Population projections
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: I disagree. Suppose we cut the birth rate to zero right now. That means a
gs: drop in population of under 1% per year (0.97%, I think). That isn't gonna
gs: do it. It takes something like 170 years to get down to 1G from 5.2G at
gs: that rate, the fact that we will all be dead in about a 100y being beside
gs: the point.
jm: In 170 years, where will these 1G people come from, given that none were
jm: born in 170 years? I distrust your analysis.
gs: Re-read the last sentence. I know that all (or nearly all) of us will be
gs: dead in far less than 170 years. That's simply the number that falls out of
gs: your standard exponential growth/decay formula, assuming 0.97% decrease per
gs: year.
jm: Since it is trivial to demonstrate that the end-state of the exponential is
jm: incorrect, I do not believe that the coefficients are correct.
I know that the formula I used is far too crude to be of any use for a
real-world analysis. It is, at *best*, a very approximate first-order
analysis. For a better approximation, one needs to take into account a
huge number of other factors, including mean life span, actual human
demographics (it makes a difference if all the women are 65 years old),
resources, pollution, and so on. Fairly sophisticated models try to use
as many of these elements as they can, but I certainly make no claim
that what I derived is significantly close to them.
gs: I suppose I could research the topic to a greater degree, but the point was
gs: made, namely, to acheive a population that some people feel is more in line
gs: with nature, merely reducing the birth rate to zero (ignoring the problems
gs: *that* would create) won't be enough. The death rate has to be increased
gs: too.
jm: Incorrect, since the death rate PRESENTLY would reduce it to zero in less
jm: than two centuries. You should research the system some more.
But, according to the environmental-type folks, that isn't enough. We need
to do something about those 5.2G *NOW*, if we want to maintain some kind
of semblence to civilization. We could blow it all to hell, and start
over with hunter-gatherers, but that's not what most of them want.
jm: How much systems analysis have you had?
None.
jm: From these postings perhaps you should look at how the exponential is
jm: derived before postulating upon the effects of changes in the system.
I know that it is based upon radioactive decay, which is a pretty poor
approximation of population growth/decay.
The whole point was trying to show that, using the Green's assumptions,
we cannot keep reproducing at the rate we are now and expect the load
on the planet to get less burdensome. We have to reduce the load by
either reducing the load of each person (in effect moving the West
backwards and telling everyone else to stay where they are) or reducing
the persons, by letting "nature" take it course via famine and disease,
doing it ourselves by "bad" methods like war and genocide. There is
the much less likely possibilities of moving a bunch of people somewhere
else, or some kind of technological breakthrough, but Greens are not
known for their technophilism. What always comes through is a deep sense
of urgency, which only adds to the problem. That's the point.
--
Gary Strand "Aye, carumbah!"
stra...@ncar.ucar.edu - Bart Simpson
Jim Meritt
}jm: Jim Meritt
}gs: Gary Strand
}
}gs: I disagree. Suppose we cut the birth rate to zero right now. That means a
}gs: drop in population of under 1% per year (0.97%, I think). That isn't gonna
}gs: do it. It takes something like 170 years to get down to 1G from 5.2G at
}gs: that rate, the fact that we will all be dead in about a 100y being beside
}gs: the point.
}
}jm: In 170 years, where will these 1G people come from, given that none were
}jm: born in 170 years? I distrust your analysis.
}
}gs: Re-read the last sentence. I know that all (or nearly all) of us will be
}gs: dead in far less than 170 years. That's simply the number that falls out of
}gs: your standard exponential growth/decay formula, assuming 0.97% decrease per
}gs: year.
}
}jm: Since it is trivial to demonstrate that the end-state of the exponential is
}jm: incorrect, I do not believe that the coefficients are correct.
}
} I know that the formula I used is far too crude to be of any use for a
} real-world analysis. It is, at *best*, a very approximate first-order
} analysis. For a better approximation, one needs to take into account a
} huge number of other factors, including mean life span, actual human
} demographics (it makes a difference if all the women are 65 years old),
} resources, pollution, and so on. Fairly sophisticated models try to use
} as many of these elements as they can, but I certainly make no claim
} that what I derived is significantly close to them.
Not necessary, though doable. A simple examination of the end-state would
be sufficient (in this case, for this argument, with these components,
in this system). The closer examination would be necessary if you were
to want a period-by-period population estimate instead of a point estimate
in 170 years. You would be suprised, I believe, what "fairly sophisticated
models" do and don't do. A lot is done BEFORE the model is written.
}gs: I suppose I could research the topic to a greater degree, but the point was
}gs: made, namely, to acheive a population that some people feel is more in line
}gs: with nature, merely reducing the birth rate to zero (ignoring the problems
}gs: *that* would create) won't be enough. The death rate has to be increased
}gs: too.
}
}jm: Incorrect, since the death rate PRESENTLY would reduce it to zero in less
}jm: than two centuries. You should research the system some more.
} But, according to the environmental-type folks, that isn't enough. We need
} to do something about those 5.2G *NOW*, if we want to maintain some kind
} of semblence to civilization. We could blow it all to hell, and start
} over with hunter-gatherers, but that's not what most of them want.
I cannot be held accountable for what they want. In most cases I find it
more than a little absurd. I can, however, comment on this specific
example - the population at the end of 170 years given zero birthrate.
}jm: How much systems analysis have you had?
}
} None.
Wouldn't hurt to have a little before discussing systems...
(yeah, I know more than "none", which is why the methodology offends me.)
}jm: From these postings perhaps you should look at how the exponential is
}jm: derived before postulating upon the effects of changes in the system.
}
} I know that it is based upon radioactive decay, which is a pretty poor
} approximation of population growth/decay.
I would say that what you think you know isn't. radioactive decay happens
to derive the same way, and is not a reference source.
} The whole point was trying to show that, using the Green's assumptions,
} we cannot keep reproducing at the rate we are now and expect the load
} on the planet to get less burdensome. We have to reduce the load by
} either reducing the load of each person (in effect moving the West
} backwards and telling everyone else to stay where they are) or reducing
} the persons, by letting "nature" take it course via famine and disease,
} doing it ourselves by "bad" methods like war and genocide. There is
} the much less likely possibilities of moving a bunch of people somewhere
} else, or some kind of technological breakthrough, but Greens are not
} known for their technophilism. What always comes through is a deep sense
} of urgency, which only adds to the problem. That's the point.
That is interesting. That is not "the point" as you stated earlier. Do
you know "the point", or must it be chased? In any event, the analysis
does not support the conclusion.
That that is is that that is. That that is not is that that is not.
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
And that includes these opinions, which are solely mine!
j...@aplvax.jhuapl.edu - or - j...@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Gary Strand
The "point" of it all?
The fact that Greens try to hold two contradictory ideas: That we need
to do something about the human burden on the environment while at the
same time maintain some degree of civilization.
Either "nature" takes it course, and millions die, we do it, and millions
die, or we are at a pinnacle and their isn't any other way but down.
So folks, you have a "choice", according to Greens: Enjoy civilization
now and die soon, or learn how to hunt with your bare hands and die a
little later.
Heavens, that there might actually be alternatives!
Steven Daryl McCullough
>
> The "point" of it all?
>
> The fact that Greens try to hold two contradictory ideas: That we need
> to do something about the human burden on the environment while at the
> same time maintain some degree of civilization.
What is contradictory about these two ideas? If we can limit our
population to some manageable level, then we can maintain a
comfortable standard of living for everyone without destroying the
environment. If the population continues to grow at an exponential
rate, there is *no way* to prevent catastrophe.
> Either "nature" takes it course, and millions die, we do it, and
> millions die, or we are at a pinnacle and their isn't any other way
> but down.
I don't think that follows from Green thinking. What they are pushing
for is a sustainable, environmentally benign civilization. There is no
reason to think that such a civilization *must* be primitive or
miserable.
> So folks, you have a "choice", according to Greens: Enjoy civilization
> now and die soon, or learn how to hunt with your bare hands and die a
> little later.
>
> Heavens, that there might actually be alternatives!
> --
> Gary Strand "Aye, carumbah!"
> stra...@ncar.ucar.edu - Bart Simpson
Gary, the theme of nearly all of your postings has been to ridicule,
or brand as fascists the Greens for having the bad taste to say "If
something isn't done to prevent it, there will be a catastrophe." This
seems to be a case of wanting to kill the bearer of bad news. If you
really think their message is mistaken, that there are alternatives
that they are missing, please feel free to raise the level of discussion
in this newsgroup by posting some of these alternatives.
The only alternatives I have heard to the grim choices offered by the
Greens have struck me as so much wishful thinking: either denying that
there is any problem, or else assuming that economic growth will
somehow improve everyone's standard of living and reduce the pressures
to overpopulate and pollute, and destroy the environment.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that the newsgroup would benefit from
your trying to address the concerns of the environmentalists instead
of labeling them as fascists for having those concerns.
Daryl McCullough
Not necessarily a Green
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: The fact that Greens try to hold two contradictory ideas: That we need
gs: to do something about the human burden on the environment while at the
gs: same time maintain some degree of civilization.
sm: What is contradictory about these two ideas? If we can limit our population
sm: to some manageable level,
How? Remember, non-violence is a primary value.
sm: then we can maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone without
What is "a comfortable standard of living"? Can such a term be decided by
those who are living, ie, us, or is there to be limits as to what is and
what is not "comfortable"? And do you *really* mean "everyone"?
sm: destroying the environment. If the population continues to grow at an
sm: exponential rate, there is *no way* to prevent catastrophe.
Yes there is, it just contradicts Green philosophy. What does that say
about the value of Green values?
gs: Either "nature" takes it course, and millions die, we do it, and millions
gs: die, or we are at a pinnacle and their isn't any other way but down.
sm: I don't think that follows from Green thinking. What they are pushing for
sm: is a sustainable, environmentally benign civilization. There is no reason
sm: to think that such a civilization *must* be primitive or miserable.
Nor is there reason to think that such a civilization would be desirable.
I can think of lots and lots of sustainable and benign "civilizations"
that most would consider hell-on-earth. That is the Green end-product
that they don't advertise, and it is obvious why.
gs: So folks, you have a "choice", according to Greens: Enjoy civilization
gs: now and die soon, or learn how to hunt with your bare hands and die a
gs: little later. Heavens, that there might actually be alternatives!
sm: Gary, the theme of nearly all of your postings has been to ridicule, or
sm: brand as fascists the Greens for having the bad taste to say "If something
sm: isn't done to prevent it, there will be a catastrophe."
That is precisely in question. Green "solutions" will not work, IMHO.
sm: This seems to be a case of wanting to kill the bearer of bad news.
Perhaps I desire to see the bringers of bad, period, made to justify their
stance and let others see them for what they really are.
sm: If you really think their message is mistaken, that there are alternatives
sm: that they are missing, please feel free to raise the level of discussion in
sm: this newsgroup by posting some of these alternatives.
In politics, centralization and decentralization don't work together. One
cannot simultaneously have a decentralized populus and a centralized
government, the kind that is necessary to enforce environmental standards.
And "grassroots democracy" sounds nice, but we all know that if the people
approve development, well, that simply has to be stopped. "Nature" is *the*
value, not humans and happiness.
In ethics, non-violence isn't going to work. Monkeywrenching is hardly
non-violent, and I suspect that we will see greater and greater violence
in the Green cause, because it is becoming apparent that there is to be
no compromise in defense of the Earth/nature. Man simply cannot stand in
the way.
In economics, socialism is dying. But that is exactly what Greens want.
Tight central control of all productive activities. Wrongo.
And what about individualism and rights? I see Greens as trying to resurrect
collectivism under a new banner. The age of the individual making choices
for her own life is over, as they say.
What I see is Greens using the same old and untenable tools to try to solve
they define as problems. They really haven't learned.
sm: The only alternatives I have heard to the grim choices offered by the
sm: Greens have struck me as so much wishful thinking: either denying that
sm: there is any problem, or else assuming that economic growth will somehow
sm: improve everyone's standard of living and reduce the pressures to
sm: overpopulate and pollute, and destroy the environment.
I think the Greens engage in tremendous wishful thinking. They're trying
to cut away the bottom of the pyramid upon which everything is built. It
doesn't work.
Doak Heyser
>sm: If you really think their message is mistaken, that there are alternatives
>sm: that they are missing, please feel free to raise the level of discussion in
>sm: this newsgroup by posting some of these alternatives.
>
>
Gary, it's very easy to criticize but difficult to offer solutions. Steven
asked you to give some of your thoughts about the ways these problems could be
dealt with and you responded with more verbiage criticial of the Greens. If
you have proposed some suggested solutions I must have missed them in all the
smoke. You do have some ideas about solutions don't you? If you have posted
some of your ideas please try to collect them from all your postings and put
them in a paragraph for us to read.
I actually enjoy your postings because they require a little thought to refute.
However, when someone does make a good case against one of your statements you
tend to ignore it and continue railing against the Greens. It's sort of like
arguing with a deaf person. After a while, you'll wind up in everyone's kill
file. Steven asked and now I'm asking: what alternatives are you suggesting?
*******************************************************************************
do...@cadnetix.com | cadnetix!doak {nbires,boulder,ncar}!cadnetix!doak
Gary Strand
dh: Gary, it's very easy to criticize but difficult to offer solutions. Steven
dh: asked you to give some of your thoughts about the ways these problems could
dh: be dealt with and you responded with more verbiage criticial of the Greens.
dh: If you have proposed some suggested solutions I must have missed them in
dh: all the smoke. You do have some ideas about solutions don't you? If you
dh: have posted some of your ideas please try to collect them from all your
dh: postings and put them in a paragraph for us to read.
I don't suppose that I am in a position to offer solutions to something as
complex as this problem. I know what I myself am going to do, but as for
telling others what they can do, I do not make such statements. You see, I
am not in the business of trying to run other peoples' lives. I do what I
can to make *my* life better, and to shield myself as much as possible from
others' bad choices. Other than that, I don't do much at all.
Look at it this way -- what it all comes down to, is yourself. You can have
UN peacekeeping forces, the US Army, the National Guard, the State Patrol,
the county sheriff, the city police, and the neighborhood watch, but when
you wake up at 3am from the sound of a window breaking, you're the only
one who is in charge of your safety.
dh: Steven asked and now I'm asking: what alternatives are you suggesting?
First off, use voluntary action. Forget central control. It didn't work
for the Reds, it isn't going to work for the Greens. As such, about all
one can do is educate people. Don't scream at them, tell them they're
killing the planet, or using more than their "fair share". It doesn't
work. Trust me.
--
Russ Nelson
I don't suppose that I am in a position to offer solutions to something as
complex as this problem. I know what I myself am going to do, but as for
telling others what they can do, I do not make such statements.
You are certainly free enough in telling other people what they *can't* do,
aren't you? How about just telling us what you yourself are going to do?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: I don't suppose that I am in a position to offer solutions to something as
gs: complex as this problem. I know what I myself am going to do, but as for
gs: telling others what they can do, I do not make such statements.
rn: You are certainly free enough in telling other people what they *can't* do,
rn: aren't you?
There's a difference between what I do and what they want done. What they
want done could have the same effects as a major war, namely, destruction
of the economy. My suggestions have much smaller effects, to say the least.
rn: How about just telling us what you yourself are going to do?
No kids. Self-sufficiency as much as possible. Details as they become
available. In all cases, respect for the rights of others, a policy the
Greens would be wise to also adopt. And guns for self-protection. Sorry,
Russ.
Russ Nelson
rn: Russ Nelson, in <NELSON.90...@image.clarkson.edu>
gs: Gary Strand
gs: I don't suppose that I am in a position to offer solutions to
gs: something as complex as this problem. I know what I myself am
gs: going to do, but as for telling others what they can do, I do
gs: not make such statements.
rn: You are certainly free enough in telling other people what they
rn: *can't* do, aren't you?
There's a difference between what I do and what they want done.
What they want done could have the same effects as a major war,
namely, destruction of the economy. My suggestions have much
smaller effects, to say the least.
rn: How about just telling us what you yourself are going to do?
No kids. Self-sufficiency as much as possible. Details as they become
available. In all cases, respect for the rights of others, a policy the
Greens would be wise to also adopt. And guns for self-protection. Sorry,
Russ.
In other words, you're clueless, Gary. You have nothing to offer but
obstruction to the efforts of others.
By all means, make me a liar. Please.
Gary Strand
rn: How about just telling us what you yourself are going to do?
gs: No kids. Self-sufficiency as much as possible. Details as they become
gs: available. In all cases, respect for the rights of others, a policy the
gs: Greens would be wise to also adopt. And guns for self-protection. Sorry,
gs: Russ.
rn: In other words, you're clueless, Gary.
Hardly. But I make no grand claims about being able to plan out my entire
life either. Things, they are a-changin', and I think it best to keep as
many options open as possible. Honestly speaking, I think in the next few
decades we are going to see some pretty big upheavals, and the best laid
plans of mice and men aren't going to count for squat. And that's part of
the reason I'm beginning to stock up on essentials, like gold & guns.
rn: You have nothing to offer but obstruction to the efforts of others.
Not true either. Greens openly admit that the age of individual choice and
individual rights is over. There are just too many of us, making too much
of a mess, to be allowed to decide what each of us thinks is best. We need
to control everything, from reproduction to education to employment, so
that a "sustainable quality of life" is possible. All I hear is collectivism,
regimentation and centralization. You'd think that the 70+ years of the
communist "experiment" would have taught these folks something, but alas,
those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
Brian Yoder
>I buy recycled toilet paper, paper towels, and facial tissue. It is
>in my long-term self interest to do this, but not short-term.
>Now, what are *you* doing that's productive, as opposed to destructive.
>If you aren't doing anything productive, then go away and let *us*
>do productive things without your useless nay-saying.
This was directed at Gary Strand and not me, but I couldn't help myself.
Trying to make less impact on the world by using less water, paper, or
what have you is NOT a *productive* enterprise. Applying that word to
such triviality is a slap in the face to people REALLY doing productive
things (building buildings, writing programs, writing books, building
cars, building space shuttles etc.). Productive indeed!
If anyone in the ecology debate is engaged in "not doing anything
productive" and engaging in "useless nay-saying" against productive
enterprises, it is certainly the environmentalists.
Brian Yoder
--
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
Jonathan Burns
gs: First off, use voluntary action. Forget central control. It didn't work
gs: for the Reds, it isn't going to work for the Greens. As such, about all
gs: one can do is educate people. Don't scream at them, tell them they're
gs: killing the planet, or using more than their "fair share". It doesn't
gs: work. Trust me.
Voluntary action, hear hear. Not many people will trust a crowd who can't
pick up responsibilty for a small affair (e.g. replanting a degraded site,
running a recycling operation) and make it work. Doing anything they said
couldn't be done is pesuasive.
But don't be afraid of legislated measures either.
rn: You have nothing to offer but obstruction to the efforts of others.
gs: in <69...@ncar.ucar.edu>
gs: Not true either. Greens openly admit that the age of individual choice and
gs: individual rights is over. There are just too many of us, making too much
gs: of a mess, to be allowed to decide what each of us thinks is best. We need
gs: to control everything, from reproduction to education to employment, so
gs:that a "sustainable quality of life" is possible. All I hear is collectivism,
gs: regimentation and centralization.
Escalating panic responses, hmmm? Listen to your Aunt Pollyanna ....
1. The status quo, bad as it is, is not quite as bad as say, the Erlichs'
forecasts of the mid-70s, in which for example India was to be excised
from the human race and left to starve.
2. A free-enterprise policy _need not_ turn out as badly as say, the
Meadows-Forrester models (Club of Rome) by 2050. Not if a healthy,
self-renewing environment is seen as an economic opportunity, and if
enough intelligence is applied to it. Free enterprise is one way of
applying intelligence.
3. A highly centralized, regulatory policy, democratically agreed upon,
_need not_ turn out as badly as Gary's Green Gulag. Many checks and
balances in a democracy; many choices for the appropriate scale of
action. Planning is one way of applying intelligence.
