News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2005, 11:34:44 PM »
Patrick_Mucci writes:
As to the incentive to do so, it should be clear as a bell to you.
To preserve your credibility and the integrity of your posts.


I don't have a single worry.

The USGA already has a guide book that I would use for any rules writing. It is Richard Tufts' Principles Behind the Rules of Golf. If they are going to ignore Tufts, you can be sure they will also ignore me.

Dan King
Quote
I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions, even though I long ago came to the conclusion that I was not a political person and could have no comfortable place in any political group.
 --Lillian Hellman in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2005, 11:39:23 PM »
Greed has EVERYTHING to do with it Mr. Mucci. We are not talking about Indians sh%ting in the water. We are talking about people with the ways and means to have a clean and healthy enviroment, but have chosen their own personnal financial gain over the well being of others. They disguise their argument as being one of "extremes" and costs, often going so far as to seek OUR sympathy for their blight.  Cough, cough, choke, choke...sorry, I do not feel their pain.
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2005, 11:54:38 PM »
Opps a bit of a slip...I meant plight, not blight...though that is often the result.
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #53 on: October 24, 2005, 12:13:57 AM »
Craig Sweet writes:
We are talking about people with the ways and means to have a clean and healthy enviroment, but have chosen their own personnal financial gain over the well being of others.

Just out of curiously, do you drive a car? If so, what kind of car do you drive?

You know if you drive you could buy a hybrid? Some of the current models have much less than 1/100th the emissions of equivalent cars. There is the problem that someday the batteries turn into landfill, but still...

Any chance you haven't switched to a hybrid because you are picking personnal financial gain over the well being of others?

Me, I have a Prius, but it an early model. The newer models have something like 1/10 of the emissions of the one I drive. So do I trade it in for the well being of others? Then again, doing that brings it a bit closer to being landfill.

Things just aren't as black and white as they often appear.

Opps a bit of a slip...I meant plight, not blight...though that is often the result.

You can modify your own post by hitting the modify button on the top right corner of your post. It only shows up on your own posts.

Dan King
Quote
Beware that you do not lose the substance by grasping at the shadows.
 --Aesop

Mike_Golden

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2005, 12:50:20 AM »

Isn't it odd that we are not ALL enviromentialist? After all, we live here and I doubt anyone would want to fill their HOME with sh%t and poisonous air and filth.  The fact that we are NOTHING without clean water should be incentive enough to wantt to do everything we can to insure a lasting supply of clean water.

Hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, what do you think the quality of the water in a stream-river was for the tribe that lived downstream from the other tribes ?

No one is against clean water.
They're against extremists and the lack of commons sense.
[/color]

Is the POWER of GREED so great that we would sh%t in our living room and poison the water we REQUIRE?  Apparently, for some that post here.

Greed has nothing to do with it.
You continue with your penchant for exageration and engaging in class warfare.

Do you think the indians that lived upstream from their neighboring tribe had greed as their motive when they used the stream to carry away their wastes ?

Is it greed that drives humans to seek shelter ?

Shouldn't low cost housing for its citizens be one of the primary goals of any government ?  

Affordable housing should concern you.
Employment for all Americans should concern you.

Those two needs are paramount, and while we should be sensitive to the environment, foolish and/or extreme environmental applications should not impede affodable housing and employment opportunities for Americans.
[/color]


Patrick,

Cmon, how can you compare modern America with Native Americans hundreds of years ago?

What do you think the average life span of a Native American was in the 1600's?

Were they potentially discharging thousands of tons of pollutants into the rivers and streams?

Were they burning hydrocarbons at an increasingly alarming rate?

Were they destroying the ozone layer?

How would you like a family member, in search of affordable housing, to have purchased a home near the Love Canal?  

How would you feel if you or a family member was drinking water contaminated with MTBE or perchlorate for years, and then find out that either or both of them might be responsible for the spread of disease?

How would you like it if a family member, who never smoked, died from lung cancer brought on by inhalation of asbestos?

There's absolutely no reason why affordable housing and full employment cannot coexist with responsible environmental legislation and controls.  It already does in many parts of the country.  

