Tough crowd. Alright here are some more.

Why are there no aspirin in the jungle?
Because it would not be financially viable to sell pharmaceuticals in a largely unpopulated rainforest

What do you call two Mexicans playing basketball?
Their names, if you know them. If not just say "excuse me"

A man walks into a bar.
He is an alcoholic and his drink is destroying his family.

The only economies of scale that continue to gain efficiency from having more than 6 billion customers are those where the cost of R&D dominates. Most products where the cost of R&D dominates are rather bourgeois, not what most people in poor countries need to stop being malnourished to the point of mental retardation.

The problem isn't present population - it's growth. For every increase in population, new infrastructure has to be built -- roads, schools, houses, markets, water treatment plants etc. When a country already cannot provide basic infrastructure for its current population, growth only makes their financial situation worse. When the average age is 15, there aren't enough adults around to teach or feed the noobs, and this further impoverishes the society. Vast tracts of virgin rainforest are razed to produce new farmland and new settlements -- this is a problem. Earth has enough people on it; population growth must stop.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Seventh Generation, Whole Foods, Rainforest Action Network, Palm Oil, Webcast, Plum' to 'SPAM, REDACTED' - edited by schmawy

>> ^therealblankman:
"She survived in the forest thanks to skills her father, a rainforest biologist and fugitive Nazi had taught her".
Fixed it


Not according to wikipedia

"She survived in the forest thanks to skills her father, a rainforest biologist and fugitive Nazi had taught her".

Fixed it

At least he said it's important to preserve the rainforests? I'm no Bible expert, but doesn't this kind of thing seemingly go against what that Jesus guy was all about? Oh, and merry Xmas!

^Winstonfield_Pennypacker-
Are you really that dumb, misinformed, or are you playing devils advocate, hoping that someone will point out the ridiculousness of your "arguments" (like Colbert does)?
Let's take your main points, first, wilderness is "moonscape tundra" that nobody "sees, wants, or uses". Nothing could be farther from the truth. These lands are not tundra, there is no tundra in Utah, scrub land and tundra have little in common. Many people use and enjoy these public lands for many reasons, and even if they didn't, preserving the diversity of habitat is more important today than ever. As just one tiny example of the shortsightedness of destroying ecosystems you don't come close to understanding (and therefore don't value), when drought comes, where do you think the drought resistant genes that will be spliced into food crops will come from, rainforests? Not likely, they'll be found in deserts and scrub land. (of course, you'r post leads me to believe you would support rain forest removal too, in the interest of cheap wood and meat, after all, who needs oxygen anyway? There's plenty of oxygen in CO2.)
More importantly, it is not possible to drill our way to energy independence. If we tapped every reserve we have possible access to, it wouldn't produce for us for 10+ years (and that assumes a "pro-oil" administration cutting red tape to make drilling and distribution possible)and the amount wouldn't supply us for long (<2 years?) at current rates. That's certainly not worth the contamination of some of the last "pristine" (I use the word lightly) land available. There is no energy independence possible with oil, NONE, EVER, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DRILL OR WHERE. If only the Moron Majority could get that fact through their heads they could help be productive instead of trying their best to slow progress (sorry, drill baby drill isn't progress, it's regress.) On a lighter note, who are you to define beauty for all? I certainly didn't vote for you as my aesthetics leader. I think Residue made the point well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Let's say I find your mind ugly, can we drill there first? After all, no one goes there, wants it, or uses it (apparently) ;-}. If you find oil rigs and pipeline beautiful, I'm certain you can move next door to one cheaply, but I'm also certain you won't.
I can hope you were only playing devils advocate here, it pains me to think that there are many Americans who truly believe what you've said, but that's the consequence of being near last in math and science among developed nations, most people in our country today can't do the math and don't understand the science, so they can be suckered into believing the most incredible BS (like your post).

Cannabis is the oldest medicine in the world. Native American rainforest tribes have had plant medicines for everything from toothache to burns to contraception and abortion for thousands of years.

