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: Brumar89 who wrote (124949)	2/24/2004 3:01:11 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<We can't really know in advance whether releasing a big percentage of fossil fuel carbon back where it came from originally is a good thing or bad thing.> True. But since we know it used to be in the biosphere, and life did pretty well for a billion years before it got buried as coal, gas, oil, shale, heavy crudes, limestone, it's a reasonable bet that it is likely to be okay to get it back to life. Especially since ice ages are a reasonably new phenomenon. We have to place a bet while in ignorance. Rather than bet that nature loves us, while it was locking up all that carbon and limestone, I'd prefer to bet that nature is indifferent to us and is simply going through the physical and chemical processes and the chips will fall where they will. The presumption of Greenies is that nature is benevolent. To me it seems malevolent, with death and suffering at every turn. Gaia does NOT love people. Nor does it love animals or plants. It just does what it does, mindlessly. in a deterministic compliance with laws of physics and chemistry. Mqurice