Filed under: Environmental Activism
Question:
I have never seen any reliable evidence that two people can share an independent astral vision that was not previously described to them in one way or another. I have never seen the evidence, but I have seen the ‘fact’. I am not stating that shared astral perceptions are a fact, but that I have experienced them.
I reject the word "astral" completely, but i too have experienced the fact of shared perceptions. I’ve done my own testing of this, using symbols, physical objects, and visualized images. A second person, "astrally projecting" to some pre-arranged "place", was never able to reliably "see" what someone else had prepared. My experiences more than not involve an independant astral object or entitiy, something simultaneously perceived by two or more people, without any of them projecting it.
My experiiences do not involve "astrally projected" images but rather shared visions simultaneously perceived by two people (of whom i was one) at long distances from one another. Another label for this phenomenon might be "spontaneous synchronous visualisation." LUCKY W Amulet Archive: http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html The Sacred Landscape: http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
Response:
I have never seen any reliable evidence that two people can share an independent astral vision that was not previously described to them in one way or another.
I have never seen the evidence, but I have seen the ‘fact’. I am not stating that shared astral perceptions are a fact, but that I have experienced them. There are claims, of course, and stories which have no way to be proved other than the testimony of those involved. That is simply not good enough evidence, because of the many possible ways the stories can be tainted or the event misperceived.
Sadly enough. I’ve done my own testing of this, using symbols, physical objects, and visualized images. A second person, "astrally projecting" to some pre-arranged "place", was never able to reliably "see" what someone else had prepared.
My experiences more than not involve an independant astral object or entitiy, something simultaneously perceived by two or more people, without any of them projecting it. I do admit that *most* of these experiences have been during the effects of psychadelic drugs. I have also noticed people react to my visualizations as if they were neon signs (but then I only perceived them to notice). Please don’t write genuine phenomena off to hallucination, which is a phenomenon itself, shared or personal. When talking astral, hallucination may even be considered essential experience.
Response:
The difference is in whether you consider this "astral" world to be something external to yourself, or an internal representation of the world, combined with thoughts, feelings, and images which arise directly from the workings of your brain. Bearing in mind phenomena such as shared astral perceptions. GP How about shared cultural values, shared sensory perceptions, shared GP learning experiences, etc.? GP I have never seen any reliable evidence that two people can share an GP independent astral vision that was not previously described to them in GP one way or another. I have done this with my sister (we are far apart which makes it more interesting…) and we have had fantastic results… If you need proof… i’ll AT down to you as soon as possible and start a conversation <g. GP There are claims, of course, and stories which have no way to be GP proved other than the testimony of those involved. That is simply not GP good enough evidence, because of the many possible ways the stories GP can be tainted or the event misperceived. GP I’ve done my own testing of this, using symbols, physical objects, and GP visualized images. A second person, "astrally projecting" to some GP pre-arranged "place", was never able to reliably "see" what someone GP else had prepared. If something is prepared then it is wasted… the second person will see what they want to see… if you are in say Stonehenge as it was before it was destroyed… the other person will seem to you to be there… but to s/he will see you in their place say Atlantis. It’s all relative and it depends on the person. Blessed Be, Rhys Alaric … New Mail not found. Start whine-pout sequence? (Y/N) ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Response:
Please don’t write genuine phenomena off to hallucination, which is a phenomenon itself, shared or personal. When talking astral, hallucination may even be considered essential experience.
I am well aware of the validity of a subjective phenomenon as a force which can have influence. However, it is extremely difficult to conduct a controlled experiment while experiencing the effects of a psychedelic chemical. I’d suspect some methodological flaws. I don’t discount the possibility of a shared "astral" experience, but I suggest that there may be more than one possible explanation for the effect. My own work has indicated that the experience is individual, not mutual, although it can be parallel. It’s tricky stuff.
Response:
The difference is in whether you consider this "astral" world to be something external to yourself, or an internal representation of the world, combined with thoughts, feelings, and images which arise directly from the workings of your brain.
Bearing in mind phenomena such as shared astral perceptions.
Response:
The difference is in whether you consider this "astral" world to be something external to yourself, or an internal representation of the world, combined with thoughts, feelings, and images which arise directly from the workings of your brain. Bearing in mind phenomena such as shared astral perceptions.
How about shared cultural values, shared sensory perceptions, shared learning experiences, etc.? I have never seen any reliable evidence that two people can share an independent astral vision that was not previously described to them in one way or another. There are claims, of course, and stories which have no way to be proved other than the testimony of those involved. That is simply not good enough evidence, because of the many possible ways the stories can be tainted or the event misperceived. I’ve done my own testing of this, using symbols, physical objects, and visualized images. A second person, "astrally projecting" to some pre-arranged "place", was never able to reliably "see" what someone else had prepared. I’d urge anyone interested in checking this out to construct a carefully controlled experiment and check it out for themselves.
Response:
now HERE we have the jackpot! in magick there is the ability to do it all oneself (it is called ‘astral’ and is really *imagination* but we pretend it is some sort of wooeywooey mystical dimension) The difference being what?
The difference is in whether you consider this "astral" world to be something external to yourself, or an internal representation of the world, combined with thoughts, feelings, and images which arise directly from the workings of your brain. Some feel that astral projection is an actual physical journey of the consciousness beyond the body to some other actual physical location. Others consider it to be a journey through one’s own internal microcosm. That which is above is as that which is below, but after a different fashion.
Response:
kaliyuga 49960626 AA1 nagasiva: |…in magick there is the ability to do it all oneself (it is called |’astral’ and is really *imagination* but we pretend it is some sort |of wooeywooey mystical dimension) |The difference being what? the difference being that it is somehow outside our bodies rather than a function of imagination and possible paranormal powers in the case of claims regarding influences which touch back upon the ‘mundane’. tyagi — Ensure my response – CC public replies to email http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html (emailed replies may be posted) check: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/
Response:
: : now HERE we have the jackpot! in magick there is the ability to : do it all oneself (it is called ‘astral’ and is really *imagination* : but we pretend it is some sort of wooeywooey mystical dimension) : : The difference being what? Screw it, I’ll tell you what works for me. The astral plane is the electrical field (feel those tingles on your skin when you meditate?) and the mental plane is the magnetic field (this is the one I use in magick. Makes your hair feel like it’s going to stand on end, it’s very powerful and other people in the room will feel it too.) Magickal and psychic abilities are accessed by reversing the flow of energy in your body, which usually follows the blood, that is, runs up the right and then clockwise down the left in a circle. Think of the flow of veinous and arterial blood through the heart and you get the picture. The reversal of life flow for magickal effects *must be temporary*, you’ve got to know how to bring yourself back out of that state when you’re done or health is needlessly compromised. I suggest that Magick-users study the basics of kinesiology and acupuncture; _Touch For Health_ is a good book to start with. Layo
Response:
kaliyuga 49960620 (taking a break from the Satanist/Neopagan wars 
now HERE we have the jackpot! in magick there is the ability to do it all oneself (it is called ‘astral’ and is really *imagination* but we pretend it is some sort of wooeywooey mystical dimension)
The difference being what? — "I’m the one you’re looking for; lay your burden down" - Beans Barton
Response:
naturalist – many magick-users pretend to love the wild. however, on the whole most of us are just as anti-earth and anti- wilderness through our lifestyles as the rest of the religious and secular establishment I doubt this. I know many "magick-users" who go to great lengths towards environmentalism. I believe, perhaps, that you’re generalizing on your own beliefs. Care to contest that ?
