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: Seeker of Truth who wrote (26404)	12/14/2007 1:54:09 PM
From: Sea Otter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217825

Seeker, I agree with your investment analysis. And, on the topic of food, check out this week's Economist (The End of Cheap Food). Food for thought, so to speak <g> Wrt GW, I agree it's not the prime domain for Nobel Laureates (I highlighted them only as a counterpoint to the "ignorant" claim). However, there have been countless scientific papers from many multi-discipline groups that have raised the alarm on GW, ranging A-Z from atmospheric scientists to zoologists. Thus, I was only pointing out that human-induced GW is the mainstream scientific consensus, backed up by many years of research, and not some kind of fringe topic generated by Greenspeace. (Although some folks continue to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.)

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (26404)	12/14/2007 4:00:49 PM
From: Gib Bogle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217825

I agree, overpopulation and the resulting pollution and destruction of the habitat of the non-human species is by far the biggest problem. This recent piece in the NY Review of Books is an antidote to Elmat's Brazilian boosterism (which has uncanny echoes of US boosterism from a century or so ago). nybooks.com "What is the attitude of the Brazilian government toward a possible climatic calamity in the Amazon? On being shown the predictions of some climate models, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva reputedly posed two alternatives. If the rest of the world is so concerned about the future of the Amazon, then let the rich countries pay us not to cut it down. Otherwise, if the forest is going to succumb to drought and fire, then we ought to cut it down first so that we can benefit from the resources before they are lost to the ravages of nature."

To: Seeker of Truth who wrote (26404)	12/15/2007 12:03:30 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217825

UNDERpopulation is the problem. Ask Japan. There's enough food. There's not enough money for people to buy the existing food. Famine? all politically induced. We are running out of cheap and easy to find oil. Petrobras -which never had an easy run on easy to find oil developed the capcity to wherever the oil is to get it. See Tupi and Sugar Loaf. The capacity of savings in oil (and energy consumption -once tapped- will work miracles). Balck out in Brazil caused 30% savings of elctricity. Imagine if the US would have 75% of its cars asd 1.000cc engines like Brazil and would have 25% ethanol mixed with the gas. We haven't even touched the bio-fuel potential, in terms of brain power thrown at at. 2007 we reached USD100 billion in vestment in biofuels world wide. It will keep up at 2008.