SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (1835)6/1/2005 12:33:45 PM
From: Smiling Bob  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
So the word "extinction" doesn't have any meaning?



To: elmatador who wrote (1835)6/1/2005 6:05:57 PM
From: Icebrg  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16955
 
>>Travel to Sweden (I travelled towards Norway) and see a country where the population stop growing. Urbanized. The forests are getting the land back.>>

That effect is only very limited. Only some marginal land is being given back. Apart from that we grow a lot of Salix (willow) over here, which for an untrained eye might look like a forest reclaiming lost land.

Erik



To: elmatador who wrote (1835)6/3/2005 1:49:58 AM
From: Snowshoe  Respond to of 16955
 
>>Forest are going to win back and will expand. Populations will peak and will retreat and forest will crawl back and start regaining the land.<<

We could have a more sustainable economy if the world's total human population was only 1 or 2 billion. But even with that lower population, significant use of biofuels could still require vast quantities of land. The forest might try to crawl back, but we'd keep chopping it down and feeding it into the enzyme digester tanks.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News