I weigh in with Mandrake on this — i live outside the urbs and all the Pagani and Magicians i know (and most of the Xians, Jews, Seculari, and Undeclared) are actively pro-environmental and engage in political activism for the sake of the natural world. Guess that’s what happens when you live among the redwoods… cat LUCKY W Amulet Archive: http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/LuckyW.html The Sacred Landscape: http://www.sonic.net/yronwode/sacredland.html
Response:
atheist – most pagans and mages are actually atheists, neither believing in gods outside ourselves (thinking it a psychological trick) nor truly having faith in anything other than materialism
I’m afraid I must disagree. You may be right about most mages being atheists…I wouldn’t know. But, I seriously doubt that most Pagans are atheists. There are only a few Pagans I know who ascribe to the "deities are only in our minds" notion. We Pagans may not think of a "god" in the same way as a christian does, but we do (at least the ones I know do) believe in deities. naturalist – many magick-users pretend to love the wild. however, on the whole most of us are just as anti-earth and anti- wilderness through our lifestyles as the rest of the religious and secular establishment
I doubt this. I know many "magick-users" who go to great lengths towards environmentalism. I believe, perhaps, that you’re generalizing on your own beliefs. Care to contest that ? Mandrake …..the Bard
Response:
kaliyuga 49960620 (taking a break from the Satanist/Neopagan wars | …newsgroup, I see a lot about gods and goddesses, some of which I | recognize from history/mythology. Well, as my subject states, does all | magick involve worshipping these sort of dieties? |No. The deity-worshiping magicians are quite plentiful, though. Some |even hold by faith that the only way you can do magick is by invoking |a deity. quite. I think even the Satanists like this form. |However, only the morbidly obese would invoke a diety. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. that comment was what drove me to post this. : |Not meaning to be offensive, but can an atheist or naturalist |participate in magick?? |Of course. atheist – most pagans and mages are actually atheists, neither believing in gods outside ourselves (thinking it a psychological trick) nor truly having faith in anything other than materialism naturalist – many magick-users pretend to love the wild. however, on the whole most of us are just as anti-earth and anti- wilderness through our lifestyles as the rest of the religious and secular establishment neither of these poses any limitation to an understanding or use of magick. | Can one not be their own catalyst or source of magick? |I suppose you don’t have to be if you don’t want to. now HERE we have the jackpot! in magick there is the ability to do it all oneself (it is called ‘astral’ and is really *imagination* but we pretend it is some sort of wooeywooey mystical dimension) or with lots of PROPS! there’s all manner of wands and athames (that’s a fancy word for witch’s blade), chalices and cauldrons, swords and pentacles, talismans and energy-batteries, etc., etc. you don’t have to do anything except manipulate the objects if you don’t want to. store up some "magical energy" (don’t worry if you don’t believe in it, it works anyway!) in crystal or better, in a piece of GLASS, then later draw from this "battery" to do your spells! AND, you can "tap the energy of the earth" if you like, so you don’t even have to be the source! they are called "meridians" or "ley lines", and the comic, fantasy, sci-fi and RPG books are just FILLED with beautiful ideas about how to imagine the working (it doesn’t matter how you do it as long as you think it will work! great huh??!). |Also, I realize that some words trancend definition, but can |somone touch upon what magick really is? |No. oh come now. there are LOTS of definitions for magick, and all of them have something to offer! see the FAQ for a few and do some thinking on your own. come up with a NEW ONE and present it here. maybe someone will learn an entirely new tradition of magick from you simply by you imagining the new age of occult experience one day while on the way to the store! the Age of the Adversary is about Fast Food Magick! don’t just do it, do it the way you *want* to! nagasiva alt.magick FAQ: http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/amgkfaq.html) — Ensure my response – CC public replies to email http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/nagasiva.html (emailed replies may be posted) check: http://www.paranoia.com/coe/
Response:
Question:
Cross-posted from misc.activism.progressive /** mideast.gulf: 92.0 **/ ** Topic: Do French vets have Gulf War Syndrom ** ** Written 10:05 PM Feb 3, 1996 by cgilbert in cdp:mideast.gulf ** Do French vets have Gulf War Syndome?* BLAZING TATTLES exclusive: 1995 — Oh what a year it was! THE GULF WAR SYNDROME By Joe Vialls Carine, Australia (January 6, 1996). During late 1995, devastating new evidence on Gulf War Syndrome was released, providing strong scientific support for those who have long suspected the Gulf veterans are suffering short and long term effects of unproven anti-bacteriological warfare inoculations and anti-nerve gas tablets, forcibly administered by U.S. Army doctors in Saudi Arabia. With thousands of U.S. veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, it came as no surprise to learn in October that several hundred British veterans were suffering in the same way, with three to five new cases being reported every week. Like their U.S. counterparts, most were puzzled by the origins of the disease, which they initially attributed to exposure to oil-laden smoke in Kuwait, toxic dust from depleted uranium rounds fired by U.S. weapons, and possible contamination from expended Iraqi chemical shells in the area, fired before the Gulf War commenced. In a startling break with tradition, on British military doctor stated that in her view, 99% of the problems could be sourced back to the anti-bacteriological warfare "cocktail" inoculations, and anti-nerve gas tablets forcibly administered to military personnel in the Gulf region at that time. In an October 1995 broadcast of the ITN TV World News from London, she further explained that all British military personnel had been provided with the same un-trialled and unproven drugs as the Americans, from the U.S. medical sources. To reinforce the point she was making, the doctor explained that the number of British personnel suffering symptoms correlated exactly on a per capita basis with the Americans. It was a controversial claim, but apparently lacking in substance. Shattering confirmation of her claim came eleven hours later when Australian Channel 10 television carried exactly the same story at 5 p.m., but with an extra piece tagged onto the end. The extra piece claimed that French military personnel in the Gulf region, numbering about the same as the British contingent, had been prevented from taking the "cocktails" and tablets on the direct order of the French Commander-in-Chief. The story continued that since the end of the Gulf War, not a single member of the French military has suffered from Gulf War Syndrome or reported any of its known symptoms. By 6 p.m. the same night, when the other Australian television networks ran their news broadcasts, the awe- some story with its stunning implications had vanished from sight and was not run by any other Australian TV network. Nor was it reported in the Australian newspapers. For any scientist or veteran, the fact that the French should be completely clear of Gulf War Syndrome while the Americans and British during 1991, has huge and potentially horrifying implications. After all, the French at the same food, drank the same water, breathed the same air and trudged through hundreds of miles of the same desert. They also fired much the same weapons