From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:08 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Evolution is Random Hey Gordon, I guess it's obvious to the list by now that evolution and evolutionary ecology are pet topics of mine. Please forgive...sorry it's and occupational hazard. [lecture mode on] You write: Somebody (I don't really remember who...) wrote: "This is arguable - we are in fact only one of what may have been dozens of species of humans. We just happened to be the one that has survived to the present. Evolutionary adaptaion is not a right - it is pure luck-of-the-draw." >>>>That someone was me ; ) Then you write: Well, from everything I've learned, evolutionary adaptation is simply a mechanism that responds to a certain pressure in many ways until the right one is found [snip] It's may have been lucky, but it was not random. >>>>Evolution, or its driving force natural selection, is most *definately* random. In a very real way it is also quite directionless. Natural selection depends on two decidedly random events. First, spontaneous, random variations in the genetic code of an oragnism lead to varition in the organism's physical makeup. Second, unpredicatable variations in the organism's environment determine if that unique physical variation provides the organism with a survival advantage. If it does, the organism has a better chance of reproducing successfully, and therefore a better chance of passing its unique variation on to its offspring and - blah blah blah - evolution occurs. Evolution is also directionless in that there is no preordained form into which a species will evolve. Though I know it was not your intent, your description of primate evolution allows those unfamiliar with the details of natural selection to make a common and incorrect assumption. The assumtion is that evolution is a matter of course - the only way adaptation could have gone in the way it went. My students commonly make this mistake despite my best intentions. There are a limitless number of ways organisms can adapt to solve specific environmental challenges, and evolution is simply that - organisms in an adaptive race to keep up with environmental changes. Evolutionary biologists refer to this idea as the "Red Queen Model." The model is based on a scene in _Alice in Wonderland_ in which the Red Queen and Alice run as fast as they can but get nowhere. Evolution occurs in just the same way - there is no plan for the future, only continuous adaptation to solve the unpredicatable challenges of the moment. [lecture mode off] Jeff "Darwin is the Man!" Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:08 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Questions... Hey Dungate, You ask about ordering Archipelago. Sure, you can order a copy direct from us. Domestic postage is covered in the cover price, so just add a buck for the extra postage and send $19.95 by check or money order. Thanks, Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Sean Goodroad [slugman@itis.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:22 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - some suggestions Everway was written by Jonathan Tweet, although Tynes(Delta Green) and Stolze(Sphere walker sourcebook) both had something to do with everway. Sean slugman@itis.com (on the topic of the y2k problem) "How could this be a problem in a country where we have Intel and Microsoft?" --V.P. Al Gore >Yeah, agreed. For simplicity, those systems are hard to beat. Although >John Nephew wrote Over the Edge, not John Tynes. And I'm not sure about >Everway, either. > >Kai Poh, Malaysian Lagomorph in the Philippines > >>that's another thing, the UA system is a -snap- at combat. So it just seemed >>better overall for the environment. >> >>the only thing simpler would be Everway or Over the Edge (both written by >>the guy who did Unknown Armies, btw) > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:17 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Humans and Ecological Destruction BIOHZD@aol.com wrote: > > >>>>As a consequence of such conventions and abilites, I suggest humans are > now subject to a lest rigid form of natural selection unique in evolutionary > history. For the first time a species has the ability to deliberatly effect > its evolutionary future, albeit to an arguable degree. Sadly, we don't use this ability, due to (IMHO) rediculous ideas involving tinkering with humans being "wrong." On the other hand, it might be ultimately good, when you consider who would be doing the deciding. > >>>>Dawww shucks ; P. Of course my students are likely to offer other opinions > ; ). I always liked teachers that forced me to use my brain, but I was in the minority on that one. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:11 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > Ah. The "Evil Republican/Wacko Democrat" theory. Makes me glad I'm a > Libertarian. :) There are a lot of good people in the middle, but somehow things always end up polarized. If you cut special interest groups and the media out of things, it might help. > Politics is the art of compromise; it's nasty, complicated, and almost never > accomplishes what it sets out to do. Which is why I maintain that > governments' sway over environmental conservation should be strictly > limited. You can accomplish what you set out to do, as long as you take a good look at who you're compromising with. The reason things usually stink is that it's the politicians compromising with people who give them money and people who can make them look really bad. If instead it was the interest of the people compromising with the ability of society to function, you'd get good results. [snip] > political liability, they were summarily dismantled. Modern businesses can't > go tramping around, steamrolling labor and crushing competition in the > mindless pursuit of profit. That behavior is no longer acceptable. Nor can > they ravage the planet in a time of environmental "awareness" — not without > risking potentially crippling negative publicity in the First World media. But they can, and do. Through dummy corporation, subsidiaries, and bribed officials in third world contries. Moreover, people don't seem to care. Mitsubishi was caught not that long ago, setting up companies in Indonesia, doing very profitable and environmenally nasty things, and bribing key officials to look the other way. When the officials could no longer look, the companies were broke from selling their products to Mitsubishi below cost, the executives long gone, and locality wrecked, and Mitsubishi had plausable deniablility. Legally, the scheme was perfect. The local governments could go after the companies, but as I said, they were broke, or even severely in debt to local banks. The press could have had a field day with this, but never did. > I'm sorry, but business is neither evil nor destructive. It can't afford to > be. If you want to point fingers, point them at the career politicians and > the legions of lobbyists who line their pockets. But who pays the lobbyists? I think you've hit the nail on the head, tho. They *can* afford to do it, as long as they do it right. When that's no longer true, they wont. No corp is going to do something ultimately unprofitable, or even unprofitable in the short term, generally. Governments have to focus on making ecology more profitable than anything else, and then get out of the way. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:00 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > >That's like saying that since nuclear fission is a natural event, > A-bombs are good for the environment.< > > It's a human value judgement. The universe couldn't care less. I'm sure, but you simply cannot argue that the ecosystem you drop the bomb on simply isn't there anymore, nor is any other for quite a while. They have a tendancy to scrub things to rock and sterilized or radioactive dirt. > There is a marked difference between a catalytic converter, which reduces > carbon monoxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline), > and hydrogen fuel, which could derail the entire fossil fuels industry. The > economic impact of the latter is considerably more profound than the former. This I don't see (thought that doesn't really mean anything). With the advent of catalytic converters, you had to buy a new car. Gas stations had to buy new tanks, new pumps, to support the new variety of fuels in demand. Plants assembling cars had to make changes to their production lines. Engines had to be designed and built differently. Pretty major changes. As I understand it, you can drop a methanol engine in current designs; what's lacking is: a) Plants to produce methanol (jobs in construction, and once the thing's open) b) Plants to produce the engines (more jobs. Others in design) If, say, Exxon were to make a deal with, say, Ford Motor Company, where Exxon built fuel plants, and Ford built cars, in 3-5 years you could have them on showroom floors. The engines could simply be an option in standard designs. And they could market them aggressively, particularly if Exxon was willing to sell the fuel at or below cost for the first few years. It'd