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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (93314)	4/13/2003 9:56:21 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

<Why would we even allow people to live in Alaska, Arizona or Nevada?> True. Ideally, everyone should live in Southern California. The rest of the continent could be a National Sacrifice Area, Buffalo Commons, or Wilderness Park. Gasoline use could be drastically cut, by never leaving our homes. All vacations, work, going to church and cub scout meetings, could take place online, via virtual reality tele-video-sensuround-conferences. Advances in telecom technology will make the video and the reality indistinguishable. Also, no need to worry about AIDS or SARS if all contact is virtual. Just need a virtual womb to make the experience complete. --------------- Actually, most oil is used for transportation, and "big SUVs" is shorthand for "cheap oil that encourages wasteful transportation machines". Once we have a hydrogen energy economy (10-30 years from now before mass adoption), then all energy uses will come from one technology, and be interchangeable. For now, oil is used for transportation, while coal/hydro/nuclear is used for electricity.

To: aladin who wrote (93314)	4/13/2003 10:14:44 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Why would we even allow people to live in Alaska, Arizona or Nevada? Kinda funny to see a guy from Anchorage, who is getting a oil royalty check from State of Alaska, complaining about our oil usage.