounds one has for accepting rights/liberties as a basis for ethical
decisions.
>
> I would suggest that using the ability to make moral decisions is self
> serving since the definition of this is based on human-type decisions.
> I think there may be many intelligent life forms somewhere in the
> universe that may not make moral decisions like we do but still should
> have rights and/or inherent value.
I believe the key phrase in the last sentence is "like we do"; in
other words, if they use some other means to decide upon moral decisions
(and such moral decisions aren't built-in in some way), then they're still
arriving at definite moral decisions and I'd count them as intelligent.
-Allen
Jym Dyer
>> individual autonomy and the decentralization of power than
>> anybody else.
> I cannot agree with that statement. Environmentalists have
> been the driving force behind the destruction of property
> rights in the U.S. (e.g. restricting the usage of properties
> that are defined as "wetlands").
=o= I said "real work" because I'm referring to things
actually being *worked* on, not dogmas such as those which
define property "rights" in such a way as to ignore ecology.
> Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-human
> animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted
> owl issue).
=o= If you'd bother to see what Greenpeace -- or for that
matter, *any* environmentalists -- actually had to say about
the Spotted Owl, you'd see that the issue isn't some owls-
vs.-humans scenario at all (a scenario cooked up by the public
relations folks at Pacific Lumber, by the way).
=o= The owls aren't the issue so much as the ecosystem that
sustains them. The old growth forests are being annihilated,
with nothing to stop them *until* the owls became endangered
(since there are laws against destroying endangered species
but not endangered ecosystems).
=o= The part about these concerns having an ill effect on human
welfare is also off the mark. It has become abundantantly clear
to the folks still living where Big Timber has bailed out of
that it was better to have forests around instead of clearcuts.
The jobs are gone and the land is so damaged, no new means of
employment are in sight.
=o= It seems to me that the folks trying to keep that from
happening had and have more concern for individuals than the
folks perpetrating it.
<_Jym_>
__
I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever.
I don't care what the facts are.
-- President George Bush
Jym Dyer
=o= Greenpeace does not sink whaleboats. You're confusing
them with somebody else.
<_Jym_>
__
We have to do more than just elect a new president if we
truly want to change this country.
-- Vice President Dan Quayle (in 1992)
DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO
[ good exchange deleted ]
>
>=o= If you'd bother to see what Greenpeace -- or for that
>matter, *any* environmentalists -- actually had to say about
>the Spotted Owl, you'd see that the issue isn't some owls-
>vs.-humans scenario at all (a scenario cooked up by the public
>relations folks at Pacific Lumber, by the way).
Just thought you might like to hear this quote by Charles Hurwitz, who in 1985
took over Pacific Lumber in a leveraged buyout.
"Those who have the gold rule."
That's his 'golden rule'. After his takeover, he liquidated the employee
pension fund, and doubled the rate of logging. Prior to 1985, selective loggin
techniques were used; since then, Pacific Lumber has been using extensive
clearcutting practices.
- --
* -- * *
* ---
-- *
// // /
/ // //// //// /////
// /////////// /////// /// ///////
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Deocampo | "Show me someone who |
ddeo...@pearl.tufts.edu | likes rivers, and I'll |
Tufts University | show you an alluvial fan" |
Department of Geology | - geophile, at |
Undergrad / \ 6:00 AM on a field trip |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Arromdee
>The above person has already pointed out that the truth about this but
>we humans are not the only ones here and we have NOT been given
>the right to be over all that is. We are all connected. It is all one web
>of life.
#ifdef SARCASM
I maintain that there are actually two webs of life. Prove me wrong.
#endif
The above is a religious position, and as such, should not be used as a basis
for any sort of policy. Just because the religion is not of Middle-Eastern
descent doesn't make that suddenly right--it's still on the same level as
banning abortions or mandating creationism for religious reasons.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of." -- K. Eric Drexler
Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
My name is Sam Gentile
>> Greenpeace has traditionally put the interests of non-human
>> animals before the welfare of human beings (e.g. the spotted
>> owl issue).
