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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D_I_R_T who wrote (4512)	2/23/2005 2:29:41 AM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

The environment is more important than the AGENDA CC

To: D_I_R_T who wrote (4512)	2/24/2005 5:05:51 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 36917

Michael, Welcome to the board. Re: We go from one extreme to the other depending on who is in power while never really looking for true balance. You miss the point entirely. With regard to the roadless areas, once they are despoiled, they are lost forever. Once heedless and greedy attacks delete fishing stocks like the Atlantic Cod or Pacific Salmon, they are gone forever. The argument you make is a completely false dichotomy. Often, when it comes to the environment the choice is not to seek "balance", the right choice is to decide what to rape and pillage on the basis of sustainability. There is abundant evidence that humanity is abusing this planet in many arenas in irreparable ways. Some would say that a recent court decision in Oregon would fit your definition of "balance". This sort of insane policy would suggest that farmed stocks of genetically inferior fish should be counted toward endangered species goals. This is oh-so convenient for the loggers, developers and few remaining commercial fishermen, but it utterly threatens to destroy the genetic variability that may well be necessary for the preservation of several strains of coho and king salmon. Is this "balance"? I don't think so, this is bribery creating bullcrap. Most of us on this thread believe in the "preventative principle", suggesting that before the environment is yet again whacked by rapacious humans, we ought to think about what we might be destroying forever. To me, the balance to be struck here is to put the astonishing greed of our corporate plunderers on one side of the scale and the possible future state of the planet that our children and grandchildren will inhabit in the other side of the scale. Looked at from this perspective, the corporate greedheads look a whole lot less valuable to society as a whole. -Ray