at much the same targets. So what were the additional environmental variables which made the French unique in their ability to completely withstand the deadly Gulf War Syndrome? The truth is there were none at all, save for the experimental American "cocktail" inoculations and tablets. To attempt to confirm this very short-lived story, the author contacted the French Military Attache in Australia and inquired if it was correct that the French Commander-in-Chief forbade his own personnel the untested substances. The Military Attache was happy to confirm this, and further confirmed that not one French soldier or airman has suffered since the end of the Gulf War. It seemed to be a subject of which he was very proud, and rightly so. Perhaps it is time for U.S. and British veterans to confirm the same points with their local French consulates, before taking a very hefty legal swing at their own governments. * All copyright laws apply. From 1/96 Gulf War Issue of BLAZING TATTLES. Other articles in issue: Exclusive on Gulf War Illness (GWI); Analysis of recent GWI reports; What happened to Kuwait’s oil lakes?; Kuwait silent on post-war illnesses; Gulf fires created chemical weapons; DU: Dead children, sick soldiers; "Father of Environmental Illness" dies; Is the globe heating up?; Award winning biological food program; Workshop on nitrogen and ecosystems; Thank you Dupont, Mellon, & Hearst; Conference on biological carbon sinks; Symposium on heart, nerves & environment; A conservative speaks on sustainability; Bioregionalism; Conference on international env. law; Sleeping in petroleum wastes?; A book for just about everyone; Pesticides and culinary insects. Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D., Publisher, BLAZING TATTLES, P.O. Box complimentary copy of February issue ONLY (Valentine & Sex), send stamped, self-addressed envelope to above address. Outside U.S., ** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf ** This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Cross-posted from misc.activism.progressive /** mideast.gulf: 92.0 **/ ** Topic: Do French vets have Gulf War Syndrom ** ** Written 10:05 PM Feb 3, 1996 by cgilbert in cdp:mideast.gulf ** Do French vets have Gulf War Syndome?* BLAZING TATTLES exclusive: 1995 — Oh what a year it was! THE GULF WAR SYNDROME By Joe Vialls Carine, Australia (January 6, 1996). During late 1995, devastating new evidence on Gulf War Syndrome was released, providing strong scientific support for those who have long suspected the Gulf veterans are suffering short and long term effects of unproven anti-bacteriological warfare inoculations and anti-nerve gas tablets, forcibly administered by U.S. Army doctors in Saudi Arabia. With thousands of U.S. veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome, it came as no surprise to learn in October that several hundred British veterans were suffering in the same way, with three to five new cases being reported every week. Like their U.S. counterparts, most were puzzled by the origins of the disease, which they initially attributed to exposure to oil-laden smoke in Kuwait, toxic dust from depleted uranium rounds fired by U.S. weapons, and possible contamination from expended Iraqi chemical shells in the area, fired before the Gulf War commenced. In a startling break with tradition, on British military doctor stated that in her view, 99% of the problems could be sourced back to the anti-bacteriological warfare "cocktail" inoculations, and anti-nerve gas tablets forcibly administered to military personnel in the Gulf region at that time. In an October 1995 broadcast of the ITN TV World News from London, she further explained that all British military personnel had been provided with the same un-trialled and unproven drugs as the Americans, from the U.S. medical sources. To reinforce the point she was making, the doctor explained that the number of British personnel suffering symptoms correlated exactly on a per capita basis with the Americans. It was a controversial claim, but apparently lacking in substance. Shattering confirmation of her claim came eleven hours later when Australian Channel 10 television carried exactly the same story at 5 p.m., but with an extra piece tagged onto the end. The extra piece claimed that French military personnel in the Gulf region, numbering about the same as the British contingent, had been prevented from taking the "cocktails" and tablets on the direct order of the French Commander-in-Chief. The story continued that since the end of the Gulf War, not a single member of the French military has suffered from Gulf War Syndrome or reported any of its known symptoms. By 6 p.m. the same night, when the other Australian television networks ran their news broadcasts, the awe- some story with its stunning implications had vanished from sight and was not run by any other Australian TV network. Nor was it reported in the Australian newspapers. For any scientist or veteran, the fact that the French should be completely clear of Gulf War Syndrome while the Americans and British during 1991, has huge and potentially horrifying implications. After all, the French at the same food, drank the same water, breathed the same air and trudged through hundreds of miles of the same desert. They also fired much the same weapons at much the same targets. So what were the additional environmental variables which made the French unique in their ability to completely withstand the deadly Gulf War Syndrome? The truth is there were none at all, save for the experimental American "cocktail" inoculations and tablets. To attempt to confirm this very short-lived story, the author contacted the French Military Attache in Australia and inquired if it was correct that the French Commander-in-Chief forbade his own personnel the untested substances. The Military Attache was happy to confirm this, and further confirmed that not one French soldier or airman has suffered since the end of the Gulf War. It seemed to be a subject of which he was very proud, and rightly so. Perhaps it is time for U.S. and British veterans to confirm the same points with their local French consulates, before taking a very hefty legal swing at their own governments. * All copyright laws apply. From 1/96 Gulf War Issue of BLAZING TATTLES. Other articles in issue: Exclusive on Gulf War Illness (GWI); Analysis of recent GWI reports; What happened to Kuwait’s oil lakes?; Kuwait silent on post-war illnesses; Gulf fires created chemical weapons; DU: Dead children, sick soldiers; "Father of Environmental Illness" dies; Is the globe heating up?; Award winning biological food program; Workshop on nitrogen and ecosystems; Thank you Dupont, Mellon, & Hearst; Conference on biological carbon sinks; Symposium on heart, nerves & environment; A conservative speaks on sustainability; Bioregionalism; Conference on international env. law; Sleeping in petroleum wastes?; A book for just about everyone; Pesticides and culinary insects. Claire W. Gilbert, Ph.D., Publisher, BLAZING TATTLES, P.O. Box complimentary copy of February issue ONLY (Valentine & Sex), send stamped, self-addressed envelope to above address. Outside U.S., ** End of text from cdp:mideast.gulf ** This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
But did anyone happen to see the infamous Michael Fumento (of " AIDS? an overblown disease of homosexuals.") write in Investors’ Petit Bourgois Fascist Daily that the Gulf Syndrome is a psychosomatic illness caused by lawyers and their clients out to make a bundle in the Litigation Lottery and spreading their disease to the U.K.? God forbid anyone should think that our precious government and its godly bureaucrats could screw up our armed forces. AUTHORITY MUST NOT BE QUESTIONED, ESP. WHEN IT CARRIES SMART BOMBS! "I MEAN, IF WE DON’T STOP THEM THERE, IN [insert 3rd world rat-assed country of your choice], THEY’LL BE RIGHT HERE – IN COBB [or Orange] COUNTY!"