>
>=o= If you'd bother to see what Greenpeace -- or for that
>matter, *any* environmentalists -- actually had to say about
>the Spotted Owl, you'd see that the issue isn't some owls-
>vs.-humans scenario at all (a scenario cooked up by the public
>relations folks at Pacific Lumber, by the way).
>
>=o= The owls aren't the issue so much as the ecosystem that
>sustains them. The old growth forests are being annihilated,
>with nothing to stop them *until* the owls became endangered
>(since there are laws against destroying endangered species
>but not endangered ecosystems).
>
The above person has already pointed out that the truth about this but
we humans are not the only ones here and we have NOT been given
the right to be over all that is. We are all connected. It is all one web
of life. The Lakota have a saying that says Mitakuye Oyasin - All My
Relations. Everything we do to the environment has an effect on us. I
belive that we should all live in harmony.
***********************************************************************
Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
Digital Equipment Corp.
Office and TeamWare Engineering
Nashua NH
gen...@xanadu.enet.dec.com
***********************************************************************
Dave Tilley
True enough. It's religion. And as a religion, I like it a bit better than most.
However, the idea that there is interrelation between things in this world
has some basis in truth I think.
If I tear down the houses where you live and burn it all for heat in
my house, it effects you.
The removal of old growth forest in the pacific north west is having its
effects. The loss of habitat for many animals is certainly one result.
The idea of owls vs humans is however not the only result. That is,
most folks that I know of that are concerned with the old growth, are not
as concerned about the spotted owl as their detractors think/express.
Lots of time the thinking is this,
"For many reasons, old growth forest
(in dwindling supply) is important. Logging companies
(often with US subsidies) are removing this supply at a very quick
rate. If we stop them now while there is still some left,
people will lose jobs now. If we don't the forests
will quickly be gone, and the same # of people will
lose there jobs then. That these people will lose their jobs
is a foregone conclusion. We feel sorry for them. But that
is what will happen.
That given, we would rather save the old growth.
Certainly we would rather not have to support the
logging with our tax dollars."
Saving the old growth by finding a law intended to save owls is like
telling your child who is about to jump from the roof top, to not jump
because of the damage she will do to the shrubs. The shrubs may not
be your real concern.
Dave
My name is Sam Gentile
In article <39...@eastman.UUCP>, til...@kodak.com (Dave Tilley) writes...
>In article <1992Oct28....@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>|> In article <20...@sousa.ltn.dec.com> gen...@bcse.enet.dec.com (My name is Sam Gentile) writes:
>|> >The above person has already pointed out that the truth about this but
>|> >we humans are not the only ones here and we have NOT been given
>|> >the right to be over all that is. We are all connected. It is all one web
>|> >of life.
>|>
>|> #ifdef SARCASM
>|> I maintain that there are actually two webs of life. Prove me wrong.
>|> #endif
>|>
>|> The above is a religious position, and as such, should not be used as a basis
>|> for any sort of policy. Just because the religion is not of Middle-Eastern
>|> descent doesn't make that suddenly right--it's still on the same level as
>|> banning abortions or mandating creationism for religious reasons.
>|> --
>|> "the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
>|> the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
>|> disposed of." -- K. Eric Drexler
>|>
>|> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
>|> INTERNET: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
>
>True enough. It's religion. And as a religion, I like it a bit better than most.
>
>However, the idea that there is interrelation between things in this world
>has some basis in truth I think.
>
It's amazing that some people can "cloak" themselves in science and fail to
see the world crumbling around them. What does it take to inject a sense
of urgency into this country about the environment and our world? Do we
have to tear a hole in the sky before we wake up? Well, we've done it. Do
we have to see the life-giving rain be turned so acidic that it kills fish
and trees and endangers human health? Well, we've done it. Do we wish to
watch the great seas rise, inundate our coastlines, and disrupt agricultural
paterns through global warming? Well, we're doing it. Do we have to see the
great Rhine River run with a current of death caused by a dangerous pesticide
spill? Well, we've seen it. Does cancer have to rise up among us like a modern
plague because of radon and toxics? Well, we've seen it. Do the clouds of
Chernobyl have to spew radioactivity around the globe for us to declare that
enough is enough? What does it take to inject a sense of urgency? What does it
take to wake up world governments to the global environmental threat? Can we
not see that the miner's canary is dying - that we must save the earth if we
are to save ourselves?