4. Unlike Gary, I keep hearing solutions which are deregulatory. For
example, the privatize-the-wilderness proposals. For another, mutual
reduction of agricultural subsidies. One may have doubts about them,
but their proponents are aware of the environmental consequences, and
that's what makes you green.
5. Some centralized policies have such wide acceptance as to become
virtually invisible; and some of the most drastic pro-environment
policies consist in suspending them. Consider the effect if a state
government were to privatise all roads. Road building and maintenance
would then be limited by the ability of private companies to enforce
payment by users. I would predict a quite disruptive fall in motor use.
You can interpret this to mean that privatization can be as radically
'green' (i.e. addressing symptoms with severe measures) and as
impoverishing, as any regulatory scheme. Conversely, you can take it
as showing that public agreement on an obligation to pay for a Common
Resource can be won on its merits.
6. Now if I try to extend the argument to make wilderness zones,
soil quality, etc, Common Resources, it's on the same terms. I'm
putting up a case that public agreement can be won on the merits
of the resource. Might win, might lose. It's in a _one-party_
state that you need to worry about the lack of accountability.
7. Moral: You have to allow the public to blow it. But given that,
you can argue for a public mandate. Just 200+ years of democracy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonathan Burns | MUM !!!!
bu...@latcs1.oz | There is a RAM in this computer
Computer Science Dept | with 128 KILLER BYTES !!
La Trobe University | - Sean Sheep, 1988
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perry Morrison MATH
> rn: Russ Nelson, in <NELSON.90A...@sun.clarkson.edu>
> gs: Gary Strand
>
> It's hardly useless nay-saying. It's the cold hard truth, and some people
> want to continue living in their little fantasy worlds, like Russ here.
> There are literally billions of other people *not* doing the "right" things,
> and trust me, the effects of their actions far outweigh what little is
> being done to counteract them.
I think what you have missed is that many of us (maybe not enough)have
made a moral decision to do what we can. It is rather like saying: "even if
everyone else in the world is a murderer, do I have to be one?". Similarly,
even if the planet is going down the tubes and there is no way that a
catastrophe can be avoided, one can still make the moral decision that "I
will minimize my contribution to the catastrophe."
When you make such a decision, I have found that things are much less
depressing. For a long time I felt as you obviously do- you look at the
statistics and any cold assessment leads you to the conclusion that it looks
pretty damn bleak. However, this is a sure fire recipe for depression. No
individual can change the world, but they can control their immediate
environment. One gains a great sense of having done the "right thing" and
making a (albeit very small) contribution.
As you say, there is every possibility that none of this is worth a
damn. But the facts are that we are still alive and it is much better to
engage in activities (useless though they might be) that minimize depression
than to spend every day bemoaning the state of the world and our individual
impotence to immediately change it.
Some of us have a much greater stake in the future than you do. I have
2 very small children whom (like most parents) I want to see grow up in a
safe, stable world. Being depressed isn't going to assist their upbringinging.
Indeed, I feel I'm helping to raise a generation that is more responsible
(we involve them at everyy opportunity) toward the planet. There is always
hope.
Russ Nelson
rn: Here's a clue: I buy recycled toilet paper, paper towels, and
rn: facial tissue. It is in my long-term self interest to do this,
rn: but not short-term.
Goody for you.
I wasn't trying to blow my own horn, but instead to give an example of the
kind of information I wanted from you.
rn: Now, what are *you* doing that's productive, as opposed to destructive?
I recycle paper. Newspaper and computer paper. I recycle my aluminum cans,
beverage glass, and plastic bottles as allowed. I do not have children nor
do I plan to have any. I do not drive a car, nor do I have plans to buy
one. I buy all-cotton clothes if at all possible.
Pity for you and me that all our efforts count for zero.
No. Here are a few reasons why you are wrong:
1) Western people, and North Americans in particular, consume the lion's share
of the world's resources. Any reduction in our demands on the Earth have
a disproportionate effect relative to our numbers.
2) People in the Third World look to the West for their inspiration,
for their dreams. They literally wish to emulate us. This applies not only
to the actual third world, but to the figurative third world in the US, the
poor of America.
3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves.
4) I realize that you are not a religious person, Gary, but we Quakers have
a phrase: "Way will open". It means that God will show the attentive person
how to do something that they previously thought impossible. My wife and
I have found that the more we conserve, recycle, reuse, etc., the more we
find we can do.
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: It's hardly useless nay-saying. It's the cold hard truth, and some people
gs: want to continue living in their little fantasy worlds, like Russ here.
gs: There are literally billions of other people not doing the "right" things,
gs: and trust me, the effects of their actions far outweigh what little is
gs: being done to counteract them.
pm: I think what you have missed is that many of us (maybe not enough)
Not even close. Just a few rotten apples can spoil the whole pot. Like
Hussein over there in Iraq with his biological weaponry. One dictator with
that kind of power can cause more damage than a billion Greens can ever
hope to fix.
pm: have made a moral decision to do what we can. It is rather like saying:
pm: "even if everyone else in the world is a murderer, do I have to be one?".
The only thing this does is allow you a sense of moral self-assuredness.
And the murderers keep on murdering. They pay precious little heed to
*your* moral decisions.
pm: Similarly, even if the planet is going down the tubes and there is no way
pm: that a catastrophe can be avoided, one can still make the moral decision
pm: that "I will minimize my contribution to the catastrophe."
Again, "At least it wasn't *my* fault". But in the end, whose fault it was
doesn't mean a hill o' beans, does it?
pm: When you make such a decision, I have found that things are much less
pm: depressing.
But that does not change in any way the essence of the problem.
pm: For a long time I felt as you obviously do- you look at the statistics and
pm: any cold assessment leads you to the conclusion that it looks pretty damn
pm: bleak. However, this is a sure fire recipe for depression. No individual
pm: can change the world, but they can control their immediate environment.
Really? We're always being told that we're all trapped together on this
"Spaceship Earth", and all that we do has repercussions for all of us.
It works both ways. And the bad that the others do is so much greater than
the good you do, it is as if you had done no good at all.
pm: One gains a great sense of having done the "right thing" and making a
pm: (albeit very small) contribution.
Moral self-assurance, again.
pm: As you say, there is every possibility that none of this is worth a damn.
pm: But the facts are that we are still alive and it is much better to engage
pm: in activities (useless though they might be) that minimize depression than
pm: to spend every day bemoaning the state of the world and our individual
pm: impotence to immediately change it.
Drugs do the same thing.
pm: Some of us have a much greater stake in the future than you do. I have 2
pm: very small children whom (like most parents) I want to see grow up in a
pm: safe, stable world.
Their very existence threatens what you most desire for them. The world has
never been safe, nor has it ever been stable. Why do you think that in the
next few decades, it will become so?
pm: Being depressed isn't going to assist their upbringinging. Indeed, I feel
pm: I'm helping to raise a generation that is more responsible (we involve them
pm: at every opportunity) toward the planet. There is always hope.
I am not so optimistic, to say the least. The reason I don't have children,
and do not plan to have any, is for similar reasons. I don't want other
humans to live in a world of violence and despair, especially if they are
partly the reason.
Gary Strand
gs: Pity for you and me that all our efforts count for zero.
rn: No. Here are a few reasons why you are wrong:
rn: 1) Western people, and North Americans in particular, consume the lion's
rn: share of the world's resources. Any reduction in our demands on the
rn: Earth have a disproportionate effect relative to our numbers.
A really small number, even when multiplied by a large number, is still
small, especially when one compares it to a big number that is itself
getting bigger and bigger. You can recycle stuff to your heart's content,
but compared to the others, the effect is below negligible.
rn: 2) People in the Third World look to the West for their inspiration, for
rn: their dreams. They literally wish to emulate us. This applies not only
rn: to the actual third world, but to the figurative third world in the US,
rn: the poor of America.
As often as not, I think the opposite is true. There are at least as many
people who hate the West and all its values as those who wish to emulate
it. What was it that Gandhi said? "Western civilization sounds like a good
idea"?
rn: 3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves.
And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what
we do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those
who do choose to murder.
rn: 4) I realize that you are not a religious person, Gary, but we Quakers have
rn: a phrase: "Way will open". It means that God will show the attentive
rn: person how to do something that they previously thought impossible.
And the non-Quakers and non-religious and the other religious people who
do not believe as you do will swamp all your efforts.
Russ Nelson
rn: Russ Nelson, in <NELSON.90A...@image.clarkson.edu>
rn: 3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do
rn: ourselves.
And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what
we do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those
who do choose to murder.
My point is that people do not listen to a hypocrite. If you expect
people to do as you say, then you must do as you say first.
You say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there's
nothing we can do about it. Yet you admit to recycling and not
driving a car, and not having kids, etc. Since you say there's no
long-term reason for doing this (since no one else is), then unless
you have a short-term you're being altruistic.
Since I know you're not an altrustic person, you *must* have a rational
reason for doing these things. Could you share it with us?
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
rn: 3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves.
gs: And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we
gs: do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those who
gs: do choose to murder.
rn: My point is that people do not listen to a hypocrite. If you expect people
rn: to do as you say, then you must do as you say first.
You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
rn: You say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there's
rn: nothing we can do about it.
Oh, there's plenty we can do about it, it's just that most people recoil
at the idea of genocide.
rn: Yet you admit to recycling and not driving a car, and not having kids, etc.
Guilty as charged.
rn: Since you say there's no long-term reason for doing this (since no one else
rn: is), then unless you have a short-term reason you're being altruistic.
Not necessarily.
rn: Since I know you're not an altrustic person, you *must* have a rational
rn: reason for doing these things. Could you share it with us?
Sure thing. The reason I do all sorts of "good things" is becuase it
gives me a little warm fuzzy feeling inside. That is all. Plus it helps
when self-righteous folks come along and pounce on me, then I can take
their attitude and shove it right back in. Basically, it's for my own
pleasure.
You see, I don't delude myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will make anyone
else do as I do. Nor do I kid myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will keep
someone with a cold sharp feeling inside from wiping out my wff.
That's where we differ. You (perhaps) think that a little light from your
soul will help illuminate the world. I carry no such illusion.
Jesse W. Asher
>In article <69...@ncar.ucar.edu> ga...@cgdisis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
> What they want done could have the same effects as a major war,
> namely, destruction of the economy. My suggestions have much
> smaller effects, to say the least.
> rn: How about just telling us what you yourself are going to do?
> No kids. Self-sufficiency as much as possible. Details as they become
> available. In all cases, respect for the rights of others, a policy the
> Greens would be wise to also adopt. And guns for self-protection. Sorry,
> Russ.
This is the difference between those that post with problems and those that
just bitch about the solutions that other people are proposing. You are
not proposing solutions to the problems we have. You are only doing what
you think will protect you own butt. I used to think that way. Now I'm
sticking my neck out by trying to do something about it. I realized that
that kind of attitude was a foolish one because I wasn't doing anything
to help solve the problem and was therefore part of the problem. If enough
people think like you do, all the predictions of doom and gloom will come
true. If enough people band togeather to try to solve the problems, maybe
(I think probably) we will be able to solve many of them.
--
Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609
6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134
UUCP: {fedeva,chromc,autoz}!dynasys!jessea
Perry Morrison MATH
> Hussein over there in Iraq with his biological weaponry. One dictator with
> that kind of power can cause more damage than a billion Greens can ever
> hope to fix.
If you applied this reasoning to everything in your life, then you might as
well blow your brains out! Why live- after all, I'm only going to die.
> pm: have made a moral decision to do what we can. It is rather like saying:
> pm: "even if everyone else in the world is a murderer, do I have to be one?".
>
> The only thing this does is allow you a sense of moral self-assuredness.
> And the murderers keep on murdering. They pay precious little heed to
> *your* moral decisions.
That's not the point. It would be tragic if the murderers kept murdering. But
it would be even more tragic if I was one of them.
> pm: Similarly, even if the planet is going down the tubes and there is no way
> pm: that a catastrophe can be avoided, one can still make the moral decision
> pm: that "I will minimize my contribution to the catastrophe."
>
> Again, "At least it wasn't *my* fault". But in the end, whose fault it was
> doesn't mean a hill o' beans, does it?
To me it makes a big hill o beans.
> pm: When you make such a decision, I have found that things are much less
> pm: depressing.
>
> But that does not change in any way the essence of the problem.
True, but it changes how you approach it. You get by.
> pm: For a long time I felt as you obviously do- you look at the statistics and
> pm: any cold assessment leads you to the conclusion that it looks pretty damn
> pm: bleak. However, this is a sure fire recipe for depression. No individual
> pm: can change the world, but they can control their immediate environment.
>
> Really? We're always being told that we're all trapped together on this
> "Spaceship Earth", and all that we do has repercussions for all of us.
> It works both ways. And the bad that the others do is so much greater than
> the good you do, it is as if you had done no good at all.
OK. Substitute environment for behaviour (behavior up there!). Again it
would be tragic if their behaviour overcame my behaviour, but an even greater
tragedy if my nehaviour was like theirs!
> pm: One gains a great sense of having done the "right thing" and making a
> pm: (albeit very small) contribution.
>
> Moral self-assurance, again.
Better than daily depression.
> pm: As you say, there is every possibility that none of this is worth a damn.
> pm: But the facts are that we are still alive and it is much better to engage
> pm: in activities (useless though they might be) that minimize depression than
> pm: to spend every day bemoaning the state of the world and our individual
> pm: impotence to immediately change it.
>
> Drugs do the same thing.
But they don't "progress" or develop in that way that people can. They don't
lastand they sometimes have some nasty sideffects.
> pm: Some of us have a much greater stake in the future than you do. I have 2
> pm: very small children whom (like most parents) I want to see grow up in a
> pm: safe, stable world.
>
> Their very existence threatens what you most desire for them. The world has
> never been safe, nor has it ever been stable. Why do you think that in the
> next few decades, it will become so?
They're also the hope for the future (nice irony?). You're right that the
world has never been safe or stable- but it has also never been so
convincingly on the edge of collapse. I believe that this is the real
test for humanity. Just because history ridicules such a claim doesn't
mean it's impossible. Some of us abandoned slavery. That looked ridiculous-
who would ever want to give equality to those (insert any racist insult)?
But it happened.
> pm: Being depressed isn't going to assist their upbringinging. Indeed, I feel
> pm: I'm helping to raise a generation that is more responsible (we involve them
> pm: at every opportunity) toward the planet. There is always hope.
>
> I am not so optimistic, to say the least. The reason I don't have children,
> and do not plan to have any, is for similar reasons. I don't want other
> humans to live in a world of violence and despair, especially if they are
> partly the reason.
It's not that bad! I once felt like that, but then I figured that
(for me) that was the coward's way out. I don't think you get anything for
nothing- you have to take risks to reap benefits. It (having children) made
me more of a human being. What ever happens, nothing can take those moments
away from me.
You should give it a try. It's fun makin' them too. :-)
__ _______________________W_(Not Drowning...Waving!)___________________________
Perry Morrison
SNAIL: Maths, Stats and Computing Science, UNE, Armidale, 2351, Australia.
per...@neumann.une.oz or pmor...@gara.une.oz Ph:067 73 2302
Dave Sill
>
> No kids.
Hmmm. Now what would happen if all, or even many, "aware" people
refused to reproduce while the masses continued expanding?
> Self-sufficiency as much as possible. Details as they become
> available. In all cases, respect for the rights of others, a policy the
> Greens would be wise to also adopt. And guns for self-protection. Sorry,
> Russ.
You lost me Gary. Which "Green Value" is it that fails to respect the
rights of others? I could be wrong, but I thought Greenism was
voluntary.
----
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
Mark Isaak
> And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what
> we do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those
> who do choose to murder.
In fact, to an overwhelming extent, we model our behavior on the behavior
we see in the people around us. Clothes fashions are a particularly
blatant example, but the principle extends to all kinds of behavior. The
specific example you give has been particularly well studied, with the
unambiguous conclusion that exposure to aggressive models increases the
aggression in other people. (If you want references, check out the work
of Al Bandura.) The fact that you do not murder today has a large effect
on those who do not choose to murder.
--
Mark Isaak {decwrl,sun}!imagen!isaak or imagen!is...@decwrl.dec.com
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." - Nietzsche
Jim Meritt
}You lost me Gary. Which "Green Value" is it that fails to respect the
}rights of others? I could be wrong, but I thought Greenism was
}voluntary.
If it were to be so it would be great. But since we have seen many cases
of tree-spiking, tresspassing, and other offensive acts by Greenies we
can safely conclude that some do not want it to be so. You don't use
force to get across a voluntary action.
"In these matters the only certainty is that nothing is certain"
- Pliny the Elder
These were the opinions of :
j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu - or - j...@aplvax.uucp - or - meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Not even close. Just a few rotten apples can spoil the whole pot. Like
gs: Hussein over there in Iraq with his biological weaponry. One dictator with
gs: that kind of power can cause more damage than a billion Greens can ever
gs: hope to fix.
pm: If you applied this reasoning to everything in your life, then you might as
pm: well blow your brains out! Why live- after all, I'm only going to die.
Nah, living is more fun. Can't hassle ideologues, religious folk, Greens,
conservatives and liberals when I'm dead.
gs: .... murderers keep on murdering. They pay precious little heed to *your*
gs: moral decisions.
pm: That's not the point. It would be tragic if the murderers kept murdering.
pm: But it would be even more tragic if I was one of them.
It is any less tragic that you're not a murderer?
gs: Again, "At least it wasn't *my* fault". But in the end, whose fault it was
gs: doesn't mean a hill o' beans, does it?
pm: To me it makes a big hill o beans.
Yep, to *you*, personally. Someone else doesn't give a care.
pm: For a long time I felt as you obviously do- you look at the statistics and
pm: any cold assessment leads you to the conclusion that it looks pretty damn
pm: bleak. However, this is a sure fire recipe for depression. No individual
pm: can change the world, but they can control their immediate environment.
gs: Really? We're always being told that we're all trapped together on this
gs: "Spaceship Earth", and all that we do has repercussions for all of us.
gs: It works both ways. And the bad that the others do is so much greater than
gs: the good you do, it is as if you had done no good at all.
pm: OK. Substitute environment for behaviour (behavior up there!). Again it
pm: would be tragic if their behaviour overcame my behaviour, but an even
pm: greater tragedy if my behaviour was like theirs!
The tragedy of the times is sufficient that it matters not whether you,
Perry Morrison, contribute to it. The only tragedy would be to yourself.
pm: As you say, there is every possibility that none of this is worth a damn.
pm: But the facts are that we are still alive and it is much better to engage
pm: in activities (useless though they might be) that minimize depression than
pm: to spend every day bemoaning the state of the world and our individual
pm: impotence to immediately change it.
gs: Drugs do the same thing.
pm: But they don't "progress" or develop in that way that people can. They
pm: don't last and they sometimes have some nasty side-effects.
So? Your efforts won't last, and they can have nasty side-effects too.
pm: Some of us have a much greater stake in the future than you do. I have 2
pm: very small children whom (like most parents) I want to see grow up in a
pm: safe, stable world.
gs: Their very existence threatens what you most desire for them. The world has
gs: never been safe, nor has it ever been stable. Why do you think that in the
gs: next few decades, it will become so?
pm: They're also the hope for the future (nice irony?). You're right that the
pm: world has never been safe or stable- but it has also never been so
pm: convincingly on the edge of collapse. I believe that this is the real test
pm: for humanity.
What happens when (it seems) we fail? Back to the drawing board?
pm: Just because history ridicules such a claim doesn't mean it's impossible.
pm: Some of us abandoned slavery. That looked ridiculous- who would ever want
pm: to give equality to those (insert any racist insult)? But it happened.
More out of economic necessity than moral outrage. Slaves are more expensive
than mechanically-powered equipment.
gs: I am not so optimistic, to say the least. The reason I don't have children,
gs: and do not plan to have any, is for similar reasons. I don't want other
gs: humans to live in a world of violence and despair, especially if they are
gs: partly the reason.
pm: It's not that bad!
