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 (6755)	2/27/2001 5:27:39 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

Way to go, Tim. Now that's a thoughtful and reasonable attitude. The risk of despoiling the planet is so great that we need to be conservative in our use of it. You're familiar with the term "conservative" aren't you? I probably believe that the risk of despoiling the planet is less then you think it is but I recognize the risk. Actually a lot depends on what you mean by despoiling the planet. If you mean to make even on nice natural spot in to a develop spot or an ugly polluted spot then the risk is about 100% if you mean rendering the earth unsuitable for human life then in my opinion the risk is close to 0%. But I will agree that bad things can happen do to human effects on the environment. As for conservative - that would also mean conserving our way of life and our economic development as well as conserving the environment. I'd like to stop environmental damage completely but this is impossible and even the effort would make us lose enormous amounts of money and a large chunk of our freedom. That's why I disagree with Al Gore when he wrote that protecting the environment has to become the central organizing principle of our civilization. I would consider it an important goal but the cost is to high if you place it as the one central principle and refuse to consider any other factors. Tim