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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (62576)	4/23/2005 9:56:12 AM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Elmatador, Never has a truer word been spoken, and by a much traveled man who should be in a position to know. Elmat, in all your travels, have you EVER seen the first sign of any "global warming"? Slagle

To: elmatador who wrote (62576)	4/23/2005 3:52:34 PM
From: studdog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

<Malthusian bullshit> Umm...., Malthus was right you know, resources are finite and they do limit population growth and there is no getting around it. In my opinion there is no debate about the validity of the rules governing population biology. There really ARE limits. The debate for me is only about timing and what number is the threshold. That number (human carrying capacity of the earth) is a moving target influenced by technological innovation, per capita resource consumption, resilience or nonresilience of ecosystems etc. If our population continues to grow we will hit carrying capacity at some point. There are just too many factors to make an accurate prediction as to when that will occur. That was Paul Ehlich's mistake.