Response:
Question:
Disclaimer: I’m trained as a fish biologist and do environmental consulting and activism towards the health of rivers, and riparian and aquatic habitat. My efforts go towards protecting and restoring natural systems, so that certainly makes me some sort of environmentalist. Does that make me an "environmental whacko"? Since my efforts focus to a large degree on the health of trout streams, I make no apologies for discussing "environmental" issues here. After all, trout (etc.) streams are part of the environment. I assume most anglers have at least a minimal interest in having waters healthy enough in which to fish. Maybe even in having streams healthy enough to be beautiful. So, it seems to me, this is not an inappropriate place for these issues to come up. I see where the kangaroo rats in dry country (these are creatures who can live WITHOUT WATER completely) aren’t the most appropriate topic in a forum on fishing. However, what strip mines do to the health of rivers (and thus to fishing) certainly seems appropriate. Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase "environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"? Are all environmental protection or restoration efforts "whacko", in your opinion? What, if any, environmental advocacy do you think has any value at all? E.
Response:
Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase
"environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"? Are all environmental protection or restoration efforts "whacko", in your opinion? What, if any, environmental advocacy do you think has any value at all?< EWinter I am not inclined to use this phrase, but will take a short shot at your question. The conservation/environmental movement has more factions than any of the 193 post-war governments in Italy…. As a state level operative for Trout Unlimited and an outdoor writer, I see them all…. What is happening is that we are being broad brushed…. I have nothing in common with PETA and not all that much in common with Greenpeace. Yet both are classified as environmental groups, as is TU, the National Wildlife Federation and many others. Given this climate of diversity, it is easy for our detractors to pick out the extremes (like the people who throw red paint at fur wearers, or the tree spikers) and say "see how they are"…. In the final analysis, an "environmental whacko" is anyone who stands in the way of perceived progress (read new WalMarts and subdivisions). It is a phrase of convenience used to smear the vast majority of Americans who believe in the future well being of our natural resources as a quality of life issue…… Hang in there…
Response:
: Disclaimer: I’m trained as a fish biologist and do environmental : consulting and activism towards the health of rivers, and riparian and : aquatic habitat. My efforts go towards protecting and restoring natural : systems, so that certainly makes me some sort of environmentalist. Does : that make me an "environmental whacko"? E., No apologies necessary, just try your best to indicate the topic with a good subject line. I think some of the controversy comes when a discussion strays too far from the title of the thread and readers are forced to download stuff they wouldn’t normally select. There are still a large number of people who pay for info by the unit…I’m not sure why. So choose your titles well and all will be happy. If a topic strays from an original title, change it, e.g. "Welcome E. (was Environmental Whackos)". Now that you’ve mastered posting, I can see you will be a regular. Welcome. BTW, do you fish? — Rick T. Rick Fletcher – http://www.chem.uidaho.edu/~fletcher/ Assistant professor of chemistry | That’s Idaho, not Iowa. | These University of Idaho | Upper Left Hand Corner. | opinions Moscow, ID 83844-2343 | No, I don’t grow potatoes. | are mine.
Response:
Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase "environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"? Are all environmental protection or restoration efforts "whacko", in your opinion? What, if any, environmental advocacy do you think has any value at all? E.
E., Since I usually hear the term "environmental whacko" used by the same people whose mantra is "ditto", I have to say that the "Environmental Whackos" is a club of which I am proud to be a member. Ross
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Disclaimer: I’m trained as a fish biologist and do environmental consulting and activism towards the health of rivers, and riparian and aquatic habitat. My efforts go towards protecting and restoring natural systems, so that certainly makes me some sort of environmentalist. Does that make me an "environmental whacko"? Since my efforts focus to a large degree on the health of trout streams, I make no apologies for discussing "environmental" issues here. After all, trout (etc.) streams are part of the environment. I assume most anglers have at least a minimal interest in having waters healthy enough in which to fish. Maybe even in having streams healthy enough to be beautiful. So, it seems to me, this is not an inappropriate place for these issues to come up. I see where the kangaroo rats in dry country (these are creatures who can live WITHOUT WATER completely) aren’t the most appropriate topic in a forum on fishing. However, what strip mines do to the health of rivers (and thus to fishing) certainly seems appropriate. Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase "environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"? Are all environmental protection or restoration efforts "whacko", in your opinion? What, if any, environmental advocacy do you think has any value at all? E.
Hmm. I guess I’ll give my opinion on this. I don’t really like the term. I think Rush Limbaugh came up with it. I am a Republican, but I hate Rush’s guts. I am also an environmentalist. This really sucks, because my party seems to be largely apathetic toward the environment. So with that out of the way… An environmentalist wacko is one who is probably vegetarian and preaches at everyone telling them how good he/she is for not eating meat. This same wacko will come onto newsgroups, such as this one, and tell all of us how unethical we are for fishing. This person is not an environmentalist. this person has extremeist views and tries to force them on everyone else. I don’t mind this person having stupid views, as this is a free country. What I mind is when this person comes on and calls us fisherman drunk redneck hicks that love to go out and dynamite fish. If you want an example, some idiot posted earlier this week calling himself "Big Matt." Make no mistake, I am an ardent conservationist. I pick up trash, and hate the big companies’ pollution. But I don’t like ANYONE preaching at me. -Josh -my opinion are my own.
Response:
The "Whacko" answer is …. drumroll, please< …… TELL US!!! Thanks for the laugh, Wayne!! E.
Response:
The "Whacko" answer is …. drumroll, please< …… TELL US!!!
But that’s the whole point. I can’t tell you. It is a matter for consensus. — -Wayne Trzyna
Response:
Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase "environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"? Are all environmental protection or restoration efforts "whacko", in your opinion? What, if any, environmental advocacy do you think has any value at all? E.
Yes, no, some. Hi, Liz Basically, an "environmental whacko" is someone who wants to stop me doing whatever I want to do with the environment. A sensible, intelligent environmentalist is someone who wants to stop someone else doing whatever he/she wants with the environment. I hope you find this eddifying. Yours, Bob McIntyre.
Response:
Anyhow, I ask this question of those inclined to use the phrase "environmental whackos": Do you think there is any other kind of environmentalist other than "whacko"?
