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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CYBERKEN who wrote (147020)	5/22/2001 1:37:12 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I think you got it, Cyberken. <<Not sure they have worked out that contradiction yet. >> Imagine their shock when they discover that THEY are the danger to the environment. I'm no stranger to contradictions. Earlier in my career I worked on projects where big money was spent to pull dead logs and wood out of stream beds because the biochemical oxygen demand of decomposition was bad for the aquatic environment. Twenty years later I worked on projects to drop perfectly good trees into streams in order to create aquatic habitat. Even earlier I worked on projects that removed snags from cutover areas because lightning might strike and start a fire, destroying the wildlife habitat. Twenty years later I worked on projects that spent good money to dynamite the tops out of perfectly good trees in order to produce snags for wildlife habitat. Which theory is correct? I suspect the one that says get the heck out of the way and let nature take charge of restoration. I'm not criticizing these projects; they were made in good faith with the best knowledge of the time. The thing is, nothing we do is more than a butterfly flapping its wings in nature's wind. Nature will survive. She is not fragile. We might not like the result, but she will prevail long after we have gone off to Mars and beyond.