It isn't? That's exactly opposite of what I keep hearing, especially from
the doomsayers in this newsfroup.
pm: I once felt like that, but then I figured that (for me) that was the
pm: coward's way out.
How is recognizing that each additional human loads the environment that
much more (especially Westerners) that choosing not to self-reproduce is
cowardly?
pm: I don't think you get anything for nothing- you have to take risks to reap
pm: benefits.
True. There ain't no free lunch.
pm: It (having children) made me more of a human being.
What's a human being? Something that reproduces, even if it knows that doing
so is not the best of choices? Why didn't you adopt? There are millions of
kids that need families, and they're already here.
pm: What ever happens, nothing can take those moments away from me.
True. Unless you get Alzheimer's and can't remember.
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: We cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we do.
gs: The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those who do
gs: choose to murder.
mi: In fact, to an overwhelming extent, we model our behavior on the behavior
mi: we see in the people around us.
Only those people who succumb to group-think. The herd mentality can be
quite strong, no doubt about it. But it is not inevitable. Then again, that
fact is of little consolation, when the herd is very large.
mi: The specific example you give has been particularly well studied, with the
mi: unambiguous conclusion that exposure to aggressive models increases the
mi: aggression in other people (if you want references, check out the work of
mi: Al Bandura).
Does non-aggressiveness descrease the aggressiveness in others? I would say
not. For example, does begging really work that well against a marauding
criminal? No. Did passivity work against Hitler? No. If someone is acting
aggressively, passivity does not "unambiguously" work.
mi: The fact that you do not murder today has a large effect on those who do
mi: not choose to murder.
The people who *don't* murder aren't the problem, and I wasn't talking
about them anyway.
It's the ones that do murder that are the problem, and you have said nothing
to contradict my original assertion.
Gary Strand
ja: This is the difference between those that post with problems and those that
ja: just bitch about the solutions that other people are proposing. You are
ja: not proposing solutions to the problems we have.
Partly because I'm not into telling/forcing people to do what I think is
right, and also because I can propose all I want, but it doesn't matter
when a pitifully small number of people even bother to listen, and an even
smaller number of people bother to act on them. I don't kid myself.
ja: You are only doing what you think will protect your own butt.
Yep. What's wrong with that? If I cannot see how an action will benefit me,
what is the motive to do it?
ja: I used to think that way. Now I'm sticking my neck out by trying to do
ja: something about it. I realized that that kind of attitude was a foolish
ja: one because I wasn't doing anything to help solve the problem and was
ja: therefore part of the problem.
Oh, I do plenty to help solve the problem. I simply don't think that what I
do will have much of an effect, nor do I think that others will look at me
and go "Well, that young man is doing the right thing, let's follow his
example". I'm a bit more realistic than that.
ja: If enough people think like you do, all the predictions of doom and gloom
ja: will come true.
What I think doesn't matter that much. There are more than enough people
doing the "wrong" things that mere thoughts and the actions of a very small
minority won't affect them. For example, folks are patting themselves on
the back about the tuna deal. The Japanese, though, aren't doing anything
besides "studying the problem". What has been won, really?
ja: If enough people band together to try to solve the problems, maybe (I
ja: think probably) we will be able to solve many of them.
Why the sudden optimism? People have been banding together for thousands
of years to solve "the problems", but I see little evidence that they
have had a significant effect.
Perry Morrison MATH
> rn: Russ Nelson, in <NELSON.90A...@image.clarkson.edu>
> in <NELSON.90A...@image.clarkson.edu>
> gs: Gary Strand
>
> rn: 3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves.
> gs: And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we
> gs: do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those who
> gs: do choose to murder.
Oh yes? What happened to all those social movements that dominate political life
in the states? What would democracy be without the variety of interest groups?
People pick up ideas, collect other people and eventually exert pressure that
brings about legislative change.
You might think that such change will have no effect. But you don't know that.
No-one does. If the rest of us choose to exert efforts in this way, we have
evry right. Your analysis is merely your analysis. NOthin more and nothing
less. If you think we're wasting our time, fair enough. A lot of us think
that you've already wasted a lot of yours.
>
> rn: My point is that people do not listen to a hypocrite. If you expect peopl
> rn: to do as you say, then you must do as you say first.
>
> You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
>
> rn: You say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there's
> rn: nothing we can do about it.
>
> Oh, there's plenty we can do about it, it's just that most people recoil
> at the idea of genocide.
A slight ethnocentric bias here gary. Who's to say it won't work the other
way? I've always entertained the idea that some of the developing nations
would have every justification in sticking together a crude little nuke to
let off in New York.
Impossible? Well, if I was part of the educated elite and saw how my country
had been and was continuing to be economically exploited, deprived of a
fair share etc. I think I'd see a nuke as part of an acceptable response.
What other choice would I have?
Enough fissile material goes missing around the world. You don't need much
technology- especially if your workers couldn't given a damn about radiation
sickness. Who knows, people like Gadaffi might lend a hand? And it's not
as if one would need a sophisticated device- if it went off in any sense at
all there would be enough radioactivity to make Chernobyl look like a
lightbulb.
Just think Gary, you're guns and gold wouldn't have much chance against this
little beauty.
> rn: Since I know you're not an altrustic person, you *must* have a rational
> rn: reason for doing these things. Could you share it with us?
>
> Sure thing. The reason I do all sorts of "good things" is becuase it
> gives me a little warm fuzzy feeling inside. That is all. Plus it helps
> when self-righteous folks come along and pounce on me, then I can take
> their attitude and shove it right back in. Basically, it's for my own
> pleasure.
Having a warm fuzzy feeling about activities that take time, effort and
which you obviously think are futile, is (in my views) rather odd behaviour.
You say you don't want kids. Why don't you just try to get pregnant (gary)
and shove it right back in your own face. This could give you a very big
amount of pleasure.
> You see, I don't delude myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will make anyone
> else do as I do. Nor do I kid myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will keep
> someone with a cold sharp feeling inside from wiping out my wff.
Your right here. On the other hand, your gun might stop one person with a
a cold sharp feeling from wiping out your wff, but how about the guy you
don't see or the six you can't shoot at once? By your argument warm fuzzys
are useless. But guns have limitations too.
> That's where we differ. You (perhaps) think that a little light from your
> soul will help illuminate the world. I carry no such illusion.
And you have the delusion that you (and your gun) can save you.
Perry Morrison MATH
> gs: Gary Strand
> gs: Not even close. Just a few rotten apples can spoil the whole pot. Like
> gs: Hussein over there in Iraq with his biological weaponry. One dictator with
> gs: that kind of power can cause more damage than a billion Greens can ever
> gs: hope to fix.
And one madman with a radio and bomb can do more damage to you than your guns
can do to him. So why do rely on guns for your preservation?
> pm: If you applied this reasoning to everything in your life, then you might as
> pm: well blow your brains out! Why live- after all, I'm only going to die.
>
> Nah, living is more fun. Can't hassle ideologues, religious folk, Greens,
> conservatives and liberals when I'm dead.
OK Gary tell us what YOU think is important. There must be some reason you're
alive (or are you?). I'd be interested in what makes you tick. You've scorned
plenty of us, and by implication religious folk....etc
Let's see what you hold to be important and how watertight it is. I dare you.
> How is recognizing that each additional human loads the environment that
> much more (especially Westerners) that choosing not to self-reproduce is
> cowardly?
Because basically you're just looking after number one. No risks. That's
shit simple and basically gutless. If you had any balls you'd waste your
time doing something productive for the planet than wasting your time
deciding which gun you're going to buy (bolt action? semi-auto? AK-47 action?
.223 or 7.62 calibre?) when you're going to buy your gold and what set of
camouflage fatigues to wear for the apocalypse.
If the world has no hope, why bother doing all of this AND refrain from
having children! That's a lot of effort Gary, some might even call it a
*sacrifice*
You might think that conservation efforts are futile, but there is nothing so
futile as you and your peashooter, your water purifier and your heap of
gold in the face of an eco-collapse. Yeah gary. Hike out of the city when
it all happens. Heaps of ammo and gold. Watch your filling fall out when you
bite that bone, notice how the steritabs can't kill the bugs that give you
chronic shits, and when the insect repellent and ammo runs out try your
hand with a bow and arrow. Then try to eat your gold.
> pm: It (having children) made me more of a human being.
>
> What's a human being? Something that reproduces, even if it knows that doing
> so is not the best of choices? Why didn't you adopt? There are millions of
> kids that need families, and they're already here.
We tried, but the bureaucracy beat us. Why don't you adopt? YOu (apparently)
recycle etc just to ram it back in our faces. Why not find a partner
and have something to really ram in our face? Basically because you're a
quitter. It takes courage to believe in something. It's so easy to believe in
nothing except yourself.
Tell us what you believe in Gary. NO doubt it will appropriately vacuous such
as the fact that you eat, sleep, shit and breath (and polish guns).
Gary Strand
pm: Perry Morrison
rn: Russ Nelson, in <NELSON.90A...@image.clarkson.edu>
in <NELSON.90A...@image.clarkson.edu>
gs: Gary Strand
rn: 3) We cannot expect others to do what we are not willing to do ourselves.
gs: And we cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we
gs: do. The fact that I do not murder today has no effect at all on those who
gs: do choose to murder.
pm: Oh yes? What happened to all those social movements that dominate political
pm: life in the states?
Which ones? The ones that manipulate legislator's behavior to suit their
wishes? "I'll slip you a few thousand, to help you get re-elected, and
you'll deliver the money for the project, OK?" The ones that violate the
rights of individuals to increase the power of others? I'm more than a
little jaded about the US political process. Basically, it's corrupt and
rotten from bottom to top.
pm: What would democracy be without the variety of interest groups?
A damn sight closer to the ideal than it is now. Or are you going to tell me
that it's better to have the interest "group" of Charles Keating's costing
the US taxpayers billions?
pm: People pick up ideas, collect other people and eventually exert pressure
pm: that brings about legislative change.
...which is highly debatable in regards to its efficacy. It's illegal to
kill, steal, rob and rape, but that doesn't seem to keep people from doing
all those nasty things anyway.
pm: You might think that such change will have no effect. But you don't know
pm: that. No-one does. If the rest of us choose to exert efforts in this way,
pm: we have every right. Your analysis is merely your analysis. Nothing more
pm: and nothing less. If you think we're wasting our time, fair enough. A lot
pm: of us think that you've already wasted a lot of yours.
*Your* analysis is merely your analysis, nothing more and nothing less.
[I can yell "Oh yeah, you too!" as often as you like].
Question is, are you wasting your time bothering to reply to me? I've had
so much fun so far that it's worth my effort. Is it worth yours?
rn: My point is that people do not listen to a hypocrite. If you expect peopl
rn: to do as you say, then you must do as you say first.
gs: You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
[This is the key to my whole argument. Perry seems to have ignored it.]
rn: You say that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and there's
rn: nothing we can do about it.
gs: Oh, there's plenty we can do about it, it's just that most people recoil at
gs: the idea of genocide.
pm: A slight ethnocentric bias here, Gary. Who's to say it won't work the other
pm: way?
Read what I wrote. I never said that it was going to be North killing off
the South. A billion Northerners dead is as ghastly as 4 billion Southerners.
pm: I've always entertained the idea that some of the developing nations would
pm: have every justification in sticking together a crude little nuke to let
pm: off in New York.
Could happen. The people responsible would be in *big* trouble. Remember
how upset we Americans got over a few thousand sailors and a handful of
civilians dead in territory that wasn't even a state? I'd be willing to
bet that a few million dead in NYC would arouse more than a little anger.
pm: Impossible? Well, if I was part of the educated elite and saw how my
pm: country had been and was continuing to be economically exploited, deprived
pm: of a fair share etc. I think I'd see a nuke as part of an acceptable
pm: response. What other choice would I have?
The ends justifies the means, eh? Hitler had similar ideas, and he and his
country got smashed flat. Sure, he didn't have The Bomb, but that didn't
keep his armies from killing 20 million Soviets.
pm: Enough fissile material goes missing around the world. You don't need much
pm: technology- especially if your workers couldn't given a damn about
pm: radiation sickness. Who knows, people like Gadaffi might lend a hand? And
pm: it's not as if one would need a sophisticated device- if it went off in any
pm: sense at all there would be enough radioactivity to make Chernobyl look
pm: like a lightbulb.
All true. There is more than anough fissile material "missing" and persons
with the technological know-how to make a decent nuclear weapon. Question
is, why haven't they, and secondly, why bother? Chemical and biological
weapons can be almost as effective, and at much lower cost.
pm: Just think Gary, you're guns and gold wouldn't have much chance against
pm: this little beauty.
I never claimed that they would. A strawman on your part, wouldn't you say?
gs: The reason I do all sorts of "good things" is becuase it gives me a little
gs: warm fuzzy feeling inside. That is all. Plus it helps when self-righteous
gs: folks come along and pounce on me, then I can take their attitude and shove
gs: it right back in. Basically, it's for my own pleasure.
pm: Having a warm fuzzy feeling about activities that take time, effort and
pm: which you obviously think are futile, is (in my views) rather odd
pm: behaviour.
They don't take much additional time or effort. And the cost is worth the
reward, which is what the real calculus is.
pm: You say you don't want kids. Why don't you just try to get pregnant (gary)
pm: and shove it right back in your own face. This could give you a very big
pm: amount of pleasure.
Pretty poor flame. Doesn't even make sense.
gs: You see, I don't delude myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will make anyone
gs: else do as I do. Nor do I kid myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will keep
gs: someone with a cold sharp feeling inside from wiping out my wff.
pm: You're right here. On the other hand, your gun might stop one person with
pm: a a cold sharp feeling from wiping out your wff, but how about the guy you
pm: don't see or the six you can't shoot at once? By your argument warm fuzzys
pm: are useless. But guns have limitations too.
Of course they do. As do all things. Then again, perhaps the guns I have
can (in the able hands of someone like myself) take out six men. I'm not
that frightened.
gs: That's where we differ. You (perhaps) think that a little light from your
gs: soul will help illuminate the world. I carry no such illusion.
pm: And you have the delusion that you (and your gun) can save you.
If I go about depending on others to "save" me, I will be disappointed. I
gave up acting like a little kid ("Mommy, take care of me") years ago. A
little additional maturity on your part wouldn't hurt.
Isn't is simply the truth that the only true guarantor of one's personal
safety is oneself? If you think otherwise, I would like to know who it
is that will protect you under any and all circumstances.
Gary Strand
Perry's definitely getting frustrated!
pm: Perry Morrison
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Just a few rotten apples can spoil the whole pot. Like Hussein over there
gs: in Iraq with his biological weaponry. One dictator with that kind of power
gs: can cause more damage than a billion Greens can ever hope to fix.
pm: And one madman with a radio and bomb can do more damage to you than your
pm: guns can do to him. So why do rely on guns for your preservation?
They're easily carried, the technology is simple, they're quite effective
as guerilla weapons, and I know how to use them. Basically, they're the
best possible personal defense tool. What else would you suggest? Ships?
Jet fighters? Tanks? ICBMs?
pm: If you applied this reasoning to everything in your life, then you might as
pm: well blow your brains out! Why live- after all, I'm only going to die.
gs: Nah, living is more fun. Can't hassle ideologues, religious folk, Greens,
gs: conservatives and liberals when I'm dead.
pm: OK Gary tell, us what YOU think is important. There must be some reason
pm: you're alive (or are you?). I'd be interested in what makes you tick.
pm: You've scorned plenty of us, and by implication religious folk....etc
pm: Let's see what you hold to be important and how watertight it is.
pm: I dare you.
How can I turn away from *that* challenge?
What's important to me is me, and my happiness. Go ahead, flame away!
gs: How is recognizing that each additional human loads the environment that
gs: much more (especially Westerners) that choosing not to self-reproduce is
gs: cowardly?
pm: Because basically you're just looking after number one. No risks. That's
pm: shit simple and basically gutless.
Oooh, I've been royally flamed! My heart is a-quiver.
pm: If you had any balls you'd waste your time doing something productive for
pm: the planet ...
I am. I'm not having little resource-consumers and planet-poisoners.
pm: than wasting your time deciding which gun you're going to buy, when you're
pm: going to buy your gold and what set of camouflage fatigues to wear for the
pm: apocalypse.
I'm no survivalist. I wear jeans (usually) and comfortable shirts. I'm not
some loonie, much as you would like to make me out to be. You see, the
world's a little more complicated than (Greens and the other scumheads).
pm: If the world has no hope, why bother doing all of this AND refrain from
pm: having children! That's a lot of effort Gary, some might even call it a
pm: *sacrifice*.
Hardly. The world need not collapse for gold (amongst other things) to be
important, and my guns have the potential for use every day. That kind of
utility is hardly a sacrifice.
pm: You might think that conservation efforts are futile, but there is nothing
pm: so futile as you and your peashooter, your water purifier and your heap of
pm: gold in the face of an eco-collapse.
It doesn't have to be "eco-collapse". I figure, if the Greens get their way,
that'll be just as bad.
pm: Yeah gary. Hike out of the city when it all happens.
I'll be out of the city before it all goes down. I'm already planning for
that, too.
pm: Heaps of ammo and gold. Watch your filling fall out when you bite that
pm: bone, notice how the steritabs can't kill the bugs that give you chronic
pm: shits, and when the insect repellent and ammo runs out try your hand with
pm: a bow and arrow. Then try to eat your gold.
Horrors! I must be incredibly stupid, since Perry illustrates exactly what's
going to happen, and so well too (hint: sarcasm lurks here).
Look, I plan on being as well-prepared as possible for *any* eventuality.
Yes, even the slim chance that everything works out OK. But I certainly
wouldn't one to be one of the many people who stick their heads in the sand
(like ????) and avoid planning for the not-so-nice stuff.
pm: It (having children) made me more of a human being.
gs: What's a human being? Something that reproduces, even if it knows that
gs: doing so is not the best of choices? Why didn't you adopt? There are
gs: millions of kids that need families, and they're already here.
pm: We tried, but the bureaucracy beat us.
Ah well.
pm: Why don't you adopt?
Because I don't want kids. (Eeek!)
pm: You (apparently) recycle etc just to ram it back in our faces.
Partly. But don't put yourself on such a pedestal.
pm: Why not find a partner and have something to really ram in our face?
Actually, I'm in a wonderful relationship that's 5 1/2 years old now.
pm: Basically because you're a quitter. It takes courage to believe in
pm: something. It's so easy to believe in nothing except yourself.
In your opinion. Believing in yourself underlies all the other stuff we
believe. A person with no self-esteem is a pretty sorry sight.
pm: Tell us what you believe in Gary.
Once more, myself and my happiness.
pm: No doubt it will appropriately vacuous such as the fact that you eat,
pm: sleep, shit and breath (and polish guns).
Except for the "polish guns" part, don't we all need to do the same things
you list, lest we die?
I have no desire to let you into my personal life, let's just say that I'm
not some ogre. Heavens, Perry just might have to acknowledge me as a human
being! Now there's a stretch!
Creagh Yates
>If it were to be so it would be great. But since we have seen many cases
>of tree-spiking, tresspassing, and other offensive acts by Greenies we
>can safely conclude that some do not want it to be so. You don't use
The above posting shows once again an attempt at distortion. The Greens
have been only been active in the USA for a few years, write the "Greens
Committees of Correspondence" in Kansas City for more info, I don't have
the address. One of the Green Values is decentralization, and so each
Local Greens chapter is responsible for making up its own charter and
set of goals. I went to a few meetings of one of them and found it virtually
impossible to get a consensus on anything, much less a charter. Some
Green groups, notably the South Bay greens and others have been more successful.
Earth first is a group of people who have been waging the battle to save
the trees for years, and are not part of the green movement as such. There
is a Green chapter in Northern Calif, and in Oregon, and some Earth Firsters
may belong to them, as do many people.
The attempt by people such as Jim Meritt to try to lump all those who
are concerned about the environment into one group, and speak durogitorially
about them and accuse them all of certian acts, is a gross misrepresentation
and distortion of the facts. I would say that such obvious anomosity on
the part of Meritt is a weak and thinly veiled attempt to discredit the
environmental movement by fasly accusing eveyone of being a "greenie"
who spikes trees. Meritt has no credibility since his attitude is blatently
anti environmentalist, and will not until he refrains from such gross
generalizations.