A whacko is someone who holds outrageous beliefs, holding to them fanatically in spite scientific evidence or public opinion to the contrary. Multiple choice: One of the ideas below is "whacko". Can you identify which one? a) Water quality and fisheries are being stressed by growing human populationi, industry, and technological changes. Careful management of these resources is required in the face of such mounting pressures. b) Timber, oil, and mining interests historically do not harm fisheries. No environmental regulation is required. It is an ironic case of double-speak when the radical fringe applies the term "whacko" to the ordinary citizen concerned with taking care of their environment. — -Wayne Trzyna
Response:
Question:
: I’m not sure if A.I. actually has an E-mail address or BBS or whatever, : but many A.I. posts about human rights violations, etc appear on the : Usenet group misc.activism.progressive, along with environmental posts, : feminist issues, gay rights issues, etc. I know that there is an auto- : post here about this regularly, but just in case anyone hasn’t checked out : the group, I would recommend it highly. There is also a list for "progressive" News & Views. It is one of 5 PNEWS CONFERENCES [with regular conferences on PeaceNet and FidoNet]. Inquire HR
Response:
I’m not sure if A.I. actually has an E-mail address or BBS or whatever, but many A.I. posts about human rights violations, etc appear on the Usenet group misc.activism.progressive, along with environmental posts, feminist issues, gay rights issues, etc. I know that there is an auto- post here about this regularly, but just in case anyone hasn’t checked out the group, I would recommend it highly. AND HERE MY TROUBLES BEGAN / Richard Luehrs /
Response:
Thse may not be the right newsgroups to post to, but does anyone know if Amnesty International is online somewhere? When I called the national headquarters in Wash. D.C., I was told that AI was on Peacenet…can someone tell me about this network? IS it reachable via the Internet? If anyone knows if AI can be reached online, I’d appreciate the info. If they aren’t online, they ought to be, but are perhaps spening their funsds on more important priorities. Any info. appreciated. Thanks! Brendon Macaraeg CompuServe:72241,1735 America Online:brendon355 "Publisher/editor" or DREAMPOP: a discerning music lover’s e-zine. Finger "brendon" for more info.
Response:
Question:
writes: There’s still another issue, however, and that issue is space. And there is also the question of how much space the appropriate roadways consume.
Actually, the piece I was discussing was completely conceptual. The idea was to brainstorm what the properties on an ideal transportation system would be, completely free of any constraints, even technological. If there are no constraints, individual transportation would seem to be superior to mass transportation. But the respondents still named mass transortation as the ideal solution, which perhaps says something about their mindset. — Don McGregor
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – writes: There’s still another issue, however, and that issue is space. And there is also the question of how much space the appropriate roadways consume. Actually, the piece I was discussing was completely conceptual. The idea was to brainstorm what the properties on an ideal transportation system would be, completely free of any constraints, even technological. If there are no constraints, individual transportation would seem to be superior to mass transportation. But the respondents still named mass transortation as the ideal solution, which perhaps says something about their mindset. — Don McGregor
I think it says that most people cannot easily switch to a no-constraint mode of though so easily. I think the ideal transportation system without technological constraints would be a Star Trek-type transporter. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (Stupendous Man) writes: writes: Sorry, the US is just inefficient with oil; there’s no nice political or philosophical way to whitewash this over. Not that we shouldn’t, or can’t be more efficient, just that our geography necessitates more travel for some things. in what way does our geography necessitate that, for example, toothpaste which is produced in ohio ends up on supermarket shelves in new mexico? ah, yes. it is those vast stretches of conglomerate. -dave
Response:
[stuff deleted to get to the point] Oil doesn’t change composition based on where it comes from!
My goodness, what an ignorant statement. Oil most certainly does change composition based on where it comes from. If you’ll notice, the oil market is based on ‘light, sweet crude’ or ‘North Sea Brent’. A little deduction will lead one to the conclusion that there must be a difference in composition or crude oil would be sold simply as ‘crude oil’. Paul.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course there are many reasons for the decline in Canada’s oil imports (advertising, utility sponsered conversion programs, better building standards, etc.) but the overwhelming reason is clearly the price of gas and oil in Canada. I have to wonder if gas-guzzlers would be quite so popular in the US with gas at $2+ per gallon (which would still be cheap compared to most of the developed world). One big difference between the U.S. and Canada is toll booths … up north, we have (I think) only five over the whole country (that may be an old figure, since the ones over Le Pont Victoria Bridge closed a few years ago). The only one that I can name is on the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver (often seen in background shots of Fox Network’s "The Heights") … US$2-3 in tolls per trip probably balance out the higher price of Canadian gasoline quite nicely (dealing with a toll booth for the first time was a cross-cultural experience for me). gld — Gary L. Dare
I feel impelled to add that the gas up in Canada – B.C., anyway, is green – and a powerful green at that. My motorbike, which usually tops out at 127, climbed to 138. – A warning to anyone, still in command…
Response:
Don McGregor writes: I came across a good example of this mindset some time ago. A newspaper asked for "brainstorming" ideas on the ideal city. Clean, efficient, mass transit was a popular choice. But if there are no constraints at all, it would seem to me that clean, effcient, cheap _individual_ transport would be a better idea. The unconcious desire for a "group" system blinded them to the optimal constraint-free solution.
There’s still another issue, however, and that issue is space. Say an average bus or light rail car holds 40 people. That bus takes up much less space on the road than 40 cars each holding one person. The result would be less traffic pile-up during rush hour. It also takes less space to store (park) a bus when not in use than it does to park those forty cars. Anyone who has ever worked downtown in a large city knows about the difficulty and expense of parking. Space has to be taken into consideration, too; it’s as real a problem as air pollution in heavily populated areas. -Cindy Kandolf Trondheim, Norway
Response:
Of course there are many reasons for the decline in Canada’s oil imports (advertising, utility sponsered conversion programs, better building standards, etc.) but the overwhelming reason is clearly the price of gas and oil in Canada. I have to wonder if gas-guzzlers would be quite so popular in the US with gas at $2+ per gallon (which would still be cheap compared to most of the developed world).
Stick to talking about Canada, please. In the U.S., the price of gas is determined by the law of supply and demand. — The views expressed herein are my || Theodore A. Kaldis believe that a major university as || {…}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis this would hold such views??? ||
Response:
Don McGregor writes:
@ I came across a good example of this mindset some time ago. A newspaper
@ asked for "brainstorming" ideas on the ideal city. Clean, efficient, @ mass transit was a popular choice. But if there are no constraints @ at all, it would seem to me that clean, effcient, cheap _individual_ @ transport would be a better idea. The unconcious desire for a "group" @ system blinded them to the optimal constraint-free solution. There’s still another issue, however, and that issue is space. Say an average bus or light rail car holds 40 people. That bus takes up much less space on the road than 40 cars each holding one person. The result would be less traffic pile-up during rush hour. It also takes less space to store (park) a bus when not in use than it does to park those forty cars. Anyone who has ever worked downtown in a large city knows about the difficulty and expense of parking. Space has to be taken into consideration, too; it’s as real a problem as air pollution in heavily populated areas.
