SI
SI
discoversearch

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: epicure who wrote (6712)2/27/2001 1:53:41 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Are you aware of the rate at which we are losing rain forests and estuaries, coral reefs and wet lands? Are you aware of the over fishing of the oceans?

Coral reefs. I meant to mention coral reefs when I asked Tim if he had seen the Grand Canyon. He couldn't possibly be a scuba diver. So many of the reefs I once dove are just skeletons. So sad.

Karen



To: epicure who wrote (6712)2/27/2001 2:42:28 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
X, some clarification of my ideas about population growth -

I am not encouraging population growth. I am just saying it is not the end of the world if it happens and I don't want draconian laws like the one's in China, to reduce population growth.

I am aware of environmental changes and problems. Some of these problems (like over fishing) directly impact people. I am not against all regulation to reduce environmental harm, in fact I would not fight the idea that in some areas more, or tougher, or better enforced, laws or regulations are needed. I do think however that if we are going to spend more of our wealth and limit our freedom to protect the environment the costs and benefits need to be clearly established. Some restrictions have major costs and little benefit. Its quite possible that some new regulations could be put in their place which would have less cost and greater environmental benefit.

Tim