Creagh
Jesse W. Asher
>ja: Jesse W. Asher
>ja: This is the difference between those that post with problems and those that
>ja: just bitch about the solutions that other people are proposing. You are
>ja: not proposing solutions to the problems we have.
>
> Partly because I'm not into telling/forcing people to do what I think is
> right, and also because I can propose all I want, but it doesn't matter
> when a pitifully small number of people even bother to listen, and an even
> smaller number of people bother to act on them. I don't kid myself.
Contrary to what you may believe, this newsgroup is not about telling people
what to do about environmental problems. It's about discussing them and
about discussing possible solutions. I have no inclination to tell you
what to do - and I wouldn't even if I could force you to do what I wanted.
It wouldn't solve any problems in the long run. Why don't you start
proposing some solutions instead of arguing with everyone else about how
their solutions are not worth a damn.
>ja: You are only doing what you think will protect your own butt.
>
> Yep. What's wrong with that? If I cannot see how an action will benefit me,
> what is the motive to do it?
I believe your attitude is not beneficial in the long run. This is the
conclusion I came to about the same attitude I used to possess. Running
your personal life in an environmentally sound way is a good thing. But it
is just as important that you believe it is important and that you explain
to others why you believe that way. Not tell. Explain.
>ja: I used to think that way. Now I'm sticking my neck out by trying to do
>ja: something about it. I realized that that kind of attitude was a foolish
>ja: one because I wasn't doing anything to help solve the problem and was
>ja: therefore part of the problem.
>
> Oh, I do plenty to help solve the problem. I simply don't think that what I
> do will have much of an effect, nor do I think that others will look at me
> and go "Well, that young man is doing the right thing, let's follow his
> example". I'm a bit more realistic than that.
>
I don't think that is an unrealistic assumption. Everyone looks at everyone
else to judge what is correct and incorrect. The impact of your actions
are important, because as you impact on them, they impact on others, so and
and so on.
>ja: If enough people think like you do, all the predictions of doom and gloom
>ja: will come true.
>
> What I think doesn't matter that much. There are more than enough people
> doing the "wrong" things that mere thoughts and the actions of a very small
> minority won't affect them. For example, folks are patting themselves on
> the back about the tuna deal. The Japanese, though, aren't doing anything
> besides "studying the problem". What has been won, really?
If you don't try, you have failed already.
>ja: If enough people band together to try to solve the problems, maybe (I
>ja: think probably) we will be able to solve many of them.
>
> Why the sudden optimism? People have been banding together for thousands
> of years to solve "the problems", but I see little evidence that they
> have had a significant effect.
If by "the problems" you mean the problems of human existance, I beg to
differ. You typed this article on one of the most fascinating solution(s)
to man's problems. Humanity has come quite a ways from the days of roaming
the earth in bands. We have an amazing medicine that will allow us to
take one organ out of one person and put it in another. No, we have solved
/are solving many of our problems. Some may say that the day will come
when all our problems will be solved. Horsespit. Living is all about
solving problems and about developing.
How do you think many of these problems were solved? If you have read
anything on the development of technology, you know that developments
came about because information produced by another was gained by someone
else. They used the information produced by the other to produce something
else. On and on. That is what is needed here. It is important that you
produce solutions as well - otherwise, as I said before, you have
failed already.
Perry Morrison MATH
> I think Perry is getting a bit frustrated.
Your posting demonstrates the same. I suspect it is your major motivation.
> pm: Oh yes? What happened to all those social movements that dominate political
> pm: life in the states?
>
> Which ones? The ones that manipulate legislator's behavior to suit their
> wishes? "I'll slip you a few thousand, to help you get re-elected, and
> you'll deliver the money for the project, OK?" The ones that violate the
> rights of individuals to increase the power of others? I'm more than a
> little jaded about the US political process. Basically, it's corrupt and
> rotten from bottom to top.
Yes. Mommy always told you the world was a nasty place and now all
these greens are saying the same thing! Grab your pop gun and hide in your
cubby house. If we applied that reasoning we wouldn't even interact with
people- after all, some of them are axe murderers. If the world isn't
perfect don't attempt to make it better. If the political process is corrupt,
give up on it. If you have an argument with your spouse, kick her out, don't
attempt to fix it.
> pm: What would democracy be without the variety of interest groups?
>
> A damn sight closer to the ideal than it is now. Or are you going to tell me
> that it's better to have the interest "group" of Charles Keating's costing
> the US taxpayers billions?
That's right, some are bad, so all ar bad. Martin Luther King I understand
did something for black people. Shame the CIA killed him, but that doesn't
diminish hjis importance, what he achieved and the others he motivated.
Of course, blacks still have problems, so he shouldn't have tried. Great
logic. Ask the people he helped for their opinion.
> pm: People pick up ideas, collect other people and eventually exert pressure
> pm: that brings about legislative change.
>
> ...which is highly debatable in regards to its efficacy. It's illegal to
> kill, steal, rob and rape, but that doesn't seem to keep people from doing
> all those nasty things anyway.
Tut Tut. Such a nasty world and diddums can't make it ideal. Yes baby.
Hide in mommy's arms. Is that gun of yours a mother substitute or something?
> Question is, are you wasting your time bothering to reply to me? I've had
> so much fun so far that it's worth my effort. Is it worth yours?
Here we come to the crux. You (apparently) recycle etc, but believe we're
all doomed so its all pointless anyway. So why the hell are you haranguing
us? Your arguments must be futile as well- after all nothing we do will
make a difference. And by your logic, your own arguments won't.
On the other hand, I happen to believe that even turds like you are
worth debating with. Arguing with turds like me shouldn't be worth
your while 'cos its all futile.
The answer I suspect is simply that you enjoy playing the arsehole, stirring
up people and laughing when they respond. That too is futile or simple
hedonism.
> gs: You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
Then why even post since they obviously won't change in your view.
I suspect some perverse streak that enjoys ridicule and any form of
nonconstructive critisism.
> gs: the idea of genocide.
> pm: A slight ethnocentric bias here, Gary. Who's to say it won't work the other
> pm: way?
> Read what I wrote. I never said that it was going to be North killing off
> the South. A billion Northerners dead is as ghastly as 4 billion Southerners.
>
Yet you seemed to be suggesting that genocide of whatever form is an
acceptable solution (your "Oh there's plenty we can do about it comment")
> pm: I've always entertained the idea that some of the developing nations would
> pm: have every justification in sticking together a crude little nuke to let
> pm: off in New York.
> Could happen. The people responsible would be in *big* trouble. Remember
> how upset we Americans got over a few thousand sailors and a handful of
> civilians dead in territory that wasn't even a state? I'd be willing to
> bet that a few million dead in NYC would arouse more than a little anger.
Yeah and remember Vietnam which you LOST (although you continue
to win it in the movies). To hit it you have to find it. So you take
out half the southern hemisphere?
> pm: Impossible? Well, if I was part of the educated elite and saw how my
> pm: country had been and was continuing to be economically exploited, deprived
> pm: of a fair share etc. I think I'd see a nuke as part of an acceptable
> pm: response. What other choice would I have?
>
> The ends justifies the means, eh? Hitler had similar ideas, and he and his
> country got smashed flat. Sure, he didn't have The Bomb, but that didn't
> keep his armies from killing 20 million Soviets.
Just the realkity of what starvation etc does to people. They will kill you
if you continue to kill them. The morality of any of it is debatable. The
situation shoulf be avoided.
> pm: Enough fissile material goes missing around the world. You don't need much
> pm: technology- especially if your workers couldn't given a damn about
> pm: radiation sickness. Who knows, people like Gadaffi might lend a hand? And
>
> All true. There is more than anough fissile material "missing" and persons
> with the technological know-how to make a decent nuclear weapon. Question
> is, why haven't they, and secondly, why bother? Chemical and biological
> weapons can be almost as effective, and at much lower cost.
Maybe that too. Nukes have much more persistent efects though. Maybe they're
better human beings than any of thought. That's why it hasn'r happened yet.
> pm: Just think Gary, you're guns and gold wouldn't have much chance against
> pm: this little beauty.
> I never claimed that they would. A strawman on your part, wouldn't you say?
No. The logical extension of your use of guns to protect you is to get
something to protect you from nukes as well. Fancy a decontamination
suit gary?
> gs: You see, I don't delude myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will make anyone
> gs: else do as I do. Nor do I kid myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will keep
> gs: someone with a cold sharp feeling inside from wiping out my wff.
>
> pm: You're right here. On the other hand, your gun might stop one person with
> pm: a a cold sharp feeling from wiping out your wff, but how about the guy you
> pm: don't see or the six you can't shoot at once? By your argument warm fuzzys
> pm: are useless. But guns have limitations too.
>
> Of course they do. As do all things. Then again, perhaps the guns I have
> can (in the able hands of someone like myself) take out six men. I'm not
> that frightened.
Oh ho ho! Famous last words. If you're not frightened then you are dead
stupid. So they know you have an automatic, they get a phosphorus
grenade and blow your arse off. You get an RPG, they get a mortar. Where
does it end? I'd really like to see you surrounded by empty shell cases
with the adrenaline still pumping and ask you if you were "that" frightened.
The world's full of armchair rambos who shit themselves at the first
whiff of danger. Of course gary, you're not one of those. Tell us
of your combat experience gary.
> gs: That's where we differ. You (perhaps) think that a little light from your
> gs: soul will help illuminate the world. I carry no such illusion.
>
> pm: And you have the delusion that you (and your gun) can save you.
>
> If I go about depending on others to "save" me, I will be disappointed. I
> gave up acting like a little kid ("Mommy, take care of me") years ago. A
> little additional maturity on your part wouldn't hurt.
That's rich. Maturity is accepting that you need others to take care of you.
Go on gary, rip out that saline drip from your arm and say to the doctor
in a manly voice- it's only a flesh wound- I CAN TAKE CARE OF MYSELF.
Watch your entrails splatter on the floor. (Sorry, that can't happen
to you with your gun).
Civilization and society is about depending on and needing others. As
I said, go bush and find out the hard way.
> Isn't is simply the truth that the only true guarantor of one's personal
> safety is oneself? If you think otherwise, I would like to know who it
> is that will protect you under any and all circumstances.
Not even you can protect yourself under any and all circumstances. Not you,
your gun (as you admitted) or anyone else. That's life. Sorry it disappoints
you. Have some guts and face up to reality.
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: I think Perry is getting a bit frustrated.
pm: Your posting demonstrates the same. I suspect it is your major motivation.
I'm not sprinkling "arse" and "turd" and "shit" all through my articles.
Have you sunk *that* low?
pm: Oh yes? What happened to all those social movements that dominate political
pm: life in the states?
gs: Which ones? The ones that manipulate legislator's behavior to suit their
gs: wishes? "I'll slip you a few thousand, to help you get re-elected, and
gs: you'll deliver the money for the project, OK?" The ones that violate the
gs: rights of individuals to increase the power of others? I'm more than a
gs: little jaded about the US political process. Basically, it's corrupt and
gs: rotten from bottom to top.
pm: Yes. Mommy always told you the world was a nasty place and now all these
pm: greens are saying the same thing!
Strange, these Greens. On one hand, humans are too evil to be allowed to
figure out on their own what's wrong. A strong (read force) guiding hand
will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
We have, simultaneously, the evil and the perfect. Quite schizophrenic, I
say.
pm: Grab your pop gun and hide in your cubby house.
I do not have any "pop guns". They're simply prudent measures, much the
same as locks on your doors and taking the car keys out of the ignition.
You *are* prudent, aren't you, Perry? I also do not have a "cubby house".
pm: If we applied that reasoning we wouldn't even interact with people- after
pm: all, some of them are axe murderers.
I didn't say this. Then again, one axe murderer can ruin your day. Just keep
your eyes open. That's all.
pm: If the world isn't perfect don't attempt to make it better.
I make my little area of it tolerable to me personally. I don't plan on
imposing my idea of Utopia on everyone else. I'll reserve that decision to
them. Then again, Perry knows what Perfect is, and we're "turds" if we
disagree.
pm: If the political process is corrupt, give up on it. If you have an argument
pm: with your spouse, kick her out, don't attempt to fix it.
Taking the same attitude towards you that you have taken towards me, you
sound like you advocate battered wives "sticking it out" with their husbands.
They sometimes end up dead that way. Or continuing to work at fixing a
totally corrupt system, even though that rarely works. Ever consider just
cutting the parasites off and quit being an unwilling host? Apparently not.
pm: What would democracy be without the variety of interest groups?
gs: A damn sight closer to the ideal than it is now. Or are you going to tell
gs: me that it's better to have the interest "group" of Charles Keating's
gs: costing the US taxpayers billions?
pm: That's right, some are bad, so all are bad.
I guess even Stalin could have been made to See the Light, eh?
pm: Martin Luther King I understand did something for black people. Shame the
pm: CIA killed him, but that doesn't diminish his importance, what he achieved
pm: and the others he motivated.
He turned into quite the socialist in has last days. Just because he was
assassinated doesn't mean I automatically respect him more. Same can be
said of JFK.
pm: Of course, blacks still have problems, so he shouldn't have tried. Great
pm: logic. Ask the people he helped for their opinion.
Tell me, what have been the true and lasting and good changes brought about
by MLK's moral campaign?
pm: People pick up ideas, collect other people and eventually exert pressure
pm: that brings about legislative change.
gs: ...which is highly debatable in regards to its efficacy. It's illegal to
gs: kill, steal, rob and rape, but that doesn't seem to keep people from doing
gs: all those nasty things anyway.
pm: Tut Tut. Such a nasty world and diddums can't make it ideal. Yes baby.
pm: Hide in mommy's arms. Is that gun of yours a mother substitute or
pm: something?
Is this all you can say? Don't you agree that the myth of the Rule of Law
is as shallow and weak as the Rule of a Man? BTW, are you afraid of guns or
something? Don't tell me, they're just too dangerous, right?
gs: Question is, are you wasting your time bothering to reply to me? I've had
gs: so much fun so far that it's worth my effort. Is it worth yours?
pm: Here we come to the crux. You (apparently) recycle etc, but believe we're
pm: all doomed so its all pointless anyway. So why the hell are you haranguing
pm: us?
Cuz it's fun to see people (especially you) get so flustered. Someone comes
along and challenges your beliefs, and you get all upset. Is your faith so
weak? I've argued with lots of folks, and very few have gotten as upset as
you.
pm: Your arguments must be futile as well- after all nothing we do will make
pm: a difference. And by your logic, your own arguments won't.
My arguments have had quite the effect on you, eh? They've probably made
you a little more terse and unhappy than otherwise, I suspect. That's worth
the (minimal) effort.
pm: On the other hand, I happen to believe that even turds like you are worth
pm: debating with. Arguing with turds like me shouldn't be worth your while
pm: 'cos its all futile.
Is that all I am to you? A "turd"? Now who's the one being the "arsehole"?
pm: The answer I suspect is simply that you enjoy playing the arsehole,
pm: stirring up people and laughing when they respond. That too is futile or
pm: simple hedonism.
It worked on you. Everyone else seems to have let us alone, and I know that
I'm in more than a few KILL files. Why you continue, when it is quite clear
that you benefit little, if at all.
gs: You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
pm: Then why even post since they obviously won't change in your view. I
pm: suspect some perverse streak that enjoys ridicule and any form of
pm: nonconstructive criticism.
Calling someone a "turd" or "arsehole" is *REAL* constructive. I agree that
few, if any, will be swayed by what I say. That just makes my argument the
stronger, and yours the weaker. If people aren't convinced by reality, what
can they be convinced by?
gs: Read what I wrote. I never said that it was going to be North killing off
gs: the South. A billion Northerners dead is as ghastly as 4 billion Southers.
pm: Yet you seemed to be suggesting that genocide of whatever form is an
pm: acceptable solution (your "Oh there's plenty we can do about it" comment).
It's a solution, to be sure, but hardly an acceptable one. I never said
that it was. I merely pointed it out.
pm: I've always entertained the idea that some of the developing nations would
pm: have every justification in sticking together a crude little nuke to let
pm: off in New York.
gs: Could happen. The people responsible would be in *big* trouble. Remember
gs: how upset we Americans got over a few thousand sailors and a handful of
gs: civilians dead in territory that wasn't even a state? I'd be willing to
gs: bet that a few million dead in NYC would arouse more than a little anger.
pm: Yeah and remember Vietnam which you LOST (although you continue to win it
pm: in the movies). To hit it you have to find it. So you take out half the
pm: southern hemisphere?
Huh? The US screwed up big time in Vietnam, that's for sure. That's what we
get when we abandon our principles and try playing Europe Junior. Tell ya
what, since you're so sure that someone will be willing to kill millions
of Americans, why haven't they done it yet? And, if they did so, wouldn't
that just provide *additional* evidence for my position?
pm: Impossible? Well, if I was part of the educated elite and saw how my
pm: country had been and was continuing to be economically exploited, deprived
pm: of a fair share etc. I think I'd see a nuke as part of an acceptable
pm: response. What other choice would I have?
gs: The ends justifies the means, eh? Hitler had similar ideas, and he and his
gs: country got smashed flat. Sure, he didn't have The Bomb, but that didn't
gs: keep his armies from killing 20 million Soviets.
pm: Just the reality of what starvation etc does to people. They will kill you
pm: if you continue to kill them. The morality of any of it is debatable. The
pm: situation should be avoided.
"Feed us or we'll nuke New York" isn't moral at all. Besides, think of all
those precious Greens that would get killed too.
pm: Enough fissile material goes missing around the world. You don't need much
pm: technology- especially if your workers couldn't given a damn about
pm: radiation sickness. Who knows, people like Gadaffi might lend a hand? And
gs: All true. There is more than anough fissile material "missing" and persons
gs: with the technological know-how to make a decent nuclear weapon. Question
gs: is, why haven't they, and secondly, why bother? Chemical and biological
gs: weapons can be almost as effective, and at much lower cost.
pm: Maybe that too. Nukes have much more persistent efects though.
Depends. Biological weaponry can last as long. The victims are dead anyway.
pm: Maybe they're better human beings than any of us thought. That's why it
pm: hasn't happened yet.
"Be glad you haven't pushed me too far"? Not-so-subtle threats don't play
well either. Perhaps they haven't done it because they fear the reaction.
Ever consider that?
pm: Just think Gary, you're guns and gold wouldn't have much chance against
pm: this little beauty.
gs: I never claimed that they would. A strawman on your part, wouldn't you say?
pm: No. The logical extension of your use of guns to protect you is to get
pm: something to protect you from nukes as well. Fancy a decontamination suit
pm: Gary?
The risk is low enough that I needn't take into account that scenario. Do
you worry about lightning hitting you or a meteorite landing on you? If not,
why do you insist that I be so paranoid?
gs: You see, I don't delude myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will make anyone
gs: else do as I do. Nor do I kid myself that my warm fuzzy feeling will keep
gs: someone with a cold sharp feeling inside from wiping out my wff.
pm: You're right here. On the other hand, your gun might stop one person with
pm: a a cold sharp feeling from wiping out your wff, but how about the guy you
pm: don't see or the six you can't shoot at once? By your argument warm fuzzys
pm: are useless. But guns have limitations too.
gs: Of course they do. As do all things. Then again, perhaps the guns I have
gs: can (in the able hands of someone like myself) take out six men. I'm not
gs: that frightened.
pm: Oh ho ho! Famous last words. If you're not frightened then you are dead
pm: stupid. So they know you have an automatic, they get a phosphorus grenade
pm: and blow your arse off. You get an RPG, they get a mortar. Where does it
pm: end? I'd really like to see you surrounded by empty shell cases with the
pm: adrenaline still pumping and ask you if you were "that" frightened. The
pm: world's full of armchair rambos who shit themselves at the first whiff of
pm: danger. Of course Gary, you're not one of those. Tell us of your combat
pm: experience, Gary.
