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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (150225)	8/23/2002 2:17:46 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584053

Tim, one doesn't "buy into the environmentalist agenda", one feels it. Thats too bad. If it was an intelectual thing then it would be more open to balance and reasonableness. But if you "feel it in your gut" it's excesses are harder to check. Tim, sometimes an intellectual approach is needed and sometimes the approach needs to be felt. When I trade, I use my intellect and only feel a little in the process. With the environment, its mostly a feeling thing with only a little intellect required. As far as the non-native species, that type of thing has always happened. Of course it can happen a bit faster now that the animals can hitch a ride on human made vehicles (or be intentionally imported by humans) but its nothing new. The enivronment changes it isn't and never has been static. We try to get rid of these "invasive species" (like kuzdu and the snake head fish) because we like what was there before more then the new species, but while there might be some bad results of having the new species around its not going to destroy the environment. If the enivronment was so brittle it would have shattered a billion years ago. I used the non native species as an example of another pressure placed on the environment. Nature does change but very slowly over time. The earth had to cool by only a few degrees to end the dinosaur age......things are more delicately balanced then you seem to think. With these accidental introductions, like with the dinosaurs, the process is speeded up dramatically and nature can not keep up. That's why the kudzu vine covers most of the South now. That's why the European honeybee is losing out to the African bee. The aggressiveness of the African bee is allowing it to take over and when they mate, the result is an African bee and not a melding of the two. And to make matters worse, the African bee produces less honey. The long term damage that all these accidental changes are making can not be determined at this point but one thing is clear, that nature, in spite of its resiliency, can take only so much. Humans are resilient too, but how long do you thing it would take to drive a group of humans over the edge by beating a drum 24/7 while they are confined to one room? In same way, human errant behavior is putting nature into a kind of ecological pressure cooker that it can't keep up with. Given the way it works, its very unlikely that nature can sustain the assault on its fabric without at some point damaging it beyond repair. Unfortunately, we may find out too late.......and all the environmental damage could well lead to our own extinction. You bring up some actual environmental problems in the rest of your post even if you do exagerate them, but this is a rather extreme exageration. You make me want to laugh. Do you think we are invincible? I will not try to prove my point because I know you will not believe what I say. However, let me put it to you this way........are you willing to take the chance and not change our destructive ways when the result could well be our extinction? Whatever your answer, let me make clear that there will be a price to pay for the damage we have caused.........whether its extinction or not will be determined some time in the future. ted