NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/7013

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-14 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7013 alt.privacy:2248 talk.politics.guns:24105
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy,talk.politics.guns
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!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: Sat, 14 Nov 92 00:54:43 GMT
Lines: 67

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Indeed, look at the Club of Rome study. Every one of it's conclusions
>and predictions have proved wrong. It predicted widespread food shortages
>by the late 1980s. Instead fewer people are starving today than any time
>in history.

I find this last statement difficult to take at face value.  Please
state your reference source for this fact.

>Instead the prices of basic commoditites such as metals and foodstuffs
>have *declined* during the 1980s. The Club of Rome was wrong because it
>took the world to be a zero sum, static game. It neglected technical
>innovation. It neglected resource substitution. It neglected common sense.

I grant that the Club of Rome study was flawed, however it was a step
toward understanding the human environment (including it's human
occupants) as a synergistic unit rather than just as a collection of
independant units (as many anti-environmentalists seem to believe we are).

>Automotive emissions today are 1/10th what they were in 1969 thanks to
>technical innovation. The air and the water are *cleaner* today than
>they were in 1969.

This is ture in some places, and one of the >reasons< it is true is that
pressure has been successfully applied OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE
ANTI-ENVIRONMENTALSISTS to regulate emissions.  The energy and
automotive industries were not inclined to do this on their own.

>Things environmental are not getting worse as the
>doomsters continue to predict in the face of contradictory evidence.

I suggest you read Helen Caldicot's book, "If You Love This Planet" if
you think things are really "getting better".  We certainly haven't
turned the corner yet.

>Change is the natural order of things. Static ecosystems are in general
>*dying* ecosystems. The balances continually shift from one equlibrium
>point to another. THERE IS NO PREFERRED STATE IN ECOLOGY. Humans are
>a vital *part* of the natural world and all their actions as the top
>predator on the food and resource pyramid are completely *natural*
>actions.

This is absolutely true, and I'm glad you stated it so succinctly.  It
is also true that over 90% of all the species which ever existed are now
extinct, many of them as a result of being "too successful".  There is
paleontological evidence that several of the mass extinctions to which
our ecosystem has been subject were caused by rapidly shifting balances
as a result of ecosystem imbalances.

>There isn't a pristine Golden Age for the environment, and
>there never was. The world changes in response to the actions of humans
>and other species. Some species win, and some lose. As humans, it's our
>task to see that we remain among the winners.

This is nearly a truism.  We are now as Gods on this planet, and we
damned well be ready to accept the responsibility for it...

Thanks for your comments, which were more thoughtful than any I've
received on the subject since my original post.

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