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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (21879)	5/22/1998 3:29:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

Skipper is a man with children. I personally think men think about the safety and comfort of their children in a completely different way than women. Men, I think, look at opportunities for their children to do things- like work, and school. Women look at the world and see dangers to their children- and want to control them- that is why women are such a great socializing influence. So I as a woman rate the safety of our society at a premium. I don't really want to have to carry a Cassull just to be safe. I don't want to see suffering when I am out doing the family grocery shopping. I think even wealthy women understand this- and many of our greatest social philanthropists and crusaders were wealthy white women. As for populations, I merely bow to the master- Malthus, and the many biologists who followed up his studies.

To: Grainne who wrote (21879)	5/22/1998 7:53:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 108807

C: The "limits to human growth" are built upon a shaky foundation of mean-spirited defilement of the human race (often emerging from an inner deep-seated hatred of the human race), a pseudo-scientific treatment of statistics, and wishful thinking (wishful to the extent that many of the propagators of such trash want to see Mankind fail). Your view of the extremely wealthy is laughable. That you assign such traits to a whole class of people shows that you do discriminate even though you say you don't. Is the underdog good just because they are the underdog? And are the exceptionally competent bad just because they have a greater degree of monetary success? What kind of rationale is that? That people have so little ambition for themselves or are emotionally or psychologically crippled to the point where they accept "hick wage slave" wages is not my problem, it is theirs. Actually, if they are happy at that level, then they are a success by their own definition (which is all that counts), if they are unhappy then let them get off their "hick wage slave" arse and do something positive about it! Ayn Rand's affair was wrong and not to be condoned. She actually violated some of her own philosophical tenets in doing so -- she paid a very high price in the end for her foray into the irrational which she herself rationalized to herself and others. It does not mollify, nor negate the validity of many of her insightful observations, however, into the goals of life, the necessity for individuals to be objective in their thinking, etc. And Nathaniel Branden, the psychologist she had the affair with, who is a brilliant man, admits to the immorality and ethical blankout of the affair itself. He was the man Ayn Rand had the long-time affair with. The "danger" you cite about space travel is one of the reasons for its mandate. The same could of been said by Europeans about the New World (and there were probably some who did say it). Let's face it, the earth is only special because we developed here. It is our childhood home. But it is also one planet of probably trillions and a hick planet stuck out in the celestial boondocks on one arm of our spiral galaxy. It is also a very vulnerable planet. The longer we stay here the greater the real danger of cosmic billiards wiping out our species. Forget about Greenpeace -- will they stop an asteroid or comet or someday stop the sun from going nova? Your view of existence is very limited, shallow and pedestrian. It is also based on fear. Embrace the unknown, Christine, do not fear it. Stop worrying about stability and constraining things, it cannot be accomplished. The only sure thing in the universe is entropy. FT

To: Grainne who wrote (21879)	5/22/1998 10:37:00 PM
From: Skipper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine (and X), <<She definitely did not have the perspective of bearing children who will inherit the earth, or even of trying to keep a marriage together, which requires a great deal of work.>> laissezfaire.org <<The problem with space colonization is that it may take much longer than we expect it to, and help only the very rich. However, the IDEA of space colonization is dangerous because it allows some very bright people who could be our best thinkers to treat the planet earth as a resource to be pillaged instead of respected and nurtured.>> Have you heard of Mars Direct? Read "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin. He believes that by "living off the land", i.e. utilizing the resources available on Mars itself, that we can begin to colonize Mars within the next decade, for a cost of $20-30 billion, using existing or soon-to-be-developed technology. The Earth (and Mars) need not be a resource to be "pillaged". Just "utilized", as it is every time you pick up a copy of the S.F. Chronicle, for example. Skipper