I love golf, but if we lose a few new golf courses to an overreaction to the concerns for the environment I believe that's a small price to pay for the progress made since the early 70's in this area.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2005, 12:50:51 AM »
A.G.,

Sorry, but I think that your characterization is untrue.  We have a tremendous mosquito problem right here in Texas and a number of people have died from diseases such as West Nile fever.  I can't remember the last time I saw a city truck fumigating the neighborhoods, though I know that Dallas has had to do it a few times (with some stuff that a few people say the bugs actually like).

Malaria is a major problem in Africa, serious enough that we have to take extensive, expensive precautions when we travel there.  More than a few of the guides we've used have lamented that sometimes fatal diseases including sleeping sickness transmitted by mosquitos and flies are on the rise largely because of limitations to effective chemical controls.  DDT is one of those which may not have been totally banned everywhere, but is being used to a much lesser degree.  

Mike Golden,

You are correcting a point that I never made.  Perhaps you missed one of my comas or I failed to explain myself clearly enough.

In my 20+ years of commercial real estate brokerage, management, and investments, I've probably ordered and/or perused a hundred Phase I reports, a number of Phase II, and a couple follow-ups.

I have no quarrel with sound environmental stewardship.  However, seeking purity or perfection should not be an objective.  The environment is heavily politicized.  And whether you and others wish not to acknowledge it, the cost of meeting what is current law is making us progressively less competitive in the world marketplace.

BTW, why didn't Clinton get Kyoto ratified during his eight long years in the White House?   Why did he wait until the last days in office to mandate stricter mercury (or was it lead) standards in the drinking water?  Nothing like driving that political wedge.

Greed is an intersting word.  It is never me who is greedy; it is always the other guy.  If a capitalist seeks to expand his profit margin in order to remain competitive, he is a greedy bastard.

If government wishes to raise its revenues by increasing the marginal tax rates on "the wealthy", that is sound fiscal stewardship.  It is still the capitalist who is greedy for not cheerfully accepting to pay his "fair share".

And if General Motors on the path to banruptcy seeks to reduce its benefits package to stay afloat, it is not the $75,000 to $100,000 per year union employee who is greedy by resisting it.  The capitalist is not only the greedy party once again, but he is also an incompetent dork because he couldn't find another vein in the golden goose to insert an I.V. and keep it from dying.

Be careful what we ask for it lest we get it.  At some point of time "the system" will collapse from its own weight.  We have long passed the point of balance.  Pray (or cross your fingers) that the pendulum swings back to a reasonable point.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2005, 12:55:06 AM by Lou_Duran »

Mike_Golden

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2005, 12:58:49 AM »
Lou,

From my perspective (as someone who has owned a testing lab, been a lab director and consulted with environmental consultants putting together work plans for investigation of potentially hazardous sites) I have never seen an investigation that represented an overkill for identifying contamination in soil or groundwater.

I can't speak about the endangered species-related stuff but, at least from the contamination side, there is a very good balance between the science of determining the levels of contamination present at a site and the cost involved in obtaining a clean bill of health.  

Jim Nugent

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2005, 03:58:49 AM »
Isn't it odd that we are not ALL enviromentialist? After all, we live here and I doubt anyone would want to fill their HOME with sh%t and poisonous air and filth.  The fact that we are NOTHING without clean water should be incentive enough to wantt to do everything we can to insure a lasting supply of clean water.

Is the POWER of GREED so great that we would sh%t in our living room and poison the water we REQUIRE?  Apparently, for some that post here.


Craig, in that sense everyone is an environmentalist.  It's like saying you're for a better America.  The question is what does that mean exactly -- and then how do we go about doing it?  

The environment gets cleaner as nations get richer.  They have the extra resources.  Poor nations can't afford environmentalism.  They don't have the money.  

It's a sick irony.  The developed world pressures the 3rd world to use Green rules, that restrict and damage the economy.  But the developed world itself 100% ignored those rules when it was building its wealth.  Do as I say, not as I do!  

 

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2005, 08:36:18 AM »
Jim...this is not exactly true...

"The environment gets cleaner as nations get richer."

Nations have the means to make their enviroment cleaner as they get richer, but I doubt a post industrial society faced the multitude of enviromental problems...potential nightmares....that we do today.

