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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (89091)	8/26/2002 12:30:39 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116756

I agree with most of your sentiment. Much of man's problem stems from overpopulation. But it may be the prairie and the plains that are most overpopulated. The prairie can least afford the pressure on its soil and the rate of crop production because of its tight sandy soils and natural aridity. Man must use his resources if he is to survive. We must husband them carefully of course. The ultimate solution is to examine what we are doing to them with great scientific precision, but not to overeact. Cro-Magnon man was aware that he lived in an environment he should preserve. He knew he could trap out animals and kill off species. The Maya realized that their problems stemmed from maintenance of crops and population centres. But from paleolithic man, to present day, we fail to understand or properly control how we prevent excessive resource usage, and control growth. We get greedy. We lose sight of useage. Cod for example. Routinely our "great science" takes harvested species right up to extinction. We aren't too smart, are we? In fact the cities we live in are the greatest sources of pollution, withdrawl of useful land from production, and generation of ever greater energy requirements. The pollution and encroachment of man on his environment is a gestalt process, with all the activities of man about equally intermingled. There are no green activities and brown industries. They all serve each other in a complex web of energy, waste, and comsumption. It is a lockstep dance which we find hard to sit out. The dance goes on until the music ends and we fall. EC<:-}

To: Jamey who wrote (89091)	8/26/2002 10:29:24 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 116756

<<Gold_tutor, I admit you have a first hand experience and I respect your opinion, even though it could be short sighted. Looking at this problem from a macro-world wide stance, I believe all people should be discouraged from building in woods and next to National parks simply because they are aware of the chance that a fire will burn them out. Cities near forests are a different story as there should be fire lines cut for protection from forest fires. Along that line, look at what has happened to the western states from population explosions. Also the swamplands in Florida are in imminent danger from filling in due to population explosions. We could upset our whole climate and much wildlife from cutting and filling wildlife areas. South America is a good example where the rain forests are being depleted, thus upsetting the balance of nature that puts our land at extreme risk, including the people who don't look at long term effects but only see this issue from a micro view, not caring for our natural resources. Bush is one of those people who places big business ahead of taking care of our planet. I was told that we have ruined our source of clean drinking water from streams and rivers. Canada has managed to keep clean water but they could be next by dammming up the rivers, killing off trout who must navigate back to their place of birth to renew life. The world population will probably double over the next generation. We are running out of room. Man is the filthiest creature on the earth from an ecological standpoint.>> Again you post environmental extremist tripe & emotion not fact. your points & why their wrong. first, you're putting two people together. <<Looking at this problem from a macro-world wide stance, I believe all people should be discouraged from building in woods and next to National parks simply because they are aware of the chance that a fire will burn them out.>> Government policy has changed, why should the people now be forced to move? As the economy has been ever forced mroe into a service economy, is this not among exactly the places our government has pushed people into moving? <<Along that line, look at what has happened to the western states from population explosions.>> You are talking from the point of someone listening to the nation press / TV noit living in the west, go look at the most recent population numbers!!! Any growth problem is localized, by cities / areas NOT STATES!! Population of NM is LESS not more than 10 & 20 years ago, as is WY MT SD ND & AK. UT NV ID & AZ are larger but only due to growth in their largest cities. In CO the "growth problem" is only along the front range & many rural communities have the inverse growth problem. A survey taken last year by the AAA showed the number of hours you can drive(off interstate) with NO access to services to have increased by an average of 2X during business hours & 4X during the hours between 10PM & 7AM!! <<South America is a good example where the rain forests are being depleted, thus upsetting the balance of nature that puts our land at extreme risk, including the people who don't look at long term effects but only see this issue from a micro view, not caring for our natural resources. Bush is one of those people who places big business ahead of taking care of our planet.>> Exactly HOW did Bush have any impact in South America & why should the US in any way pay for their problems / errors?