Re: Farm subsidies
On 21/09/2008, at 1:58 PM, Euan Ritchie wrote: NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than the U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). Rainforest isn't all tropical or sub-tropical, it's just that's the best known. Rainforest is based on rainfall, not latitude. F'rex, south-east and south-west Victoria have a mix of temperate forest and temperate rainforest (Mainly the Otway Ranges on the Great Ocean Road, and far south-east Vic past Orbost and Cann River, and into NSW). The rainforest is characterised by dense undergrowth, thick hanging mosses and lichens, and some of the largest trees in the southern hemisphere (not far behind parts of Tasmania and southern Western Australia, as well as, of course, the monsters in South America). Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land, and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the South Island. Apart from that, as you were. :) Charlie List Biologist Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Farm subsidies
Much of New Zealand's pastureland (by no means all) is cleared land, and that means some of it would have been rainforest, even on the South Island. Cleared land certainly, before people got here the islands were pretty much covered by native bush tip to tail (excepting the tussocked highlands). I wouldn't have thought to call it rain forests but I suppose it might be such. My alma mater, Canterbury University, has a forestry department that maintains a small section of native bush between their buildings that I've noticed (while wandering through at night) is kept fairly consistently wet. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? There is at least one problem with best that strikes me immediately -- the environment is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is best at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. Surely best-suited in this context means best-suited for survival as a species. But that one gets messy, too, since speciation begs the question. And then there's the definition of a species, which blurs around the edges. If we survive by becoming different species, who/what survived? Selfish genes? But they change, too! This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Nick SS Can't set foot in the same river twice ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? If it included a TOE, then yes, I did. But maybe reconciled is the wrong word. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?
Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/20/musical.road.ap/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:33:20 AM Subject: Re: Science and Ideals. On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams wrote: Nick Arnett This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Skipped Physics 101, did you? If it included a TOE, then yes, I did. But maybe reconciled is the wrong word. I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that which they obviously do not know. Quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics reconcile perfectly. Quantum mechanics describes all of Newtonian physics as well as quantum phenomena. Newtonian physics is a subset of quantum physics that provides a convenient approximation of most large scale phenomena. Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know what your college physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general relativity and quantum mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that which they obviously do not know. Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Bringing a theory of everything in simply confuses matters. I don't know what your college physics class taught, but mine covered the situation with general relativity and quantum mechanics, which indeed are not reconciled. But that has nothing to do with Newtonian physics. Which made me realize that I didn't say what I was really thinking, which was what you said -- reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics. Hey, it's still kind of early in the morning here (for a Sunday) and I haven't finished my coffee. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't try to force his will on others with mistakes like that! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Yes and the fact that the people who think they have the knowledge and the ability to fix everything, who have to take care of the patronizing people have to be take care of by the people who think that the others don't have the knowledge and ability to fix the people who... oh, never mind. Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be wrong because I misspoke here. I guess we allow thread cross-pollination, for the sake of hybrid vigor. Vigorous debate and all that. And for heaven's sake, it was at best a metaphor and here we are obsessing about it, while the topic at hand (the nature of evolution) is being ignored. And I'll bet it is lonely. I think I hear it starting to whimper off in the corner. Nick P.S. We allow mistakes here. Otherwise, how could we evolve? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be wrong because I misspoke here. I am not implying that anything must be wrong, only that some know less than they think they do. P.S. We allow mistakes here. Otherwise, how could we evolve? We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they never will be? Let's make it a rule! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they never will be? Let's make it a rule! Criticism is most certainly honored in David Brin's writings, which implicitly makes it valued here. On the other hand, belittling people when they make a mistake is not so honored. May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe? I would not presume to tell you what to believe. I rarely know what to believe myself. But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals on me, I feel that I should oppose them. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Farm subsidies
