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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Step1 who wrote (54205)	12/14/2007 12:47:32 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 78419

I hear you... although I'm not in any 'camp' as far as parabolic till disaster vs flatting, etc. It seems to me that Europe is an example of having 'flattened" without disaster, where as other areas seem to point the other direction. It's a complex issue and Europe may be meaningless in the sense that looking at the planet as a whole, if everyplace looked like Europe it might be catastophic, we don't know. I think there are some baselines we can look at however: 1.) If tropical areas looked like Europe I think we can assume a disaster scenario. The current belief is that 'developing' countries should be like us and indigenous, primative people are a bother and need to live "civilize" and resources 'expoited'. Water and Air (as purified by the environment) are not considered to be "produced" and included in 'output' by forested countries. Forests for example only have value when cut down in our system. Their O2 is valued and paid for by the deforested countries that use it. 2.) Looking at population studies of other species and smaller (than the planet) ecosystems, large cycles which graphically look like crashes and spikes are quite prevelent. Humans don't do ANY planning, so IMHO it should be no suprised if there is a "die off" at some point. 3.) All species have what ecologists call "K" or capacity in their environments... regardless of what churches say, there's no reason to think humans aren't the same. 4.) When condtions that a cell live in deteriorates(an older, sickly body for instance) that cell also will deteriorate. The weakest link will show up as problematic first. The globe is full of sensitive (weakest links) ecosystems who's degredation (health deterioration) are well documented... the ONLY doubt (among some people) is if that is important to human health. Just as liver cancer kills the patient (whole system) there is NO reason to think that the death of corall reefs, tropical rain forests, Oceans, or any number of other "systems" or parts of systems won't kill (or make sick enough to halt the abuse) the patient. Unfortunately the current thinking is that thsee are "anecdotal" data points as they relate to humans... that is simply an ignorant viewpoint. It's no more anecdotal than a patient with high blood pressure or other real symptoms that require action. Interestingly at the same time as humans kill off the biota in their own systems with overuse of anti-biotics we are killing off biota in the larger environment (species loss). And even the 'best and brightest' disagree on these things... DAK