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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (96624)	1/24/2005 7:41:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793673

One could resort to war I suppose. As unattractive as that it, I find the potential of it less so than the notion that people who live in a place that avoids disaster automatically assume an obligation to compensate those who are struck by it. If people choose to live in a flood plain, that's their decision. I often think about how thankful I am that my family emigrated. If they hadn't, I could have spent most of my life under communism. Some relatives came, some didn't. Should I be assessed for my good fortune to compensate those who stayed in the old country? Maybe those who get good genes should be assessed to compensate those who don't? Or maybe those who get the bad genes should go to war against the good-genes people? Nice people help out those who are not as well off. But we don't set up a compensation system for bad choices and bad luck or penalize good choices and good luck. Well, one can take the approach that nuclear waste in your back yard is natural also. I don't. It's stupid and destructive and reckless to soil your nest. So how can I argue with human induced global warming? You haven't even addressed my step two. Remember step two? I expanded upon your point to create it. Step two was determining whether global warming was good or bad. Have you done that? What makes you think it's necessarily bad? Most people are concerned about their own lives in the future (look at all the SS concern these days). Looking ahead is not bad. Most people have the sense to consider it. People are reasonably concerned about their futures and their children's futures. I think that potential variations in weather or sea level or fauna several centuries out is not so clearly reasonable, particularly if you can't assess what the changes will be or whether they will be for the better or worse. Sure, some people are so change averse that change is inherently bad. Or so unadventurous that they shudder in the face of the unknown. I'm not one of them. Change happens. Our progeny will adapt and evolve. Or something else will.

To: neolib who wrote (96624)	1/25/2005 7:54:52 AM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793673

Most people are concerned about their own lives in the future (look at all the SS concern these days). Looking ahead is not bad. Most people have the sense to consider it. I call that "projecting". I have observed that most Americans "project" a negative outcome. We have had long discussions in my family about the need (to maintain a level of peacefullness and serenity) to shake off non-existent fears, do some solid planning to resolve legitimate concerns, and start projecting positively.