You asked what kind of car I drive...I would love to drive a hybrid, and plan to make one my next car purchase...if I can find one at a dealer here in Montana.....in the meantime, I have moved much closer to downtown, I walk or bike as often as I can (summer and winter)....when I had my garden center business I sold NOTHING but organic/natural controls and ferts...and I understand the relationship between my consumption of consumer goods, etc. and the waste I produce....for example, the golf clubs I have replaced clubs bought 13 years ago...

My point in my original post is we should all be "extremist" when we talk about keeping our home clean...the fact that we take so much for granted, and we don't think about the process that is involved with creating the great wealth we have in this country, is getting to be a poor excuse...to charge those who DO think about the consequences, and who DO think about alternatives, as being some kind of "extreme nuts" living on the fringe, is nothing more than a strawman argument used to cover up greed, selfishness,and usually a great deal of very bad enviromental practices....diversion of the discusion from what is flowing out of the pipe into the air and water to the sanity of the opponent is an old story...
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

T_MacWood

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2005, 08:58:35 AM »
Thank you, Ted Kaczynski.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #60 on: October 24, 2005, 09:06:04 AM »
Tom, that's a rather childish response....

I'll remember that the next time someone bulldozes a "classic" course.
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #61 on: October 24, 2005, 10:22:23 AM »
Craig,

I don't know how well-traveled you are, but from my experience, Mr. Nugent is right on.

BTW, when Bobby Kennedy Jr. gives up his private jets, choppers, yatchs, family mansions, and limos perhaps he may have some standing for his preaching.  Ditto for the still handsome "do as I say not as I do" Robert Redford.  I have to wonder what multiple of a composite energy consumption measure he enjoys relative to the average Bob.  Oh, to be rich and beautiful!

Mike Golden,

We are probably closer on the issue of pollution- its detection, control, and remediation when needed- than it might seem.  I nearly always recommend to clients when they purchase investment real estate that they ask for a Phase I report as a condition of the sale.

I have no problem at all with holding those responsible for breaking the law fully accountable.  On the other hand, there needs to be some grandfathering of permitted uses under prior legislation, and when this is not feasible, the cost to comply with the new rules ought to be borne by those benefiting from it, i.e. the community or society at large.

In the P & Z process followed by permitting, there has to be a way to streamline it and minimze its costs.  One way might be to shift the burden to the interveners to prove, at their cost, that the proposed use poses a sufficient societal threat that should cause it to be delayed for further study, modified, or scrapped all together.

BTW, I am curious.  What was the average life span of native Americans in the 1600s?  I've never heard of a longitudinal study back to those days, but I surmise that there is some skeletal evidence.  Was it as high as 40 years?

I am also interested in your assertion "There's absolutely no reason why affordable housing and full employment cannot coexist with responsible environmental legislation and controls.  It already does in many parts of the country."  Can you please enumerate a few of those examples?  And no, Gothenburg (sp), Nebraska doesn't count.

Finally, your comment "I love golf, but if we lose a few new golf courses to an overreaction to the concerns for the environment I believe that's a small price to pay for the progress made since the early 70's in this area." is very heady and admirable on its face.  I do have to wonder how you would feel if it was YOUR livelyhood and passion that was being sacrificied at the altar of environmental overreaction and extremism.

Not that I am a perfect practioner by any means, but it all comes down to the golden rule- do onto others as you have them do onto you (not he who has the gold makes the rules).  The means (planting a rare toad to thawrt development, burning down homes and condominiums during construction) simply cannot be justified by someone's perception of a glorious and virtuous end (a pristine environment).

Much more progress can be achieved by each of us individually following our own environmentally responsible regime.  Just managing our own trash and energy consumption would go a long ways.  How we use, store, and dispose of our own yard and household products probably has a much larger cumulative effect on the environment than all the 18,000 or so golf courses in the country.  We should all remember that when we point the finger at a company for not doing enough to clean the air and the water, three other fingers point right back.  Proportionally, that is probably way too light.  

   

« Last Edit: October 24, 2005, 10:24:25 AM by Lou_Duran »

Mike_Golden

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2005, 11:00:49 AM »
Lou,

I believe we are pretty close on most of this stuff as well.

I look at the Pensacola real estate market and believe that is affordable-I bought a 3 Bdr, 3 bath house (with office) for under $250K recently and there are many more areas in the country with similar prices, both somewhat citified and countrified.  You can get similar property near Pinehurst for about the same price (although it won't be on one of the private clubs) and many areas of the southeast, upstate New York, Pennsylvania, etc are in the same ballpark or lower.

