NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/sci/environm/14702

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 3.1 KB

From: [e-mail] (Alan McGowen)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 01:13:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Constructive Posts and Bells of Hope
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!hpscit.sc.hp.com!hplextra!hpcss01!hpindda!alanm
Newsgroups: sci.environment
References: <[e-mail]>
Lines: 55

/ hpindda:sci.environment / [e-mail] (Alan McGowen) / 10:58 am  Jan 18, 1993 /
>In these days of the Bells of Hope and calls for Reunion, I'd like to try
>something which flopped for lack of participants the last time I suggested
>it -- a "constructive posts" campaign.

A couple of emailers have asked me to "structure" this proposal a bit.

In my view, the first approximation to the structure of the topics for
discussion here ought to be Agenda-21, the major result of last year's
Earth Summit in Rio.

That is, any topic which was given a chapter in Agenda-21 and recognized
by the international community as a part of the interlocking network of
problems we face ought to be a legitimate topic for discussion in
sci.environment. That includes such "nontraditional" (for us) areas as
the status of women, as well as obvious areas like biodiversity and
climate.

In addition, some areas which many NGOs have complained received short
shrift -- e.g. population, biocentric or ecocentric ethics -- to name a
few -- are also legitimate subjects. [Those areas are discussed in many
of the NGO treaties of the broader Earth Summit.]

Now some will argue that much of this has no business in a sci.* group
-- that the only topics we should ever entertain here are topics which
can be dealt with via a few sums on the back of an envelope.

My view is that the *environment* and our *impact* on it is the topic here,
and the sci.* appellation of the group is a challenge to us to bring to bear
whatever scientific knowledge we have on all questions which pertain to that
topic, to the best of our ability -- it is not primarily a limitation of
scope.

Again, I'd like to point out that the de novo construction of frameworks
for discussion about the environment is a complete waste of time when the
planet has already adopted one. That framework is Agenda-21, and if we
want our cogitations to impinge on the implementable at any point, that
should be our basic initial framework for discussion here.

And, yes, I'm afraid the bad news is that this *does* mean that all of us
ought to read it, or at least *aspire* to read it among everything else on
the reading list.... [No, I haven't read all of it. About half.]

A much less ambitious but still very worthy goal would be to pick just
*one* chapter -- your favorite subject -- and read only that one.

If you can't *find* a favorite subject anywhere in Agenda-21, the three
UNCED treaties (climate, biodiversity, deforestation) or in the NGO
treaties (the documents from the broader participation of the Earth Summit,
outside the UN delegations), I'd think there was a serious question as
to why you are here in sci.environment, or even *.environment.

------------
Alan McGowen