cost them, but they'd have the expertise by the time anyone else got into the game, and if unleaded really was on the way out, they wouldn't be making profits off of gas while they're learning, like the first guy in the door could. This hasn't been done, so where are the holes in the plan (honest question; I really don't know) > Yes, they are. Large companies constantly consult with market analysts, who > synthesize data and project future trends. And not just into the upcoming > months, but years into the future. As far as they can reasonably predict If that's true, then why didn't they buy Y2K compliant computers 10 years ago, and save themselves massive repurchasing costs in a seller's market? Yes, I know, Y2K is old. But it's the one example I can think of off the top of my head. > with the data. Companies that are consistently correct in their predictions > realize a tremendous advantage over their competition. This advantage allows > them to maximize profits and continue to engage in further long-term > ventures, as well as mundane short-term concerns. But there aren't many long-term ventures. The last one I remember hearing about was Hilton and Pan-Am in the 60's agreeing to cooperative development of an orbital hotel. That was dropped less than 5 years later. > Um, these series are twisted satires of American society. They aren't the > norm, only inflated presentations of the more rediculous elements. Put more > simply, if you were to live your life like Beavis and Butt-head or the > Simpsons, you'd be in a mental institution — probably sedated. The details are confidential, but I can guarentee you that Beavis and Butthead constitute at least 5% of the teenage population. Sometimes they make it as far as getting to a good shrink. My high school would be Daria's with the addition of the nutty principal. These series are exaggerations -- if you cut your fingers off with a chainsaw, they're not back after the commercial. But the series are funny because there are people that everyone's met who are very much like the individuals portrayed. The exaggeration distances it enough that we can laugh. > Apple is doing fairly well, considering what it's been through. It also has > a more stable clientele than the power players like IBM. The company > produces excellent multimedia platforms, which are popular among > professional computer graphics designers and publishers; most computers in > the public schools are Macs. Everyone thinks that Apple is dead. It will > certainly never be a major force in the computer industry again, but it > doesn't have to be. It just has to survive. I happen to agree, and I'm writing this on my Powerbook. But the point it, Apple was consistantly five to ten years ahead of Microsoft. There still isn't a PDA in production that can recognize real handwriting like the Newton. Apple's Human Interface Guidelines mean that you can install a new program and be using it in 10 minutes, because the programmers *have* to make things intuitive. But Microsoft, who consistantly dumps programs on the market that other companies wouldn't consider a public beta, in terms of quality, has run Netscape out of business. Even you don't expect Apple to ever be a serious contender. That doesn't argue for the kind of buyer that Adam Smith was expecting, or the kind of market you seem to be talking about. Again, it's only one example, but I'm a computer geek, and a gamer nerd. That's the examples I give, 'cause that's what I know. We could also go into the relative sales of good games, even C&S, or Neverworld, vs AD&D. > There are a myriad companies selling environmentally friendly products, from > energy-efficient light bulbs to dishwashers that filter water and cycle it > back through multiple times to all manner of biodegradable plastic products. Yup. Anybody own one? They're made, but until the public is lead by the nose to the realization that they're necessary, Whirlpool will reign, 'cause they're cheaper. > Jeez. You say "profit" like it's a curse word. And no, profit is not the > sole motivation in these cases. Modernization, industrialization. That's the It's not a bad word, but companies aren't motivated by good intentions. If you're going to get to them, that's how you do it. It's analogous to the old joke: "What do you get if you've got two little green balls in your hand?" "Kermit the Frog's undivided attention." [snip] > And the more we prolong their industrialization, the more they're forced to > abuse their environment. People don't destroy nature without reason. And > when they do, they try to fix it. I live in a state (PA) that was once the > heart of the American steel industry, one of the filthiest regions in the > industrial world. Now it's green and full of life. Once we got past that > statge in our development, we set things right again. The Third World will > do the same if it's given the opportunity. But why is it clean? The Fed stepped in and threatened to come down on mining companies like a vengeful god, and only then did they plant a little grass. There are still coal fires burning there, as I remember. As an aside, where are you? My mother's family is from Sunbury. > No argument here. I simply disagree on the means to the end. That's > basically what this whole argument has been about. I have faith in the > ability of human commerce to pursue human interests (including those > interests that pertain to the environment) in a more thorough and ultimately > more successful manner than any government agency or sociopolitical > movement. You don't. And so we debate the issue until our fingers fall off > from all the typing. My view of things is that the majority of the population has no foresight -- this is verifiable -- and that companies do what sells. Why's there so much violence on TV? People want to watch violence, so violent shows sell commercials at a higher price, so the networks produce more violent shows to get more money for the commercial time. Simple. Inversely, if you want to get the violence off TV, you don't go to the networks. You start at either the advertisers (lame option), or the people. If people are repulsed by violent shows, the very next season, they'll disappear. You have to motivate the companies -- faith isn't enough. I also simply don't believe that they'll do anything to ensure their own continued existance, if it gets in the way of a profit. Knowing what motivates them, you can manipulate them into doing good for the "wrong" reasons. (Wrong is in quotes, because it's not -- altruism would be right, but it ain't gonna happen) And I think that, as long as some consideration is given to using the least despicable means, the ends *do* justify the means. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:27 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Commercialization of Natural Resources "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > If government intervention is absolutely necessary, let it be in the form of > contracted corporations whose specific function is to patrol against > overfishing or other excesses. I guarantee such a company would operate at a > much higher level of efficiency _and_ proficiency than any government agency > could manage, simply because to fail would be to lose the contract to a > competitor. Government would set the standards of performance; the companies > would meet them or be replaced. But then you'd have to have a government agency to supervise these companies, and make sure that they're really doing what they say. And the companies would have to turn in lots of paperwork, which more government employees would have to look at. You'd also need a separate government agency to audit both the companies and the first agency, to make sure that no monkey business is going on. If you really want to do it, just give a company all the rights over (for instance) commercial fishing in the northern Pacific. This would get around a lot of requirements (like search warrants -- the seas would be private property). If, however, anything funny is going on by preponderance of the evidence (NOT without a reasonable doubt), the government seizes all that companies assets, and all the personal assets of that company's executives, or any executives employed over any period where infractions were occuring. If screwing up could land you, personally, in the poorhouse, then you're going to be that much more motivated. If some executive does bad stuff, and the company catches him before the gov't catches the company, there should be some option where the gov't seizes only that execs assets, and splits them with the company. That adds motivation for internal policing. It's draconian, and there's be a much higher incidence of "false positives," as it were, but as long as the company has economic reasons to behave at every point, this could work. Incidentally, I'd characterize companies and corporations more like young children, or moderately intelligent animals like dogs or horses. They only know what they want, and don't understand the consequences of their actions, unless those consequences are immediate. They're so dangerous because they do have an ability to weigh *only the monetary* consequences of their actions. Tie enough money to the end of a stick, tho, and they will learn to fly if you toss it off a cliff. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:29 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Gene tampering "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > Due to the scale of any such operation, it'd probably be a corporation with > ranchers owning shares and receiving dividends of the profit. The harvesting > of sunburts is obviously lucrative enough that poachers will slaughter > thousands of the creatures and risk capture by GEO forces, so I'd think > commercial operations should realize enough profit to support perhaps > several dozen families apiece. Sufficiently armed and dispersed throughout > their territory (with which they'd be intimately familiar), the ranchers > would present a formidable front to any would-be raiders. Then there's the > tendency of neighboring ranchers to form posses whenever someone threatens > the collective security of their herds. Well, I doubt posses would be effective when the transgressors could have jumpcraft and really fast subs, but the rest of it is economics and the functioning of for-profit enterprises, wherein I bow to your expertise. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Auberon [fskln1@uaf.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:15 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Society and Ecology "Robert P. Stefko" wrote: > > Ranching is not commercial fishing. They are two significantly different > kinds of operations. This is true only in that commercial fishermen don't have to pay to feed the fish as they're growing. > Granted. But the company must survive long enough to accrue some value, so > that when it is finally dismantled it still contributes capital to some > other enterprise (which I suppose is analogous to passing on one's genes). I think this is pushing it. Companies suffer at the hands of shareholders demanding profits NOW rather than real neat stuff worth lots of money later. What useful bits that company had are scavanged by another company. > Ok. Not many organisms. And to liken (no pun intended) private enterprise to > a fungus is to promote the notion that business feeds off societal decay, Business feeds of society. Currently, American society is emotionally unfulfilled and status concious. Ergo, there are huge markets for self-help *, as well as "luxury items" that one buys to keep up with the Jones'. This is going to last as long as there's a profit there. I'm not saying it's wrong (if people want to spend money on that, rather than just learning to like themselves, I'll take some too), but it's definitely profiting on others' misery. > when in fact it is responsible for most of the capital improvement in > modern, technological society, and could be, if given sufficient incentive That too. > (of which you've clearly pointed out there is plenty of) the source of > future improvements that lead to a reversal of the excesses of previous (and > current) generations. But if there's that much incentive, why isn't it being done? > That's the trick. But holding steadfastly to the notion that they simply > will not change their ways until the sky comes crashing down around them > isn't going to help. As more than one person on the list has pointed out, That's true. Acting on that notion will. When the fines for environmental violations are so tremendously steep that Exxon or Chrysler-Daimler would actually notice (a whole bucketfull rather than a drop therein), then there will be reason for them to behave. Until then, DuPont will pay fines for dumping, 'cause it's cheaper than the cost of legal disposal. > these companies operate for profit. Show them a course of action that is > both profitable and environmentally sound and they'll take it. Why shouldn't > they? It's money and good PR in one ticket. The PR is just as good if it's unprovable that what you're doing is bad, and that's usually cheaper than doing good. -- +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= "I never get involved in my own life. It's too much trouble" - Michael Garibaldi (Babylon 5) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Archangel Gabriel [angelgabriel@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 5:36 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction WARNING!! LONG POST!!!!! >But whether that change is "good" or "bad" is a matter of >human interpretation. I balk at the attitude that human beings are bad for >the environment. We are a product of that environment, and whatever we do, >no matter how "artificial" or "unnatural" we may think or say it is, is >still a product of nature. Clearly. >>3. Many other human activities are concious decisions or allowances on the >part of society, driven by economic concerns instead of natural selection. >Example - our failure to seriously develop renewable and/or cleaner >alternatives to fossil fuels.< > >Actually, we have numerous alternative sources of fuel and power already >developed or in the works. Fusion reactors, fuel cells, solar panels, MHD >trubines, alcohol engines — we could run the planet on hydrogen. We also >have established petroleum interests with tremendous economic inertia >propelling them into the next century. These behemoths depend on the tenuous >flow of a non-renewable resource, however, and the introduction of the above >technologies would ruin them and much of the global economy if introduced >too quickly and without adequate preparation. Few environmentalists take >these factors into consideration while lobbying for regulative legislation, >and they destroy a lot of peoples' lives and livelihoods in the process. All true, as far as it goes, but the problem is the phrase, "seriously develop." The fact that we are capable (as a species) of producing something does not mean we are capable (as individuals or demographic subsets) of actually accomplishing its production. It's within our technological capability to produce alternative sources of energy, but it's beyond our political power to accomplish it precisely because of the behemoth corporations whose main focus is the bottom line. >This is something I cannot condone, even though I agree there is a need to >develop conservationist attitudes among the public and industries. I >therefore turn to commerce as an equitable solution. Hand certain areas of >conservation over to commercial interests and they will protect their charge >in order to realize a continuous profit. (The ultimate goal of a >corporation, like a living being, is to ensure its continued survival. I've >never heard of organisms that glut until they die.) Develop incentives for >companies to not only act responsibly, but to promote environmental >responsibility among their employess and the communities and markets in >which they operate. Many environmentalists miss the fundamental truth that money equals power, and *everything* is about power. There is, however the larger question of what we *should* be doing. The ongoing discussion about the good or evil of humanity's impact on the environment, while interesting, is essentially irrelevant. Our species generally likes parks with trees and squirrels, and likes to go to the beach and see crabs, and out on boats where we can see dolphins. We tend to change ecologies to our liking (domestication and agriculture), but we still like some areas to exist outside our control. You can't get much pleasure out of camping in a pasture full of cows. These desires are the desires of individuals. People who like something want it preserved. Corporations don't like things. They don't have hopes, and they can't derive pleasure from a spring day under a blue sky. They are therefore fundamentally unqualified to bear the burden of ecological responsibility. That being said, I like the idea of putting ecological responsibility in the best interests of profit seeking companies. It's a good idea. If you want anything to be done, give someone an economic incentive to do it. The problem is that it's much easier to say "make it in the companies' best interests" than it is to actually accomplish it. >>4. Most of these economically driven activites are irresposible in that >they continue even though we now fully understand that the Earth is a closed >system. There are only so many non-renewable resources to go around, and our >renewable ones are poorly managed, if managed at all.