actually there's a lot of evidence that jesus existed, but no evidence to say he was actually the son of any "god" and was resurrected. It's just weird because there's been a few people who lived right around the same time as Jesus and were supposed to have done the same things..but they arent famous. =P

Sprinklesss.... while there is evidence for Jesus, there isn't much good evidence. We recently did a show with a famous historian, he holds two masters degrees and is currently getting his doctorate. He's a genius, and can show for many reasons why it isn't likely that Jesus Christ ever even lived, at the bare minimum can show why it's not worth believing he did live.

Since you're a V.I.P. ;-) here it is, free... the show doesn't even air for several more weeks.

Solution:
Step 1) Enter Kyoto Pact
Step 2) Buy Amazon rain forest from Brazil by paying national defecit.
Step 3) Declare Amazon off-limits to non-indiginous or industrial use.
Step 4) Bring back electric cars.
Step 5) Shoot Jerry Falwell.

Okay, so that last one has nothing to do with the global enviroment, just my mental environment.

These problems, even though I admit they are bad, will most likely not be fixed. People do not respect anything anymore. Everyone is greedy, to them if it doesnt hurt them it helps them. These issues will probably continue to go on for a very , very long time

But we will never be able to do enough. Its all about greed man. the money will never be given. It just wont happen. Ofcourse it is good to try to slow it down. but unless things shape up it is only slowing down the inevitable.

the only way that will matter though is if you get the majority to think that way. but until then according to social standards money is important, and we can own things

hmm, well, i think that perhaps, it may be wise to also look at it from a perspective of a person. since that is a perspective of a person who i think must not use resources, or is a hipocrit(spelling, i dont care to much right now)

that is a good thought, but you cannot base something on hope too much. I am not criticizing, but hope is very similiar to faith. and faith is what christians have

[quote=Maverick]Resort to Anarchy.

Let Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest take it's course.[/quote]

In my opinion, not a good idea. Like for instance the nuclear and biochemical bombs in major countries laying around. That might cause even more choas than entendent.

[quote=adaypastdead]There are many problems with the enviornment, all of which are major ones, the reality of the situation is that these problems, large or small, are adding up. The questions that we should be asking are what can we do to stop them, how can we reverse the changes at hand, and what laws should be passed to protect our future. Not much money is being given to research of enviormental problems. The oil companies and the overall patrolium industry has been absorbing the finite fossile fuels like water through a tap, but all wells dry, and oil reserves are no diferent. Reliance on fossile fuel is irrational. Our economy is based on something that cant be constanly produced. Also the ammount of greenhouse gasses are being expelled by everything, at large mass, every single day. What are we doing to reduce pollution? not too much, we continually cut down rainforests which restore our oxygen, and pollute our air with chemicals that can no longer be broken down by the trees. Were digging ourselves into a deep hole, and everyday we just dig our economic and overall all earthly grave, and why? Impact theory states that Impact is equal to the multiple of three things. these three things are the rooted cause of enviornmental disaster. Population growth:
It is common knowlage that in the last 50 years human population has more than doubled.
Affluence:
The ammount of consumable resources that the planet has to offer.
Technology:
A manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge.
These three things together are what we gauge the destruction of our enviornment on. Human populations use resources to live. During life we create technology that also consumes planetary resources. As population increases the ammount of resources lost will increase. Also, with a grown population comes a growing advane age of technology. Not only do we require more resources to live, but we also need more to create and support our technology. From this we can draw the conclusion that technological advance is based on population, and enviormental problems are also based on population. With technological advance come better medicine. With people living longer there is a constant level of population growth. The people of the planet are not dying as fast as they are being born. If we want to continue to live on this planet we have to act now. We cannot go in moderately and slowly change. We have little time left. We cannot create a limit to the ammount of children that can be born by two parents, because that wouldcross amny cultural boundries, but that is one of the only options we have, if every family starting today could only bare one child, then in a few generations the population could hypethetically be cut in half[/quote]

The things that I would like to comment about here are:
1-Human population
2-technological advancement
3-Greenhouse affect
4-$$$ put towards aiding the environment

4-Let's start with the last one. I think it's highly possibly that there is much more research being undergone that is apparent to the public. Yellow-journalism turned the media into a sensationalist movement of gossip. Only what sells is what is published, and we all know the U.S. is full or idiocy and gossip, or at least we all should ;). haha.

3-I would like to add that all you air-conditioned o-zone depleters out there are doing just that. Cooling units of all sorts produce CFC's and HCFC's. HCFC's are a step up from chloroflaurocarbons, but still eat the O3 (ozone) from the sky faster than it can be regenerated. From every 1 CFC we pump into the sky, an average or 7 ozone molecules are destroyed. I also believe the ozone from in a self stoking flame. We air condition ourselves, making our home cooler and the rest of the world hotter. This increases our desire for A/C, increases global warming etc.

