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: dumbmoney who wrote (135030)	5/31/2004 1:09:28 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 281500

You're right, there is a parallel there. Good for pointing that out.

To: dumbmoney who wrote (135030)	5/31/2004 5:27:47 AM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<<The skeptic says, no, our ability to predict the distant future isn't that good; and moreover, the actions that governments take are more a product of political pressures than sweet reason. Also, the skeptic says that safety is not an option; acting and not acting both carry risks>>> We did have, at one time, the ability to cut global warming emissions from fossil fuels thru the use of atomic power. Before the Government and politics took over the industry it was practically free. But instead of efficiently putting the plants in one State or area, and unlike missiles which are bunched in N Dakota, each big city or State just had to have their own plant , and workers, and income, and share of profits, and control. And putting the plants in highly inhabited areas called for more safety devices, more miles of perimeters to guard,and expenditures for such were easy to get because of the mystery and fear of the general public for something considered so exotic or hazardous. The perfect pork. And of course, all local utilities and gas and oil producers would have lost their own ability to keep their plush jobs and businesses. The Government (politics) has the ability to screw up the use of any excellent new technology. And we lack the insight to predict to the application of new ideas, so tend to maintain the obsolete systems now at work. Dont rock the boat. Since when has a politician said that his State does not need more government funds? There may be a similar problem with fresh water supplies especially in the West. Ranchers and farms got grandfathered in on supplies. Water is comparatively free to them, so they have consumed three or four times as much as is really needed. If you change the allotments, city versus farm, how much more will farm products cost? And what Western Congressman will anger his own huge farm conglomerates and lobbyists by agreeing to impose restrictions so another State gets a "fairer" supply of water? Sweet reason be gone , when votes are at stake. Sig

To: dumbmoney who wrote (135030)	5/31/2004 11:30:40 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

Sometimes the argument is that the danger is so certain, it would be foolish not to act. Others argue that the very unpredictability of the situation is a reason to act. The safe course of action, they say, is to act; doing nothing would be an unnecessary risk. Since we know far more about human interactions and the nature of power and violence in dictating its courses, it fair to say that ignoring the GLARING problem of economic and social stagnation in the mid-east WILL eventually produce dangerous scenarios for our future. And this is especially true when it's understood that it will only be a matter of time before chemical and biological weapons will be used by the Jihadists as acceptable weapons of terrorism. But with regard to global warming, what I fear is NOT human impact on the environment, but forces of nature that have been shown to dramatically alter the environment more drastically than anything mankind can accomplish. That said, there's no reason we shouldn't continue to make progress to be good stewards of the environment we live in. But we must be fair and understand that it is NOT the developed nations that pose the greatest risk to the environment, but undeveloped nations dependent upon "smoke-stack" industries and burdened by much larger populations. Hawk