Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[IsaacCarlson]

It doesn't matter what part or how you look at it. The problems we are having are because people get addicted to money and power.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Accepting that we differ on the timing the question has to become what to do about it...

Probably not the place for a discussion, but I've been thinking that the world needs a new religion. If you've been following the news about the Church reaction to possibly having to cover birth control in their insurance plans, well, why shouldn't a religion for the world we live in consider NOT using birth control as being a sin? Or other sorts of environmental destruction?

[Arragonis]

Agreed - A lot of NGOs are run by churches and carry the baggage of those organisations. Whilst not being a fundamentalist atheist, I can see aid or international development being something that needs to be divorced (good choice of phrase eh ? ) from ties to faith.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

@ Redpoint, Lagoda and James - I agree with what you are tapping about sustainability. I don't believe we are at that limit yet but it is inevitible at some time in the future.

I find your comments to be very reasonable, and I am not the type to react strongly to to either side of the debate.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Probably not the place for a discussion, but I've been thinking that the world needs a new religion. If you've been following the news about the Church reaction to possibly having to cover birth control in their insurance plans, well, why shouldn't a religion for the world we live in consider NOT using birth control as being a sin? Or other sorts of environmental destruction?

All discussions involve philosophy, and I find your proposal interesting. That said, it should not be a requirement of insurance to cover birth control. It's fine to include it as an optional covered item, but to require it is unethical. People don't have the right to consequence free sex, and people don't have the right to impose their "religion" (requiring insurance to include birth control) on someone else. While I disagree with the Catholic Church's view on birth control, I validate their concern with being forced to support something which you are fundamentally against, especially when it does not directly relate to health.

[Frank Lee]

Catholic church supports a LOT of stuff that isn't what Jesus would do so they don't have any defense against any single issue.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Agreed - A lot of NGOs are run by churches and carry the baggage of those organisations. Whilst not being a fundamentalist atheist, I can see aid or international development being something that needs to be divorced (good choice of phrase eh ? ) from ties to faith.

I am quite against religion because it discourages critical thinking and esteems dogma. That said, nothing is proven and all notions of truth must be taken on faith. This means all people hold a "religion" of sorts, even if they are agnostic.

I agree though that charity should be administered with the least amount of religion as possible, however I lean towards Libertarian notions that funding charity (socialism) by taxation is outright slavery. I'll say that I'm not necessarily against all slavery though.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I am quite against religion because it discourages critical thinking and esteems dogma.

Me too, in principle. However, I suspect it would be much easier to get most of the public to accept a switch to a new/different dogma, than to get them to exercise critical thinking. I'm not sure if this is pessimism or realism :-)

Actually I owe this idea to some of the climate denialists, who complain that science-based environmentalism is actually a religion. OK, so why shouldn't it be? After all, it does have one great advantage over most existing religions, in that the Earth can be shown to exist, something that is not the case for most deities.

So I invite you all to become the first disciples of Gaia, a religion in which sex in all its forms is OK, and the first deadly sin is screwing up the environment.

[Frank Lee]

An article today says expect $4 by May and near $5 this year in some regions.

[Ladogaboy]

Almost $4 here already... over $4 for me now (premium).

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Me too, in principle. However, I suspect it would be much easier to get most of the public to accept a switch to a new/different dogma, than to get them to exercise critical thinking. I'm not sure if this is pessimism or realism :-)

Actually I owe this idea to some of the climate denialists, who complain that science-based environmentalism is actually a religion. OK, so why shouldn't it be? After all, it does have one great advantage over most existing religions, in that the Earth can be shown to exist, something that is not the case for most deities.

So I invite you all to become the first disciples of Gaia, a religion in which sex in all its forms is OK, and the first deadly sin is screwing up the environment.

Ahh - the D-word It was all going so well...