< > >Not so. It is irresponsible politics that drives these actions. In the U.S., >major violations of environmental laws are almost unheard of, but in the >Third World they are commonplace. The developing nations do not wish to be >marginalized, so they rush frantically to industrialize and achieve parity >with their former colonial masters. They do this, as we did, by consuming >resources and spitting out saleable goods and a domestic infrastructure. >However, unlike industrial America, the Third World has the added >complication of dealing with more advanced nations who constantly manipulate >and exploit it, causing the process of industrialization and attendant >environmental destruction to continue unabated. Also true facts. But they don't refute the point. The "politics" you describe are actually economics. The concern for the bottom line extends all the way to the top. How can these nations compete without irresponsible ecological policy? Why do they need to? Money. So your solution would take the responsibility out of the hands of governments and put it in the hands of corporations, trading one kind of bottom line for another. >Taking the responsibility of >conservation out of the hands of governments and giving it to private >enterprises is a more efficient and equitable way than binding developing >nations to treaties they cannot possibly honor without sacrificing their >economic futures. >>5. This is fact, not liberal PC retoric. The Earth's ecology, and its >ability to sustain humanity, will not survive in the long term if we do not >grow up and stop shitting in our own house. We should not be speculating >about humans in a million years - we should be focused on the next five >hundred!< > >Check that. Humanity may not survive. No one knows because the data we have >mostly dates back to the middle of this century, before which not many >people were concerned with the environment. We have no idea if the more >dramatic changes in the environment are the result of human action or >natural processes we've not yet had time to observe through their full >cycles. It's probably both, but we cannot go blaming everything of humankind >and jumping to the conclusion that we are going to self-destruct from our >own intractable behavior. Change is necessary, yes, but not dehumanizing >change for the sake of plants and animals that won't ever get off the planet >without us (which, IMHO, is the next step in evolution after sentience). I agree completely here. The science of environmental apocalypse seems to me to be the most irresponsible demagoguery. The evidence suggests that we should change our behavior because if current trends continue the planet will be uninhabitable by us. The fact is that we will kill ourselves long before we can choke the entire planetary ecosystem. But we should *still* change our behavior, just in case the evidence is correct. >>Forgive the simplistic indulgence, but I can offer an analogy that my >students really seem to understand (I teach biology in my day job ; ). >Imagine the family game Jenga (tm). The whole stack of blocks represents the >Earth with a healty biosphere. The top layer of blocks represents humanity >in that we depend on current ecological structure to support us. The blocks >pulled out as the game progresses represent things like extictions, >non-renewable resources, >altered ecological cycles, etc. When enough blocks are removed the tower of >bricks topples and the *game is over*. If humanity continues to carelessly >remove blocks the Earth's ecology *will* crash. A new one will certainly >take its place...eventually, but I guarrantee humanity will no longer be a >part of it.< > >To continue this analogy, blocks in Jenga can also be replaced to other >locations in the stack. This is essentially what humanity does. We >reorganize ecologies to better suite our needs. (Nature does this too, but >without selfish motivation and over longer periods of time.) That does not >mean our tampering will inevitable and in short order bring the stack down. >It simply means the stack will be changed when we're done with it. And by >judiciously placing blocks, we can keep the stack together when it might >otherwise have toppled. This is a gross simplification. Nature does not reorganize the blocks. Nature yanks blocks out whenever the wind changes direction. Nature waits until there are new blocks and stacks them higgledy-piggledy on top of the fallen tower. When it stays up, there's an ecosystem. What you are suggesting is the conscious management of chaos. There are simply too many variables (way too many) for us to "judiciously place blocks." We don't know enough about the tower, much less the blocks. You are correct that it is unlikely that our tampering will result in an immediate toppling of the tower, but you never know which block will bring it down. What we have to do is trust that the tower is stable as long as we don't mess with it, and study every block before we remove it. Nature will still be pulling blocks and stacking blocks, and we can only hope to keep the tower a comfortable place to hang out until we can get to another planet and build our own tower. Sorry about the soapbox. It sneaks out and jumps under my feet at the wierdest times. Archangel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gordon Crookston [gordoncr@sympatico.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 3:07 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM And someone else (again, I don't know who)... "There is a marked difference between a catalytic converter, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline), and hydrogen fuel, which could derail the entire fossil fuels industry. The economic impact of the latter is considerably more profound than the former." Of course, the corporation who develops the first viable hydrogen-powered car would grow enormously rich, and would control basically the entire automotive market until their competitors caught up. So if any corporation had ANY sense at all, they could easily devote their massive resources to this research, but instead they cover it up. As a result, you have to wait for a nobody (ex. Ballard Fuels in British Colombia - O Canada!) to invent it. The argument that fossil fules are a "necessary economic evil" is just kind of wacky. The moment they start to become obsolete then whatever replaced them will grow to fill their economic niche - and then thousands of tiny little fuel cell plants will spring up everywhere... It's a happy thought. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gordon Crookston [gordoncr@sympatico.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 2:57 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Somebody (I don't really remember who...) wrote: "This is arguable - we are in fact only one of what may have been dozens of species of humans. We just happened to be the one that has survived to the present. Evolutionary adaptaion is not a right - it is pure luck-of-the-draw." Well, from everything I've learned, evolutionary adaptation is simply a mechanism that responds to a certain pressure in many ways until the right one is found.. For example - a certain type of bird lives in the rainforest and eats a certain type of beetle. This beetle slowly dies out in the region due to a slight climate change. The bird has to find new sources of food, and start eating different things. After a godawfully long time in which the species has tried eating grasses, leaves, barks and badly-made Thai food (ugh) but finally one bird is born with a big, fat bill that can crack nuts. More of these birds survive, and so more of their children survive, etc... But to the point... Humans, so I've been told, took to the trees pretty early - and to be able to brachiate properly took a lot of practice. Those who could do it well, and had the aptitude, survived. That's why we have colour vision (good for picking fruits out of the foliage), that's why our eyes moved to the front of our skulls and our noses eventually shrank (those who could see better in front of themslves, and had binocular vision survived). And that's also how we developed a complex brain (it took great brainpower not only to judge distances and grab branches, but to plan our movements AHEAD, and to judge what was behind a tree, etc...). It's may have been lucky, but it was not random. Eventually, one of the primates would have grown smarter than the others, and would survive better in the wild... And then it's just a matter of time. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kintaro Oe [kabael@bu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:26 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Correcting attributions and Cooperation > In fact, Over the Edge was written by Jonathan Tweet >with Robin D. Laws (among the best RPG writers we've got, IMHO) >while Everway was written by Tweet solo. Unknown Armies was >written by Greg Stolze and John Tynes. oops. I'm all confused about authors of rpgs generally... > By the way is Unknown Armies actually available yet? Here >in Ireland (don't let the header address fool you) we're starved of >games. One half-assed Virgin Megastore gaming section and a comic >shop that dabbles in CoC and Deadlands in Dublin and essentially >nothing else in the entire country. right now I'm working off my friends GenCon copy, when Archon's printer apparnetly broke, so they sere selling laser-copies for like $5 or so, I think. It's in pretty bad shape, but that's because it's just paper with a broken plastic binding. I've had to sew it back up actually... kabael - Amida Guddha, Boddhisattva of the Creeping Sad notes- In this world we're all bamboo's children we walk on the roof of hell, in the end. gazing at flowers. -Basho -Issa homepage (under construction!!) - http://members.xoom.com/kabael/ Mcguffin Group - http://members.xoom.com/McGuffins/index.html I love messages! ICQ #24193592 kabael@bu.edu *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kintaro