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: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (172102)	5/22/2021 3:12:48 AM
From: maceng2	Respond to of 218155

<<Main problem few really understand the intent of the writers.>> I can believe that, just from my Catholic upbringing and a few other books I have read and life experiences.

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (172102)	5/22/2021 4:01:59 AM
From: TobagoJack	8 Recommendations Recommended By ggersh Haim R. Branisteanu Julius Wong maceng2 Maple MAGA and 3 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218155

Re <<"dog ate homework">> an aside, coconut is relaxing now, all geared up w/ VPN, various streaming sign-ins, and looking forward to her summer of group hanging out, here and there rummaging about, ballet training, and dialogues and quiet contemplation about her senior year and beyond another well-done year on all fronts received likely the first of several letters in the same vain, as the one below has been sent before the actual date indicated the coconut likes biology, finds physics fun, and chemistry easy she loves literature she intends to complete a chunk of calculus during the summer to get a head start on the coming academic year I have no idea where she is heading for

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (172102)	5/22/2021 1:34:08 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By dvdw© Respond to of 218155

Since 1960 human population doubled and this is destroying the ecological balance on earth that was achieved over millions of years when humans where very very few compared to today. So... on what basis do you value millions of years without humans... and appoint that "lack of humans" as of greater value than having a future with more of them ? What "value" is it... that has you authorising yourself... to decide for others... which specieis the planet should have more of, which fewer, and how many of them ? Mostly... that makes me think Elon Musk is right... that we must become a multi-planet species... in order to have a chance of avoiding the risks imposed by some who apparently have a lemming-like gene for a suicidal-genocidal instinct... that I consider the hallmark of insane people... who represent a greater risk to our survival as a species... than any potential catastrophe with natural or celestial origins. Pogo was right. IMHO population growth of humanity and its consumerism which we can control trough the fertility rate is destroying the environment. Your opinion is stupid. It links four entirely unrelated subjects... population growth, consumerism, the environment, and the fertility rate... with ZERO reason... as if they form a rationally connected linear equation that unfailingly results in them adding up to a singular answer... "I must exercise control over others"... because I am so wrong to tolerate the unavoidable guilt in result of having calculated the answer to that equation... and it is only exercising that control over others that can assuage my feeling of certain doom... if I am not in control. In biological terms... the larger population we have now... is a testament to our SUCCESS as a species... which gives no reason at all for anyone to believe that the elements enabling that success... provide any reason to see the future with anything other than optimism... in belief that success will likely be sustained. The irony, of course... not accidental... is that you present that argument in the opposite... immediately after noting a list of elements in which you find humans have no capacity for control... but are "along for the ride". Which, taken together... means your entire argument... boils down to personal discomfort at not being in control... which happily reinforces your belief that killing off the vast majority of other people... will probably make you feel better about it... ?