Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (52042)	8/19/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You need to find an ecologist to argue with, Christopher. I repeat that I am not versed in these matters, and can only guess at what arguments a truly informed person would use. But I am sure there must be good ones out there. Joan

To: The Philosopher who wrote (52042)	8/19/1999 1:40:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Ecology is dynamic and I don't know anyone who would argue man is not part of the ecosystem of the Earth- you seem to be using "ecology" in some loaded way to prove a point. I don't know exactly what that point would be- that it is ok that man destroys lots of other species? That man doesn't need to be careful of the environment because he is part of it? That because there have been other catastrophic changes to the earth man should cause them too? Ecological balance is an interesting phrase to use within this context- because right now the rate of change (I.E. destruction of wetlands and rainforest- one, the most highly productive, the other the most biologically diverse) is extremely high and we are no where near any sort of "balance". The human population is doing the Malthus thing- if you look at the total population of the Earth- and we all know how the Malthus population curves look, don't we?