Mary wrote: "It also seems that whenever anyone tries to propose an
alternative to the status quo of injustice, racism, sexism, classism, there
is a loud chorus of "NO, won't work", "not feasable","too utopian". from the
ultra-privileged, and
sometimes ultra-sensitive members of this list. How are changes EVER made if
not by a few brave souls who decide to do it anyway despite the odds, despite
the discomfort, despite the uncertainty of the outcome?"
This response strikes me as somewhat inflammatory, and certainly
non-constructive: by implication you have categorized those who disagree as
'ultra-privileged' and 'sometimes ultra-senstive', while at the same time
classifying yourself as a 'brave soul.' How do you know who among us is
"ultra privileged"?
As far as the last part of your message, I challenge you to find one example
in history of someone making a meaningful social change without considering
the 'hows' of it. To put it another way: those who actually implement
meaningful social change--those who suffer "despite the odds, despite the
discomfort, despite the uncertainty of the outcome"--didn't do it by sending
e mails. Simply recognizing injustice does not make someone a brave soul.
Anyone can sit back and talk about how unfair everything is--the "brave
souls" as you put it are those who actually work through the details.
I think if you read back through this discussion you will find that what you
are categorizing as 'the loud chorus [of the ultra privileged naysayers]'
etc.. is a sincere effort to address the 'how's' of ameliorating injustice.
>From what I have seen on this list there is some diversity of opinion but in
almost every case sincerity on the the part of the participants in societal
and environmental improvement. IMHO, when someone raises an objection or a
'that won't work because..' statement, this is an opportunity for you to
explain why it would work, or how it can work.
regards,
Wendy
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 24 17:20:15 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 19:19:39 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ebola
Mary-
If you're interested in the subject try "Power Unseen" by Bernard Dixon on
the [recent] historical effects of various viruses/bacteria. This describes
the effects of varios pathogens on the course of recorded human history.
Also, "The Coming Plague" by Garrett, and "Microbes and Man" are interesting
reads along this line.
Wendy
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 24 19:29:38 1995
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 25 May 1995 13:10:31 +1200
; 25 May 95 13:07:59 +1200
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:07:24 +1200
From: "STEFANIE S. RIXECKER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NRC Report on E.S.A. (fwd)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Lincoln University
FYI for ECOFEMers. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 15:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
From:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NRC Report on E.S.A.
National Research Council Report: Science and the
Endangered Species Act
In response to a bipartisan request from three congressional leaders
2 and 1/2 years ago--former House Speaker Thomas Foley, Senator Mark
Hatfield, and Representative Gerry Studds--the National Research
Council today released its study regarding the scientific aspects of
the Endangered Species Act.
The committee was charged with addressing whether the E.S.A. conforms
to contemporary scientific knowledge about habitat, risks to species,
and identifying species, subspecies, and other biological groups
below the species level. The committee was also asked to consider
whether the Act conforms to what is known about the factors needed
for recovery of endangered species, possible conservation conflicts
between endangered species, and the timing of key decisions under the
Act.
Committee members found that there has been a good match between
science and the E.S.A. Given new scientific knowledge, the committee
simply recommends changes to improve the Act's effectiveness. The
report notes that the Act's emphasis on protecting habitat reflects
current scientific understanding of the crucial relationship between
species and their habitats.
Members of the NRC committee endorse the regionally based, negotiated
approaches to the development of habitat conservation plans provided
for by the 1982 amendments to the Act.
In order to avoid situations where designating critical habitat
becomes controversial and arduous, delaying or even preventing
protection, the report recommends that when a species is listed as
endangered, a core amount of "survival habitat" be protected as an
emergency, stop-gap measure--without reference to economic impact.
This survival habitat should be able to support either current
populations or the population necessary to ensure short-term survival
for a period of 25 to 50 years. When the required recovery plans are
adopted or the required critical habitat is identified and
designated, the survival-habitat designation should automatically
expire, state the authors.
The committee was also asked to address the definition of species.
The authors conclude that the Act's inclusion of distinct population
segments is scientifically sound and should be retained. But to
provide greater scientific objectivity in identifying these
population segments, the committee report recommends using the
concept of "evolutionary units" that identify biological groups with
distinctive behavioral and genetic characteristics, and that possess
the potential for a distinct evolutionary future. The authors note
that by focusing attention on the important, distinctive attributes
of organisms, the use of evolutionary units would provide
policy-makers with an additional scientific basis for determining
which groups of plants and animals merit protection.
The report states that recovery plans designed to achieve the goals
of the E.S.A. are often developed too slowly or cannot be justified
scientifically. To ensure that these plans are effective, the
authors believe that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which oversees
each plan, should establish explicit guidelines for developing them.
Committee members noted that the E.S.A. was not designed to carry out
all of the nation's conservation policies and that additional
approaches need to be developed and implemented as complements to the
Act to prevent the continued, accelerated loss of species and to
reduce economic and social disruption.
==========================================
The National Research Council is the principal operating agency of
the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering. It is a private, non-profit institution that provides
science and technology advice under a congressional charter. Funding
for the study was provide by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service of the
Department of the Interior.
Committee on Scientific Issues in the Endangered Species Act:
Michael Clegg, UC-Riverside
Gardner Brown, UWA-Seattle
William Brown, RCG/Hagler Bailly Inc.
William Fink, UMI
John Harte, UC-Berkeley
Oliver Houck, Tulane Univ.
Michael Lynch, UOR
Lynn Maguire, Duke Univ.
Dennis Murphy, Stanford Univ.
Patrick O'Brien, Chevron Research & Technology Co.
Steward Pickett, Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Katherine Ralls, Smithsonian Institution
Beryl Simpson, UTX
Rollin Sparrowe, Wildlife Management Institute
David Steadman, UWA
James Sweeney, Champion International Corp.
Research Council Staff, David Policansky
Pre-publication copies of the report, "Science and the Endangered
Species Act," are available from the National Academy Press at 2101
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418. (202) 334-3313 or
(800) 624-6242. Cost of the report is $45.00 (prepaid) plus shipping
charges of $4.00 for the first copy and .50 for each additional copy.
For further information call (202) 334-2138; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==========================================================