An interesting blog post about sustainability on another island: http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/09/a-letter-inspir.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals on me, I feel that I should oppose them. I think this may have a connection to Doug's post. The statement above could perhaps be taken as part of the basis of an ethical system. Something along the lines of do not impose one's ideals on others, but oppose others who attempt to impose thier ideals on oneself. What kind of culture would evolve out of such a system? I guess it would be more stable than systems that are more aggressive, since all the more aggressive rules I can think of would seem to result in escalating conflicts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 12:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment Is the use of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably? There is at least one problem with best that strikes me immediately -- the environment is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is best at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Species, and fitness, are both snapshots in time. There are various analogies that are used to picture the wider possibilities over time and space - adaptive landscape is one, morph space is another. But really, species is a description of a population at a particular period in time, and fitness is a relative measure of success at a particular period in time. Biologists take all this as a given - the fuzziness and the continuous nature of biology is just the way it is, and understanding this and seeing nature as a snapshot, looking at broader timescales while observing a moment, is something that once learned changes one's perspective. (It's not how it's always been, as biology started as pigeon-holing). Geologists and cosmologists see things similarly. Good post. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 2:16 AM, John Williams wrote: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't try to force his will on others with mistakes like that! It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Ack! I'll never earn a living this way! Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On 22/09/2008, at 6:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant. Ack! I'll never earn a living this way! Heheh! Seriously, it's a good point you made, but it's more philosophy of biology (as species concepts are) than practical biology, as when one's in the field (which I've not been in the research sense for a looong time) one just knows this is a snapshot in time. Even walking into a woodland and looking around, one can see different stages at once - the different successions in a clearing that eventually culminate in old-growth oak woodland, and so on. Charlie. Off To Work Now Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. That is not what I was implying. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. I disagree, obviously. I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out reasons why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one of the few ways I can oppose such rules. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. Charlie. Too true. There is a passage in The Mote in God's Eye where Kevin Renner who is fond of rebutting arguments by blurting out wrong, and then explaining why, is told that it might be more appropriate to start a rebuttal with That turns out not to be the case. A lesson for everyone maybe? And on the subject of the Mote in God's Eye, I wonder if some of the doom gloomers on the list see a cyclic boom bust civilisation that that of the moties as a possible future for mankind, or if they will settle for nothing except a disaster that wipes that plague that is mankind from the face of the Earth for ever. :-) Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way trying to be superior. That is not what I was implying. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and this is a discussion list. I disagree, obviously. But it really IS a discussion list. ;-) I think it is unfriendly to impose one's ideals on others. I do not consider it unfriendly to point out when other people are taking positions that lead to that sort of thing, or to point out reasons why people should not take such positions. Since I do not support rules to stop people trying to make these sorts of rules, pointing it out is one of the few ways I can oppose such rules. Perhaps I'm not the only one who is unsure of what it means to take a position that leads to imposing one's ideals on others. Can you give an example or two? The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain charities that believe do good work. Or reporting drunk drivers, in which case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver. I imagine you mean some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be. Is it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Science and Ideals.
Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. you're projecting, john, you do that a lot... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
New Zealand
Coincidentally I happen to be a New Zealander NZ's population is just over 4 million (in a country 20% larger than the U.K), we have more like 60 millions sheep currently and not many of their pastures were rain forests (only the very North of NZ is sub-tropical, mostly we've a temperate climate). I stand corrected Euan, my estimates were skewed (although there are more sheep in the spring). Would the Kauri forests have been considered rain forest? I believe they were largely clearcut during the boom in ship building? I met David Lange when I was on a bicycle sojourn in the late 80s. I was under the impression that there were laws against using chemical fertilizers and injecting domestic ruminants with steriods, antibiotics and hormones. Is that still the case? I was woken up in my bivy during the wee hours on a full moon night at ninty mile beach by some rasta Maoris who said to bring my torch mate, it was time to get some fish. You could literally take the sole and flounder anywhere the sand was moving. Really fresh and really delicious! I'm thinking about doing another bike trip. Jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
For the sake of discussion...
We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that they never will be? Let's make it a rule! Criticism is most certainly honored in David Brin's writings, which implicitly makes it valued here. On the other hand, belittling people when they make a mistake is not so honored. May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose ones will on others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe? Nick john, you are projecting again. you should not assume that anyone is attempting to impose their will on you. i am certain that can never occur to anyone who is so certain they are right and also patronizing. i may personally disagree with almost everything you say, but i am only stating my opinion. it doesn't mean i am right, nor are you.~) jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
For the sake of discussion...
Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot. Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have the knowledge and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not, and do not even realize it when their infallibility is pointed out. Yes and the fact that the people who think they have the knowledge and the ability to fix everything, who have to take care of the patronizing people have to be take care of by the people who think that the others don't have the knowledge and ability to fix the people who... oh, never mind. Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be wrong because I misspoke here. I guess we allow thread cross-pollination, for the sake of hybrid vigor. Vigorous debate and all that. And for heaven's sake, it was at best a metaphor and here we are obsessing about it, while the topic at hand (the nature of evolution) is being ignored. And I'll bet it is lonely. I think I hear it starting to whimper off in the corner. Nick P.S. We allow mistakes here. Otherwise, how could we evolve? i'm not ashamed to admit that i make lots of mistakes. does that make me an idiot? that's how i learn... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Zealand
I met David Lange when I was on a bicycle sojourn in the late 80s. A reflection of New Zealands small size. I too bumped into him while cycling (in my case getting around my home town). He's not the only Prime Minister I've happened across in daily activities. I was under the impression that there were laws against using chemical fertilizers and injecting domestic ruminants with steriods, antibiotics and hormones. Is that still the case? I don't know such detail. New Zealand does have stricter than typical bio-security laws because of the influence agriculture and tourism has on our economy. Among other reasons past attempts by E.U countries to denigrate NZs meat industry (in attempts to have it excluded as competition to their own) have compelled us to be clean beyond reproach. For instace the practice of feeding ground animals to others at the risk of spreading diseases such as the now famous BSG (mad cow) have long been illegal in NZ. I think steroids are outlawed as I recall recent debate on relaxing the relevant legislation. Chemical fertilizers are widely used and run off from them is one of our greatest problems today (oxygen levels and algaes in rivers, lakes etc). Much of the North Islands volcanic plateau has been transformed by intense fertilization. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Science and Ideals.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain charities that believe do good work. Are you being serious here? Do you really think that might be what I meant? How is endorsing a candiate or charity imposing or forcing someone to do something? Or reporting drunk drivers, in which case I very much wish to see my ideals on said driver. While this comes slightly closer to what I mean, it is still not very close. Reporting a law breaker is not really what I meant by imposing one's ideals. I imagine you mean some other sort of things, yet I don't really know what they might be. Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan, barring a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of stock, raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning internet gambling, restricting offshoring, supporting a bailout of the financial industry using taxpayer money, windfall profit taxes, price ceilings on gasoline, repealing NAFTA, farm subsidies, banning smoking, trans-fats, etcI could go on, but that will do for now. By the way, I do not mean to imply that you support these practices. I am only giving examples. Is it an opposition to broad notions of economic and social justice? Huh? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: For the sake of discussion...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote: i'm not ashamed to admit that i make lots of mistakes. does that make me an idiot? that's how i learn... Well, if that's how you *learn*, you're still open to learning, and if someone is open to learning, they are, IMO, *not* an idiot. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ideas
Well, if that's how you *learn*, you're still open to learning, and if someone is open to learning, they are, IMO, *not* an idiot. Julia well, there you are... i learned something else. some of us are human and when the free exchange of ideas turns nasty, and sarcastic, not all of us have the strength of character, not to take the bait and react in kind. so it goes... jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
New Zealand
I don't know such detail. New Zealand does have stricter than typical bio-security laws because of the influence agriculture and tourism has on our economy. Among other reasons past attempts by E.U countries to denigrate NZs meat industry (in attempts to have it excluded as competition to their own) have compelled us to be clean beyond reproach. I think steroids are outlawed as I recall recent debate on relaxing the relevant legislation. Chemical fertilizers are widely used and run off from them is one of our greatest problems today (oxygen levels and algaes in rivers, lakes etc). Much of the North Islands volcanic plateau has been transformed by intense fertilization. i am sorry to learn that and that they are relaxing some of the relevant legislation. one of the things i loved about your country is that it reminded me of america when i was growing up in the fifties (except DDT was still wide spread). it seemed to me that the food tasted better, then, even if it wasn't as pretty as what is sold in the supermarkets, now. i never had to lock my bike, and almost everyone i met was really friendly. jon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Does it lead to the dump, to the dump, to the dump, dump, dump . . . ?
On Sep 21, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Officials paving California road that plays William Tell Overture http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/20/musical.road.ap/index.html Yup. That's just what America needs: an excuse to drive back and forth over the same stretch of road for no real purpose whatsoever. YouTube videos show people in SUVs and sedans driving down the road at 50MPH or so, then making a U-turn to do it again. Oh, and it's not officials who did it, it was Honda. Evidently, when driven in a vehicle with the exact wheelbase and wheel diameter of a Honda Civic (or Accord, or whatever commercial it was for which the road was grooved), it plays roughly in key. In the couple of videos I watched, it was uniformly awful: the intervals between the notes weren't even right. I suspect that was due to speeding up and slowing down between notes. All in all, the sort of thing I wished people would do to roads when I was, oh, maybe about 6 years old, but now that I've actually developed an awareness of consequences (a real buzz-kill, that), It looks more and more like an example of wretched excess. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