Oe [kabael@bu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:26 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - websites >>I could only find 2, the HIST page and the Biohazard page. > > I may build one if I find the time and material... > > Where is the HIST page? I don't have the url handy. It's linked off the Biohazard page though. kabael - Amida Guddha, Boddhisattva of the Creeping Sad notes- In this world we're all bamboo's children we walk on the roof of hell, in the end. gazing at flowers. -Basho -Issa homepage (under construction!!) - http://members.xoom.com/kabael/ Mcguffin Group - http://members.xoom.com/McGuffins/index.html I love messages! ICQ #24193592 kabael@bu.edu *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Alexandre "Tarrask" Filho [tarrask@netwaybbs.com.br] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:00 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Questions... At 18:09 01/02/99 -0900, you wrote: >Gordon Crookston wrote: >> >> Firstly... The creators came from Poseidon to Earth, or vice versa. So >> where did they go from here (or come from TO here). Is there another >> wormhole floating around in the Sol/Serpentis systems (actually there >> should be another in each, unless either system is the HOME system of the >> creators, which is unlikely). And since the creators don't seem to >> interested in closing these gates, the if we followed the wormhole "trail" >> would we find more and more ancient planets, filled with civilizations >> started eons ago by the creators? When we finally find that one system >> with only one wormhole, what happens?... > >Actually, the indications given ever-so-subtly by the Biohazard Guys >inicate that Poseidon and Earth represent the final two links in a kind >of chain -- Wormhole will apparently be a boxed set where either a new >wormhole is found and we can make one more jump up the chain, or the >Creators pop into one of the systems through a previously unknown >wormhole and all of a sudden Humanity gets to do some fast answering. >Makes you wonder, who's going to speak for us if (when) the GEO is dissolved? Talking about that, I played a game in a Con we had this weekend in my city that we had a hover and made a living from collecting stuff from the sea and selling. During the game, we found a ultra-secret satellite that had information about another wormhole and GEO and the Incorporate were trying to get it. I found the idea pretty interesting, so, why not have another Blue Planets in the Universe? ******************************************** *Alexandre "Tarrask" Freire Filho * *tarrask@netwaybbs.com.br * *ICQ: 4477330 * *Jampa by Night: Carlos Gonçalves, ancillae* *Kindred: Peter Swanson, Malkavian * *PBeM Changeling: Kubla Kahn, Pooka Wilder * *PBeM Moderator: Blue Planet * ******************************************** "And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make?" The Beatles *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:11 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Welcome Pete > > > Too bad your last name isn't Church. > > i've been called worse ! > > > pete rogers > Or your first name Buck... == AdamL ===== Water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212 degrees. There are 180 degrees between freezing and boiling because there are 180 degrees between north and south. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gordon Crookston [gordoncr@sympatico.ca] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 9:02 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Oops. I didn't mean to imply that the wormhole-makers CAME from Poseidon, I just meant that that was one of the stops they made on their cosmic road-trip, just as Earth was. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: pete rogers [peterogers@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:50 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Welcome Pete >Hey Pete, > >Welcome the list...delurk at will ; ) thanks, but you may regret that - as anyone off the Deadlands listserv (Jim H & SeanMike for 2 at least) can tell you :) > Too bad your last name isn't Church. i've been called worse ! pete rogers ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Sean Michael Whipkey [highway@cstone.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:34 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Space Bats At 04:03 AM 2/2/99 -0500, Robert P. Stefko wrote: >Since this _is_ the BP list, I'll try to bring this post in line with the >game. Has anyone considered running an "alternate history" BP campaign? Not >just a Nazi-survival world, but any strange twist to the timeline? Poseidon >would be there regardless of the nature of the groups settling it. Maybe, >through some strange mishap while traversing the Wormhole, a group of PCs >could be transported to an alternate history where things are earily . . . >different. > >"Why are the customs officials wearing swastikas?" > >"You're papers please!" > >"Sh*t!" That reminds me of the old sci-fi game "Reichstar", which was set after the Nazis won World War II. It seemed to me to be the kind of game that begged for controversy, but I'd never heard of any. I'd seen it referenced once or twice on rec.games.frp.misc, and found a copy at I.C.E. one day (they didn't make it). Poor writing and art, IMHO. Interesting concept poorly executed. SeanMike -- SeanMike Whipkey - Cornerstone Networks Technical Support - highway@cstone.net Report received spam to: spam-report@cstone.net with the full headers Cornerstone Networks - 804.817.7000 or 800.325.9848 - support@cstone.net "Even we like sappy love stories...if they have zombies in them." - PEG, Inc. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jerome DARMONT [darmont@libd1.univ-bpclermont.fr] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 4:41 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - websites At 23:00 01/02/99 -0500, Kintaro Oe wrote: >I could only find 2, the HIST page and the Biohazard page. I may build one if I find the time and material... Where is the HIST page? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome DARMONT, LIMOS, Universite Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand II mailto:darmont@libd1.univ-bpclermont.fr http://altern.org/darmont/ ICQ:8759237 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Myles Corcoran [myles@irls3101.ck.cit.alcatel.fr] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 3:00 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Correcting attributions and Cooperation T. Kai Poh wrote: > Yeah, agreed. For simplicity, those systems are hard to beat. > Although John Nephew wrote Over the Edge, not John Tynes. And > I'm not sure about Everway, either. > > Kai Poh, Malaysian Lagomorph in the Philippines > > >that's another thing, the UA system is a -snap- at combat. > >So it just seemed better overall for the environment. > > > >the only thing simpler would be Everway or Over the Edge > >(both written by the guy who did Unknown Armies, btw) In fact, Over the Edge was written by Jonathan Tweet with Robin D. Laws (among the best RPG writers we've got, IMHO) while Everway was written by Tweet solo. Unknown Armies was written by Greg Stolze and John Tynes. By the way is Unknown Armies actually available yet? Here in Ireland (don't let the header address fool you) we're starved of games. One half-assed Virgin Megastore gaming section and a comic shop that dabbles in CoC and Deadlands in Dublin and essentially nothing else in the entire country. ObBP: With respect to the discussion on enlightened self interest, altruism and homo sapiens environmental impact I would recommend a book called "Games of Life" by (Austrian?) author Karl Sigmund. It's a popular science book covering, among other things, population genetics, ecology and a good deal of ground about the Prisoner's Dilemma, cooperation as a survival strategy, and other pleasantly non-destructive methods of reproducing in the biological arena. I found it handily clarified a number of arguments in favour of cooperation from a biological viewpoint that I think would sound good coming from educated natives and GEO xeno-biologists alike. Myles *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 3:05 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Society and Ecology >>>>>IMO this is a old and tired argument - one I have heard since I was a child. If this is true, then *when can* we introduce these the new technologies? We certainly can not wait until the world oil reserves are gone before making a serious effort to develop alternatives.< Gradually. As I pointed out in another post, alternative fuel sources are beginning to spring up, particularly in Europe, where dependence on oil is greater even than in the U.S. The process will not be fast, but neither was the replacement of draft animals by automobiles. It takes time for the economy and the public to assimilate the new technology. >>>>>A neccessary clarification - The word enviromentalist has been abused to the point that it is now often synonymous with the word extremist. The word preservationist means a person who supports leaving natural resources in their prestine and unexploited state. A conservationist supports responsible use of natural reasources with an emphasis on renewable resources. I consider myself a practical, moderate and staunch conservationist. Same here. >>>>>As I advocated in a previous post (using commercial fishing as an example) this is just *not* a realistic possibility.