I apologize for the armchair bravado.
In any case, I'll take my chances with my strategy instead of hoping it
all turns out OK in the end. Like I said, I'm keeping all my options open.
I don't get myself into a corner if at all possible, advice it would be
wise for you to heed as well.
gs: If I go about depending on others to "save" me, I will be disappointed. I
gs: gave up acting like a little kid ("Mommy, take care of me") years ago. A
gs: little additional maturity on your part wouldn't hurt.
pm: That's rich. Maturity is accepting that you need others to take care of
pm: you. Civilization and society is about depending on and needing others.
Maturity is not allowing yourself to be made vulnerable to the whims and
caprices of others too. Like I asked, do you lock your doors? Take your
children to people you don't know for babysitting? There's a difference
between total paranoia and unconditional trust. I discriminate. Do you?
pm: As I said, go bush and find out the hard way.
I'd rather not, because the benefits outweigh the costs. But I don't take
it as a given that it will always be that way.
gs: Isn't is simply the truth that the only true guarantor of one's personal
gs: safety is oneself? If you think otherwise, I would like to know who it
gs: is that will protect you under any and all circumstances.
pm: Not even you can protect yourself under any and all circumstances. Not you,
pm: your gun (as you admitted) or anyone else. That's life. Sorry it
pm: disappoints you. Have some guts and face up to reality.
That's funny. I've been saying the above all along. So what would you
suggest? Taking precautions or ignoring reality?
Mark Isaak
gs: We cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we do.
When I replied,
mi: We model our behavior on the behavior we see in the people around us.
Gary answered,
gs: You have said nothing to contradict my original assertion.
Well, then, let me be plainer: Your original assertion is 100% wrong.
When you act calmly in the presence of a snake, others who have seen
you, even snake phobics, later react more calmly to snakes. If you
commit suicide, your peers are afterwards more likely to commit suicide.
Behavior modeling also applies to areas from aggression to altruism to
aesthetics.
To return to the subject of sci.environment, if people witness you
recycling bottles and cans, they are then more likely to recycle bottles
and cans themselves. You may argue about the magnitude of this effect,
but to deny it exists is simply contrary to fact.
Russ Nelson
In article <NELSON.90A...@sun.clarkson.edu> nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>I buy recycled toilet paper, paper towels, and facial tissue. It is
>in my long-term self interest to do this, but not short-term.
>Now, what are *you* doing that's productive, as opposed to destructive.
>If you aren't doing anything productive, then go away and let *us*
>do productive things without your useless nay-saying.
Trying to make less impact on the world by using less water, paper, or
what have you is NOT a *productive* enterprise.
Creating less of something bad is just as productive as creating something
good. Isn't this obvious?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Give them a fighting chance -- support the RKAB (right to keep and arm bears)
Jim Meritt
}In article <51...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> j...@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
}>If it were to be so it would be great. But since we have seen many cases
}>of tree-spiking, tresspassing, and other offensive acts by Greenies we
}>can safely conclude that some do not want it to be so. You don't use
}
[Greens discussion omitted]
}The attempt by people such as Jim Meritt to try to lump all those who
}are concerned about the environment into one group, and speak durogitorially
}about them and accuse them all of certian acts, is a gross misrepresentation
}and distortion of the facts. I would say that such obvious anomosity on
}the part of Meritt is a weak and thinly veiled attempt to discredit the
}environmental movement by fasly accusing eveyone of being a "greenie"
}who spikes trees. Meritt has no credibility since his attitude is blatently
}anti environmentalist, and will not until he refrains from such gross
}generalizations.
Is it your literacy or logic that you have lost?
_I_ say "some do not" YOU say "lump all those".
Then you say "gross generalizations" while talking about my "attitude"
which you have no idea, since you cannot apparently even read.
YOU are doing exactly that which you accuse me of, and your accusations
are based upon a falsehood.
Is this the "clear reason" you are suppose to have. ha.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
David Grieve
>Trying to make less impact on the world by using less water, paper, or
>such triviality is a slap in the face to people REALLY doing productive
>things (building buildings, writing programs, writing books, building
>cars, building space shuttles etc.). Productive indeed!
Seems to me recycling is much more productive than using raw material.
Productive in the sense that the economic value of an item is greater
if it can be re-used either in the same form or as something else. I
think you have confused _producing_ with _productive._ Productive means
"producing abundantly". Which is more productive: a newspaper in a
landfill or a newspaper in a recycling bin? The recycled newspaper
certainly produces more abundantly than the landfilled one. Productive
also means "effective results". I think even the most skeptical critics
would have to agree that removing materials from the waste stream has
desirable effective results. Indeed productive!
--
gri...@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!grieve
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the
Corporation for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.
Typos are intellectual property of the author.
Gary Strand
[It seems we have a behaviorist]
mi: Mark Isaak
gs: Gary Strand
gs: We cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we do.
mi: We model our behavior on the behavior we see in the people around us.
gs: You have said nothing to contradict my original assertion.
mi: Well, then, let me be plainer: Your original assertion is 100% wrong.
Re-read what I said, carefully, and then retract the second sentence.
mi: When you act calmly in the presence of a snake, others who have seen you,
mi: even snake phobics, later react more calmly to snakes.
When I act calmly in the presence of snakes, I can *expect* that others will
act calmly also. (No.)
mi: If you commit suicide, your peers are afterwards more likely to commit
mi: suicide.
If <X> commits suicide, then we can *expect* that <Y>, (<X>'s friend) will
commit suicide too. (No.)
mi: Behavior modeling also applies to areas from aggression to altruism to
mi: aesthetics.
If I am in a bar with drinking patrons, I can be *expected* to drink also,
right? (Hint: This is not the case at all. Personal experience.)
If we are merely at the mercy of the behavior of others, and our free will
is an illusion, then how did environmentalism get started? There must be
at least one person with a new idea, whose behavior is not patterned after
the behavior of others, correct?
Since this *is* the case, your claim that my original assertion is "100%
wrong" is quite suspicious.
mi: To return to the subject of sci.environment, if people witness you
mi: recycling bottles and cans, they are then more likely to recycle bottles
mi: and cans themselves. You may argue about the magnitude of this effect, but
mi: to deny it exists is simply contrary to fact.
Can I *expect* (that is, be confident that they will behave as I think they
will) that others will follow my example?
NO! They will do whatever they choose to.
Gary Strand
My "solution"?
Let each and every one of us decide, using their own personal perspective
on their own life (which no-one else has), and using their best judgement.
That's my "solution".
mccurdy m
>
> My "solution"?
>
> Let each and every one of us decide, using their own personal perspective
> on their own life (which no-one else has), and using their best judgement.
>
> That's my "solution".
What are personal perspectives on one's own life based on?
I don't think that anyone is in such a vacuum that they are not influenced
by societal behavior.
I think that people are directly and strongly influenced by the
behavior of others and that seemingly small insignificant actions that
individuals take will tend to have a momentum building effect on the rest
of the populace if these actions are perceived to be beneficial and "the
right thing to do".
And, that is why I believe that every small step that people can
take to benefit this planet will make a difference. It's similar to voting:
if you don't vote - don't complain about politicians.
By the way, I welcome Gary's opinions but wish that the personal
attacks on all sides would stop. Spinning wheels. Beirut.
Mike McCurdy
San Diego
--
Mike McCurdy * mcc...@ucselx.sdsu.edu *
Reality Modifications Inc. **************************
Dept. of Redundancy Dept. ** Drive less if at all **
333 Inner Circle Square **************************
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: My "solution": Let each and every one of us decide, using their own
gs: personal perspective on their own life (which no-one else has), and
gs: using their best judgement.
mm: What are personal perspectives on one's own life based on? I don't think
mm: that anyone is in such a vacuum that they are not influenced by societal
mm: behavior.
Nor are we condemned to accept the norms of societal behavior. Indeed, I
think there is more room for independent thought and action that some
people seem to believe. We are not at the mercy of others.
mm: I think that people are directly and strongly influenced by the behavior of
mm: others and that seemingly small insignificant actions that individuals take
mm: will tend to have a momentum building effect on the rest of the populace if
mm: these actions are perceived to be beneficial and "the right thing to do".
There is a kind of "bootstrapping" problem here, namely, from where does the
idea of "the right thing to do" come? There are plenty of cases in which
the society goes in the "wrong" direction, what I would like to know is
where the impetus for change comes from? Independent thought, perhaps?
mm: And, that is why I believe that every small step that people can make to
mm: benefit this planet will make a difference. It's similar to voting: if you
mm: don't vote - don't complain about politicians.
Actually, not voting is a way of complaining about the politicians. Kind
of like not buying any one of a set of products because all are unacceptable.
Mark Isaak
> We cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we do.
> Re-read what I said, carefully, and then retract [my objection].
I've re-read it, and I still interpret "impressed in the slightest" to
mean "influenced to some degree." And, as I said, to deny any and all
influence of our behavior on others is 100% wrong.
In your rebuttal, you seem to be saying that when one person sets an
example, not everyone will invariably follow that example. This is true
of course, but it's also irrelavent. You don't have to change everybody
in order to have influence. When you set an example by recycling, you
won't make everybody else recycle, but the people who witness you will,
in general, become more comfortable with the idea that recycling is
appropriate behavior, and a few (read: a statistically significant
number, if the sample size is large enough) will also begin recycling.
> Can I *expect* (that is, be confident that they will behave as I think
> they will) that others will follow my example?
Yes. Not all of them will follow, and determining which ones will may
be impossible, but you can be confident that _some_ others will follow
your example.
Russ Nelson
Actually, not voting is a way of complaining about the
politicians. Kind of like not buying any one of a set of products
because all are unacceptable.
But only "kind of". If you don't vote, *someone*'s going to get elected.
If you don't buy, *noone* gets your money.
Not voting is a singularly ineffective method for effecting change.
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Can I *expect* (that is, be confident that they will behave as I think
gs: they will) that others will follow my example?
mi: Yes. Not all of them will follow, and determining which ones will may be
mi: impossible, but you can be confident that _some_ others will follow your
mi: example.
I disagree. I cannot have any confidence whatsoever that any others will do
as I do. As soon as I do have a smidgeon of confidence, all I'm doing is
engaging in wishful self-delusion, and being set up to be disappointed.
See, if you don't expect anything, you're never disappointed. And that's a
pretty small "price" to pay compared to the alternative. And when something
*does* happen to turn out OK, the reward is that much greater.
--
Gary Strand National Rifle Association "Eat my shorts!"
stra...@ncar.ucar.edu - Bart Simpson
Dennis J. Kosterman
>
>Trying to make less impact on the world by using less water, paper, or
>what have you is NOT a *productive* enterprise. Applying that word to
>such triviality is a slap in the face to people REALLY doing productive
>things (building buildings, writing programs, writing books, building
>cars, building space shuttles etc.). Productive indeed!
Ah, the "work ethic" rears its ugly head again! Tell me, what is
the inherent value in being "productive" beyond supplying your immediate
needs and wants? If I can meet my needs by working 3 hours a day, why
should I do more? Because it's "productive"? So what?
It would be a great boon to the human race (not to mention other
living things) if we could *reduce* our production/consumption cycle.
Production/consumption for its own sake is not a good thing -- it's one
of the things that is ruining our planet.
Dennis J. Kosterman
uwvax!astroatc!stubbs
Dennis J. Kosterman
> figure out on their own what's wrong. A strong (read force) guiding hand
> will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
> will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
> corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
> Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
You are constantly harping on this point, as if all we Greens want to
do is force our value system on everybody else. I have 2 answers for you:
1. I, and many other Greens, have no desire to force you to do any-
thing. My goal is to live my own life in as ecologically responsible a
way as possible, and to *persuade* (not force) others to do likewise, for
their own good and mine. However,...
2. When the actions of others harm me, I believe that I *do* have the
right to try and force them to cease those actions. Unless you are a pure
anarchist (every man for himself, and to hell with rules and laws), you must
admit that the control of behavior by force has its place.
Now, you have claimed to be an anarchist, but you have also claimed to
support the death penalty for murderers. If it's OK to "force" people not
to murder (and I think we agree that it is, although we might disagree on
the appropriate methods), why is it not OK to force them, for example, not
to poison my air with their automobiles? (Note: this is just an example;
I realize that you do not drive a car.)
Dennis J. Kosterman
uwvax!astroatc!stubbs
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Strange, these Greens. On one hand, humans are too evil to be allowed to
gs: figure out on their own what's wrong. A strong (read force) guiding hand
gs: will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
gs: will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
gs: corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
gs: Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
dk: You are constantly harping on this point, as if all we Greens want to do is
dk: force our value system on everybody else. I have 2 answers for you:
dk: 1. I, and many other Greens, have no desire to force you to do anything.
dk: My goal is to live my own life in as ecologically responsible a way as
dk: possible, and to *persuade* (not force) others to do likewise, for their
dk: own good and mine. However,...
Sounds lofty, but I'm not convinced. Force has been and will be used to
implement *your* ideas of "their own good and mine". They can't figure it
out, well, we'll just see what we can do about it. Perhaps pass a bunch of
laws (of very questionable efficacy and efficiency, of course).
dk: 2. When the actions of others harm me, I believe that I *do* have the
dk: right to try and force them to cease those actions. Unless you are an
dk: anarchist (every man for himself, and to hell with rules and laws),
Actually, being an anarchist, I recognize that rules and laws don't work
and that law, especially, has no claim to being objective. A law can be
just as arbitrary as the decree of a king. People don't do <X> because <X>
is illegal, necessarily.
dk: you must admit that the control of behavior by force has its place.
Of course it does. Only in retaliation, against the initiators, and in
proportion to the damage. Blowing someone's kid away becuase the parent
gave you a dirty look doesn't qualify.
dk: Now, you have claimed to be an anarchist, but you have also claimed to
dk: support the death penalty for murderers.
I have thought a great deal about having the State doing the killing, and
have decided that it is too risky. I do still believe that murdering scum
deserve death. If someone ever killed anyone I cared deeply about, she
better get in jail quick, because I'll hunt down whomever did it. Anyway,
that's my opinion. No bleeding-heartism from me.
dk: If it's OK to "force" people not to murder, why is it not OK to force them,
dk: for example, not to poison my air with their automobiles?
It's not *your* air, any more than it's *your* water. Also, how could you
prove that <X>, *specifically*, harmed you? And wouldn't keeping everyone
from using cars (as a necessary solution to my second objection) be far too
great a penalty for the damage they (only as a whole) cause you? And, in any
case, don't humans, by their nature, "poison" the environment by increasing
the CO2?
I think these problems need to be addressed before you can mandate huge
changes in society, which would necessarily result from banning cars.
Perry Morrison MATH
> gs: Gary Strand
> gs: I think Perry is getting a bit frustrated.
> pm: Your posting demonstrates the same. I suspect it is your major motivation.
> I'm not sprinkling "arse" and "turd" and "shit" all through my articles.
> Have you sunk *that* low?
Awwww gary. I didn't know you were that sensitive. Sorry to hurt your feelings.
I just thought that someone like you who "knows how to use" a gun must have
been one HELLUVA man. Remember, when those people come bursting through your
door and you have to blow their spines away, the language might get a little
rough.
The whole aim of your postings has been to stir. I just thought you miht like
some of your own medicine.
Here's an idea: do a course on "how to stand up to sarcasm and abuse". After
a few years you might graduate to "how to stab someone through the eye".
You've got a long way to go sugarplum.
> pm: Yes. Mommy always told you the world was a nasty place and now all these
> pm: greens are saying the same thing!
>
> Strange, these Greens. On one hand, humans are too evil to be allowed to
> figure out on their own what's wrong.
Several thousands of years of figuring has gone on. Like others have said-
what solutions (even partial) do you have?
> A strong (read force) guiding hand
> will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
> will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
> corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
> Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
Nothing's perfect- that's your problem. everything has to be 100% possible
or else you might be wasting your time. Heavens! Gary wasting his valuable
time? Like I've said on several occasions, you're basically gutless. No
risks.
> pm: Grab your pop gun and hide in your cubby house.
>
> I do not have any "pop guns". They're simply prudent measures, much the
> same as locks on your doors and taking the car keys out of the ignition.
> You *are* prudent, aren't you, Perry? I also do not have a "cubby house".
I don't think totin' a gun helps anybody. There are
plenty of nonaggressive measure to take if you are interested in your safety.
See those Listed above.
Actually, I never lock my car or my house because I live in a community
where people trust each other. Funny that. On the other hand, if the guy
next door carried a gun I'd think twice.
> pm: If the world isn't perfect don't attempt to make it better.
>
> I make my little area of it tolerable to me personally. I don't plan on
> imposing my idea of Utopia on everyone else. I'll reserve that decision to
> them. Then again, Perry knows what Perfect is, and we're "turds" if we
> disagree.
Hmm. How do you make it pleasant? You don't (gasp) intrude on other's wishes
by any chance, or be unpleasant in any way or even tell them why you think
it's important for your little bit of utopia to exist? That sounds a little
like what some greens do.
You espouse the use of guns to protect you, denying that that has any
detrimental effects on yourself, your community or your society and then
you castigate greens for espousing their beliefs?
Sheer hypocrisy.
> pm: If the political process is corrupt, give up on it. If you have an argument
> pm: with your spouse, kick her out, don't attempt to fix it.
>
> Taking the same attitude towards you that you have taken towards me, you
> sound like you advocate battered wives "sticking it out" with their husbands
Yes but gary, these people can offer real solutions to their problems. They
might even be completely new situations. In the case of politics it might
be a new system. But they do think of solutions. You just whine and criticize.
Thats the difference.
> pm: What would democracy be without the variety of interest groups?
>
> gs: A damn sight closer to the ideal than it is now. Or are you going to tell
> gs: me that it's better to have the interest "group" of Charles Keating's
> gs: costing the US taxpayers billions?
>
> pm: That's right, some are bad, so all are bad.
>
> I guess even Stalin could have been made to See the Light, eh?
Eventually. Look at whats happening in the USSR. Even that system couldn't
suppress people forever.
I wish you had something to really worry about. There are so many people
in the third world who make it through each day by sheer force of will, and
a whining little creep like you won't help 'cos the world's not perfect and
you might be wasting your time/efforts/comforts.
What's so important about you?
You could at least help some of those people, for now, for this moment of
need, without bitching about it and wheedling about how depressing it all is.
> pm: Martin Luther King I understand did something for black people. Shame the
> pm: CIA killed him, but that doesn't diminish his importance, what he achieved
> pm: and the others he motivated.
>
> He turned into quite the socialist in has last days. Just because he was
> assassinated doesn't mean I automatically respect him more. Same can be
> said of JFK.
Gasp! A socialist!
> pm: Of course, blacks still have problems, so he shouldn't have tried. Great
> pm: logic. Ask the people he helped for their opinion.
>
> Tell me, what have been the true and lasting and good changes brought about
> by MLK's moral campaign?
Like I said. ask the black people.
> gs: ...which is highly debatable in regards to its efficacy. It's illegal to
> gs: kill, steal, rob and rape, but that doesn't seem to keep people from doing
> gs: all those nasty things anyway.
>
> pm: Tut Tut. Such a nasty world and diddums can't make it ideal. Yes baby.
> pm: Hide in mommy's arms. Is that gun of yours a mother substitute or
> pm: something?
>
> Is this all you can say? Don't you agree that the myth of the Rule of Law
> is as shallow and weak as the Rule of a Man? BTW, are you afraid of guns or
> something? Don't tell me, they're just too dangerous, right?
All systems are imperfect. You won't accept that. Some however are better
than others. You say just because they are all flawed, give up on all of them.
I hate guns because I've seen what they do. I've seen what they do to the
target and the person doing the shooting. nuff said.
> gs: Question is, are you wasting your time bothering to reply to me? I've had
> gs: so much fun so far that it's worth my effort. Is it worth yours?
>
> pm: Here we come to the crux. You (apparently) recycle etc, but believe we're
> pm: all doomed so its all pointless anyway. So why the hell are you haranguing
> pm: us?
