Directory of Environmental Programs
Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -NOW AVAILABLE DIRECTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS http://www.cnie.org The Committee for the National Insitute for the Environment announces our new Directory of Higher Education Environmental Programs (DHEEP) located on the World Wide Web at . The Directory contains detailed information on undergraduate and graduate interdisciplinary programs, including the full spectrum of environmental disciplines. We are in the process of collecting information for the Directory and want to make sure that your institution is included. Administrators, faculty and staff can submit information through a Survey Form at . The form is designed to collect information about program objectives, information on the process of establishing the program, special opportunites for students, employment statistics and contact names for colleagues and prospective students. The Directory was designed with several audiences. DHEEP will assist students seeking interdisciplinary programs, faculty and administrators working to improve or establish degree-granting programs and employers looking for graduates with appropriate academic backgrounds. The Directory is suitable for degree-granting programs only; it is not suitable for certificate programs or for programs that offer a minor with an environmental focus. We are focusing on degree-granting programs in an effort to simplify the information available in the Directory. The Directory is a free resource for those who seek environmental education information. We are asking the programs that submit information to consider making a $100 tax-deductible donation to help defray program operating costs. DHEEP is a project of the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment. The Committee is a national non-profit organization with a mission to improve the scientific basis for making decisions on environmental issues through the creation of a National Institute for the Environment, a non-regulatory science institution. Please contact Alison Lee at (202) 530-5810 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information. ** Committee for the National Institute for the Environment Improving the Scientific Basis for Environmental Decisions Alison Lee Project Associate 1725 K Street, NW Suite 212 PHONE 202-530-5810 Washington, DC 20006FAX 202-628-4311 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cnie.org **
Conference Announcement & CFP: Society and Resource Managem
[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Forwarded Message Follows --- CALL FOR PAPERS May 27-31, 1998 Seventh International Symposium on Society and Resource Management Columbia, Missouri This biennial symposium focuses on the integration of the humanities and the social and natural sciences in addressing resource and environmental issues. A commitment to increasing the contributions and roles of the social sciences is particularly emphasized. The goal is to foster increased dialogue among natural resource managers, social scientists, policymakers, and resource management scientists. Exploration of the linkages between culture, environment, and society will be a guiding theme at the 1988 event. This thrust is based on the notion that complex resource issues are societal problems based in cultural systems and can be addressed by multidisciplinary perspectives. In addition, any presentations bringing a humanities or social science perspectives to resource and environmental issues will be welcomed. Symposium activities include concurrent paper and poster sessions, panel and round table discussions, film/video sessions, and various field trips. Hosted by the University of Missouri, the Symposium welcomes all researchers, managers, academicians, policy specialists, and students interested in the human aspects of resource management. For more information on participation, visit our website [http://silva.snr.missouri.edu/issrm] or contact any of the co-chairs: Sandy Rikoon University of Missouri-Columbia Rural Sociology Sociology Building 108 Columbia, MO 65211 Telephone: (573) 882-0861 Fax: (573) 882-1473 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlie Nilon Fisheries and Wildlife 112 Stephens Hall University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO 65211 Telephone: (573) 882-3738 Fax: (573) 882-5070 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Kurtz Forestry 1-30 Agriculture Building University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, MO 65211 Telephone (573) 882-4567 Fax: (573) 882-1977 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Stefanie S. Rixecker Department of Resource Management Lincoln University, Canterbury Aotearoa New Zealand E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fishing
Our methods of 'fishing' are not sustainable and are designed to increase or maintain the gap between rich and poor. These methods are imposed, often through violent means, here and abroad, to open new markets and exploit labor and natural resources for the benefit of the few. Sue D [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> give a man/woman a fish, and you feed him/her for a day; teach >> a man/woman HOW to fish, and you feed him/her for a lifetime. Bravo! >> >> Sue Tracy >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >but yet, there's a thin line between teaching a man/woman to fish and >destroying indiginous people and cultures in the name of "development" >where does one draw the line between sincere help and imposition? > >gd > >
Re: Population Issues
Greg wrote: --snip-- > Wealth and healthcare can make a big difference at the upper end of > the age profile, however, and we're only just beginning to see that > kicking in now, in the US, Canada and Scandinavia especially. > Demographers are predicting AVERAGE life expectancies going up into > the 80's, 90's and even 100's in the next half-century in rich > countries. Geriatric illness is next on the hit list for drug > companies, because there is now so much money in it. The human body > ought to be able to last, with good nutrition and top medical care, > to around 120 on average. Now, if you think that the most recent pop. > increase in rich countires took place in the 1950's, you can see that > improvements in top-end life expectancy and the 'baby boom' will > probably coincide just around the time - 2030 or so - when Third > World pop. increase is predicted to level off (though not in Africa). > There won't be any extra people, but the ones there are won't die ... > This is a new kind of pop. explosion, and will be worse for the > reasons described - non-productive consumption, conservatism, and > various other problems. > --snip-- Dear Greg, Thanks for your response. Just to keep this conversation going for a bit. Predicting the future has made fools of people with better minds than mine --- so, of course, I have to barge in and try anyway. Watching events and trends in the U.S., I doubt that the baby boomers as an age cohort will attain the longevity being predicted for them. Are people outside the U.S. aware of what's been happening in heath care here? Somewhere between 20 and 30% of our citizens have no health care insurance at all - which effectively means almost no health care. Insurance coverage has been reduced for most of the rest of the working public as unions have lost their clout and much of their membership.. For example, out-patient hysterectomies are common ( one of my colleagues recently died of one - a 44-year-old-woman who left 3 young children.) "Drive-by deliveries" recently had to be outlawed by the federal government because the bad publicity was embarrassing - both mother and baby were being thrown out of the hospital after an hour or two. New, more effective AID's drugs are on the market, but most AID's victims here can't afford them. The big drug companies have and will continue to target the elderly, and continue to make their massive profits doing so, but the profits come only from an elite who are still able to afford the care. The ability of the general public to access these services is declining. And it's the general public which most affects longevity rates. Health care, however, is not as important a factor in longevity as poverty. Again in the U.S., the Social Security system (on which most baby boomers will rely for retirement income) is scheduled to collapse before they are. : ) I don't hold out a lot of hope for the baby boomers. In spite of their considerable numbers, they are caught in some serious social forces. I would urge caution when extrapolating from the increasing longevity of previous generations. The U.S., of course, is not the world - but it is a big, rich, and influential country - and it has, in my opinion as a loyal citizen (no sarcasm), been doing a particularly miserable and irresponsible job of leadership. U.S. policy and discourse are simply not addressing the issues which drive ecological destruction. Rather, the laissez-faire market romanticism which passes for social policy here is is a marvelous example of the nature of the problem. Other than population size, the most important issue in ecology is economic inequality, a problem which reliance on the markets to solve everything (a definition of market romanticism) simply increases. The income gap within the industrialized countries is increasing - as is the gap between rich and poor countries. We seem to be breeding a small cadre of international elite, produced and maintained by free market forces, who are above and beyond reponsibility to any environment or country. Those folks worry me a lot - much more than a bunch of decrepit baby boomers. Most specific instances of ecological destruction, studied carefully, involve as crucial causative factors one or both of the following: 1.) irresponsible greed on the part of wealthy people or pseudo-people (corporations) who rationalize their actions by referencing laissez-faire ideology and/or 2.) the desperate actions of poor people who really have no other feasible options than to destroy their own futures in order to survive in the market economies that their country's elite have chosen. .. I sound like a classic Marxist here. I really am not - I don't want to give up the advantages of capitalist markets. But I do want to address the inevitable down-side of capitalism: it
