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.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (794)	4/11/1999 9:35:00 PM
From: Stormweaver	Respond to of 36917

We cannot deny the fact that an over-population problem in Kosovo contributed to the current situation. These types of problems are repeated throughout the world in poor economic, or low income, or low education groups. The long term solution is improved education in the target groups. Short term I suppose is economic aid.

To: D. Long who wrote (794)	4/12/1999 1:53:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Well D, thanks for the well thought out response.<<First, before you seriously start to suggest governments implement such extremely invasive programs as birth limits,>> I am not suggesting government limits on birth rates. But abolishment of incentives for large families [taxes certain, welfare benefits ] and create realistic benefits for small ones. Also education and free birth control information and medical assistance for the same. I believe that in this way we would easily reduce the population growth to zero or less in this country at least. <<environmentalist movement must prove that an imminent species threatening disaster is about to occur.>> I don't think so. I believe we are talking a quality of life issue here as well as a moral and ethical ones. I will leave the issues of global warming and the results of ozone depletion alone. Not because I don't believe they are not substantive but I agree that the studies are not conclusive [ Although I don't believe it is wise to wait until it is too late then worry ] and I have enough ammo to make my point with out them. <<World food supply issues are artificial.>> Wait a minute here my friend. You cannot deny that the worlds insatiable hunger for protein has not had a disastrous effect on the oceans fish stocks. Japan's fishing fleets are forced to travel far and wide as they have picked their own waters clean long ago.How long before they do the same else where? Fish stocks are being reduced all around the world. The catch size is becoming smaller as more immature fish are caught before they can reproduce,spelling disaster for the future. As the third world comes into the modern area they will want their share of this harvest. [surely they deserve as much as you and I,no? ] My argument is that there is not nearly enough to go around as it stands let alone with a growing world population. <<The US/Canadian breadbasket alone produces enough grain to feed the globe.>> But is this sustainable and at what cost? Although top soil erosion has been reduced it has not been eliminated and fifty years is nothing in a relative sense. The Sacramento valley which produces so much of California's food supply has a very limited life. Irrigation continues to produce salts that make this land useless. Eventually the valley will be lost as a food producing area. It is undeniable that the variety in seed stocks has been diminished to an alarming degree opening the door to potential disaster. But equally important to my eyes is do we want to live in a world that is all humans and their domestic animals with little islands of wild life? Do we have the right to create such a world? We have been given the honor of steward ship of this planet and all that lives here we must take this responsibility seriously.Wildlife habitat is being destroyed at such a rate that soon this is what we will see. Ever try to get into a major National Park in this country? Stand in line. Make a reservation six weeks in advance. Loss of habitat is not the fault of greedy developers as some would have us believe. People need land to live on . More people more land ,not that complicated. Do you think that the destruction of the rain forest is just being done by bad guys? The slash and burn is being done by the excess population of the major cities that come to these areas to find a better life for themselves and their families. You tell them to stay in the slums and squalor of the cities ......not I. Himmm ........If you were a peasant burning the rain forest you might ask us what happened to the great deciduous forests that once stretched coast to coast in America. You think? We got ours they will not be told that they can't have theirs. Of course the third world's problems stem from loss of traditional population control. That is a family of twelve becomes a family of four by maturity. Not a pleasant thought for you or I. Modern medicine and pesticides have changed this. These people want to come into the twentieth century they deserve to do so as much as you and I. Development is here to stay. It is tied to the problem but it is not the cause of the problem. The truth is a higher standard of living puts a higher strain on the environment. You cannot increase the standard of living without straining the environment or reducing the population. Of course if you increase the population at the same time you have disaster. D, we ain't going back to the horse and buggy days.We must reduce our populations. The third world will come steaming into the modern area and they are not going to want to hear us preach.They will come with coal, nuclear, what ever it takes. They want levis!!and the life style that comes with them! pez