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: Lane3 who wrote (6655)	2/27/2001 11:19:45 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"having to burn oil to make drinking water strikes me as utterly absurd." Hi Karen. Do you think that just might be because you have lot's of both. I suspect if you lived in a desert, and had lot's of oil but no water, the reasonableness of such a tradeoff would quickly dawn on you. Greg

To: Lane3 who wrote (6655)	2/27/2001 12:43:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't need to do any population projections. I think there are too many people already. That would define our disagreement to be the effect of the population. I am impressed by natural wonders when I see them but I have not seen a lot. I have been up in the Swiss Alps, but I haven't seen any of the wonders you listed. 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. Such things are possible but I don't see them happening. As far as claustrophobia there is enough room on the earth to give everyone a pretty good sized space but people tend to congregate where in cities and suburbs where they can find jobs, places to buy things, and other benefits. With your argument for lower population for esthetic reasons you may have a point. Many of the beautiful places in the world (including the grand canyon) are often overrun by tourists. This however is not mostly do to population growth. The number of visitors to the grand canyon has grown much faster then the US or world population growth for many years. Probably the only way to keep this overrunning the grand canyon from getting worse is to somehow control access to it and probably charge for the privilege. 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. We might not have to desalinate water on any large scale, I just mentioned the possibility to show how energy was the limit not water. If we do have to desalinate on a large scale nuclear energy would make more sense then burning oil or gas. Tim