< Ranching is not commercial fishing. They are two significantly different kinds of operations. >>>>>I think this is an inappropriate analogy. Technically the "ultimate goal" of an organism is to pass on its genes. Additionally, the purpose of a corporation is to make money (Biohazard excepted ; ) for its shareholders. This often can include selling off all or part of the company.< Granted. But the company must survive long enough to accrue some value, so that when it is finally dismantled it still contributes capital to some other enterprise (which I suppose is analogous to passing on one's genes). >>>>>Fungi and molds come immediately to mind. Some domestic dogs will eat themselves to death if they have access to enough food, and in a more figurative way, lots of people eat themselves into early graves via the effects of obesity...????< Ok. Not many organisms. And to liken (no pun intended) private enterprise to a fungus is to promote the notion that business feeds off societal decay, when in fact it is responsible for most of the capital improvement in modern, technological society, and could be, if given sufficient incentive (of which you've clearly pointed out there is plenty of) the source of future improvements that lead to a reversal of the excesses of previous (and current) generations. >>>>>Wonderful sentiment, and I agree whole heartedly. Now, lets' try to sell that line to Exxon, Ford or even the US Congress.< That's the trick. But holding steadfastly to the notion that they simply will not change their ways until the sky comes crashing down around them isn't going to help. As more than one person on the list has pointed out, these companies operate for profit. Show them a course of action that is both profitable and environmentally sound and they'll take it. Why shouldn't they? It's money and good PR in one ticket. Phew. These posts are getting long. So [snip much additional material along these same lines]. As I've already stated in other posts: This argument is not so much about a disagreement on what needs to be done as how it _should_ be done. Some favor continued government legislation at the local, regional, national, and global level. Others (like myself) favor global economic action by (sufficiently motivated) corporations. That said, I think I'll go to bed. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 3:04 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Space Bats >Heh. The term came to me via years of lurking on the newsgroup soc.history.what-if (and its predecessor alt.history.what-if), where alternate history is the theme under discussion. The most beaten dead horse on that group is "could Germany have won WWII, if so how, and what would happen next". Consensus opinion is that the subsequent state of affairs would not depend so much on the German policies as on the policies of the Alien Space Bats who would have had to intervene for something like that to happen (picking a fight with the three largest industrial powers on Earth, each one of which can outproduce you in war materiel and manpower all by itself, is a fairly certain route to defeat). So "Alien Space Bats" has become a catch-all term for incredibly powerful and enigmatic meddlers not of this world. At least that's how I use it.< You seem to have greatly underestimated the importance of speed in Germany's campaign to conquer Europe. The industrial capacities of Britain, Russia, and the United States could (and did) break Germany after a protracted conflict on several fronts. But had Hitler trusted his General Command more than in our history, blunders like Dunkirk and Stalingrad would not have occured, and the swiftness of the blitzkrieg would have decapitated the European powers before their industrial might could be brought to bear. Then you'd have a Cold War-style stalemate between Germany and the U.S. until one side or the other could outspend its rival. But I digress. Since this _is_ the BP list, I'll try to bring this post in line with the game. Has anyone considered running an "alternate history" BP campaign? Not just a Nazi-survival world, but any strange twist to the timeline? Poseidon would be there regardless of the nature of the groups settling it. Maybe, through some strange mishap while traversing the Wormhole, a group of PCs could be transported to an alternate history where things are earily . . . different. "Why are the customs officials wearing swastikas?" "You're papers please!" "Sh*t!" *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 2:33 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Commercialization of Natural Resources >>>>>This is not an new idea, and there are advocates for this sort of resource management in almost every special interest group. Unfortunatly, theoretical economic models and logical planning seldom survive contact with the real world. In practical application, economics and human nature do not lend themselves to this sort of self management on anything but a small, communal scale. There are countless examples of commercial interests having completely tapped once abundant resources for economic gain.< >Consider a timely example, and one relevant to Blue Planet - commercial fishing. Developed nations - Canada, Japan and the US - have so over harvested almost every commercially valuable fish stock in their respective waters that many populations have crashed and many species have been regionally exterpaited. The *only* thing that has prevented practical extinction of these stocks is goverenment intervention. Despite armed coast guard patrols factory ships *continue* to run borders and harvest these already overfished stocks. This sort irresponsible behavior continues even though modern aquacultural technologies can replace or substitute for almost all comercially important stocks.< If government intervention is absolutely necessary, let it be in the form of contracted corporations whose specific function is to patrol against overfishing or other excesses. I guarantee such a company would operate at a much higher level of efficiency _and_ proficiency than any government agency could manage, simply because to fail would be to lose the contract to a competitor. Government would set the standards of performance; the companies would meet them or be replaced. >This is only one of a dozen such examples that come to mind, but it should suffice to make the point - if society *as a global whole* does not willingly and intelligently change its attitude toward all natural resources, the sort of commercial self-regulation you advocate is not possible on any kind of meaningful scale.< Of course. But you have to start somewhere. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Leif Magnar Kjønnøy [leifmk@pvv.ntnu.no] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 1:52 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Space Bats On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 BIOHZD@aol.com wrote: > Leif, > > You write: > > Personal theory: Alien Space Bats > > [ka-snip] > > >>>>We *really* need to get that security system installed ; ). > Heh. The term came to me via years of lurking on the newsgroup soc.history.what-if (and its predecessor alt.history.what-if), where alternate history is the theme under discussion. The most beaten dead horse on that group is "could Germany have won WWII, if so how, and what would happen next". Consensus opinion is that the subsequent state of affairs would not depend so much on the German policies as on the policies of the Alien Space Bats who would have had to intervene for something like that to happen (picking a fight with the three largest industrial powers on Earth, each one of which can outproduce you in war materiel and manpower all by itself, is a fairly certain route to defeat). So "Alien Space Bats" has become a catch-all term for incredibly powerful and enigmatic meddlers not of this world. At least that's how I use it. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 1:29 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Gene tampering >The ranchers are likely to be one family, maybe two. Coupla rifles. I'd bet the profit would be fantiastic if you let those suckers raise 'em, and then send in a small strike force with explosives and automatic rifles. By the time anyone realizes anything's up, it's over, andyou've got the sunbursts.< Due to the scale of any such operation, it'd probably be a corporation with ranchers owning shares and receiving dividends of the profit. The harvesting of sunburts is obviously lucrative enough that poachers will slaughter thousands of the creatures and risk capture by GEO forces, so I'd think commercial operations should realize enough profit to support perhaps several dozen families apiece. Sufficiently armed and dispersed throughout their territory (with which they'd be intimately familiar), the ranchers would present a formidable front to any would-be raiders. Then there's the tendency of neighboring ranchers to form posses whenever someone threatens the collective security of their herds. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 1:19 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction >That's like saying that since nuclear fission is a natural event, A-bombs are good for the environment.< It's a human value judgement. The universe couldn't care less. >Not at all true. Less than ten years after they were introduced, you had to look hard to find a car without a catalytic converter. Now you can't find a gas station that sells "regular" gas (well, I can't), and older cars can't be driven most places 'cause they don't meet emissions standards.< There is a marked difference between a catalytic converter, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline), and hydrogen fuel, which could derail the entire fossil fuels industry. The economic impact of the latter is considerably more profound than the former. >We've been able to build methanol engines for at least four years (I'm positive it's more, but I'm sticking to what I can prove), electric engines, same. Where are they? They've not been released because oil companies have money. Pure and simple. If environmental lobbies had more money to throw around in barely (or un-) concealed bribes, we'd be driving cars powered by corn, and you'd have to look hard for unleaded gas.< Electric vehicles are entering common use in Europe, where the average commute is short enough to make these vehicles feasible. Some gas stations are even beginning to install charging stations alongside their pumps for drivers who wish to recharge their cars while they're at work. >The people aren't always uncooperative. Would shortsighted companies have spent the money necessary to build car plants in Mexico, if the UAW hadn't repeatedly raised the stakes?< >But continuous profits aren't a concern. Look at modern American businesses. They worry only about how much profit they can earn this quarter. Maybe next.< Yes, they are. Large companies constantly consult with market analysts, who synthesize data and project future trends. And not just into the upcoming months, but years into the future. As far as they can reasonably predict with the data. Companies that are consistently correct in their predictions realize a tremendous advantage over their competition. This advantage allows them to maximize profits and continue to engage in further long-term ventures, as well as mundane short-term concerns. >Put another way, would Dilbert be so popular if it wasn't true? (The same could be said for Daria, Beavis and Butthead, The Simpsons, etc...)< Um, these series are twisted satires of American society. They aren't the norm, only inflated presentations of the more rediculous elements. Put more simply, if you were to live your life like Beavis and Butt-head or the Simpsons, you'd be in a mental institution — probably sedated. >But companies do. What happened to Apple? That's a company that was always focused 5-10 years ahead, and how are they doing?< Apple is doing fairly well, considering what it's been through. It also has a more stable clientele than the power players like IBM. The company produces excellent multimedia platforms, which are popular among professional computer graphics designers and publishers; most computers in the public schools are Macs. Everyone thinks that Apple is dead. It will certainly never be a major force in the computer industry again, but it doesn't have to be. It just has to survive. >Environmentalism costs. Where's the profit in it?< There are a myriad companies selling environmentally friendly products, from energy-efficient light bulbs to dishwashers that filter water and cycle it back through multiple times to all manner of biodegradable plastic products. >But why do they exploit it? PROFIT! Corporations don't commit major environmental transgressions in the U.S., because the fines cut into the profit margins. Do it in Indonesia! Bribe a couple of people, and disappear when the effects start to show! Cut down every tree in the Amazon basin, to farm the land for one year, and then watch the now-useless topsoil wash away!< Jeez. You say "profit" like it's a curse word. And no, profit is not the sole motivation in these cases. Modrnization, industrialization. That's the key. We're talking about cultures with inferiority complexes here. They've been marginalized by the Eurocentric powers for centuries, and they don't want to spend the next millennium in the same crappy situation. So they emulate us in the hopes they'll attain the same level of prosperity we now enjoy. These nations aren't doing anything we didn't do a century ago. They're just getting more flack for it because we think we have the right to hold them in serfdom to ease our guilt at past excesses. If we'd just let these people alone long enough for them to get past this phase in their development, we could all set about repairing those excesses. But instead we hinder their progress, forcing them to export huge amounts of raw materials to maintain their slipshod infrastructures, without any surplus to invest in capital improvements. And meanwhile the ecological destruction continues. >They don't sacrifice their economic futures, they just don't get there as quick.< And the more we prolong their industrialization, the more they're forced to abuse their environment. People don't destroy nature without reason. And when they do, they try to fix it. I live in a state (PA) that was once the heart of the American steel industry, one of the filthiest regions in the industrial world. Now it's green and full of life. Once we got past that statge in our development, we set things right again. The Third World will do the same if it's given the opportunity. >Yes, but between assuming it's all our fault, and not worrying about a damn bit of it, I'll take the fault. At least that way, we'll fix what we can, and maybe survive as a species long enough to get off this planet.< No argument here. I simply disagree on the means to the end. That's basically what this whole argument has been about. I have faith in the ability of human commerce to pursue human interests (including those interests that pertain to the environment) in a more thorough and ultimately more successful manner than any government agency or sociopolitical movement. You don't. And so we debate the issue until our fingers fall off from all the typing. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Greg Benage [gbenage@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 2:31 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction -----Original Message----- From: Robert P. Stefko To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction >>But raping is rediculously profitable. There simply aren't enough >incentives. And "The People" are simply incapable of thinking more than >two, or at most four, months ahead.< > >And profoundly stupid in the long run. As I've said before, corporations are >like organic systems. Their overriding drive is to survive and grow. Multinational corporations are not self-conscious, autonomous entities. They are managed and administrated by human beings. These human beings -- like all of us -- are capable of any number of motivations and goals, not all of which are neatly accounted for by neoclassical economic theories. The management of many companies are motivated by short-term earnings -- they often have to be, if they want to keep their jobs. This being the case, they probably aren't especially concerned with the long-term viability of their policies. When it matters, it will be someone else's problem. And, sadly, it's not at all realistic to expect such people to solve long-term environmental problems. To be fair, note that this argument can also be applied to politicians, not just corporate professionals. IMHO... Greg Benage Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 12:00 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction >Misled because of the policalization of the whole thing. If a couple of senators sat down with some really intelligent business analysts and ecologists, they could probably come up with legislation that would actually do the job, and even do it without putting too much pressure on business, really.< Absolutely. Which is what I've been saying all along. >Instead, we (the Americans) have Republicans, who want to cut down all the trees and strip mine everything with the sleightest potential, 'cause it'll boost the economy, and show a profit for a few quarters. In the other corner are the more left-wing Democrats, the Greens, and a few Real Wierdies who want to stop using any oil, never cut down another tree, and recall all the fishing fleets forever, or even institute breeding laws.< Ah. The "Evil Republican/Wacko Democrat" theory. Makes me glad I'm a Libertarian. :) >The real answer is in the middle. Having lived in Southeast Alaska for a number of years, there's always a boom and bust cycle. The Republicans always control the government around here (though we usually have a moderate Democrat for a governor), so the Fish & Game people have their budgets approved by uneducated lunatics. The fisheries boom for a couple of years, and then all the fishermen starve for a while, and Alaska, B.C., and some Asian Pacific Rim countries all point their fingers at each other about who overfished. Repeat.