>
> Cuz it's fun to see people (especially you) get so flustered. Someone comes
> along and challenges your beliefs, and you get all upset. Is your faith so
> weak? I've argued with lots of folks, and very few have gotten as upset as
> you.
You make the mistake of assuming that my faith is weak because I bother to
respond to you. I enjoy taking on turds like you- my mission in life :-) You
also make the mistake of assuming that because I have been insulting you, I'm
upset. Wrong. I've got exactly the responses I wanted from you.
Tell you what....if you have any guts at all, continue this by e-mail.
Don't soak up bandwidth. Take off the gloves gary and come 'n play. I
think you're so pissweak you couldn't take it in anything but a public forum.
Apart from that, you just want the opportunity to perform.
No doubt you'll say that you don't need to get into a shouting match or
that it would be tantamount to censorship or that a public forum is the
appropriate place.....blah blah blah.
But it could be good practice for the apocalypse gary. If you run away
from this how are you gonna use that gun of yours? There are several
quantum leaps. believe me.
C'mon gary...let's go.
> pm: Your arguments must be futile as well- after all nothing we do will make
> pm: a difference. And by your logic, your own arguments won't.
>
> My arguments have had quite the effect on you, eh? They've probably made
> you a little more terse and unhappy than otherwise, I suspect. That's worth
> the (minimal) effort.
What a wonderful aim. Like I said- let's continue this by e-mail. Just you
and me. I really don't think you could hack the pace- not even with your
gun and your knowledge of "how to use it".
> pm: On the other hand, I happen to believe that even turds like you are worth
> pm: debating with. Arguing with turds like me shouldn't be worth your while
> pm: 'cos its all futile.
>
> Is that all I am to you? A "turd"? Now who's the one being the "arsehole"?
Even turds can be recycled. Even you.
> pm: The answer I suspect is simply that you enjoy playing the arsehole,
> pm: stirring up people and laughing when they respond. That too is futile or
> pm: simple hedonism.
>
> It worked on you. Everyone else seems to have let us alone, and I know that
> I'm in more than a few KILL files. Why you continue, when it is quite clear
> that you benefit little, if at all.
Because I enjoy taunting you with your inconsistencies. But I don't have a
need to do it in public (unlike you). E-mail me and let everybody else get
on with their business. You won't be disappointed.
> gs: You see, I don't expect people to do as I say, or as I do.
> pm: Then why even post since they obviously won't change in your view. I
> pm: suspect some perverse streak that enjoys ridicule and any form of
> pm: nonconstructive criticism.
>
> Calling someone a "turd" or "arsehole" is *REAL* constructive. I agree that
> few, if any, will be swayed by what I say. That just makes my argument the
> stronger, and yours the weaker. If people aren't convinced by reality, what
> can they be convinced by?
Well, I got a bite from you- if turd wasn't objectionable, why mention it?
Sound like your tactics gary- get a bite from everyone?
Your "logic"
gs: I don't expect people to do as I say or as I do.
BUT I will continue to post EVEN THOUGH it is futile.
This makes my argument stronger AND I will continue to post.
huh?
> pm: No. The logical extension of your use of guns to protect you is to get
> pm: something to protect you from nukes as well. Fancy a decontamination suit
> pm: Gary?
> The risk is low enough that I needn't take into account that scenario. Do
> you worry about lightning hitting you or a meteorite landing on you? If not,
> why do you insist that I be so paranoid?
Paranoia is relative. I think your resort to guns is paranoid especially when
other community based measures can work better.
> gs: Of course they do. As do all things. Then again, perhaps the guns I have
> gs: can (in the able hands of someone like myself) take out six men. I'm not
> gs: that frightened.
>
> pm: Oh ho ho! Famous last words. If you're not frightened then you are dead
> pm: stupid. So they know you have an automatic, they get a phosphorus grenade
> pm: and blow your arse off. You get an RPG, they get a mortar. Where does it
> pm: end? I'd really like to see you surrounded by empty shell cases with the
> pm: adrenaline still pumping and ask you if you were "that" frightened. The
> pm: world's full of armchair rambos who shit themselves at the first whiff of
> pm: danger. Of course Gary, you're not one of those. Tell us of your combat
> pm: experience, Gary.
>
> I apologize for the armchair bravado.
At least we've demonstrated something here. You constantly refer to reality
and how you seem to have a better grip on it than most of us. This suggests
that you falter now and then. But since you're a human being- I forgive you
my son ;-). Of course, because you're flawed- using your logic I should
give up on you just like the political system, the world etc.
Gunna blow your brains out to show that you have the faith of your convictions?
> In any case, I'll take my chances with my strategy instead of hoping it
> all turns out OK in the end. Like I said, I'm keeping all my options open.
> I don't get myself into a corner if at all possible, advice it would be
> wise for you to heed as well.
Some of your options (guns) exacerbate the situation. Almost Like saying that
you don't like proliferation of nukes, but just in case others get them you'll
have an enormous nuclear power industry (for breakthroughs) which seeks
overseas markets as an unintended byproduct.
> gs: If I go about depending on others to "save" me, I will be disappointed. I
> gs: gave up acting like a little kid ("Mommy, take care of me") years ago. A
> gs: little additional maturity on your part wouldn't hurt.
>
> pm: That's rich. Maturity is accepting that you need others to take care of
> pm: you. Civilization and society is about depending on and needing others.
>
> Maturity is not allowing yourself to be made vulnerable to the whims and
> caprices of others too. Like I asked, do you lock your doors? Take your
> children to people you don't know for babysitting? There's a difference
> between total paranoia and unconditional trust. I discriminate. Do you?
You can exercise judgement and avoid situations that you think are risky,
but using guns is different. It can cause a tragedy rather than avert it.
It can escalate the level of potential violence when others adopt them to
maintain the "status quo". Instead of minimizing your risks it can increase
them quite dramatically.
A simple case of your individual "rationality" leading to a collective
irrationality.
> pm: As I said, go bush and find out the hard way.
>
> I'd rather not, because the benefits outweigh the costs. But I don't take
> it as a given that it will always be that way.
And you don't have the guts, investment or risk taking behaviour to really
try to make it that way.
> pm: Not even you can protect yourself under any and all circumstances. Not
> you, your gun (as you admitted) or anyone else. That's life. Sorry it
> pm: disappoints you. Have some guts and face up to reality.
> That's funny. I've been saying the above all along. So what would you
> suggest? Taking precautions or ignoring reality?
As I said, there are a host of precautions. You've simply taken the least
creative and the one with the least amount of work. Try your community for
your defence. Nah. plonk your money on the counter. The other way takes
too much effort and you might be wasting your time.
If you really had any guts, you'd take the chances.
Look forward to your mail gary :-)
Lowell Skoog
gs: Strange, these Greens. On one hand, humans are too evil to be allowed to
gs: figure out on their own what's wrong. A strong (read force) guiding hand
gs: will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
gs: will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
gs: corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
gs: Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
The self-proclaimed anarchist Mr. Strand ignores the difference
between a totalitarian state, in which laws are instituted without
representation of the people, and a democracy, in which the people
have a voice. This fallacy appears again and again in postings to
this newsgroup.
How many times has this group listened to those who whine about the
environmentalists "forcing their will" on the rest of society? This
is rubbish. The Greens are playing the game by the rules. If you
don't like the outcome, then get into the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowell Skoog low...@tc.fluke.COM
John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. {uw-beaver,microsoft,sun}!fluke!lowell
P.O. Box 9090
Everett, WA 98206-9090 (206) 356-5283
Perry Morrison MATH
Don't have an orgasm gary! Or maybe that's your aim.
> pm: Perry Morrison
> gs: Gary Strand
>
> pm: And one madman with a radio and bomb can do more damage to you than your
> pm: guns can do to him. So why do rely on guns for your preservation?
>
> They're easily carried, the technology is simple, they're quite effective
> as guerilla weapons, and I know how to use them. Basically, they're the
> best possible personal defense tool. What else would you suggest? Ships?
> Jet fighters? Tanks? ICBMs?
Locks, screens, dogs even, a community watch program? Paying for unarmed
security guards? Nah gary. You know how to use guns.
> pm: OK Gary tell, us what YOU think is important. There must be some reason
> pm: you're alive (or are you?). I'd be interested in what makes you tick.
> pm: You've scorned plenty of us, and by implication religious folk....etc
> pm: Let's see what you hold to be important and how watertight it is.
> pm: I dare you.
>
> How can I turn away from *that* challenge?
>
> What's important to me is me, and my happiness. Go ahead, flame away!
How gutless can you be? people in this group put their beliefs on the line
and you feel quite content to assault it. But when asked for your beliefs
you just wimp out on a generalization. C'mon gary...let's see whatcha got.
> I'm no survivalist. I wear jeans (usually) and comfortable shirts. I'm not
> some loonie, much as you would like to make me out to be. You see, the
> world's a little more complicated than (Greens and the other scumheads).
OOH gary! you can be nasty after all. You don't even have the internal
logical consistency of a survivalist- they (attempt) to cover themselves
for everything. You just have a gun for the ecocide. Buy a loaf of bread
for the famine. equally pointless.
> pm: Yeah gary. Hike out of the city when it all happens.
>
> I'll be out of the city before it all goes down. I'm already planning for
> that, too.
Thanks gary. The whole aim of this is to show people your fundamental beliefs
since you're too wimpy to actually state them directly.
> pm: Heaps of ammo and gold. Watch your filling fall out when you bite that
> pm: bone, notice how the steritabs can't kill the bugs that give you chronic
> pm: shits, and when the insect repellent and ammo runs out try your hand with
> pm: a bow and arrow. Then try to eat your gold.
>
> Horrors! I must be incredibly stupid, since Perry illustrates exactly what's
> going to happen, and so well too (hint: sarcasm lurks here).
Only in the scenario you (apparently) foresee. I'm aimimg for a different
scenario.
>
> Look, I plan on being as well-prepared as possible for *any* eventuality.
> Yes, even the slim chance that everything works out OK. But I certainly
> wouldn't one to be one of the many people who stick their heads in the sand
> (like ????) and avoid planning for the not-so-nice stuff.
Owning a gun and planning to use it in the way you do merely encourages the
not-so-nice stuff. You have a gun, your neighbours know you have one and
worry about it (so they get one). Soon everyone has a gun and the status quo
has returned. So you get an M-60 and away we go again. Try non aggressive
options.
> pm: Basically because you're a quitter. It takes courage to believe in
> pm: something. It's so easy to believe in nothing except yourself.
>
> In your opinion. Believing in yourself underlies all the other stuff we
> believe. A person with no self-esteem is a pretty sorry sight.
Theres' a difference between self-esteem and blowing someone's brains out
when they accidentally stumble through your doorway or bump into you.
> pm: Tell us what you believe in Gary.
>
> Once more, myself and my happiness.
I puke in disgust. What cowardice. The people on this group would tell you
what they believe in anytime, anywhere. What do you say (adopt whining
tone)- "happiness". Whatsa matter gary? Too scared the details will show
you for what you are?
> I have no desire to let you into my personal life, let's just say that I'm
> not some ogre. Heavens, Perry just might have to acknowledge me as a human
> being! Now there's a stretch!
You're a human being. Just 'cos I called you names doesn't diminish that. On
the other hand, if I called you names in your presence, you might shoot me-
self (esteem) defence you know.
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Strange, these Greens. On one hand, humans are too evil to be allowed to
gs: figure out on their own what's wrong. A strong (read force) guiding hand
gs: will show the ignorant masses The Way. And if they don't comply, well, we
gs: will see to it that they will. On the other hand, the State won't ever be
gs: corrupted by all this power, it will always have the Best Interests of
gs: Nature and Humans (note the order) in mind.
ls: The self-proclaimed anarchist Mr. Strand ignores the difference between a
ls: totalitarian state, in which laws are instituted without representation of
ls: the people, and a democracy, in which the people have a voice.
A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Winston Churchill wasn't necessarily making a compliment when he said
that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the rest.
Democracy has no more claim to legitimacy than totalitarian dictatorship.
And the US doesn't even begin to approach even the flawed democratic ideal.
Democracy is no magic pallative against disaster.
ls: This fallacy appears again and again in postings to this newsgroup.
It is not a fallacy. The Americans of Japanese descent who where interred
in the US camps of WWII were as subject to the whims of Congress as the
Jews of Nazi Germany were to the whims of Hitler.
ls: How many times has this group listened to those who whine about the
ls: environmentalists "forcing their will" on the rest of society?
It is not whining. That you think it so is quite telling. Are you so
confident that the environmentalists are correct that all dissent is
dismissed as mere whining?
ls: The Greens are playing the game by the rules.
It's not just the Greens that I don't like, its the whole context of the
game, ie the rules, that I deny legitimacy.
ls: If you don't like the outcome, then get into the game.
In other words, you gotta play by our rules, or it's your tough. How do
I change the rules? 50% + 1 majority? That's either incredibly naive or
incredibly stupid if one actually thinks that it works that way.
Gerald Olchowy
>
>The self-proclaimed anarchist Mr. Strand ignores the difference
>between a totalitarian state, in which laws are instituted without
>representation of the people, and a democracy, in which the people
>have a voice. This fallacy appears again and again in postings to
>this newsgroup.
>
>How many times has this group listened to those who whine about the
>environmentalists "forcing their will" on the rest of society? This
>is rubbish. The Greens are playing the game by the rules. If you
>don't like the outcome, then get into the game.
>
There is a second fallacy which is always made in this newsgroup,
and that is that a majoritarian democratic government can do
whatever it wants to. This a false; a majoritarian democratic
government is legitimate only insofar as it does not violoate
fundamental human rights and freedoms.
I don't understand why so many environmentalists want to delegate
the responsibility for the environment to the government or the
State. In light of reality, this seems foolish. The Canadian
and U.S. governments already have strong laws against certain
types of pollution for example, but the laws are often not
enforced, and the fact that the government has a law sometimes
prevents individuals from taking recourse against the polluters.
Further, one need only look at the ecological mess in Eastern
Europe, to fear what increasing the government control over
the environment may lead too. We should be empowering
individuals, so individuals can take effective action within
a free society with an open market to protect the environment.
Entrusting the environment to a government bureaucracy seems to
me the surest way to endanger it, unless the environment is
being used as a screen to some other hidden agenda.
--
Gerald Olchowy <golc...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Chemical Physics Theory Group, Department of Chemistry
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Gary Strand
For someone else who doesn't engage in delusion as far as one person's
impact in saving the environment, I suggest all you readers out there to
get a copy of the newest "The Nation" magazine, the 30 April issue. It's
the one with the drawing of an technological capitalist monster with
bulldozer treads for feet and a mining bucket for a head getting ready to
tear into a shivering (and buxom) Gaia, with a stout tree holding a sword
(so much for non-violence) ready to protect her.
The essay by Kirkpatrick Sale on pages 594 to 598 makes many of the same
points I have been making, in a few paragraphs. Note especially the last
paragraph in the left-hand column of page 595 and the last paragraph on
that page, continuing onto 596.
I disagree with many of Sale's conclusions, especially the quote of Jeremy
Seabrook's that he uses on page 597 ("If it had been the purpose of human
activity on earth to bring the planet to the edge of ruin, no more effic-
ient mechanism could have been invented than the market economy", which is
wholly wrong, given the damage present under the communist regimes and that
present at government facilities, like Hanford) but at least Sale knows
that the little quick-fixes so often heralded here and all during the Earth
Day hullaboo will make little difference.
Brian Yoder
>In article <8...@smcnet.UUCP> byo...@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder, Norton Computing) writes:
>>Trying to make less impact on the world by using less water, paper, or
>>what have you is NOT a *productive* enterprise. Applying that word to
>>such triviality is a slap in the face to people REALLY doing productive
>>things (building buildings, writing programs, writing books, building
>>cars, building space shuttles etc.). Productive indeed!
> Ah, the "work ethic" rears its ugly head again! Tell me, what is
>the inherent value in being "productive" beyond supplying your immediate
>needs and wants?
Satisfying my needs and wants (immediate or not) seems a perfectly adequate
justification for being productive. The attitude that one must not
be concerned with supplying ones own needs is sickening. Who else should
take care of my needs, you? Why are we alive anyway? If you knew you
would never accomplish any particular goal other than feeding yourself
(minimally of course so as not to damage mother nature :-) what would
there be to live for?
>If I can meet my needs by working 3 hours a day, why
>should I do more?
If that's all the ambition you have, by all means, go ahead and waste your
life sleeping. Just keep out of my way.
>Because it's "productive"? So what?
If you have no goals or ambition, you are a sorry creature indeed.
> It would be a great boon to the human race (not to mention other
>living things) if we could *reduce* our production/consumption cycle.
That is far from intuitive. All we would have to give up is any meaning
our lives have beyond biological existence. It doesn't sound like a boon
to me.
>Production/consumption for its own sake is not a good thing -- it's one
>of the things that is ruining our planet.
Who said anything about production/consumption for it's own sake?
I am talking about production/consumption in the pursuit of goals and
values. Far from ruining "the planet", it is what makes life on
"the planet" worth living.
Brian Yoder
--
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder | answers *byoder(); |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
Creagh Yates
>
> For someone else who doesn't engage in delusion as far as one person's
> impact in saving the environment, I suggest all you readers out there to
> get a copy of the newest "The Nation" magazine, the 30 April issue. It's
All the naysaying by GS about one person not having an impact keeps reminding
me of all the one persons who have had an impact. Most recently I keep thinking
of the guy who virtually singlehandedly with a home movie camera got the pictures
which changed the mind of the CEO of Starkist. One person can make a difference.
Creagh
Jesse W. Asher
a non-green propose any solutions yet in this newsgroup. Only stupid
bitching.
Gary Strand
mi: Mark Isaak
gs: Gary Strand
gs: We cannot expect others to be impressed in the slightest by what we do.
mi: We model our behavior on the behavior we see in the people around us.
gs: You have said nothing to contradict my original assertion.
mi: Well, then, let me be plainer: Your original assertion is 100% wrong.
gs: Re-read what I said, carefully, and then retract the second sentence.
tw: Why should he?
Because Mark, and yourself, are responding to the wrong part of what I
said. What I'm talking about is *expectations* of others' behavior, not
that others may/may not model their behavior upon our own.
tw: You originally state that people will not be impressed "in the slighest"
tw: (I'll call it PPI [Peer Pressure Influence] = 0%) by other people's
tw: behavior. And to support that position, you assert that PPI ^= 100%. Of
tw: course, that does nothing to support your original position. It is obvious
tw: that people respond to peer pressure to some extent. Just look at the way
tw: fashion fads come and go.
All this is trivially true. We are influenced by the actions of others. If
Ligachev comes to power in the Soviet Union, you can bet that his actions
will influence the actions of the US government, which in turn will affect
you and me.
I am not claiming that PPI = 0.
tw: The fact that you reply -- in any fashion at all -- to postings shows that
tw: your PPI ^= 0. Your postings are proof positive that your original
tw: assertion is incorrect.
No, they do not.
What I am talking about is not PPI = 0, but rather EIO (expectation of
influence upon others) being an unpredictable quantity. Can I *expect*
that you'll reply to this message? No. Can I *expect* that you'll recycle
if I do? No. Can I *expect* that you'll be a good neighbor? No.
tw: By the way, did you start recycling bottle because of something you read or
tw: saw? Or did you come up with the idea in a vacumn?
Of course. No. Did the person who ran the advert or made the sign *expect*
me to start recycling bottles? I hope not.
I hope this clears up the rampant confusion on this subject. I'm not talking
about the existence of peer pressure. I'm talking about expectations of the
efficacy of such pressure, which I claim cannot be predicted, and as such,
accomodation needs to be made. Think of my principle as something akin to
"defensive driving".
--
Gary Strand National Rifle Association "Eat my shorts!"
stra...@ncar.ucar.edu - Bart Simpson
John Moore
]The above subject heading is a contradiction in terms. I haven't heard
]a non-green propose any solutions yet in this newsgroup. Only stupid
]bitching.
