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: epicure who wrote (6753)	2/27/2001 5:18:03 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

IMO we do many things to harm the environment. Some of these should be stopped or done differently. However I don't think the earth's environment is some fragile thing that we can quickly and easily break. Most things that harm the environment cause local harm and/or temporary harm. I believe perceiving species is a good goal that can have practical returns. However I don't think perceiving endangered species should automatically be above every other goal. I think there needs to be a balance. Exactly where the balance should be is open to debate and can be put at different places in different situations. I think such a balance is necessary not only to protect economic growth and individual freedom buy also to protect the environment. If environmental restrictions are set with no concern for the consequences on people, then people will fight against them. Also if they hold back economic growth in developing countries enough then these developing countries will not be able to afford to transition to cleaner more sustainable development patterns. Tim