< Politics is the art of compromise; it's nasty, complicated, and almost never accomplishes what it sets out to do. Which is why I maintain that governments' sway over environmental conservation should be strictly limited. >But raping is rediculously profitable. There simply aren't enough incentives. And "The People" are simply incapable of thinking more than two, or at most four, months ahead.< And profoundly stupid in the long run. As I've said before, corporations are like organic systems. Their overriding drive is to survive and grow. There is no organism in the world I know of that gluts until it dies. Such behavior is not conducive to long-term survival. Contemporary humans have this notion of the "evil corporation" stemming from the days of the monopolistic and oligopolistic enterprises of the Guilded Age. I hate to burst your collective bubbles, but those bloated monstrosities were the result of government interference in the free market. They flourished so long as they received preferential treatment, and when they became a political liability, they were summarily dismantled. Modern businesses can't go tramping around, steamrolling labor and crushing competition in the mindless pursuit of profit. That behavior is no longer acceptable. Nor can they ravage the planet in a time of environmental "awareness" — not without risking potentially crippling negative publicity in the First World media. I'm sorry, but business is neither evil nor destructive. It can't afford to be. If you want to point fingers, point them at the career politicians and the legions of lobbyists who line their pockets. [End Rant] *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Monday, February 01, 1999 11:52 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction >Actually, the idea of _marketing_ conservation instead of enforcing it, is similar to a concept Bruce Sterling wrote a little while back. Find a way to promote eco-friendly lifestyles as a _luxury_, and everybody will want to buy into it. I think Sterling has this on a web page somewhere, but I don't know where...< Kai, If you find it, could you post it to the list? I'd be interested in seeing how he's approached the idea. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:08 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - release schedule Kintaro, Regarding Access Denied you write: really? when is it expected to hit stores? any teasers on what's in it? other than "Access Denied" stuff. :) how much does it cost, too? >>>>AD is almost finished and will hopefully be shipping near the end of the month. As far as content goes, there are lots of goodies - Access Denieds, damage tables, expanded index for BP, inter-settlement distance chart, settlement data table, and a character generation guide. The maps on the screen are way cool (see website) and the back of the screen has all the tables and data you would possibly need. The cover price will probably be around $15.95 or so. Thanks for the interest, Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:52 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: >The argument that fossil fules are a "necessary economic evil" is just kind of wacky. The moment they start to become obsolete then whatever replaced them will grow to fill their economic niche - and then thousands of tiny little fuel cell plants will spring up everywhere... It's a happy thought.< Not a "necessary evil", but one that will not be easily derailed and/or replaced. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:06 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Humans and Ecological Destruction >Many environmentalists miss the fundamental truth that money equals power, and *everything* is about power. There is, however the larger question of what we *should* be doing. The ongoing discussion about the good or evil of humanity's impact on the environment, while interesting, is essentially irrelevant. Our species generally likes parks with trees and squirrels, and likes to go to the beach and see crabs, and out on boats where we can see dolphins. We tend to change ecologies to our liking (domestication and agriculture), but we still like some areas to exist outside our control. You can't get much pleasure out of camping in a pasture full of cows. These desires are the desires of individuals. People who like something want it preserved. Corporations don't like things. They don't have hopes, and they can't derive pleasure from a spring day under a blue sky. They are therefore fundamentally unqualified to bear the burden of ecological responsibility.< Corporations are operated by people. People who have these same desires to live in a green (and blue :) ) and pleasant world. Given the chance to make money _and_ help the environment, they'd take it. Despite decades of sentiments to the contrary, businessmen are not heartless, profiteering automatons. >That being said, I like the idea of putting ecological responsibility in the best interests of profit seeking companies. It's a good idea. If you want anything to be done, give someone an economic incentive to do it. The problem is that it's much easier to say "make it in the companies' best interests" than it is to actually accomplish it.< Never said it would be easy. Only preferable to the misguided and often inept activties of governments. >Also true facts. But they don't refute the point. The "politics" you describe are actually economics. The concern for the bottom line extends all the way to the top. How can these nations compete without irresponsible ecological policy? Why do they need to? Money. So your solution would take the responsibility out of the hands of governments and put it in the hands of corporations, trading one kind of bottom line for another.< Alright. Point taken. But the big difference between governments and corporations is that corporations generally operate more efficiently and proficiently at whatever they do because they can't increase taxes when they run a deficit. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:32 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Society and Ecology >Business feeds of society. Currently, American society is emotionally unfulfilled and status concious. Ergo, there are huge markets for self-help *, as well as "luxury items" that one buys to keep up with the Jones'. This is going to last as long as there's a profit there. I'm not saying it's wrong (if people want to spend money on that, rather than just learning to like themselves, I'll take some too), but it's definitely profiting on others' misery.< Conspicuous consumption is quickly becoming obsolescent, simply because the next generation of adult consumers can't afford that kind of garish display. For those on the list with established careers, let me say that the modern job market sucks. Low-paying "McJobs" with no real benefits are the future for much of the 18-24 crowd, which pretty much kills this argument. >That's true. Acting on that notion will. When the fines for environmental violations are so tremendously steep that Exxon or Chrysler-Daimler would actually notice (a whole bucketfull rather than a drop therein), then there will be reason for them to behave. Until then, DuPont will pay fines for dumping, 'cause it's cheaper than the cost of legal disposal.< Fines? Why not tax incentives? The major argument against that, I know, would be: "Because the taxpayers would pick up the slack." To which I'd reply: "At least those tax dollars we go to a program with definable goals and tangible results." and "If you're serious about cleaning up the planet, you're going to have to pay for it. No service comes free of charge." *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Robert P. Stefko [rpsst16@pop.pitt.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 11:44 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Gene tampering >Well, I doubt posses would be effective when the transgressors could have jumpcraft and really fast subs, but the rest of it is economics and the functioning of for-profit enterprises, wherein I bow to your expertise.< Remember that Poseidon is a frontier, like the Wild West. The West was so named because many of its inhabitants went armed. Often well armed. This was true for criminals and pioneers alike. Ranchers on Poseidon would be well armed specifically because so many of their seedy neighbors are similarly armed. They'd already have the vehicles — VTOLS and hovercraft — for monitoring the herds. All they'd have to do then is mount a few heavy or support weapons on the vehicles and issue man-portable disposable rocket launchers to the hands and they'd have a formidable fighting force. As to where they'd get such hardware . . . that usually isn't a problem for characters in a cyber/biopunk setting. They might even be able to buy them directly from the GEO under strict license and with the understanding that they'll be used against bandits and poachers. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.