>> ^Payback:
Anyone remember the news programs in Robocop? I remember one where the talking heads were reporting about a satellite destroying half the Brazilian rainforest (or something similar) and how enviromentalists are calling it a disaster of huge proportions. The one talking head turns to the other and facetiously says, "but don't they always?"
Fox News, right there. Paul Verhoeven got it right, way back in 1987.


Well, not exactly. Not to take anything away from Mr. Verhoeven, but the story was that of the Star Wars missile defense satellite laser cannon misfiring on Santa Barbara where it hit several homes, causing the deaths of 2 retired US Presidents (the needle on the trusty IronyMeter was buried with them).

But there wasn't any Fox-esque tactics to taint these fictional stories. Maybe you're thinking of RoboCop 2, which I do not know nearly as well.

Anyone remember the news programs in Robocop? I remember one where the talking heads were reporting about a satellite destroying half the Brazilian rainforest (or something similar) and how enviromentalists are calling it a disaster of huge proportions. The one talking head turns to the other and facetiously says, "but don't they always?"

Fox News, right there. Paul Verhoeven got it right, way back in 1987.

To each their own I guess, its very easy to ignore if you wish, but the only scientists who are denying climate change are those who are being paid by those who profit from reaping the planet of the resources.

The pollution we put in the water is killing reefs, life and changing the currents of the ocean.

The pollution we put in the air is changing the environment and melting glaciers that have been around for longer then us.

Extreme weather has always been around, its just now we have proof that what we are doing is helping create more extreme weather. Katrina for example would not have been as powerful if the ocean hadn't warmed up in the past few decades. Warmner equals more evaporation etc... I'm not a science teacher or anything but the facts are very easy for any educated human to read.

Sure.. It could be a big scam or ploy brewed up by the world leaders and conspired on by global scientists...But at the rate we are going at we'll have no clean lakes, no tropical rainforest's and no coral reefs during my lifetime oh, and a garbage dump in the pacific ocean the size of texas.

I've always said, who cares about the Global Warming/climate change debate its more about doing whats best to keep this planet (and its citizens) healthy.

If a simple change to Clean energy will clean the air. Why not?
If a simple change to making corporations responsible for their pollution will clean the oceans and save the reefs. Why Not?
If a simple change to our diet will save the tropical rainforest. Why not?

or are we a point of no return, where we best spend the rest of our days fighting for power of the remaining natural resources and consuming them as fast as possible...because at the rate we are going at today, we're pretty fucked.

Global Warming can be argued, easily argued especially by people who know nothing about science (like myself) but I grew up in Ontario, and in the last 10 years we have been introduced to "Smog" its an unpleasant haze that hangs above the city making it near impossible to breath on a hot summer day. If we can fix that by simply changing our auto motors to emit no pollution? Why Not?

How should the USA use economic pressure to force Brazil to outlaw cutting down the rainforest? There should be an international treaty where parties to the treaty are not allowed to import anything from companies or countries that allow slashing and burning rainforest. Brazil should build a huge fucking wall around the rainforest and station troops on it, if that's what it takes to stop lawless profiteers. Causing environmental damage that will indirectly and partially contribute to the deaths of millions should be treated as a crime as severe as murder.

I don't think I've ever heard Dawkins claim that religion is the main source of humanity problems. Dawkins is passionate and has the expertise to argue against religion. He does not have a whole lot of expertise, and he may not be particularly interested, in the fields of renewable energy, consumerism, capitalism, beef production, oil addiction, rainforest destruction etc.

A man might tune pianos for a living, and spend a lot of time complaining about poorly tuned pianos, but that doesn't imply that he thinks climate change is a less of a danger than untuned instruments. He's just doing what he's good at and trying to do his small part to make the world a more harmonious place.

Yes, I use only murdered virgin rainforest wood for my soapboxes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'paradise earth, rainforests, ecology, ecotourism, environment, petv, david calvi' to 'paradise earth, humans, missing, idiot, extinction, bacteria, grows, lava, tidal, wave' - edited by choggie