You might call it religion but our nature bible gave us straight,
observable truth, unaltered. The impending evironmental catostrophes warn
emphatically that it is time for the new inhabitants of this land to start
taking direction from nature. The proven stewards of this land did not color
the truth that is a vital part of nature.
Before Mother Earth can be healed, modern man and woman must learn to
recogize natural truth. It is how the Great Spirit designs and operates this
universe. Nature does not work in untruth nor does she attempt to color it. The
unexplainable intricacy and the continued functioning of all created entities
proves this supposition.
***********************************************************************
Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
Digital Equipment Corp.
Office and TeamWare Engineering
TeamLinks for Windows
Nashua NH
gen...@xanadu.enet.dec.com
All opinions all are my own and do not reflect in any way those of DEC
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
Digital Equipment Corp.
Office and TeamWare Engineering
TeamLinks for Windows
Nashua NH
gen...@xanadu.enet.dec.com
All opinions all are my own and do not reflect in any way those of DEC
***********************************************************************
c...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
It's amazing that some people can "cloak" themselves in science and fail to
see the world crumbling around them. What does it take to inject a sense
of urgency into this country about the environment and our world? Do we
have to tear a hole in the sky before we wake up?
Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines put over a thousand times the
ozone-destroying chemicals into the air in one eruption than humans
have in the entire tenure on this planet. The result is expected to
be a 4-6% drop in ozone levels. This has been happening since the
Earth first had ozone. Why is it still here? BECAUSE IT IS
CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED ANEW!
Well, we've done it. Do we have to see the life-giving rain be turned so
acidic that it kills fish and trees and endangers human health?
Reactionary "environmentalists" in Washington passed anti-industry
laws designed to curb acid rain before the study that they themselves
commissioned was complete. When the study was finally handed in, it
confirmed what many scientists had been saying all along: acid rain is,
for the most part, a myth. None-the-less, the anti-industry laws
remain on the books.
Well, we've done it. Do we wish to watch the great seas rise, inundate our
coastlines, and disrupt agricultural paterns through global warming? Well,
we're doing it.
1) All of the global warming predictions are based on less than
100 yrs. of data. Interestingly enough, temperatures have been
climbing slower (and, according to some reports, declining) over the
last 40 yr.s than they had over the previous 50, DESPITE the fact that
the majority of industrialisation has occurred during that period.
2) The seas have risen and fallen multiple times over the history
of the planet. So what if they go up 10 ft.? New York and Sicily may
have to build dikes. Or are you in favor of preserving the exact
condition of the planet, as some kind of park? I thought the ecosystem
was dynamic and changing?
Do we have to see the great Rhine River run with a current of death caused by
a dangerous pesticide spill?
Should we not use pesticides? I'm sure we could feed the entire
population of the planet with 15th century farming techniques...NOT.
Well, we've seen it. Does cancer have to rise up among us like a modern
plague because of radon and toxics? Well, we've seen it.
1) I thought radon was a natural gas present in soil...should
we stop building highly insulated, fuel-efficient houses in order
to better disperse radon?
2) "Toxics"? Hemlock is toxic...so is the cyanide in apple
seeds. Do you mean man-made toxics? If so, contrast the average
life span in an indistrialized country of today that generates
"toxics" as by-products with a non-industrial country from,
say,...1500.
3) This argument suffers from the same flaw as the "X is now the
largest killer in the Y-Z age bracket" scare story. Humans are not
immortal. If they didn't die of cancer, they'd die of something else.
Good luck in getting rid of cancer, but don't come whining when
the number two killer suddenly becomes number one.
Do the clouds of Chernobyl have to spew radioactivity around the globe
for us to declare that enough is enough?
1) Chernobyl was the result of an evil authoritarian statist
government, not nuclear power. Should we stop building bridges
because the one at Veranzono (sp?) Narrows failed?
2) Should we use clean burning oil, economically efficient solar
power, or river-friendly hydro-electric instead?