As to golf courses, I was speaking more about new course development than the closing of existing courses.  We know that there are many, many great courses that NLE and environmental issues had nothing to do with that, it was completely financial.

Jim Thompson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2005, 11:46:21 AM »
And to think that just a week ago human nature was being heralded as a viable justification for compromising the game. ::)

JT
Jim Thompson

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2005, 12:21:51 PM »

Greed has EVERYTHING to do with it Mr. Mucci. We are not talking about Indians sh%ting in the water.

It's the same thing, only the scale and spectrum have changed.
[/color]

We are talking about people with the ways and means to have a clean and healthy enviroment, but have chosen their own personnal financial gain over the well being of others.
Who are these phantom people you reference ?
Stop being throwing out broad generalizations and be specific.
[/color]

They disguise their argument as being one of "extremes" and costs, often going so far as to seek OUR sympathy for their blight.  Cough, cough, choke, choke...sorry, I do not feel their pain.

Who disquises their arguments ?
Please be specific.

Perhaps you've noticed the price of gasoline at the pump, or the fact that more and more companies are closing down, putting peaple out of work.  And that products are being produced elsewhere in the world where environmental extremists and people lacking common sense aren't in charge.

Ask yourself, is that the trend you want to continue ?

There should be a balance between providing food, housing, employment, health care, education and recreation for our expanding population, and prudently protecting our environment.  

You and others seem to fall into the extreme or lacking common sense category.  As Dan King said, your vision seems to be narrowed to black and white, ingoring the vast spectrum that exists beyond those shades.

If a man or woman has to drive 90 miles each way, each day to their job, are they environmentally irresponsible ?

Or, are they doing the best they can to earn a living so that they can house, support, feed and educate their family ?

What happens if that company goes out of business because of costly and disruptive environmental regulations and 435 people no longer have jobs because that company can no longer compete with foreign interests ?

We didn't get from the stone age to today by growing wheat and living in caves, and while some environmentalists would like us to return to that life style, I prefer the one we have.


P.S.  Do you heat or air condition your residence ?



Patrick_Mucci

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2005, 12:46:17 PM »

Cmon, how can you compare modern America with Native Americans hundreds of years ago?

Because it's the same principle that Craig brought up.
Only the scale and spectrum have changed
[/color]

What do you think the average life span of a Native American was in the 1600's?

Probably about 40 or so years.
Infant mortality had to be high as did mortality through infection and other health related issues.
[/color]

Were they potentially discharging thousands of tons of pollutants into the rivers and streams?

Relative to the population, probably.
It's a matter of scale, the volume is in proportion to the population.
[/color]

Were they burning hydrocarbons at an increasingly alarming rate?

See the above answer
[/color]

Were they destroying the ozone layer?

No, they were dying from food poisoning, bacterial related illnesses and heat related deaths because they didn't have refrigerators and air conditioners powered by freon.
[/color]

How would you like a family member, in search of affordable housing, to have purchased a home near the Love Canal?  

This is typical of the extremist or lacking common sense position.  How about the millions of affordable homes constructed on or around non-toxic sites.

Do you really believe that the people who made the watch dials with radium really understood the far reaching affects of exposure to that element ?

Do you think that 50 years ago people understood the affect of radon gas that occured naturally under their homes ?

Monday moring quarterbacks are the worst kind.
[/color]

How would you feel if you or a family member was drinking water contaminated with MTBE or perchlorate for years, and then find out that either or both of them might be responsible for the spread of disease?

Is it any different from the water being contaminated with E Coli bacteria ?
[/color]

How would you like it if a family member, who never smoked, died from lung cancer brought on by inhalation of asbestos?

First of all, you don't know if the lung cancer was brought on by inhalation, that's a hypothetical.

But, if you mean that a wife contracted lung cancer from the collateral smoke caused by her husbands five pack a day habit, I'd have to give that more thought.

As to the asbestos issue, the question is, when was it clearly known that the inhalation of asbestos caused cancer,  and, what did the government do to safeguard those exposed to asbestos in its dangerous form.

