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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (6646)	2/26/2001 6:46:01 PM
From: Gordon A. Langston	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Tim Even as important are historical estimates of "past" populations. How many "original" Americans were there? Seems there was a large disagreement. users.erols.com The implications are huge in that large populations imply high degrees of civilisation.

To: TimF who wrote (6646)	2/26/2001 7:15:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I wonder how much of our disagreement is disagreement about how big the population will get and how much of it is disagreement about the consequences of such a population. I don't need to do any population projections. I think there are too many people already. I think our disagreement is about life style. The reason I asked about the Grand Canyon is that I'm getting the impression that you're not impressed by the natural wonders of the world. I've traveled all around the world to see them. The Greek Isles, Ngorongoro Crater, Angel Falls, the Li River near Guilin. I wouldn't want to live in Texas with or without the other 6 billion people on the planet. How dehumanizing! (Sorry Rambi.) I'd rather live on a cliff overlooking Monterrey Bay. One's environment should be inspirational, not plastic. I think you must not have experienced any of those places if you can so easily want to put suburban subdivisions on them. Perhaps you just don't love the world as I do. I'm not one of those people who talk about humans destroying the earth. We don't have the power to blow it out of space. What we could do, however, is change it so much that life on it would be mean and barren. Or so much that it wouldn't support human life at all. None of that matters to the Earth, of course. It probably wouldn't even matter to those for whom we've ruined it because they would make whatever life they could with whatever we leave them. Maybe it doesn't matter at all. But I don't think that anyone who has ever been awestruck by the sight of the Grand Canyon could want to overrun it. I'll be moving soon from this metropolitan area in which we both live in part to get away from the crowds. It's not about measures of carrying capacity--it's about the gut signaling claustrophobia. As I look for a better place, I will have to research the adequacy of its water supply. Not too long ago I would have just assumed it would be just fine. The world will likely support my lifestyle throughout my lifetime. Who am I to presume future generations would care? But having to burn oil to make drinking water strikes me as utterly absurd. Karen