3) Nuclear power is the safest power source invented to date. On
the day of the Three Mile Island accident (in which no one was
harmed) 17 people died in a coal mine collapse in the same day.
What does it take to inject a sense of urgency?
Speaking for myself, opening my eyes to the authoritarian power-
hungry welfare state that we live in injected a sense of urgency. :)
WWhat does it take to wake up world governments
If they've managed to accomplish this level of totalitarianism while
asleep, PLEASE DON'T WAKE THEM UP!!!!!
to the global environmental threat? Can we not see that the miner's canary
is dying - that we must save the earth if we are to save ourselves?
While I disagree with the fact that "the miner's canary is dying",
even if it is, why do we have to save the environment to save
ourselves? Man is an adaptable, technology-weilding creature. I
have no doubt that we could survive quite well in sealed environments
with only a few other species. This is an absolute extreme, and
the quality of life wouldn't be what I would desire, but our
EXISTANCE per se is not linked to the continuation of the current
eco-sphere.
You might call it religion but our nature bible gave us straight,
observable truth, unaltered.
Nature does reveal a lot of truths. It is true that a tree can not
survive in a certain soil, or with certain weather patterns. It does
not give us hard data on the current state of the environment- to get
that we need to send politically neutral researchers into the field.
Even with facts 1) Condition A will kill all animals X
2) Condition A exists
Nature is silent on the question: must we correct condition A at the
cost of individual liberty? If may tell us the results of our two
choices, but the decision is a philisophical one, not a TRUTH revealed
by "Gaia".
The impending evironmental catostrophes warn emphatically that it is time
for the new inhabitants of this land to start taking direction from nature.
The proven stewards of this land did not color the truth that is a vital
part of nature.
1) If we start "taking direction from nature", I have one
question: Nature doesn't speak, so who appoints the High Priests
who get to interpret her words?
2) Are you referring to the Native Indians? From what I've
read they did a fair amount of environment wrecking on their own,
and were not "stewards".
Before Mother Earth can be healed, modern man and woman must learn to
recogize natural truth. It is how the Great Spirit designs and operates this
universe.
1) "Mother Earth"...my mom is named Carol, thank you.
2) I do recognize natural truth...every one is responsible
for their own actions. People don't have the right to assault
each others. Things get reckonned after death [atheists, etc. may
strike this last...]
3) Who/What is the "Great Spirit"? How do you know that
he/she/it designed or operates this universe? Doesn't evolution
say that there is no design, except for the one spontaneously arising
out of random chance?
Nature does not work in untruth nor does she attempt to color it. The
unexplainable intricacy and the continued functioning of all created entities
proves this supposition.
Ex-squeeze me? SphinctersSayWhat?
What does this mean?
Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin 67
8
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Travis J.I. Corcoran
| tcor...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
|
| "Two [Kennedys] were shot, but under the most romantic
| circumstances and not, as might have been hoped, after due process
| of law."
|
| _Give War a Chance_
| P.J. O'Rourke
--------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Sam Gentile
In article <1992Oct28....@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes...
>In article <20...@sousa.ltn.dec.com> gen...@bcse.enet.dec.com (My name is Sam Gentile) writes:
>>The above person has already pointed out that the truth about this but
>>we humans are not the only ones here and we have NOT been given
>>the right to be over all that is. We are all connected. It is all one web
>>of life.
>
>#ifdef SARCASM
>I maintain that there are actually two webs of life. Prove me wrong.
>#endif
>
>The above is a religious position, and as such, should not be used as a basis
>for any sort of policy. Just because the religion is not of Middle-Eastern
>descent doesn't make that suddenly right--it's still on the same level as
>banning abortions or mandating creationism for religious reasons.
Ok, proof about the wb of life, all life being connected and
interrerelated. As modern physicists have demonstrated, this understanding
is more than a mystical dream; it is an actual physical fact. Via the
all-pervading web of what scientists call "superstrings", at a sub-microscopic
level the Statue of Liberty is literally connected to the butterflies in
Nebraska and everything else. Infinitesimally delicate subatomic linkages
connect everything to everything else - all energy and matter. By inevitable
extension, everything is part of the same continous web of energy and matter.
