NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14098

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 7.9 KB | 152 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!alberta!lewchuk
From: [e-mail] (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: A minor problem
Message-ID: <lewchuk.725756848@menaik>
Sender: [e-mail] (News Administrator)
Nntp-Posting-Host: menaik.cs.ualberta.ca
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:07:28 GMT
Lines: 139

[e-mail] (T.Y.) writes:
> [e-mail] (Michael Lewchuk) writes:
>>The environment does have limits.  We find them when we reach them, but the
>>problem is when we reach them we usually have to back off a lot before things
>>regain their balance.
> I agree, that till now, this has been pretty much our (human) record -
> we have learnt about environmental limits when we reached tham. But, this
> to me, is an opportunity for novel scientific/technical research/study -
> predicting and modeling the real limits of environment. It is not necessary
> to learn limits after the event, what is thought and science for?

Observation is to learn limits after the event.  Thought is to learn.
Science is to learn correlations both before and after the event, which can
hopefully lead to other alternatives not yet explored.  Thus, science is there
to correlate observations into theorems valid for predicting.  But on the
whole I'd say you're correct.

> Environment may have limits. But human ingenuity/ability doesn't.
> For example, theoretically speaking, small amount biotoxins could be
> shown as fatal to environment. But technically, the human ability/genius
> to process these is not limited. Later, I give an example from vaccination
> industry.

Human ingenuity is only seemingly boundless in infinite time.
While I can understand that ideas can occur at any time, they seem to only
advance when the time is right.  Who was it, Michelangelo, who designed all
those neat toys that weren't practical for another 200-300 years?  Sure, we
might be able to get a genius to create them, but that doesn't mean we can
literally do it.

There is a distinct boundary between conceptualization and engineering which
must be crossed, and between engineering and implementation.  The entire
process takes time, and may require other inventions.  Do we have the time?
I'll save that question for later.

>><stuff deleted>

> All this is too speculative. Please don't treat this as a flame, but
> there are just too many "may be" and doubt based clause there. So, I skip
> analysing these.

Wasn't it Lt. Cmdr Data on Star Trek, the Next Generation, who said:
"One of the most fundamental statements of science is "I do not know.""?
I am saying that I do not know our global limits.  Going past them can be
quite hazardous because we may not be able to sufficiently recover.  Sure
there are maybes.  What I'm getting at is:
1.  We don't know whether we can reverse the effects of environmental damage
2.  The average consumer does not know the environmental cost of his purchases
3.  Thus we are unable to make an "informed intelligent decision".

> blue chip industry. The way to control biotoxins are numerous: don't make
> them, change the process/product; modify intermediates; add reactants that
> consume functional groups that identify the toxin....
> But too many things seem to have no economic value in the begining. PAH
> containing soot for example was considered to be a cancer causing stuff. How
> to safely dispose it remained interesting research area for some time. Now,
> researchers have found the same soot to contain buckminsterfullerenes (C60).

However the problems are:
1.  Discovering the biotoxin (somewhat easy)
2.  Filtering it out or otherwise disposing of it (questionable), which
    requires innovation, particularly to be cost effective, and/or using
    it in another process.
3.  Filtering out "useful" items does not make the biotoxin any less
    convenient to dispose of, or any less dangerous.

> Life is not risk free. Learning always goes thru mistakes/hopelessness.
> Problems are challenges to be romanced with.

Of course life is not risk free, but some measure of reasonablility is
warranted, I believe.  Generally, driving your car at a wall and trying to
brake at the last moment is considered stupid and only impresses teenagers
trying for yet another thrill to "prove their adulthood".  Why is it that
destroying entire segments of the environment is not considered with the
same intensity as driving your car towards a wall?  Personally I think it's
because you can't see the wall.  You may not be able to see it until it's
too late to stop.  That's the only problem.

Here's where I bring back the ideas of innovation vs. problems.  It's that
darned wall that says "do something NOW or die".  The problem is that we
may see that wall far too late.  We might not be ABLE to do anything.  I
believe mankind has easily engineered the extinction of many species, even
when trying to save them at the last moment.  The problem is that nature is
finnicky and it won't just "come back" when you stop destroying it: it takes
time and ideal conditions for it to "come back" right away.  And you may not
have ideal conditions.  Which reminds me, how many American buffalo are there?

>> Are you guys really
>>happy dumping large quantities of toxins into your atmosphere, land, and water
>>until your sky is yellow/brown, your water is tan-colored or green and your
>>land is rated unsuitable for growing food? Are you happy reducing biodiversity
>>until we find out how much of the food chain we're gonna lose if we keep
>>hacking at the insects, trees, and birds?  Will you think that the world is
>>a good place if those birds twittering in the park start dying of sulfate
>>poisoning, and you don't have any birds to listen to anymore?

> No. Just working to understand/improve/excel.

Then I fail to see the lack of concern for current environmental damage.  The
environment benefits everyone, and reducing its quality affects everyone
negatively.  While I can undertsand that many environmental damage claims are
about as genuine as UFO and psychic experience claims, there are several
valid concerns:
1.  Ecosystem destruction and reorganization.
2.  Ozone depletion
3.  Soil contamination, erosion, and sterilization.
4.  Lake pollution and sterilization.
5.  Air contamination beyond normal human operating limits.  What do I mean
    by this?  Well, if a healthy person has any problem breathing the smog,
    then I think it's time to reduce it.

The point I'm trying to make is that even though we're desperately trying to
save the ozone layer, there are other things which are destroying the
environment.  And the ozone issue was proven back in the 60s.  Why wasn't
it at least given some thought back then?  Nowadays, farming policy and
soil contaminants should be given some thought, and water life maintenance
should also be given some thought.  These last few decades have really
disturbed the quantity of water life due to overfishing, pollution, and oil
spills.

A second point is that I guess a lot of what I'm complaining about is not on
continental US/Canada/Mexico.  It's in the oceans, lakes, rivers, soil, where
you just can't see it.  The Mexican rainforest issue is just part of the
problem.  The REAL problem is that we don't see the direct effect of what
the total cost of our consumption is, and what we're doing to the environment,
or, simply, we don't care.  I think it's a mixture of the two: many people
don't know, and many don't care, and many don't know because they don't care.
They are too busy improving themselves to improve their environment.  Not
just the green environment around them, but the emotional environment around
them, their neighborhood, etc.  Or more often they're too busy just trying to
survive to care.

>T.Y.            (who thinks that human mind is an unlimited resource)
>---- >[e-mail]

Hmm... your boss thinks the human mind is an unlimited resource? :)

                    Michael Lewchuk
                    [e-mail]