The same could be said about smoking.
I made my office a non-smoking office over 30 years ago, and in some cases employees who smoked created a riot, some wanted to sue.  How do you prevent people from making life style choices ?
[/color]

There's absolutely no reason why affordable housing and full employment cannot coexist with responsible environmental legislation and controls.  It already does in many parts of the country.  

Then you're not in touch with the permiting process throughout most of the populated areas of the U.S.
[/color]

I love golf, but if we lose a few new golf courses to an overreaction to the concerns for the environment I believe that's a small price to pay for the progress made since the early 70's in this area.

Why should we lose ONE golf course to an OVERREACTION ?

And, if we lose one, the domino effect will surely follow.
Environmentalists, encouraged by an unequitable result will pursue other inequitable results with newly found fervor.
[/color]

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2005, 12:50:59 PM »
Tom, that's a rather childish response....

I'll remember that the next time someone bulldozes a "classic" course.

Gotta love someone who labels people on this site as extremists who'd sh$t in their own living room due to their own greed calling another post childish....
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike_Golden

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2005, 01:16:57 PM »
There's absolutely no reason why affordable housing and full employment cannot coexist with responsible environmental legislation and controls.  It already does in many parts of the country.  

Then you're not in touch with the permiting process throughout most of the populated areas of the U.S.
[/color]

I love golf, but if we lose a few new golf courses to an overreaction to the concerns for the environment I believe that's a small price to pay for the progress made since the early 70's in this area.

Why should we lose ONE golf course to an OVERREACTION ?

And, if we lose one, the domino effect will surely follow.
Environmentalists, encouraged by an unequitable result will pursue other inequitable results with newly found fervor.
[/color]

Patrick,

I'm only going to deal with one of your issues here.  You said that I  was out of touch with the permitting process for construction.  If you read the rest of the thread you must have noticed that I was actively involved in the environmental industry as a testing lab owner.  During my 10 years of invovlement here are a sample of projects we were part of that were successfully developed:

1.  Conversion of a Farmer's field in Mountain View, CA to the Silicon Graphics corporate headquarters.
2.  Conversion of agricultural land in Milpitas, CA to the KLA-Tencor Corporate headquarters.
3.  Conversion of agricultural land in South San Jose, CA to a Cisco campus
4.  Cleanup of a contaminated site in Mountain View, CA (formerly a Fairchild Semiconductor manufacturing facility) to what is now a Yahoo Campus.
5.  Expansion of San Francisco International Airport including the new international terminal.
6.  Conversion of land adjoining San Diego International Airport to new industrial space-this project involved 100's of soil samples and was completed in about 6 weeks on a fast track.

I could go on, almost endlessly, because we worked on hundreds of projects each year ranging from gas station conversions and upgrades to some of the above, but in no case was permitting and environmental investigation a real detriment to getting the project completed.  And, in the KLA-Tencor case, the amount of sampling (an 80 acre site) was really limited even though there was ample evidence that DDT and DDE were both present on the site.  The concentrations, though, were way below any kind of hazardous levels so no significant remediation needed to be done.

You have a perspective based on your own experiences but I think you should at least pay attention to the views of someone like me who has gone through the process many times and has seen a number of success stories.  Trust me, I'm far from an environmental wacko and view the lab business as a business, not a crusade, but the processes undertaken by environmental engineers is well thought out and structured and can be achieved within reasonable periods of time at a reasonable cost.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2005, 01:35:36 PM »
Mike,

Do you consider 7-8 years a reasonable amount of time to get through the permiting process ?

What about the cost of that process, do you feel that it is reasonable ?

What were the dates of the six examples you presented ?

I don't think anyone is against a clean or better environment, but, when a golf course is contemplated for land that was farmed for decades, if not centuries, and it's proven that the golf course will introduce less pesticides and herbicides to the site then farming did, where is common sense and the lack of extremism from the enviro groups ?

When land can't be developed because it isn't a current habitat, but, MAY be the potential habitat of the barred owl, where is the concern for the potential habitat for human beings ?

Land costs are being dramatically driven up by the current state of affairs with the evaluation of land, and the process one must go through to use it, even if it's been owned by a family for decades, if not centuries.

Mike_Golden

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2005, 01:46:07 PM »
Patrick,

7-8 years is ridiculous.  None of the examples I presented, which range in age from 1995-2004, took anywhere near that long.  The KLA-Tencor campus was probably completed, from start to finish (including land acquisition, permitting, investigation,and construction) in under 3 years.