Study the texts of science. Read what the leading physicists,
mathematicians, and biologists are saying NOW about the nature of reality
and the fundamental fact of our connectedness. Study the revelations
of quantum mechanics, relativity, chaos theory, and superstrings.
There is far more evidence to support the emerging philosophies
than there is to buttress the widely held belief that we are separate from
other aspects of creation and that we live our lives as individuals,
unaffected by dreams, untouched by mystery. In the seeming contrast of
these worldviews, there is paradox - paradox that may well occupy
foward-thinking people for generations to come.
Science will ultimately prove what native peoples have known
for thousands of years, that we are all connected.
***********************************************************************
Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin
Digital Equipment Corp.
Office and TeamWare Engineering
Patrick Chester
=
=It's amazing that some people can "cloak" themselves in science and fail to
=see the world crumbling around them. What does it take to inject a sense
What do you have against science?
=of urgency into this country about the environment and our world? Do we
=have to tear a hole in the sky before we wake up?
=
= Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines put over a thousand times the
= ozone-destroying chemicals into the air in one eruption than humans
= have in the entire tenure on this planet. The result is expected to
= be a 4-6% drop in ozone levels. This has been happening since the
= Earth first had ozone. Why is it still here? BECAUSE IT IS
= CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED ANEW!
Mt. Erebus (sp?) in Antartica has been active lately. It may have contributed
to the ozone hole down there.
=
=Well, we've done it. Do we have to see the life-giving rain be turned so
=acidic that it kills fish and trees and endangers human health?
=
= Reactionary "environmentalists" in Washington passed anti-industry
= laws designed to curb acid rain before the study that they themselves
= commissioned was complete. When the study was finally handed in, it
= confirmed what many scientists had been saying all along: acid rain is,
= for the most part, a myth. None-the-less, the anti-industry laws
= remain on the books.
=
=
=Well, we've done it. Do we wish to watch the great seas rise, inundate our
=coastlines, and disrupt agricultural paterns through global warming? Well,
=we're doing it.
=
= 1) All of the global warming predictions are based on less than
= 100 yrs. of data. Interestingly enough, temperatures have been
= climbing slower (and, according to some reports, declining) over the
= last 40 yr.s than they had over the previous 50, DESPITE the fact that
= the majority of industrialisation has occurred during that period.
=
= 2) The seas have risen and fallen multiple times over the history
= of the planet. So what if they go up 10 ft.? New York and Sicily may
= have to build dikes. Or are you in favor of preserving the exact
= condition of the planet, as some kind of park? I thought the ecosystem
= was dynamic and changing?
=
=Do we have to see the great Rhine River run with a current of death caused by
=a dangerous pesticide spill?
=
= Should we not use pesticides? I'm sure we could feed the entire
= population of the planet with 15th century farming techniques...NOT.
No, we can use the techniques of the Old Ones and <insert New Age mumbo jumbo>
Anyone who wants to live w/o modern techniques is welcome to try. Don't ask
for help when the crops don't come in though.
=
=Well, we've seen it. Does cancer have to rise up among us like a modern
=plague because of radon and toxics? Well, we've seen it.
=
= 1) I thought radon was a natural gas present in soil...should
= we stop building highly insulated, fuel-efficient houses in order
= to better disperse radon?
Radon is what radium becomes after it decays. It is a natural phenomenon.
= 2) "Toxics"? Hemlock is toxic...so is the cyanide in apple
= seeds. Do you mean man-made toxics? If so, contrast the average
= life span in an indistrialized country of today that generates
= "toxics" as by-products with a non-industrial country from,
= say,...1500.
= 3) This argument suffers from the same flaw as the "X is now the
= largest killer in the Y-Z age bracket" scare story. Humans are not
= immortal. If they didn't die of cancer, they'd die of something else.
= Good luck in getting rid of cancer, but don't come whining when
= the number two killer suddenly becomes number one.
=
=Do the clouds of Chernobyl have to spew radioactivity around the globe
=for us to declare that enough is enough?
