NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/6970

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-12 | 5.4 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:6970 alt.privacy:2215 talk.politics.guns:24045
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cactus.org!wixer!fmouse
From: [e-mail] (Lindsay Haisley)
Subject: Re: Registered Keys - why the need?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Real/Time Communications
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 15:20:23 GMT
Lines: 96

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Starr) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lindsay Haisley) writes:
>}Hey, guy, those of us that are "environmentalists" are that way from
>}necessity, not choice.
>Apparent necessity, which many have chosen to make apparent in contradiction
>to scientific method.

"Contradiction to scientific method" is a broad and totally
unsupportable accusation.  There have been plenty of well designed and
scientifically "orthadox" studies which support the points I'm making.

>Take a look at the Club of Rome study or other
>}similar studies of population growth and decline and figure out for
>}yourself what happens to a species that overpopulates it's environment,
>}be it a puddle, a pond or a planet. They either exhaust their resources,
>}die of disease, or choke to death on their own crap.
>
>I'm well aware of this study, especially the fact that the people who
>commissioned it admitted its falsehood years ago.  Hong Kong is the most
>densely populated area in history, and it doesn't appear to be in danger from
>any of these things.

Your logic is out of synch.  It would be as ridiculous to argue that cancer
is not fatal because, although I have it in my big toe, it's not all
over my body yet, and I'm obviously still alive.

>Perhaps humans
>}have to option to make some intelligent collective decisions regarding
>}these matters, perhaps not.  The problems won't go away on their own.
>
>Actually, as soon as the commons involved are privatized, they will go away
>by means of individual decisions, which, while not "on their own," is a far
>cry from collectivism.

The way of history, especially modern history, is that commons don't get
privatized, they get corporatized.  Your assumption is a stupid
Reaganist myth.  When that happens, then we really have problems.

>}Just talk to anyone who's lived in LA or Denver during summer smog
>}alerts, or who lives and works in areas where groundwater is
>}contaminated with ag chemicals or other polution, or folks who used to
>}make their livings fishing on the Medeterranean, which is now nearly a
>}dead ocean from a fisherman's point of view.  Fresh air, water and the
>}like are the responsibility of the people to protect, whether or not you
>}like specific regulations imposed by federal, state or local
>}governments.  Your attitude doesn't help at all.

>Just read the statements on the public record from former LA Air Quality
>Management District officials to the effect that if our emissions regulations
>had to be justified on the grounds of public health that we wouldn't have any.

Apparently neither you, nor the official who wrote the above quote has
never lived in an area with bad air.  You can also find "scientists" who
will swear that research proves that smoking cigarettes isn't dangerous
to your health.  As a matter of fact, there are studies, although I
can't quote them at present, which demonstrate that in regions of the
country with chronic air polution, the death rate from lung problems is
the same for smokers and non-smokers.

>Just talk to the publisher of "The Free Market Environmentalist," who's a
>professional groundwater scientist and knows quite a bit about groundwater
>cleanup, just one instance of the tragedy of the commons (read Garrett Hardin's
>classic study on this).  Just explain to me how your claim of yet another
>tragedy of the commons we call the Mediterranean canbe reconciled with the
>successful mariculture businesses going on in it right now.

I'm citing from studies by Cousteau, who has been observing the
Mediterranean for a great many years.

>If there truly are dangers to the freshness, cleanliness, or safety of
>"air, water, and the like" as you put it, my considerd position is that
>this is largely due to the fact that these are presently treated as commons,
>and that government regulation won't solve these problems, and that priva-
>tization of them will.

This is the part of the great libertarian myth.  The idea that
"privatization" is the answer to problems with government.  What happens
when government relinquishes control, as we saw under the national
disaster called Reaganomics, is that "corporatization" steps in to take
over, and then the "people" are truly out of the loop.


>}"Everything works if you let it"    |                Lindsay Haisley
>
>This statement above is significant, yet for some reason you don't apply it
>to human society sans those acts of aggression you call regulations.

Regulation is what happens when some people get in the way of it work.



--
"Everything works if you let it"    |                Lindsay Haisley
-- The Roadie                       |            [e-mail]
                            |                    * * * *
                                |               Austin, Texas, USA