3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
@lalbo-81 wrote:I won't call you anything. But I will tell you to come here and talk to farmers in both North and South America instead of posting BS. But you won't , I'm sure. Tighten up the tinfoil hat, you're in for a ride!
And I am curious, exactly what do political figures in my country have to do with what farmers do in yours? Probably as much as they do here, I imagine.
Tinfoil hat 
The concept behind the tinfoil hat was to create a Faraday Cage, the design of a tinfoil hat fails to accomplish this
as anyone with the slightest understanding of the principle would know.
The comments are interesting. Just wonderoing if this song would have been a major hit if the radio stations had some guts. I guess sponsorship can be a big leverage tool.
Interesting fact about the back up band. The leader is Lukas Nelson who is the son of singer, actor, martial artist Willie Nelson.
CommentsPinned by neilyoungchannelneilyoungchannel
@jetho1680 wrote:
@lalbo-81 wrote:I won't call you anything. But I will tell you to come here and talk to farmers in both North and South America instead of posting BS. But you won't , I'm sure. Tighten up the tinfoil hat, you're in for a ride!
And I am curious, exactly what do political figures in my country have to do with what farmers do in yours? Probably as much as they do here, I imagine.
Tinfoil hat
The concept behind the tinfoil hat was to create a Faraday Cage, the design of a tinfoil hat fails to accomplish this
as anyone with the slightest understanding of the principle would know.
I'd use my granddaughter's phrase if I thought i wouldn't be reported again, but I'll be polite, more or less. Yes, dear, I know. That's the point.
@jetho1680 wrote:
Tinfoil hat
The concept behind the tinfoil hat was to create a Faraday Cage, the design of a tinfoil hat fails to accomplish this
as anyone with the slightest understanding of the principle would know.
I remember some time back I was in the buying forum discussing people's choices being limited. I gave an analogy using "fluoride" as an example as with fluoride, we have someone else making the decision for us. One of the regulars threw the tinfoil hat thing in. I just used the word and that was all. The Fluoride, GMO, Mobile Phone Tower issues are all main stream debates and have scientific findings on both sides. Nothing conspiracy theory about them. Those issues are not even remotely similar to "Fringe belief" discussions like the moon landing dispute etc..
So why do people use the term in discussions? Well, it's obvious the person throwing that term in has no platform to stand on or it's very flimsy. So it''s just an ad hominem attack. Some might say a cowardly character asassaination attempt. It's also a sign of dislike of the person discussing the issue or dislike of the person's desire to challenge a decision a government or local authority has made.
The GMO debate has some of the most presitgous and scientifically high profile people in opposition.
@the_great_she_elephant wrote:
@chameleon54 wrote:I have one very simple answer to over population, at least in westernised countries, but it will not be popular. Western governments have adopted positions and policies which actually encourage over-population. They do this to ensure ever increasing expansion of the economy and to balance government budgets. Its all about the money and nothing else.
At the stroke of a pen, governments could scrap the economic support they provide for families with children. The result would be a dramatic decline in people having large families. Scrap the child care allowances, scrap family tax benefit A & B, Scrap the extra payments given to people on welfare who choose to have large families. Scrap free education and charge parents some of the cost of providing the service etc. etc
If we want to be more moderate, we could just cut the child subsidies out after the first two kids in the family. ie. You still get all the benefits for the first two children, but after that, you are on your own. This would be a lot more politically palatable.
Yes its harsh, but it would work. The governments that are brave enough to remove subsidies to families may save the planet, but they would not get elected again.
Solve over population and you solve the pressure we are placing on our natural resources and environment.
I think you are coming at this from the wrong direction. Before scrapping the benefits that encourage people to have more children, we need to scrap the economic policy that depends on people having more children. Commonsense dictates that a planet of finite resources cannot sustain an infinitely expanding economy.
We agree ( for once 
) If you read my posts on this thread you will see that is exactly the point I am making. The economic policy we are both referring to is ever continuing economic growth through ever expanding population growth. In Australia's case this is being achieved through immigration.
Theoretically Australia could lead the world in reducing our population, simply by cancelling our immigration policy, but on a global scale it would not make any difference because the people would still be on the planet somewhere. As you say, " Commonsense dictates that a planet of finite resources cannot sustain an infinitely expanding economy. " That is why we need to encourage people to have smaller families. And the best way to do that is to stop paying them to have kids.....Simples.