=
= 1) Chernobyl was the result of an evil authoritarian statist
= government, not nuclear power. Should we stop building bridges
= because the one at Veranzono (sp?) Narrows failed?
=
= 2) Should we use clean burning oil, economically efficient solar
= power, or river-friendly hydro-electric instead?
Try SPS. Put a series of big solar panels in orbit and beam the power down
via microwave or IR-laser to a recieving station.
=
= 3) Nuclear power is the safest power source invented to date. On
= the day of the Three Mile Island accident (in which no one was
= harmed) 17 people died in a coal mine collapse in the same day.
Might be noted that coal burning puts more radiation in the air from Carbon-14.
=
=What does it take to inject a sense of urgency?
=
= Speaking for myself, opening my eyes to the authoritarian power-
= hungry welfare state that we live in injected a sense of urgency. :)
Speaking for myself, I think humanity should wake up and see that we have an
entire solar system in easy reach. The stars in a few centuries.
The welfare state needs to be replaced/improved/something.
=
=WWhat does it take to wake up world governments
=
= If they've managed to accomplish this level of totalitarianism while
= asleep, PLEASE DON'T WAKE THEM UP!!!!!
I often wonder, when I hear some conspiracy theories, why the theorist is not
dead or imprisoned allready because the conspirators he describes are soooo
powerful. Now I know: they are insomniacs from all of their plotting and their
competency is gone. Naaah. That can't be it. Back to our program.
=
=to the global environmental threat? Can we not see that the miner's canary
=is dying - that we must save the earth if we are to save ourselves?
=
= While I disagree with the fact that "the miner's canary is dying",
= even if it is, why do we have to save the environment to save
= ourselves? Man is an adaptable, technology-weilding creature. I
= have no doubt that we could survive quite well in sealed environments
= with only a few other species. This is an absolute extreme, and
= the quality of life wouldn't be what I would desire, but our
= EXISTANCE per se is not linked to the continuation of the current
= eco-sphere.
We could live in space, build O'Neill colonies and make our own environments.
Or just live in the Belt. Matter of fact, let's try.
=
= You might call it religion but our nature bible gave us straight,
=observable truth, unaltered.
=
= Nature does reveal a lot of truths. It is true that a tree can not
= survive in a certain soil, or with certain weather patterns. It does
= not give us hard data on the current state of the environment- to get
= that we need to send politically neutral researchers into the field.
= Even with facts 1) Condition A will kill all animals X
= 2) Condition A exists
= Nature is silent on the question: must we correct condition A at the
= cost of individual liberty? If may tell us the results of our two
= choices, but the decision is a philisophical one, not a TRUTH revealed
= by "Gaia".
Nature DOES NOT GIVE A DAMN what happens. It is not sentient.
=
=The impending evironmental catostrophes warn emphatically that it is time
=for the new inhabitants of this land to start taking direction from nature.
=The proven stewards of this land did not color the truth that is a vital
=part of nature.
=
= 1) If we start "taking direction from nature", I have one
= question: Nature doesn't speak, so who appoints the High Priests
= who get to interpret her words?
Obviously people like our hero Sam here. <shudder> Get me off this crazy
planet!!
=
= 2) Are you referring to the Native Indians? From what I've
= read they did a fair amount of environment wrecking on their own,
= and were not "stewards".
=
= Before Mother Earth can be healed, modern man and woman must learn to
=recogize natural truth. It is how the Great Spirit designs and operates this
=universe.
=
= 1) "Mother Earth"...my mom is named Carol, thank you.
Naaah. Turn it back into Sam's face. If Earth is our Mother then isn't it
about time we stopped loafing around and left home? Earth is our cradle but
one cannot stay in the cradle forever as Tsiolvosky once said. If Sam is so
hot to heal Mother Earth(tm) then he should be pushing for expansion into
space. But then, Sam doesn't seem to like technology.
It's time to grow up and leave home.
= 2) I do recognize natural truth...every one is responsible
= for their own actions. People don't have the right to assault
= each others. Things get reckonned after death [atheists, etc. may
= strike this last...]