All right, as a non-greenie, I'll take up that challenge. Of course,
it would help to define the problem(s). I'll take a simple one -
providing for reasonable human existence with minimal ADVERSE
impact on the environment. How's that?
First, in the US, let's build a lot of nuclear power plants to replace
coal power. And... let's make the regulatory process for nuclear
power shorter, so the economics get a fair shot. This helps solve
the following problems:
(1) CO2 emissions (just in case the greenhouse effect is something
to worry about)
(2) Radioactive emissions to the atmosphere (nuclear power plants
release many orders of magnitude less radioactivity into the
atmosphere than coal plants). Many fewer deaths from radon
emissions is a result (although I'm not sure that lengthening
or improving HUMAN life is a green goal :-( )
(3) Hazardous wastes. The small volume of nuclear waste is readily
handled, while the huge volume of chemical waste from conventional
plants is too large to dispose of, and is hazardous.
(4) Air pollution: I used to live in Albuquerque, N Mex, and you could
normally see forever there. Now, the 4 corners coal plants have
reduced that visibility to only about 50 miles. Replacing them
with nuc's would solve that. It would also help with the Grand
Canyon visibility problems.
(5) Strip mining - It takes a lot less mining to feed a nuc plant -
especially if breeding technology is used.
There... how's that for a non-green solution!
Now, for some more solutions by a non-greenie (although, who knows,
they may be green solutions):
(1) If the Luz type solar power plants are commercially competitive with
nuclear ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, build lots of these. Of course, first
it would be nice to know the full environmental effects of these
compared to nuc's in the following areas: impact on land where plants
are located; environmental impact of producing the greatly increased
amount of raw material needed to build these; climatic effects of
large numbers of these (ie, if you fill southern california deserts
with these and wind plants, does it stop raining here in Phoenix?).
(2) Hope that photovoltaic technology gets economical. Note that I say
hope - I don't believe government funded research is likely to make
much difference here. There are already HUGE economic incentives for
any company that can make a quantum breakthrough in PV costs (and
it would take a major breakthrough for the costs to be reasonable).
(3) Keep a close eye on such things as Wind Power, OTEC, and other
"renewable" technologies to see if they can make a SIGNIFICANT,
COST EFFECTIVE contribution.
(4) Hope for major advances in energy storage. If we have good,
efficient, safe, environmentally benign and low cost mass energy
storage, we can use more solar/wind types of
(read: unsteady) power sources. Likewise, if
we have good, efficient, low cost, safe, environmentally acceptable
and low weight small energy storage devices [ie - much better
batteries or something with the same function], then electric
vehicles start looking better. However, watch out here for the
biological effects of ELF magnetic fields - this could be
a problem, (either real or percieved) with passenger cars.
I contend that all of the above are non-green solutions, since
every one mentions economic COST - something that seems to be missing
from the activist green proposals.
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john jo...@anasaz.UUCP
Voice: (602) 951-9326 (day or eve) FAX:602-861-7642 Advice: Long palladium,
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 ......: Short petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
--
John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john jo...@anasaz.UUCP
Voice: (602) 951-9326 (day or eve) FAX:602-861-7642 Advice: Long palladium,
USnail: 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 ......: Short petroleum
Opinion: Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment!
Tony Wesley
[Edited to reduce net bandwidth]
mi: Mark Isaak
gs: Gary Strand
gs: We cannot expect others to be the impressed in the slightest by what we do.
^^^^^^^^^
mi: We model our behavior on the behavior we see in the people around us.
gs: You have said nothing to contradict my original assertion.
mi: Well, then, let me be plainer: Your original assertion is 100% wrong.
gs: Re-read what I said, carefully, and then retract the second sentence.
Why should he?
mi: If you commit suicide, your peers are afterwards more likely to commit
mi: suicide.
Unfortunately, a statistical truth.
gs: If <X> commits suicide, then we can *expect* that <Y>, (<X>'s friend) will
^^^^^^ ^^^^
commit suicide too. (No.)
Great logic. You originally state that people will not be impressed
"in the slighest" (I'll call it PPI [Peer Pressure Influence] = 0%) by
other people's behavior. And to support that position, you assert
that PPI ^= 100%. Of course, that does nothing to support your
original position. It is obvious that people respond to peer pressure
to some extent. Just look at the way fashion fads come and go.
The fact that you reply -- in any fashion at all --
to postings shows that your PPI ^= 0. Your postings are proof
positive that your original assertion is incorrect.
Gary, are you just playing devil's advocate on the net? Are you simply
a program that someone wrote? :+) Instead of eliza, we could
fire up a strand program. User inputs ideas, and the strand program
answers "You're wrong."
I hope that you accept that with a grin.
By the way, did you start recycling bottle because of something
you read or saw? Or did you come up with the idea in a vacumn?
--
And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl Tony Wesley/RPT Software
And his brandy in the glass voice: (313) 274-2080
And little Sir John with his nut brown bowl awe...@unix.secs.oakland.edu
Proved the strongest man at last... Compu$erve: 72770,2053
Tony Wesley
gs: Gary Strand
gs: We cannot expect others to be impressed in the slightest by what we do.
mi: We model our behavior on the behavior we see in the people around us.
gs: You have said nothing to contradict my original assertion.
[lots edited for bandwidth]
tw: [definition] PPI = Peer Pressure Influence
gs: I am not claiming that PPI = 0.
Oh? Then we agree.
gs: What I am talking about is not PPI = 0, but rather EIO (expectation of
gs: influence upon others) being an unpredictable quantity. Can I *expect*
gs: that you'll reply to this message? No. Can I *expect* that you'll recycle
gs: if I do? No. Can I *expect* that you'll be a good neighbor? No.
I agree that EIO is not easily predictable. I thought that you
had been precisely predicting it before. As zero. Perhaps I
misunderstood. I think Madison Avenue can predict EIO to some extent.
gs: Think of my principle as something akin to "defensive driving".
Okay. But even a defensive driver has an expectation of what other
drivers will and will not do. Most drivers follow some sort of pattern.
It's not Brownian motion out there. Close to 100% of them are actually
on the right hand side of the road.
Getting back, since you and I agree that EIO is unpredictable and
PPI is non-zero, (we are in agreement up this point, correct? Altho
PPI may be trivially non-zero) then we cannot predict (for example)
Mark Isaak's influence on other people by his setting an example.
Other than it is non-zero. Since it is both non-zero and
unpredictable, maybe it is very large. Hard to say.
John Moore
]I respectfully disagree with your contention that nuclear wastes are "readily
] handled". I agree that alot more chemical waste is currently polluting the
]environment than nuclear, but to flatly state that fusion by-products are
^^^^^^who is talking about
fusion? Do you know anything about nuclear power?
]not a major problem to the environment is, IMHO, myopic. I would also like
I'm glad you said IMHO. Radioactive byproducts are CLEARLY not a MAJOR
problem to the environment. Even if we believe the doomsayers and
expect a meltdown from a US power plant, only a small part of the
environment is damaged. On the other hand, every day the fossil fueled
plants are causing major damage - at least if you believe the
environmentalists: radioactive emissions, acid rain, global warming,
smog, huge volumes of waste. Besides, there are much better things to
do with petroleum products than burn them: plastics, chemicals, etc.
]to see some facts to back up your contention that fewer radioactive emissions
]occur at nuclear facilities than at coal burning plants. (I am by no means
]standing up for coal burning power plants -- I only wish to get the facts
]straight).
I don't have the details handy (am at work). Hopefully John De Armond, who
is loaded with facts since he is a radiation health physicist, will
supply them. They have been posted to the net many times - even in
the last week or so. The basic problem is that coal has a significant
amount of uranium in it, and burning coal releases that uranium into
the atmosphere. Nuclear plants are extremely carefully monitored for
radiation release, and have elaborate (but not, of course, completely
fool-proof) systems to prevent significant radiation release. Fossil
plants have no such systems, and in fact release enough radiation that
they would be shut down if they were nuclear plants with the same
releases!
If you want to look at the data from the other side (in an admittedly
controversial and much challenged book), read The Hazards of Not Going
Nuclear by Dr. Petr Beckmann (who hangs out here on the net from
time to time).
]
]
]--
]DEMMERS,JAMES L
]Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
]uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!jd21
]Internet: jd...@prism.gatech.edu
Gary Strand
gs: Gary Strand
gs: Think of my principle as something akin to "defensive driving".
tw: Okay. But even a defensive driver has an expectation of what other drivers
tw: will and will not do. Most drivers follow some sort of pattern. It's not
tw: Brownian motion out there. Close to 100% of them are actually on the right
tw: hand side of the road.
But one definitely has to take into account that minor fraction that are
not. I have personally been close to head-on collisions twice, and if you
want examples, read the NTSB accident reports that come out every year. I
guess they investigate every accident that claims more than 3 or 4 lives.
For example, the accident (in Utah, I believe) in which 5 kids in a VW,
after partying a bit, got on the wrong side of the freeway, got up to about
40 mph, and hit a guy and his wife in a Lincoln (or Cadillac, I forget)
going the right way at about 70. 110 mph collision speed leaves a mess.
See my point? One can pretty safely expect that drivers will be on the
right side of the road, most of the time, but that fraction will vary, and
one cannot assume that it is 100%. Add in all the other infractions that
drivers make every day all the time, and the number of drivers one can
expect to follow the rules correctly gets pretty low. Ask Dan Mocsny how
he rides his bike.
tw: Getting back, since you and I agree that EIO is unpredictable and PPI is
tw: non-zero, (we are in agreement up this point, correct? Although PPI may be
tw: trivially non-zero) then we cannot predict (for example) Mark Isaak's
tw: influence on other people by his setting an example. Other than it is
tw: non-zero. Since it is both non-zero and unpredictable, maybe it is very
tw: large. Hard to say.
Mark should assume that it is zero.
You see, in some ways, people expect EIO (and/or PPI) to be very large.
When little kids watch cartoons, or we watch "violent" TV, or so on. Some
folks believe we are at the mercy of others, and cannot decide good from
bad. Then again, we reach an interesting wall when it comes to books and
other printed material.
Anyway, the point is that, to be safest, we should assume EIO to be zero.
That way, when (inevitably) others *don't* act as we expect them to, we
aren't taken aback.
DEMMERS,JAMES L
handled". I agree that alot more chemical waste is currently polluting the
environment than nuclear, but to flatly state that fusion by-products are
occur at nuclear facilities than at coal burning plants. (I am by no means
standing up for coal burning power plants -- I only wish to get the facts
straight).
Dave Sill
>
> I contend that all of the above are non-green solutions, since
> every one mentions economic COST - something that seems to be missing
> from the activist green proposals.
Anti-Green Myth #968: Green solutions threaten to save the planet at
the risk of economic properity.
Green solutions tend to be in longer terms than quarterly financial
reports, but long-range return on investment is is good when you
consider that prevention is cheaper than cleanup. O'Reilly of the EPA
had an interesting op-ed piece in last Sunday's Washington Post on the
positive economic effects of environmentalism. Check it out: he knows
more about it than I do.
----
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
Peter R. Carpenter
>In article <2...@dynasys.UUCP> jes...@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) writes:
>]The above subject heading is a contradiction in terms. I haven't heard
>]a non-green propose any solutions yet in this newsgroup. Only stupid
>]bitching.
The Greens are a political party in West Germany, so I will not use that label.
>All right, as a non-greenie, I'll take up that challenge. Of course,
>it would help to define the problem(s). I'll take a simple one -
>providing for reasonable human existence with minimal ADVERSE
>impact on the environment. How's that?
>
>First, in the US, let's build a lot of nuclear power plants to replace
>coal power. And... let's make the regulatory process for nuclear
>power shorter, so the economics get a fair shot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Does this include paying for your own insurance? Nuclear power plants
are currently shielded from damage claims by the federal government.
The first 100 million comes from an industry pool, and the rest comes
from the taxpayers. I suspect that in a fully deregulated system, you
might not be able to get insurance on these plants without massive redesign.
I believe that I have more tolerance for nuclear power than many people who
are environmentally minded, it is not inherently evil. But there are well
known problems with dissimilarity in plant design, so that experience gained
on one plant cannot be directly used in another, etc.
This gets back to the old debate about "the French model", where plants are
smaller, and thus more reliable, and of similar design. The regulation process
that you abhor might be reduced if some sort of track record were available
for new construction with proven reliable designs, rather than re-inventing
the wheel every time.
---
Pete Carpenter
P.O.Box 360935
Milpitas, CA 95036-0935
{amdahl,ames,pyramid,uunet}!oliveb!tymix!cirrusl!pete
Member: AOPA, Cousteau Society, Greenpeace, NRA.
------------------------------------------------
John Moore
]In article <21...@anasaz.UUCP> jo...@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
]>In article <2...@dynasys.UUCP> jes...@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) writes:
]>coal power. And... let's make the regulatory process for nuclear
]>power shorter, so the economics get a fair shot.
] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]
]Does this include paying for your own insurance? Nuclear power plants
]are currently shielded from damage claims by the federal government.
]The first 100 million comes from an industry pool, and the rest comes
]from the taxpayers. I suspect that in a fully deregulated system, you
]might not be able to get insurance on these plants without massive redesign.
In the US, where people can sue and get lots of money for almost anything,
and where misrepresentation of nuclear issues is rapant in the popular
press, you probably could not insure a nuclear plant with private
insurance. After all, the TMI incident, which harmed no one (except
for their pocketbooks), resulted in all sorts of claims - birth defects,
cancer, etc. In this environment, a nuclear plant would not get a fair
chance in court.
]
]I believe that I have more tolerance for nuclear power than many people who
]are environmentally minded, it is not inherently evil. But there are well
]known problems with dissimilarity in plant design, so that experience gained
]on one plant cannot be directly used in another, etc.
]
]This gets back to the old debate about "the French model", where plants are
]smaller, and thus more reliable, and of similar design. The regulation process
]that you abhor might be reduced if some sort of track record were available
]for new construction with proven reliable designs, rather than re-inventing
]the wheel every time.
I believe that this is indeed a problem. I'm not sure why so much
custom engineering goes into nuc's (JDA - comment?), but it seems
excessive. By now we should be able to mass produce them. Then, if
we had a sane regulatory environment, we could analyze one for safety,
and not have to look at every one.
Allen WELLS
>are currently shielded from damage claims by the federal government.
>The first 100 million comes from an industry pool, and the rest comes
>from the taxpayers. I suspect that in a fully deregulated system, you
>might not be able to get insurance on these plants without massive redesign.
Let's not forget WHY the federal government is shielding claims. When the
original request for proposals for commercial nuclear power plants came out,
the federal government decided to push and certify light water reactors. The
industry refused to go along. Despite all of the claims by the feds that a
meltdown would never happen, electric utilities are extremely conservative
and didn't want even the smallest chance of a catastrophic accident.
The utility industry wanted a design that couldn't melt down (there were
proposals for these even back then).
To calm down the utility industry (and convince them to actually build one
of these) the federal government did two things:
1) Assumed liability for catastropic accidents.
2) Made it illegal to feed power into the grid from any nuclear
reactor except light water reactors.
Note 1: Reactors of different designs that can't melt down
are still allowed as long as they don't feed the
grid ... most university reactors can't melt down.
Of course, a couple of years ago (after the utilities had committed themselves)
Congress put a cap on the federal liability ...
--
---------- "The UFOs have landed, and we'll tell you where they are."
Alien | - Wierd Al
---------- Microsoft has its own opinions. These are all mine, but I share.
Russ Cage
>a non-green propose any solutions yet in this newsgroup. Only stupid
>bitching.
The "stupid bitching" label can be applied to most Green objections
to non-Green initiatives to fix problems. For instance:
- Green-types have held up the solidification of liquid radwastes at
Hanford, which will make them vastly safer. Having the leaky tanks
there is better for politics, though. So is defeating any real
nuke-waste disposal system; it keeps the fix dead and issue alive.
- Greens oppose nuclear power in general, which is our current
best option for reducing greenhouse-gas and acid-rain emissions.
(See follow-on posting for more about this.)
- Greens tend to oppose both re-development and freeways. It is
necessary to either build more and denser housing next to where
people work, or better roads to get them there, take your pick.
(Anything else is just demanding that people be unemployed.)
- By pushing a political agenda of "smaller is better", Greens
avoid considering large-scale technologies which may well have
smaller costs and ecological impact than their favored ones.
In general, Greens tend to discard any solution, short- or long-term,
which doesn't fit their narrow vision and socio-political agenda. As
such, they are the problem, not the solution.
--
Oversimplification doesn't solve problems, it just
(313) 662-4147 changes them into less tractable problems.
Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc. ru...@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us
Dave Sill
In article <1990May10....@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us>,
ru...@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes:
>
> - Green-types have held up the solidification of liquid radwastes at
> Hanford, which will make them vastly safer. Having the leaky tanks
> there is better for politics, though. So is defeating any real
> nuke-waste disposal system; it keeps the fix dead and issue alive.
That's a strawman. "Green-types" is a generalization. From what I've
heard so far, there is no "real nuke-waste disposal system", only
long-term nuke-waste babysitting systems or stick-the-nuke-waste-
somewhere-out-of-the-way-for-hundreds-of-years systems. Further, at
least some "Green-types" oppose nuclear power because it is, at best,
a quick technological fix that addresses the symptoms rather than the
problem: the ever-increasing need for MORE POWER.
> - Greens oppose nuclear power in general, which is our current
> best option for reducing greenhouse-gas and acid-rain emissions.
> (See follow-on posting for more about this.)
Err, you're saying there are proposals to replace existing fossil-fuel
electricity production with nuclear plants? I thought it was more of
a way to meet new demands. Wouldn't it make more sense to control the
demand first, then work on cleaning up the existing power plants?
> - Greens tend to oppose both re-development and freeways. It is
> necessary to either build more and denser housing next to where
> people work, or better roads to get them there, take your pick.
> (Anything else is just demanding that people be unemployed.)
Another generalization. Another technological quick fix addressing
the symptom rather than the problem. Control the rate of growth of
the population and you won't *need* better roads and denser housing.
Improve mass transit on the existing infrastructure, rather than
making it easier for automobile commuting. Dump money into
telecommuting research and support and help obviate the need for
commuting in the first place.
> - By pushing a political agenda of "smaller is better", Greens
> avoid considering large-scale technologies which may well have
> smaller costs and ecological impact than their favored ones.
By pushing solutions rather than fixes, Greens tick off the
technojunkies and technopushers. We don't need yet another better
mousetrap; we need to control ourselves, specifically our reproduction
and artificial pollution. See my recent "KNOW your facts" article for
my explanation of the latter.
> Oversimplification doesn't solve problems, it just changes them into
> less tractable problems.
Isn't that an oversimplification?
Simplification doesn't solve problems, it just makes the easier to
understand and, hence, easier to solve.
----
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil until May 23rd, or so)
(d...@asbmac.ctd.ornl.gov will reach me at my new employer)
Carl Klapper
> Another generalization. Another technological quick fix addressing
> the symptom rather than the problem. Control the rate of growth of
> the population and you won't *need* better roads and denser housing.
> Improve mass transit on the existing infrastructure, rather than
> making it easier for automobile commuting. Dump money into
> telecommuting research and support and help obviate the need for
> commuting in the first place.
No matter what the total population, we will still need denser communities.
Our present automobile-based sprawl greatly discourages walking.
Attempting mass transit in such a context (the "existing infrastructure")
is an expensive, technological fix, as is telecommuting.
It is the existing infrastructure which is making it easier for
automobile commuting. It will take much infill development and dezoning
(or diversity zoning as suggested by Jane Jacobs) to make that infrastructure
suitable for mass transit.
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Real urbanites don't buy | Carl Klapper |
| things. They buy service. | Odyssey Research Associates, Inc. |
| | 301A Harris B. Dates Drive |
| A kitchen's place is | Ithaca, NY 14850 |
| in the restaurant. | (607) 277-2020 |
| | klapper%orava...@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
Andrew Taylor
>- Greens oppose nuclear power in general, which is our current
> best option for reducing greenhouse-gas and acid-rain emissions.
