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: Tom Clarke who wrote (68632)	12/25/1999 4:58:00 PM
From: George S. Montgomery	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Charley, oi, why am I writing this? This exchange of yours, with Christine and X, is the 'other side' that I feared, and, in a way, promised myself not to come into contact with. The versatility, wit, bravado, guts, spirit that you display so well in the verbal universe is splattered to shees in the rational world. There is absolutely no foundation upon which your arguements about population can rest. It is a pity that you can't see this. As you and I seem to be the only loners around at this time on Christmas, I do hope you won't take this statement-of-fact of mine as a violation of some sort. There just seem to be absurdities that social and religious freaks want to perpetuate. And I really cannot understand why this is. geo PS: I am hurt that you didn't respond to my thoughtful PM on an entirely different subject. g.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (68632)	12/25/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Sorry, Charley, but the Cato Institute is not an impartial research organization, either. It follow the Libertarian rather than the Catholic religion, but aside from that, it is pushing a particular agenda.

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (68632)	12/26/1999 1:32:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Charley, Your economist friend is not very good with numbers. The State of Texas is 268601 sq.mi., Land 261914 sq. mi., Water 6687 sq.mi. We'll use the larger number, assuming your economist friend would have people living on houseboats. There are 640 acres in a square mile, thus there are 171,904,640 acres in Texas. Divide that by 6 billion and you get .02865 acre per person. An acre is 43,560 s.f., times the .02865 = 1,248 s.f. per person, or 4,992 s.f. for a family of 4. He says that each family of 4 would have 1/8 acre pus house. 1/8 acres is 5,320 s.f. plus a modest 1,200 s.f. house = 6,520 s.f. 4,992 vs. 6520 is not a huge difference, but one would think that an economist would not be so sloppy with his math. What else was he sloppy with in presenting his case? Of course packing people this densely leaves no room for sewage disposal, schools, hospitals, roads, government buildings, factories, stores, etc. Maybe we should double the room. Oh, maybe we should find room for crops to feed the people, trees to make oxygen. How much of the Earth is too arid, or mountainous for that? Yea, let's keep breeding like roaches 'till it breaks. Del

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (68632)	12/27/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<There is no ethical, environmental or economic case for small families. For those of us who believe there is intrinsic value and dignity in every human life, we should celebrate, not decry, that there are now 6 billion human beings on the Earth>>....Himmmmmm....I smell a religious ax being ground here.Do they actually believe that there are no limits on the size that the earth's population should be? This article is no better than the last....Back to the drawing board. <<we have the capability to sustain a lot more lives,>>.....<sigh>....Once again I see the concept of environmentalism reduced to how many humans we can stuff onto the planet while still leaving enough resources for the next generation to exploit. Your vision of a planet populated with a sea of humans and their domesticated animals dotted with only tiny Islands of wildlife is sadly one of replacing her beauty with... ugliness.