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: pezz who wrote (808)	4/13/1999 12:29:00 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

I can't speak for Ron, but I can say no, I am not willing to make any sacrifices for "the environment" and yes limiting births is too great a sacrifice, IMO. Which brings us to apples and oranges. I think you are right, we are talking apples and oranges because <<You guys are talking who survives and I'm talking the survival of the environment>>. To me, people and individual rights are more important (even supremely important) and the "environment" is at best tertiary where it meets with human interests. The environment has no intrinsic value, but is of value only to those that value, ie human beings. People first in my book. If we're talking species threatening dangers, such as approaching the carrying capacity of this planet, then by all means, in that sense I become an environmentalist. But if we're talking the Greenpeace sense, then no I have no interest in saving the Earth, whatever that means. You see Pezz, the Earth will be here long after human beings are extinct, and it will be as if we never were. Thinking that human beings can destroy the Earth is pure hubris, IMHO.

To: pezz who wrote (808)	4/13/1999 7:22:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 36917

We are 5% of the worlds population and produce 25% of her pollution use 25% of her natural resources. Source please for where it was determined that we produce 25% of the world's polluti0on?? A statistical breakdown of the amounts of pollution by type and national producer would be nice to find as well. I frankly don't trust that statistic given that the US has implemented tremendous environmental laws over the past 30 years. We're not perfect, but given some of the things I've seen in Central America, I can't believe those people aren't considered primary pollutors. Just go to any country other than the US and most of Europe and you will find pollution levels in cities that will make you gag. LA and NYC are the only two cities that currently create the same reaction in me. But I will state that I imagine we do use 25% of the annual production of resources. You really don't want to make any sacrifices for the environment. You my friend are the problem How do you figure?? I always ask for plastic instead of paper bags. Saves innocent forest land, as well as reducing landfill waste where they have found that paper bags are not a bio-degradable as first thought. (eg: digging up 70 year old newspapers that can still be read..etc). Also, I don't operate any two-stroke machines, mower, boat, or snowmobile. I also drive a highly emmission free Toyota 4runner (just had the emmissions checked and it was scary how clean the results were), and not a diesel. To be frank, if not graphic, I probably create more VOC (volatile organic compounds) pollution than my vehicle does...:0) I will be very interested how they derived that the US produces 25% of the world's pollution. That would mean that the skies in the US would show OBVIOUS similarities to Mexico City's, all of our rivers and lakes unfit to swim in, and our drinking water full of cholera and other nasty diseases. You state a SWAG statistic, but ignore the fact that our skies are cleaner, water purer, and overall quality of life better than almost any other nation on earth. (Ask my buddy who works for the State Dept and has just about seen it all). We have done far more environmental damage than we should have, but we are far better than we were, and not nearly as bad as our less-developed neighbors. Regards, Ron