The only "natural truths" are what science has currently uncovered. That, though
is only our current understanding of the truth. If a new theory supersedes an
older one then that uncovers a newly seen part if the truth.
= 3) Who/What is the "Great Spirit"? How do you know that
= he/she/it designed or operates this universe? Doesn't evolution
= say that there is no design, except for the one spontaneously arising
= out of random chance?
=
=Nature does not work in untruth nor does she attempt to color it. The
=unexplainable intricacy and the continued functioning of all created entities
=proves this supposition.
=
= Ex-squeeze me? SphinctersSayWhat?
= What does this mean?
Absolutely nothing. Either that or most of humanity is too stupid to
understand the awesome wisdom of Gentile Sam-sensei. Oh, let me take a crack
at explaining it.
He seems to say that nature's work is self evident. Then he says that it's
workings are not understood and the fact that everything is still alive proves
all this. How did I do?
=
=Sam Gentile Aho Mitakuye Oyasin 67
=8
=
=
= --------------------------------------------------------------------
= | Travis J.I. Corcoran
= | tcor...@sunlab.cit.cornell.edu
= |
= | "Two [Kennedys] were shot, but under the most romantic
= | circumstances and not, as might have been hoped, after due process
= | of law."
= |
= | _Give War a Chance_
= | P.J. O'Rourke
= --------------------------------------------------------------------
If the views expressed by Sam here become dominant and we lose our high-tech
civilization, I hope a comet *does* hit our planet and put us out of our
misery in 2116. I finish on that cheerful note.
--
Patrick Chester |----------------------------------------------------
wol...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect | all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist |"The meek shall inherit the Earth. The rest of us
#^%$!! Militarist | are going to the stars." Anonymous
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Dean Alaska
>In article <1992Oct31.1...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> c...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>=
>=It's amazing that some people can "cloak" themselves in science and fail to
>=see the world crumbling around them. What does it take to inject a sense
>
>What do you have against science?
There is much that scientists can't figure out. I can't be depended on
to decide all issues.
>
>=of urgency into this country about the environment and our world? Do we
>=have to tear a hole in the sky before we wake up?
>=
>= Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines put over a thousand times the
>= ozone-destroying chemicals into the air in one eruption than humans
>= have in the entire tenure on this planet. The result is expected to
>= be a 4-6% drop in ozone levels. This has been happening since the
>= Earth first had ozone. Why is it still here? BECAUSE IT IS
>= CONSTANTLY BEING CREATED ANEW!
This is absurd. Pinatubo put almost no ozone-destroying chemicals into
the stratosphere, where the ozone layer is. Got any references to back
this up?
>
>Mt. Erebus (sp?) in Antartica has been active lately. It may have contributed
>to the ozone hole down there.
>
No, its not emplosive enough. The Cl it releases never makes it to the
stratosphere.
>=
>=
>=Well, we've done it. Do we wish to watch the great seas rise, inundate our
>=coastlines, and disrupt agricultural paterns through global warming? Well,
>=we're doing it.
>=
>= 1) All of the global warming predictions are based on less than
>= 100 yrs. of data. Interestingly enough, temperatures have been
>= climbing slower (and, according to some reports, declining) over the
>= last 40 yr.s than they had over the previous 50, DESPITE the fact that
>= the majority of industrialisation has occurred during that period.
Most global warmining predictions _from scientists_ depened NEITHER on
the records OR models. They depend on simple radiative balance
equations.
>=
>= 2) The seas have risen and fallen multiple times over the history
>= of the planet. So what if they go up 10 ft.? New York and Sicily may
>= have to build dikes. Or are you in favor of preserving the exact
>= condition of the planet, as some kind of park? I thought the ecosystem
>= was dynamic and changing?
Normally they change very slowly. If the sea rises 10 ft in the next few
decades the cost will be enormous to protect coastal cities.
>=
>=Do we have to see the great Rhine River run with a current of death caused by
>=a dangerous pesticide spill?
>=
>= Should we not use pesticides? I'm sure we could feed the entire
>= population of the planet with 15th century farming techniques...NOT.
There are _new_ farming techniques that don't use pesticides OR 15th
century methods.