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.

Pastimes : Saving the Alaska Wildlife Refuge (ANWR: People’s version) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (18)	5/21/2001 11:34:45 AM
From: Marty Rubin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36

Dear John, If your question was clear enough the first time... "Do you think that North America can continue to accept more and more people and not impact the environment???" The answer to your question is "yes, but." If people in this country will consume less, or at least be more efficient (a preferred method), then the savings can be substituted with more people (natural, or immigration). Why would California need more roads when they have one of the worst public transportation? As to a "zero population growth strategy," I believe that if you help underdeveloped countries economically (rather than just send aid, which is seen as a temporary and "may never come the next time"), then you'll have fewer children born. As you may know, 1) the more status a mother has the less children she bears; 2) the less (farm/other) labor a family needs, the less children it has; and 3) the less children to die from diseases, the fewer children they will have. I think condoms or "preventive care" and free/cheap AIDS drugs are a short-term policy; small-business loans to those countries should be used to solve more longer-term (10-20 years) of dealing with the people you have left. The point is that you can move around almost everything by taking what you have --and becoming more efficient at it. And to go back to topic: now that we have alternatives to oil, we can move to a different energy source. With high oil prices, new technologies are already more attractive. Market forces are taking parts, but we can't have subsidies to diminish those market-forced gains. Note: I believe Environmental groups share a certain belief in zero population growth, even if they don't make it public. I'm not, and may never be, a pure environmentalist. I don’t know what the Sierra Club’s (SC) current standing on this issue. I became aware (thanks to c. horn) that SC introduced/supported a bill in the early '20s to curb immigration, which was later used by the U.S. to send fleeing Jews back to Europe to face execution. I'm still trying to get a PM response from c. horn to see whether that bill was the sole reason he believes SC has some Nazi blood in it (even though it was passed during peace time, and used inappropriately later on). As to mentioning the two groups: I know "greenpeace" from using creative ways to put them on the news; your post is the first time I'm hearing about "earth island." …And to say that I'm a DNC advocate is absorb. I was 50-50 in voting the past election up to the last minute, and had I voted republican as before, it will have really hurt my conscious. They happen to agree with me on this issue, which is why (in this case) I'm supporting them. So, John, did I answer your question? Thanks for your time, Marty