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: coug who wrote (9709)	3/25/2001 10:05:56 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

There aren't a lot of alternatives to cost. It's too bad, but that's all there is. If a company ruins an ecosystem of kills a bunch of children- they cannot give us back the ecosystem or bring the children back to life. There are, of course, criminal penalties in some cases, but that does nothing to make the victims family whole (not that they can ever be made completely whole since the wrong cannot be undone). But money is the best we can do right now. I don't disagree with you in principle, only in practice.

To: coug who wrote (9709)	3/25/2001 12:21:29 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

re:Do the best we can,, admit our mistakes, correct them to the best of our ability...Without cost, as we define it now.. I don't see how such an approach can work. I think most environmental harm has been done because when the minerals were taken out, no one calculated the actual cost of incidental damages and clean-up. There has been economic growth from the mining of lead, cadmium, mercury and coal but there have also been toxic tailing heaps left behind, leaching their toxins into the water table. A quick bankruptcy and the perpetrator gets to walk. The time to assess the cost is BEFORE and DURING the extraction and not AFTER. Cost analysis at least makes this public.