And there is also the question of how much space the appropriate roadways consume. A heavy-rail (multi-car) system can carry the capacity of a ten-lane freeway on a right-of-way only as big as a two-lane road. Furthermore, it can be elevated or run underground at much less expense than the typical freeway can. Here in the Bay Area, BART trains run 3 min. apart through San Francisco during peak hours, with the trains being 10 cars long and with each car seating 64 or 68 people, with standing room for perhaps 30 or so. The carrying capacity is 13,000 (seated) people/hour, which is equivalent to that of several freeway lanes. Cost? BART has gotten a lot of flak over the years over the expense of building the system, and now building extensions to it, but it is curious that highway costs are hardly ever commented on — for example, the cost to rebuild the West Oakland segment of I-880, which was wrecked in the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, is $700 million for 1.75 mi (a bit longer than the original route) — $400 million/mile (!)
Response:
Cars _are_ wasteful, as compared to buses and trains.
Oh, bullshit. This is an idiotic generalization. I live in a suburban community with an average 1.5 acre lot size. People who live here work all over eastern and central Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. There is *no way* that trains and busses would be more efficient here than cars because they would be operating at miniscule load factors. We’re miles from the nearest main road so even a bus that operated on a main road would have little ridership. Trains and busses are only more efficient under ideal conditions like in a city, or in a bedroom community where most residents commute to the same city. Back in the 50’s when urban suburbs mostly provided a labor force for urban companies this latter condition could be met quite often. But with companies relocating to suburbs, or even exurbs, this is only occasionally still the case. In areas like this and in more rural locales cars are definitely the transport of choice. which is directly contrary to John McCarthy’s stated ideals. Or does he and like-minded people _love_ socialism whenever they benefit from it?
Bill Weld proposed privatizing the Mass Pike a while back. The question, for me, isn’t so much who paid for it — I’d happily pay a "usage fee" for my driver’s license in return for removing the road maintainance costs from my state and town taxes. The issue for me is personal choice — the right to go where I want, when I want, and take a bunch of stuff with me. Jascourt’s main point is that it should be _unnecessary_.
Not everybody lives in a city, or wants to. I hate cities, myself. : Unfortunately, 100 years from now people will probably be travelling : around in an uncontrolled way and living where they choose instead of : in well organized communities. They won’t be using gasoline but will : have cheated the fate they deserve by having invented some other : way of powering their personal transportation. Jascourt’s cultural : descendants will still be telling them to repent. Baloney.
Why "baloney"? I don’t find it at all inconceivable that in 2092 we’ll have hydrogen (f’rinstance) technology worked out. Hydrogen burns clean (H2O vapor) and is readily available by electrolyzing seawater (which could be done by photovoltaics or fusion or who-knows-what-they’ll-have-by-then?) —peter
Response:
: Stephen Jascourt includes in his discussion of the per capita use : of gasoline in various coutnries: : : The chart tells the amount of MOTOR GASOLINE consumed per : capita. This does not include many of the petroleum products : used in production of various things, and it is unclear : whether it even includes diesel (which isn’t "gasoline") : used by trucks for transportation. Mainly it reflects our : (U.S.) horribly inefficient system of moving people, or, to : a larger degree, our horribly organized communities which : cause such transportation problems. : : Jascourt, like many coercive utopians, refers to a "system of moving : people" rather than a system that lets people go where they want when : they want. He regards it as "horribly inefficient", because if only : the people would go where he wants when he wants them to he could : move them more efficiently. Likewise, he refers to "our horribly : organized communities", because if only people would live where : he wants them to rather than all over the map as they happen to want : to, he could organize their communities better. What’s this "our" : stuff anyway. I don’t see that Jascourt has anything in common with : us Americans. Nothing but John Birch demagoguery and sarcasm. Cars _are_ wasteful, as compared to buses and trains. BART trains, for example, are about 3 time more energy-efficient than cars under good conditions, and are about 10 times more energy-efficient than cars stuck in a traffic jam. Rail lines are also much less of a land hog than freeways; the equivalent of a two-lane road can carry as much traffic as a ten-lane freeway, and they are easier to elevate or make go underground. : Consider the traffic on a freeway at 2pm. Very little of it consists : of people going to or from work, yet there is still a fair amount of : traffic. Who knows what they are doing? Why should these people be : allowed to travel anyway without Jascourt having organized it? The solution: to provide alternative ways of getting around, like buses and rail systems. I don’t feel that my freedom is very much impinged upon by public transportation; on BART, I can do a _lot_ of reading, which I couldn’t do while driving a car. I’m well aware that a bus or rail system may not always go to where one wants to go; but neither do freeways I may add that roads are built and managed by our government, which is directly contrary to John McCarthy’s stated ideals. Or does he and like-minded people _love_ socialism whenever they benefit from it? : Obvously the purpose of life is to use as little gasoline as possible. : Everyone should have engraved on his tombstone the number of trips : he didn’t make (or wasn’t allowed to make) and an estimate of the : number of kilograms of gasoline thus saved. Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm. Jascourt’s main point is that it should be _unnecessary_. : Unfortunately, 100 years from now people will probably be travelling : around in an uncontrolled way and living where they choose instead of : in well organized communities. They won’t be using gasoline but will Not everyone shares your Randroid version of individualism as an ideal. : have cheated the fate they deserve by having invented some other : way of powering their personal transportation. Jascourt’s cultural : descendants will still be telling them to repent. Baloney.
Response:
(Stupendous Man) writes: writes: Sorry, the US is just inefficient with oil; there’s no nice political or philosophical way to whitewash this over. Not that we shouldn’t, or can’t be more efficient, just that our geography necessitates more travel for some things.
in what way does our geography necessitate that, for example, toothpaste which is produced in ohio ends up on supermarket shelves in new mexico? ah, yes. it is those vast stretches of conglomerate. -dave
Response:
Jascourt, like many coercive utopians, refers to a "system of moving people" rather than a system that lets people go where they want when they want.
I came across a good example of this mindset some time ago. A newspaper asked for "brainstorming" ideas on the ideal city. Clean, efficient, mass transit was a popular choice. But if there are no constraints at all, it would seem to me that clean, effcient, cheap _individual_ transport would be a better idea. The unconcious desire for a "group" system blinded them to the optimal constraint-free solution. Another example: A prof poses a problem to some students. An airport has two parking lots, one close to the terminal and one a long ways away. Too many people are parking in the close-in lot and then going on long trips, which causes the people who just need to stop by and pick someone up to walk a long ways. How can the airport authority solve this problem? The students came up with all sorts of rules, parking tickets, enforcement officers, signs, and so on. The prof asked them why they just didn’t charge more to park in the close-in lot. — Don McGregor | "I..I blame society. Society made me
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988: GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) United States 1,272 7.2 Canada 947 -62.1 Australia 741 -25.0 Switzerland 531 2.0 What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food.
