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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gg cox who wrote (11437)	11/11/2006 1:43:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217830

Hi GG. In BP and the corporate world, there was always a miasma of jargon swirling around the corridors of power. I could write whole paragraphs without repeating a word and with it sounding as though it made sense though really just being a melange of meaningless words. In Greenland, or Greenieland to differentiate it from Greenland, [such an odd name for a place buried in kilometres of ice, but given Greenies' obsession with the greenhouse effect, it makes sense], they have a miasma of mysticism swirling around the swamps of their superstitious cult. The swamps are now of course called "wetlands" lest somebody think of filling them in to make something useful. The word sustainable is one such trigger-word. To answer the question, yes, living in the suburbs is sustainable. Cities have been going for 1000s of years which is sustainable enough for the purposes of most people. You will be able to see if suburbs are not sustainable as people will leave to live somewhere else. Not only are they sustainable, but judging by actions rather than words, people continue to crowd into suburbs, therefore suburbs are more sustainable than cities or countryside. 100 years ago, cities sustained only 2% of the world's population [give or take a bit = maybe it was 5%]. Now it's more like 80% [give or take a bit]. And more of them want more room around them, though in NZ, we are packing in more tightly as we have traditionally had quarter acre sections, which were good when we had vegetable gardens and lots of children to fill them and land was cheaper and gardening was a major hobby. Now we have just enough green to fire up a barbeque. When I see catchwords, slogans, and jargon, I get queasy. Wetlands, sustainability, peak oil, EROEI, global warming, diversity, burp... my favourite slogan = Don't let a slogan do your thinking for you. Big ploughs, combine harvesters, trucks to do the food miles, supermarkets to distribute supplies, cars to drive to the supermarket, are modern inventions and they do an excellent job of freeing us from tilling the dirt with a cow and a one-bladed plough, or hoeing it by hand, to do more useful things like play computer adventure and war games, and golf, which are also sustainable. Mqurice PS: Greenland - one would think Greenie's would want it green, not white and buried in snow. One would think Greenies would want CO2 back in circulation to feed the natural world. The principle which explains the oddity is that if humans are doing it, it's bad. I wonder if they have done an EROEI on their bicycles and world tours to Greenland conferences. How many Green Miles do they do? One would think they would walk rather than use a bicycle. An SUV is just like a bicycle, but bigger and more comfortable in the rain and cold. It can travel further too [unless stuck in traffic].