2-Yes, Population affects technological advacement, and demand for it, but I believe it increases potential for advancement more than actual advancement. Once an object reaches it's terminal velocity, it stops accelerating. Something cannot increase at more than it's potential, which is set by the population.

1-Human population was approximately 500 million intill late 19th century, where it experienced a rapid increase. It is now approximately 6.2 billion. It is estimated that it will reach 7.2 billion by 2050. Soon, the Earth may reach it's carrying capacity, and humans may need to discover more ways to support it's self. Hopefully, they don't rely on fossil fuels.

P.S. It is said that by 2020, the middle-class will be able to afford effective hybrid auto-mobiles.

[quote=Greg]But we will never be able to do enough. Its all about greed man. the money will never be given. It just wont happen. Ofcourse it is good to try to slow it down. but unless things shape up it is only slowing down the inevitable.[/quote]
You say it is good to slow down the inevitable? I believe not. We either should fix it, or let it swarm over us as to shorten the relatively soon to come (though probably out of my lifespan) period of time where 50% of people have skin cancer, and the over 50% have lung cancer, and the world's population is back to 500 mil. because of flooding. That period of suffering will surely suck. Preservation of life should either occur, or not. I do not believe we should drag on the innevitable. Just my view point.

Adam indirectly supports my idea.
If it is inevitable we might as well speed it up WITH biochemical and nuclear warfare.

Yay.

[quote=Greg][quote=Adam Burnfin][quote=Greg]But we will never be able to do enough. Its all about greed man. the money will never be given. It just wont happen. Ofcourse it is good to try to slow it down. but unless things shape up it is only slowing down the inevitable.[/quote]
You say it is good to slow down the inevitable? I believe not. We either should fix it, or let it swarm over us as to shorten the relatively soon to come (though probably out of my lifespan) period of time where 50% of people have skin cancer, and the over 50% have lung cancer, and the world's population is back to 500 mil. because of flooding. That period of suffering will surely suck. Preservation of life should either occur, or not. I do not believe we should drag on the innevitable. Just my view point.[/quote]
Why would you not want to slow it down? I mean, slowing it down, gives you time to attempt to fix the problem.[/quote]
First, I apologize for posting 5x in a row, that night was my first, and I didn't know.

I do support slowing it down, but earlier you stated that it will never successfully be fixed, and under that circumstance only, is it useless to slow it down. Don't interperet my incorrectly, please, I am strongly against environmentally degrading processes such as burning fossil fuels and "spawning" trash dumps all over etc., and highly support reconstruction of the earth's original habitats. Sorry maverick, I don't want the world to be a virus ridden bacteria incubator any time soon ;)

You stated it as if it you thought it were innevitable.

Well, you can also go into the point that a nuclear holocaust would happen and completely stop the production of hydrocarbons considering that nothing would be working and the whole world would be demolished...

I would like to say firstly its good to see somany people who can look at the environmental problems criticall.

Now I would like to adress a few points made prior.

1) Greg, slowing down would only do that, slow it down. This isnt what is needed however, what we need to do is completely cut it off, as soon as possible. If the green house effect gets into full swing it cannot be stoped, if the population keeps growing we will run out of resources. What we need to do is look at the problems and figure out a way to become self-sustainable. Consumerism is what causes most of these problems. If we could stop using as much or more than were making, we get into merchantilism. we have to start farming more in our countries. We have to replant trees and switch fuel sources. We have to solve the problems of today and prevent the ones of tomarrow, we have to set up boundaries on the control the corperations have over the natural resources. Let fix it before it spirals. We may not have much longer so why prolong the innevitable? why not just prevent it all together? I cannot agree that we have to stop it or let it take its path as whoever said(sry I forgot your name btw). I could not sit on the sidelines and see the conditions worsen and then feel justified to bring more life to this planet. It boils down to a common question posed to theists, would you bring a child into this world who may be put through mass ammounts of pain untill his death?

Kyoto is a good proposition, not a joke, It would help, if the US would sign it and if Senate would stop taking all this money for oil. If the govt. wasnt taking all the money they get from oil companies it wouldnt be a problem.

Peak oil and climate change could both be greatly decreased by entering Kyoto, over 55% of the emmision produced world wide will be cut back, and hopefully the US will be able to see the error of their ways and it will finally be a better world. AT THIS RATE THE ONLY JOKE IS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPEMENT!!!!!!!! If we dont do something now we can watch sustainable developement go right out the window. The time to act is now, not in another 2 years. Lets see some action.

Then what can solve it? If you can tell me a way to solve it thentheats what I will support, but until then the only solution is to slow it, without some action now the problem only get worse. The more we fix now the less we have to fix later on. I want to provide a safe world to future generations and right now Kyoto is about the only way to do that.