Whatever the merits and demerits of nuclear power, the first and best option
is improving efficiency of energy use. As evidence the table below illustrates
the possibilites in one area, domestic appliances (as of 1985).
Product Average Average Best Estimated Potential
In Use New New Potential Savings
(kilowatt-hours/year) (percent)
Refrigerator 1500 1100 750 200-400 87
Central Air Conditioner 3600 2900 1800 900-1200 75
Electric Water Heater 4000 3500 1600 1000-1500 75
Electric Range 800 750 700 400-500 50
(therms/year) (percent)
Gas Furnace 730 620 480 300-480 59
Gas Water Heater 270 250 200 100-150 63
Gas Range 70 50 40 25-30 64
Estimated potential = potential efficiency by mid-nineties if further
cost-effective improvement already under study are made.
Potential Savings = percent reduction in energy consumption from average in use
to best cost-effective potential.
Original Source: "Energy Efficient Appliances: Performances Issues and Policy
Options", H. Geller, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, March 1986.
Dave Sill
>
> No matter what the total population, we will still need denser communities.
Another generalization. Obviously, there's a point at which the
current density is sufficient.
> Our present automobile-based sprawl greatly discourages walking.
Agreed. Walking as a true means of transportation is really only
feasible in cities, though.
> Attempting mass transit in such a context (the "existing infrastructure")
> is an expensive, technological fix, as is telecommuting.
Whoa, there. Running trains on existing lines and busses on existing
roads is an expensive technological fix? Seems rather the opposite
to me. Same for telecommuting. What's expensive about sitting at
home? It avoids using office space and uses space that would
otherwise be unoccupied. As well as reducing the load on the transit
system.
> It is the existing infrastructure which is making it easier for
> automobile commuting. It will take much infill development and dezoning
> (or diversity zoning as suggested by Jane Jacobs) to make that infrastructure
> suitable for mass transit.
What are `infill development' and `diversity zoning', and who is Jane
Jacobs?
Carl Klapper
> In article <15...@oravax.UUCP>, kla...@oravax.UUCP (Carl Klapper) writes:
> >
> > No matter what the total population, we will still need denser communities.
>
> Another generalization. Obviously, there's a point at which the
> current density is sufficient.
I didn't mean it as a general statement, but as a specific statement
about our present community densities. To rephrase, changes in the total
population can occur without changing the densities of our communities,
the latter being the crucial factor for cutting automobile use.
> > Our present automobile-based sprawl greatly discourages walking.
>
> Agreed. Walking as a true means of transportation is really only
> feasible in cities, though.
Well, there used to be these things called villages, but they have
become legal fiction.
> > Attempting mass transit in such a context (the "existing infrastructure")
> > is an expensive, technological fix, as is telecommuting.
>
> Whoa, there. Running trains on existing lines and busses on existing
> roads is an expensive technological fix? Seems rather the opposite
Existing bus and train lines mostly follow old patterns of deveopment
or modern political whim. The new patterns can not provide enough riders
(trips are more dispersed as well as housing) and the politics provide
subsidies but not efficiency.
> to me. Same for telecommuting. What's expensive about sitting at
> home? It avoids using office space and uses space that would
> otherwise be unoccupied. As well as reducing the load on the transit
> system.
But requires big phone and package delivery charges. It would take
much more independence in the work of most people to make it at all
feasible. Telecommuting may be great for us computer types, but it's
not going to cut it for the manufacturing sector.
> > It is the existing infrastructure which is making it easier for
> > automobile commuting. It will take much infill development and dezoning
> > (or diversity zoning as suggested by Jane Jacobs) to make that infrastructure
> > suitable for mass transit.
>
> What are `infill development' and `diversity zoning', and who is Jane
> Jacobs?
1. Infill development is the building of new structures in the gaps
between existing buildings. For example, a block may have a large open space
in the middle which could be filled in with a newer, smaller block.
Or earlier zoning may have stipulated 50 feet separations between houses
along a street; these gaps could be filled in with new buildings for
shops or housing.
2. Diversity zoning stipulates that no more than a certain percentage
of the zoned are be devoted to a single use, where "use" is defined
in the way that zoning boards habitually define them: residential,
office and light industrial are examples.
3. Jane Jacobs wrote the classic urban planning book "The Death and
Life of Great American Cities", in which she criticizes the uniformity
imposed upon U.S. cities by zoning and federal housing programs.
She proposed replacing single-use zoning with diversity zoning,
as she proposed replacing uniformity with diversity as the planning
objective for city districts.
John Moore
]In article <1990May11.1...@relay.nswc.navy.mil>, ds...@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes:
]
]> > Our present automobile-based sprawl greatly discourages walking.
]>
]> Agreed. Walking as a true means of transportation is really only
]> feasible in cities, though.
]
]Well, there used to be these things called villages, but they have
]become legal fiction.
Today, due to the improved efficiencies of larger stores, we have
supermarkets and large stores for other items. These larger stores
require a large enough service area that "village" size communities,
which also have enough services to significantly reduce automobile
use, are impractical. The same argument applies to large businesses -
they cannot be sited in a "village."
]> to me. Same for telecommuting. What's expensive about sitting at
]> home? It avoids using office space and uses space that would
]> otherwise be unoccupied. As well as reducing the load on the transit
]> system.
]
]But requires big phone and package delivery charges. It would take
]much more independence in the work of most people to make it at all
]feasible. Telecommuting may be great for us computer types, but it's
]not going to cut it for the manufacturing sector.
]
As a telecommuter for 10 years, I disagree with the big phone and
package delivery claim. However, the rest of the above paragraph
is certainly correct. In addition, my company (which has several
telecommuters) has found that intra-company communication is hindered
by telecommuting - even though we have electronic mail, and telecommuters
are attached by leased line (OPX) to the company PBX.
]1. Infill development is the building of new structures in the gaps
]between existing buildings. For example, a block may have a large open space
]in the middle which could be filled in with a newer, smaller block.
]Or earlier zoning may have stipulated 50 feet separations between houses
]along a street; these gaps could be filled in with new buildings for
]shops or housing.
]
i.e. - increased crowding, which people have shown by their purchasing
behavior to be very undesirable to most. Many people choose to
commute 30-60 miles in LA (on overcrowded, pollution filled freeways)
just to live in a suburban (read - uncrowded) environment.
For mass transit to be effective in the US, we would have to
go against the wishes of the vast majority and force them to live
in crowded city conditions. No thanks!
Eric Pepke
> Today, due to the improved efficiencies of larger stores, we have
> supermarkets and large stores for other items. These larger stores
> require a large enough service area that "village" size communities,
> which also have enough services to significantly reduce automobile
> use, are impractical. The same argument applies to large businesses -
> they cannot be sited in a "village."
Tallahassee is the capital of the state of Florida and also has two
medium-sized universities. It is a sprawling, flat, southern town.
Nearly all buildings have one story, with the exception of some apartments,
the universities, which have a few 6- or 7-story buildings, and the capitol,
which has about thirty stories. When you go to the top of the capitol and
look around, you see a lot of trees, with a few scattered built-up areas.
I live in a residential district which houses many students and faculty of
one University. On one side of my apartment complex is a fenced-in wooded
area which supports deer. On another side is a park with a small lake. I
am within easy walking distance of three supermarkets, several pubs, and
one University, where I work. I do not own an automobile and only really
need my bicycle on weekends to go to the slightly more distant shopping
malls. If we had a decent public transportation system, I wouldn't even
need that.
This town is far from perfect, but it is worthwhile to note that there are
real alternatives to Californian auto-eroticism and New York rat cages. Most
of what you see is due to bad or nonexistant planning rather than any
inherent limitations having to do with concentrations of capital. Get rid
of the bad planning first.
Eric Pepke INTERNET: pe...@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET: pepke@fsu
Florida State University SPAN: scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052 BITNET: pepke@fsu
Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
Carl Klapper
> Today, due to the improved efficiencies of larger stores, we have
> supermarkets and large stores for other items. These larger stores
> require a large enough service area that "village" size communities,
> which also have enough services to significantly reduce automobile
> use, are impractical. The same argument applies to large businesses -
> they cannot be sited in a "village."
Then again, the larger stores are only efficient operationally with large
volume. If that volume is to come by car, there are large capital costs
some of which they bear (parking lots) and some of which they don't
(roads). Quite frequently (at least in NY), villages have had their
streets turned into highways in order to better facilitate traffic
to the malls. This makes the stores on those streets rather less
appealing than they were before. When you add in the subsidy game
that mall developers play with town and county governments, you really
have to wonder just how efficient those large stores in the country are.
> ]1. Infill development is the building of new structures in the gaps
> ]between existing buildings. For example, a block may have a large open space
> ]in the middle which could be filled in with a newer, smaller block.
> ]Or earlier zoning may have stipulated 50 feet separations between houses
> ]along a street; these gaps could be filled in with new buildings for
> ]shops or housing.
> ]
> i.e. - increased crowding,
Depends on what you mean by crowding. I find that it is the interior space
and the walking space that matters most to me. I would much rather have large
rooms and wide sidewalks than a big lawn. Actually, I don't like lawns at all.
Also, the area taken up with roads and driveways do not add to my sense of
space, because traffic turns them into barriers. So I find the suburbs very
confining and the city, with its greater freedom for the pedestrian,
liberating and spacious.
> which people have shown by their purchasing
> behavior to be very undesirable to most. Many people choose to
> commute 30-60 miles in LA (on overcrowded, pollution filled freeways)
> just to live in a suburban (read - uncrowded) environment.
And many people pay $1000/month to rent an apartment in Manhatten.
I WISH the NYC real estate market was softening as much as Westchester
County (suburbia), but it just isn't happening. I guess it matters
where you go in the country as to how much green people want to own
around their living space.
> For mass transit to be effective in the US, we would have to
> go against the wishes of the vast majority and force them to live
> in crowded city conditions. No thanks!
In order to install automobile dependence, we have already destroyed
communities against their wishes (of course) and forced them to move
to outlying areas (the suburbs). But mass transit doesn't need to use
such heavy-handed tactics. All that is needed is for the cities and
villages to allow greater density when that is desired, not to penalize
it where it exists and to protect the rights of pedestrians.
Carl Klapper
> In article <22...@anasaz.UUCP>, jo...@anasaz.UUCP (John Moore) writes:
> > ]1. Infill development is the building of new structures in the gaps
> > ]between existing buildings. For example, a block may have a large open space
> > ]in the middle which could be filled in with a newer, smaller block.
> > ]Or earlier zoning may have stipulated 50 feet separations between houses
> > ]along a street; these gaps could be filled in with new buildings for
> > ]shops or housing.
> > ]
> > i.e. - increased crowding,
>
> Depends on what you mean by crowding. I find that it is the interior space
> and the walking space that matters most to me. I would much rather have large
> rooms and wide sidewalks than a big lawn. Actually, I don't like lawns at all.
> Also, the area taken up with roads and driveways do not add to my sense of
> space, because traffic turns them into barriers. So I find the suburbs very
> confining and the city, with its greater freedom for the pedestrian,
> liberating and spacious.
I was too circumspect in my earlier note. To put it more bluntly,
I regard the spaces between the sides of buildings as wasted space.
It would make for less crowding to devote that space to housing or stores.
Also, streets are far too wide and front yards too large in the suburbs.
There is room enough to insert another row of buildings or, if a park
is desired, a few on each end, and still have plenty of room for roads
and sidewalks. And anything would be better than the huge expanses of
parking lots near suburban shopping districts and malls.
There is much misused space in the suburbs and even in the cities, to the
extent that automobiles are accomodated. Putting that space to better use
will enhance its virtues; limiting its extent will make us more aware
of its subtle details; and reducing the number of large spaces in our
communities to a modest few will make us appreciate them more.
And, yes, the same can be said of skyscrapers, as well as avenues and
monuments and stadiums and so on. Intimacy is the key, and if the success
of converted mews and (small) carriage houses is any indication, it is selling
quite well in the Northeast.
Irving Chidsey
<
<There is room enough to insert another row of buildings or, if a park
<is desired, a few on each end, and still have plenty of room for roads
<and sidewalks. And anything would be better than the huge expanses of
<parking lots near suburban shopping districts and malls.
<
<There is much misused space in the suburbs and even in the cities, to the
<extent that automobiles are accomodated. Putting that space to better use
<will enhance its virtues; limiting its extent will make us more aware
<of its subtle details; and reducing the number of large spaces in our
<communities to a modest few will make us appreciate them more.
<
There is a hidden reason for the extra space in some suburbs. Wells
and Septic Systems. You can put a well and a septic system on a quarter acre
lot quite successfully. But after about 15 years problems show up.
Septic systems fail, and by the time the problem is noticed it is
too late. If a septic tank is not pumped some of the sludge will flow out
into the drainfield. The drainfield slowly clogs up, starting near the septic
tank. At first, there is plenty of extra absorption and no problem, but
eventualy enough gets clogged so that the tank does not drain properly, and
the tank is pumped. This doesn't help much, because the drainfield is still
clogged. Trouble repeats at ever shorter intervals until a new septic system
is the only hope. There is no room on a quarter acre lot for a new system
except where the old one was because your well, or your neighbors well, will
be too close.
If the development is large, 50 houses or more, wells begin to fail
after about the same period of time because the aquifer is being over pumped
and the water level has dropped below the level of some wells. This is an
area with over 40 inches of rain a year, but I have some neighbors with
three wells; some even have a holding tank.
The county now requires 2 acre lots away from city water and sewage.
In a few decades we will find out if even that is enough.
A house will not sell quickly if the guy next door has a lime covered
marsh in his front yard. Leaving out the lime makes the marsh less visible
but much more smellable. A sign on the bathroom door that says 'please
conserve water -- flush every other time' doesn't help either.
We rarely water our lawns. People who get water from their own wells
tend to let the lawn go brown in August. We also yell at the kids about
overly long showers.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
Russ Nelson
There is a hidden reason for the extra space in some suburbs.
Wells and Septic Systems. You can put a well and a septic system
on a quarter acre lot quite successfully. But after about 15 years
problems show up.
Irv is right on the ball, as usual. I remember my parents removing
the septic tank from our house on New York's Long Island, the
prototypic suburbs. That was in the early sixties, and the house was
built shortly after the war. That's um, just about fifteen years.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
John Moore
]I regard the spaces between the sides of buildings as wasted space.
]It would make for less crowding to devote that space to housing or stores.
]
]Also, streets are far too wide and front yards too large in the suburbs.
]There is room enough to insert another row of buildings or, if a park
]is desired, a few on each end, and still have plenty of room for roads
]and sidewalks. And anything would be better than the huge expanses of
]parking lots near suburban shopping districts and malls.
I find this ironic. Every time anybody wants to do anything outside
of a city, people get upset because it will upset the "environment."
Yet here we see a proposal for really screwing up the environment (IMHO)
within a city by stuffing it full of buildings.
I suppose that people who grew up in a big city may like it that way.
That's fine with me - just don't go pushing your tastes on those
of us who prefer lots of open, green space around us (or in my case,
open natural desert). I live on 1.5 acres of desert in the central part of
the Phoenix metropolitan area. I must be a terrible land glutton! But,
you know, it sure is nice to have nature around. We have birds, bats,
racoons, rattlesnakes, lizards, coati mundi, scorpions, coyotes, and all
the other desert dwellers - right in our yard. I'm not inclined to give that
up because someone with different taste thinks we should crowd the
city!
I suppose that this is one reason I don't believe that the federal
bureaucrats should be in the business of telling cities how to use
their land. As someone who has lived in the desert southwest most
of my life, I have different tastes and priorities than those on
the crowded coasts. You folks go ahead and infill, build capital
intensive and crime ridden mass transit, and enjoy it. We'll try
it our own way here in the area of boundless desert.
Carl Klapper
> ]There is room enough to insert another row of buildings or, if a park
> ]is desired, a few on each end, and still have plenty of room for roads
> ]and sidewalks. And anything would be better than the huge expanses of
> ]parking lots near suburban shopping districts and malls.
>
> I find this ironic. Every time anybody wants to do anything outside
> of a city, people get upset because it will upset the "environment."
> Yet here we see a proposal for really screwing up the environment (IMHO)
> within a city by stuffing it full of buildings.
Actually, my proposal(s) had to do with converting suburbs to cities.
Of course, most of our cities could use some of the same conversions
to undo the effects of the federal suburbanization projects, euphemistically
called "Urban Renewal". Far from "screwing up" the environment, the result
would be a more pedestrian-friendly living space in the already built-up
areas and a lessening of pressure to develop areas which are not built-up.
That is, fewer cars (and the pollution that that entails) and less disruption
of ecosystems.
> I suppose that people who grew up in a big city may like it that way.
And a lot of us who didn't but had a chance to experience city life
as adults.
> That's fine with me - just don't go pushing your tastes on those
> of us who prefer lots of open, green space around us (or in my case,
Ahem! It was YOUR taste that was pushed on US. Can you say HUD and Federal
Highway Program?
> open natural desert). I live on 1.5 acres of desert in the central part of
> the Phoenix metropolitan area. I must be a terrible land glutton! But,
> you know, it sure is nice to have nature around. We have birds, bats,
> racoons, rattlesnakes, lizards, coati mundi, scorpions, coyotes, and all
> the other desert dwellers - right in our yard. I'm not inclined to give that
And they probably all end up dead on your roads. If you had a city instead,
with no suburbs, your wildlife could run free (the trains on their elevated
rail running harmlessly overhead). A short walk would take you outside the city
where you could run free as well.
> up because someone with different taste thinks we should crowd the
> city!
Nor are pedestrians inclined to give up their ability to walk in
their cities just because someone with different tastes wants us to let them
drag race their cars through it. And when pedestrians are at last allowed
to protect their own space, the "tastes" of motorists will become impossible
to fulfill.
> I suppose that this is one reason I don't believe that the federal
> bureaucrats should be in the business of telling cities how to use
And yet your way of life was made possible by just such federal intervention.
By the way, I never suggested that infill development be pushed by federal
agencies. It would be nice if they didn't prevent it. To the extent of
my admittedly limited knowledge, it has been pushed by developers
against the rantings of the politicos.
> their land. As someone who has lived in the desert southwest most
> of my life, I have different tastes and priorities than those on
> the crowded coasts. You folks go ahead and infill, build capital
> intensive and crime ridden mass transit, and enjoy it. We'll try
You mean you actually believe that hype. I've ridden the IRT zillions
of times and have never encountered anything more intimidating than
a panhandler. I think he was from Arizona.
> it our own way here in the area of boundless desert.
Carved up by your highways.
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| Real urbanites don't buy | Carl Klapper |
anmar mirza
As I say, you like your cities, stay in them! Just don't come crying to me
when those of us who live in the country refuse, or are unable to
sell you food, energy,and raw materials.
Remember, even though we have a mutually beneficial relationship,
if the rural areas where to disappear, your cities would crumble in a few
days, while if the cities where to disappear, our standard of living will
drop, but we can survive and prosper.
Anmar Mirza # If a product is good, # The two best ways # Space, humans next
EMT-A # they will stop making # to my heart are # goal in the race
N9ISY (tech) # it. Unless it is # sex, and the # for immortality.
Director AESL # designed to kill. # descending aorta # --- me
Gregg Tracton
>As I say, you like your cities, stay in them! Just don't come crying to me
>when those of us who live in the country refuse, or are unable to
>sell you food, energy,and raw materials.
>Remember, even though we have a mutually beneficial relationship,
>if the rural areas where to disappear, your cities would crumble in a few
>days, while if the cities where to disappear, our standard of living will
>drop, but we can survive and prosper.
>
Right! Humans have been building on top of their own cities and the
cities of their ancestors for as long as records have been kept.
Try building another rural spot! Only nature can do that!
That's what this newsgroup is all about, eh?
--Gregg
--
Gregg Tracton Dept of Radiation Oncology tra...@godot.radonc.unc.edu
(919)-966-1101 Univ of North Carolina {...}mcnc!godot!tracton
"Jack in! switch on! CyberFly, Matrix Cowboy!"