A lot of it depends on the complexity of the issues and, obviously, the politics involved.  Environmental activists can and do get in the way of projects going forward and golf courses are typically one of the areas these groups target.  I know there was a proposed public course in San Mateo County that was near a watershed that languished for at least 15-20 years before being abandoned-I'm sure Gib knows a lot more about it than I do.  At the same time there are a number of new golf courses being constructed without major issues-the further these courses are away from water the easier it is to get them through.  I don't know how long it took, for example, for Half Moon Bay to get through the permitting process for the Ocean Course but hopefully Pete Galea will read this thread and give us some of his perspective.


Dan_Callahan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2005, 01:46:37 PM »


When land can't be developed because it isn't a current habitat, but, MAY be the potential habitat of the barred owl, where is the concern for the potential habitat for human beings ?


Wouldn't you agree that human beings have shown an incredible ability—through technology and ingenuity—to adapt to almost any environment?

Some less developed species—perhaps even your barred owl—can only survive in a very limited habitat. Don't we have some obligation, assuming it doesn't cause undue hardship, to protect that fragile species—even if it means we can't build yet another golf course?

To quote a line from Spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2005, 02:19:40 PM »
Mike,
Do you think the environmentalist predisposition to try to block golf courses is motivated more by socio-economic biases than by actual environmental concerns?

From what you say, it may well be the case.  As an environmentalist, I'd be ashamed at people that used that as their motivation.

Brent Hutto

Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2005, 02:56:38 PM »
Do you think the environmentalist predisposition to try to block golf courses is motivated more by socio-economic biases than by actual environmental concerns?

It sounds more likely that they would utilize a socio-economic bias in the public's perception of golf courses as an enabling factor in their fight against development. There may well be other development uses that environmental activists actually dislike more than golf but which aren't as easy to inflame opinion against. Sort of a form of "looking where the light is best".

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2005, 04:55:57 PM »
Totally agree.

It's amazing how many people really hate golf and, to them, what it represents.

They have no idea what they're missing  :)

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Environmentalists - Should I Hate Them?
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2005, 04:57:00 PM »
Patrick_Mucci writes:
Infant mortality had to be high as did mortality through infection and other health related issues.

Going far off topic, but it isn't the first time I've ventured elsewhere. I figure some of you might be interested in a book I recently read.

I just finished a fascinating book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann. It picks up on some of things Jared Diamond covered in Germs, Guns and Steel while concentrating on just the Americas.

I loaned the book this weekend to a professor friend of mine who is an expert on pre-Columbian America, primarily in Mesoamerica. Hopefully we can have some nice discussions about some of Mann's theories when he completes reading the book.

Mann claims that prior to Columbus the Americas had a bigger population than Europe. He also argues that many of the cities of the Americas such as Tenochtitlán, Cahokia and Qosqo were more populated than London, Paris or Vienna. He says the Inka Empire prior to 1491 was bigger than the Ming Dynasty, bigger than Ivan the Greats Russia and bigger than the Ottoman Empire.

He contends, similar to Diamond, that some 95 percent of the population was destroyed in the 16th and 17th century by the various pandemics brought from Europe. By the time settlers arrived from the Old World they saw a people totally destroyed by the diseases that came before.

He says much of what they found in the New World was farms and orchards overgrown because the previous caretakers had died from the various diseases a century before the settlers. Even large parts of the Amazon Basin, which we think of as so natural, were orchards that had no longer been maintained.

Our picture of Indians is usually people who lived in harmony with nature, but he says reality is they used slash-and-burn and slash-and-char techniques to convert large portions of the Americas to agricultural land.

I don't have the expertise to know how much of this is valid science, how much is conjecture and how much he leaves out to support his theories, but hopefully my professor friend can shed some light. It is clear our history book view of early Indian life isn't close to the truth.

Dan King
Quote
Smallpox has an incubation period of about twelve days, during which time sufferers, who may not know they are sick, can infect anyone they meet. With its fine roads and great population movement, Tawantinsuya was perfectly positioned for a major epidemic. Smallpox radiated throughout the [Inka] empire like ink spreading through tissue paper.
 --Charles C. Mann on one of the reasons the Spaniards so easily conquered the Inkas.