The chart tells the amount of MOTOR GASOLINE consumed per capita. This does not include many of the petroleum products used in production of various things, and it is unclear whether it even includes diesel (which isn’t "gasoline") used by trucks for transportation. Mainly it reflects our (U.S.) horribly inefficient system of moving people, or, to a larger degree, our horribly organized communities which cause such transportation problems. In addition, in a market economy, the lowest cost fuel will be purchased far more often that higher cost fuel. It’s only natural for countries to import cheap oil rather than use expensive to obtain "domestic oil". Oil doesn’t change composition based on where it comes from!
But the external costs of transportation and amount of oil spilled (and the resulting environmental damage) aren’t included in Brett’s analysis. Environmental costs are generally ignored in such analyses. And of course, instead of arguing about where the oil should come from, the important thing to do is reduce the need to use it by conservation, efficiency of process, efficiency of human systems (integrated business/residential communities, etc.), and developing renewable, less or non- environmentally destructive energy sources. Brett
Response:
Of course there are many reasons for the decline in Canada’s oil imports (advertising, utility sponsered conversion programs, better building standards, etc.) but the overwhelming reason is clearly the price of gas and oil in Canada. I have to wonder if gas-guzzlers would be quite so popular in the US with gas at $2+ per gallon (which would still be cheap compared to most of the developed world).
One big difference between the U.S. and Canada is toll booths … up north, we have (I think) only five over the whole country (that may be an old figure, since the ones over Le Pont Victoria Bridge closed a few years ago). The only one that I can name is on the Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver (often seen in background shots of Fox Network’s "The Heights") … US$2-3 in tolls per trip probably balance out the higher price of Canadian gasoline quite nicely (dealing with a toll booth for the first time was a cross-cultural experience for me). gld — Gary L. Dare – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Jascourt, like many coercive utopians, refers to a "system of moving people" rather than a system that lets people go where they want when they want. He regards it as "horribly inefficient", because if only the people would go where he wants when he wants them to he could move them more efficiently. Likewise, he refers to "our horribly organized communities", because if only people would live where he wants them to rather than all over the map as they happen to want to, he could organize their communities better. What’s this "our" stuff anyway. I don’t see that Jascourt has anything in common with us Americans.
John McCarthy’s little polemic about control of people totally misses the point that: 1) Our _current_ system of "moving people" is not a randomly chosen _system_, even if peoples use of it is. This is also true of our cities. They didn’t just end up this way. Specific planning rules made them the way they are. 1) The alternatives that Jascourt refers to do not necessarily offer people any less choice with when to travel or where to live _than our current system_ does. McCarthy totally confuses the macro with the micro. People make choices about travel and living locations _superimposed on top_ of an inefficient system of transportation and urban/suburban design. Jascourt’s suggestion that better alternatives exist does not in any way imply that overall choice for people will lessen. 2pm trips on the freeway and homes in the suburbs do not prove that people are happy with the choices available to them today. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
–
Response:
Stephen Jascourt includes in his discussion of the per capita use of gasoline in various coutnries: The chart tells the amount of MOTOR GASOLINE consumed per capita. This does not include many of the petroleum products used in production of various things, and it is unclear whether it even includes diesel (which isn’t "gasoline") used by trucks for transportation. Mainly it reflects our (U.S.) horribly inefficient system of moving people, or, to a larger degree, our horribly organized communities which cause such transportation problems. Jascourt, like many coercive utopians, refers to a "system of moving people" rather than a system that lets people go where they want when they want. He regards it as "horribly inefficient", because if only the people would go where he wants when he wants them to he could move them more efficiently. Likewise, he refers to "our horribly organized communities", because if only people would live where he wants them to rather than all over the map as they happen to want to, he could organize their communities better. What’s this "our" stuff anyway. I don’t see that Jascourt has anything in common with us Americans. Consider the traffic on a freeway at 2pm. Very little of it consists of people going to or from work, yet there is still a fair amount of traffic. Who knows what they are doing? Why should these people be allowed to travel anyway without Jascourt having organized it? Obvously the purpose of life is to use as little gasoline as possible. Everyone should have engraved on his tombstone the number of trips he didn’t make (or wasn’t allowed to make) and an estimate of the number of kilograms of gasoline thus saved. Unfortunately, 100 years from now people will probably be travelling around in an uncontrolled way and living where they choose instead of in well organized communities. They won’t be using gasoline but will have cheated the fate they deserve by having invented some other way of powering their personal transportation. Jascourt’s cultural descendants will still be telling them to repent. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
… What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food. BZZT! Wrong! The Wall Street Journal had an article last year on this precise topic, pointing out that US oil consumption/GDP is the highest of the major OECD nations. Japan, for instance generates about twice the GDP per bbl of oil as the US. Sorry, the US is just inefficient with oil; there’s no nice political or philosophical way to whitewash this over.
If we cramed out population in CA we’d have a lot less fuel consumption, sure. But then again there’d be no Great Plains to produce all that food that we send around the world. Not that we shouldn’t, or can’t be more efficient, just that our geography necessitates more travel for some things. Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
Response:
The Decline of America: Energy Policy (II) Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988: GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) United States 1,272 7.2 Canada 947 -62.1 Australia 741 -25.0 Switzerland 531 2.0 Sweden 515 -8.3 New Zealand 485 -4.4 Germany 456 1.3 Netherlands 437 2.4 Norway 433 -20.9 United Kingdom 421 -7.3 Finland 417 0.6 Austria 344 0.7 France 344 -0.7 Belgium 296 1.1 Denmark 294 -9.0 Japan 254 1.4 Ireland 236 -1.5 Italy 229 -1.0 Spain 195 1.4 Sources: United Nations, Energy Statistics Yearbook 1989 (New York: United Nations, 1991), pp. 194-207. World Competativeness Report 1991, published by IMD International, Lausanne, Switzerland, and World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 287. - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – _We’re Number One, Where America Stands — and Falls — in the New World Order_ by Andrew L Shapiro. New York, May 1992, Vintage Books, a division of Random House. $10 paperback. ISBN 0-679-73893-2 - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – "America is becoming a land of private greed and public squalor. This book is an indispensable road map through the wreckage. The facts it reveals will startle you. They may depress you. But ideally they’ll fire you up to help rebuild this nation." -Robert B. Reich, author of The Work of Nations
Response:
: Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and : GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL : COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) : : United States 1,272 7.2 : Canada 947 -62.1 : Australia 741 -25.0 : Switzerland 531 2.0 : : …[stuff deleted to Save the Earth]… : : What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that : when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that : produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) : that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food. Some people seem to feel that recognizing our problems so we can fix them is somehow unpatriotic. I feel that the worst thing anyone can do is push the US toward the kind of "banana republic" attitude in which we only say everything is great and therefore *can’t* improve. Any reader who is at all unbiased is aware that our productivity per capita no longer leads the world, and that we use more gasoline per capita than other industrialized nations with equal or higher standards of living. Any modestly astute person realizes that importing huge quantities of oil hurts us in many ways. Obviously *how* to fix this is a matter of debate.
Response:
What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food.
What D*m*n fails to note is that energy _intensity_ is far higher in the US than in other countries. The ratio of (btu’s consumed)/(GNP) (per capita or otherwise) is much higher in the US. This is also true of pollutant intensities. Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
–
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988: GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) United States 1,272 7.2 Canada 947 -62.1 Australia 741 -25.0 Switzerland 531 2.0 …[stuff deleted to Save the Earth]… What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food.
BZZT! Wrong! The Wall Street Journal had an article last year on this precise topic, pointing out that US oil consumption/GDP is the highest of the major OECD nations. Japan, for instance generates about twice the GDP per bbl of oil as the US. Sorry, the US is just inefficient with oil; there’s no nice political or philosophical way to whitewash this over. —peter
Response:
# Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and # average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988: # GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL # COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) # # United States 1,272 7.2 # Canada 947 -62.1 # Australia 741 -25.0 # Switzerland 531 2.0 # #…[stuff deleted to Save the Earth]… # # What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that #when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that #produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) #that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food. # In addition, in a market economy, the lowest cost fuel will be #purchased far more often that higher cost fuel. It’s only natural for #countries to import cheap oil rather than use expensive to obtain "domestic #oil". Oil doesn’t change composition based on where it comes from! # # And you won’t hear people like H*r*l trumpet one of the reasons why #Canada’s oil imports are declining: projects like James Bay II, which flood #native lands and deprive natives of their livelyhood. # # Gosh, that’s so much better than importing oil! Not. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that almost all of the electricity to be generated by James Bay II is to be sold directly to the US (as is a great percentage of the electricity from James Bay I). That’s why when protesters wanted to stop the project they went after the NY electric utility rather than the Quebec government. You are right though about JBII being a horrible project with disasterous consequences for the natives – the Quebec government doesn’t want to take the time (or money) to work out a deal as it did with JBI. Of course there are many reasons for the decline in Canada’s oil imports (advertising, utility sponsered conversion programs, better building standards, etc.) but the overwhelming reason is clearly the price of gas and oil in Canada. I have to wonder if gas-guzzlers would be quite so popular in the US with gas at $2+ per gallon (which would still be cheap compared to most of the developed world). David LeBlanc —
Response:
And you won’t hear people like H*r*l trumpet one of the reasons why Canada’s oil imports are declining: projects like James Bay II, which flood native lands and deprive natives of their livelyhood. Gosh, that’s so much better than importing oil! Not.
James Bay II has not yet been built. There has been wrangling over the provincial vs. federal jurisdiction of environmental studies (we have two "conservative" parties, Liberals in Quebec City and Tories in Ottawa, at odds over this — otherwise, Bourassa and Mulroney are united on the current constitutional proposal). Canada is an oil producing nation, but our imports have been a result of lack of oil pipelines that span beyond Toronto or any other reasonably cheap means of transport (e.g., tankers are too big to get out of Lake Ontario) … that has been remedied by the opening of a link to Quebec a few years ago, and another cutting across the states of Vermont and Maine to reach the Maritimes. As domestic oil cuts across to those areas, the need for imports drop. Also, there has been a large movement to using natural gas in Canada … about time, considering the amount that I’ve seen flared off when I lived in Western Canada. gld PS: I agree with your points about energy consumption commensurate with production. — Gary L. Dare – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –
Response:
Kilograms of motor gasoline eonsumed per capita, 1989; and average annual percentage growth of oil imports, 1982 to 1988: GASOLINE CONSUMED GROWTH OF OIL COUNTRY PER CAPITA IMPORTS (%) United States 1,272 7.2 Canada 947 -62.1 Australia 741 -25.0 Switzerland 531 2.0
…[stuff deleted to Save the Earth]… What Statists like Andrew Shapiro and H*r*l fail to understand is that when you have a society that produces more goods than anyone else, that produces more food than anyone else (_and_, gives a lot of that food away!) that that country will use a lot of fuel to produce those goods and food. In addition, in a market economy, the lowest cost fuel will be purchased far more often that higher cost fuel. It’s only natural for countries to import cheap oil rather than use expensive to obtain "domestic oil". Oil doesn’t change composition based on where it comes from! And you won’t hear people like H*r*l trumpet one of the reasons why Canada’s oil imports are declining: projects like James Bay II, which flood native lands and deprive natives of their livelyhood. Gosh, that’s so much better than importing oil! Not. Brett Proconsul Computer Consulting CHA-CHING! Better, Cheaper, Faster (Pick any two Disclaimer: NOT!
Response:
Question:
I’m trying to help my wife find information on the group Earth First. I’d be interested in anything that anyone wants to send me, but specifically I guess I’d like to get and address or phone number where I can get some information directly from them.
Path: …!mintaka!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!trwind!venice!ries Newsgroups: alt.activism,ca.environment Earth First! Contacts: Earth First! Foundation PO Box 1638 Corvalis, OR 97339 (Tax Deduct. Contribs) Earth First! Environmental Journal PO Box 7 Canton, NY 13617 ($20/year) or: Earth First! Environmental Journal PO Box 5871 Tucson, AZ 85703 In GERMANY: Cynical Tormentors/EF! Redderwed 23 2090 Winsen-Roedorf Federal Republic of Germany In CALIF: Earth First! PO Box 83 Canyon, CA 94516 Earth First! PO Box 34 Garberville, CA 954440 Attn: Darryl Cherney, Greg King Earth First! Los Angeles PO Box 4381 North Hollywood, CA 91607 Attn: Mark Williams Earth First! North Coast PO Box 368 Bayside, CA 95524 Attn: Greg King, Larry Evans Earth First! Ocean-Dolphin Task Force PO Box 77062 San Francisco, CA 94107-7062 In Montana: Earth First! Grizzly Bear Task Force PO Box 6151 Bozeman, MT 59771 In Missouri: Earth First! Missouri PO Box 1961 St. Louis, MO 63118 In West Virginia: Earth First! Biodiversity Project 2365 Willard Road Parkersburg, WV 26101 Other States: Just about everyone. Your can always call the EF! Journal at (315) 379-9940 — Somerville, Massachusetts {wjh12,bu.edu,spdcc,ima,cdp}!gnosys!gst
Response:
I’m trying to help my wife find information on the group Earth First. I’d be interested in anything that anyone wants to send me, but specifically I guess I’d like to get and address or phone number where I can get some information directly from them. Thanks in advance, steve steve cochran 6501 william cannon drive west austin, tx 78735-8598 (512) 891-3422 — it’s all right ma, it’s life and life only —
Response:
Next page