Ted Turner urges global "One-Child Policy"

[rambone]

Billionaire globalist Ted Turner has recently advocated that the world adopt authoritarian population control measures in order to reduce the global population and save the earth's environment.

Ted Turner urges global one-child policy to save planet

Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.

In 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

​

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."​

 

[rambone]

This is what happens in the Chinese model of fascist population control:

Woman Who Had 2nd Baby To Protest China One Child Policy Tortured In 'Re-Education Camp'

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

Mr. Turner can start with himself.

 

[Disposable Heart]

He was the one who came up with Captain Planet, what does one expect?!

I believe in self imposed population control measures, no government required crap. But, that is a pipe dream...

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Whatadumbchit...it's not the population hurting the environment. It's corporations who do not respect the environment and care for the resources, the waste, etc. but that will be inevitable. Like the quote in the Matrix:

"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure." - Agent Smith

 

[eldirector]

I studied "global carrying capacity" back in college. Kinda scary, really. I'm not too sure how many more people we can support on this dirt ball.

Nature has a way of taking care of this for us. It is just unfortunate that war, famine, and lowered fertility are her tools. I hope that isn't the world my child inherits.

China, Ted, and others' (your saw our fearless leader's mug in that article, didn't you?) proposed policies are pretty scary, though. Selling fertility rights? At least he is thinking like a capitalist!

 

[rjstew317]

ted turners mom should have swallowed

 

[IndySSD]

Billionaire globalist Ted Turner has recently advocated that the world adopt authoritarian population control measures in order to reduce the global population and save the earth's environment.

Ted Turner urges global one-child policy to save planet

In 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

​

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."​

Says the Douchbag with 5 kids, "Hey yall, stop proliferating, you're using up all our air!!"

 

[Armed Citizen]

As reported by Jesse "the Body" Ventura, there is a group of so called "elite" world leaders calling themselves the "Bilderberg Group" that has plans to maintain a WORLD population of 500,000 people. Sorry Mr. Turner, you are 500,001.

 

[Garb]

I'm going to make a quick guess and assume that he was either the oldest child or the only child. If not, then OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

 

[HandK]

If that was to take place there would be no one to watch his channel on TV!!

 

[88GT]

I studied "global carrying capacity" back in college. Kinda scary, really. I'm not too sure how many more people we can support on this dirt ball.

The limiting factor is not the quantity of resources and the number of people using them but their distribution and control. Technology also goes a long way towards manipulating the base-line carrying capacity.
[/quote]

Look at the aisles of food in our grocery stores. Far more food than we collectively 'need.'

In the countries where people are starving, look at who controls the resources and therefore the wealth.

Nothing a little bit of freedom and unfettered markets wouldn't cure in short order. Until then, well, National Geographic will be able to stay in business with heart-wrenching cover photos, that's for sure.

 

[Leadeye]

He only proves that there are a lot of loons with opinions out there , but that money makes them heard.

 

[Praetorian13]

This idiot was probably an only child. There is nothing better than a big family. I say off with his balls!

 

[96firephoenix]

I love how all the activists who want a smaller population want that to be for everyone ELSE.

 

[eldirector]

Not gonna argue that at all! Totally agree that distribution is a problem. So is the excess (we consume way more than we need). A free market would certainly help, but still wouldn't get food to those that can't afford it.

Food isn't really the issue, though. Clean water is a much scarcer commodity, and the limiting factor even in the US. As populations grow, they put HUGE strains on local water supplies. Even in the US, we are draining lakes, reducing rivers to a trickle, and piping water across multiple states to satisfy our thirst. In turn, our supplies are becoming more polluted.

Now, try this in more arid regions. Africa, Australia, and large sections of the Orient have NO fresh water to speak of. The middle east has been working with desalination for a while, but that has its own issues: raising the salinity of the water supply, and killing off plant and animal life in the region.

We are darn lucky here in the Midwest. We get plenty of rainfall for our crops, water table, reservoirs, and lawns.

The limiting factor is not the quantity of resources and the number of people using them but their distribution and control. Technology also goes a long way towards manipulating the base-line carrying capacity.

Look at the aisles of food in our grocery stores. Far more food than we collectively 'need.'

In the countries where people are starving, look at who controls the resources and therefore the wealth.

Nothing a little bit of freedom and unfettered markets wouldn't cure in short order. Until then, well, National Geographic will be able to stay in business with heart-wrenching cover photos, that's for sure.[/quote]

 

[rambone]

Ted Turner is pure evil. When a billionaire has made it his mission to reduce the global population for the last 20 years, pay attention to the things he donates his money towards.... brainwashing kids with "Captain Planet" cartoon propaganda, funding Planned Parenthood for years, billions of dollars towards vaccines in 3rd world countries that cause infertility & disabilities, etc...

 

[Disposable Heart]

Not gonna argue that at all! Totally agree that distribution is a problem. So is the excess (we consume way more than we need). A free market would certainly help, but still wouldn't get food to those that can't afford it.

Food isn't really the issue, though. Clean water is a much scarcer commodity, and the limiting factor even in the US. As populations grow, they put HUGE strains on local water supplies. Even in the US, we are draining lakes, reducing rivers to a trickle, and piping water across multiple states to satisfy our thirst. In turn, our supplies are becoming more polluted.

Huge plus 1! Carrying capacity isn't a "here and now" issue, it builds over time. It's the earth's ability to support it's population at CURRENT consumption levels. Technology has changed alot of the rules in that regard, but we ARE running out of resources. Full store shelves mean nothing in the whole picture of the situation our planet faces.

Conservation of mass, it's the law! is a rally cry of the shortsightedness of many's carrying capacity views, not understanding how long it takes for those resources to either come back or come back in a USABLE fashion.

That being said, however, I think there are too many people CONSUMING resources that they do not need: People driving SUVs and trucks and not hauling anything (nor will they) or resisting alternative energy sources on the basis of anything different than status quo is "libtarded". BUT, I will not agree with a government enforcement of consumption habits. Both are right in that free market system will introduce this change. But, governments can foul up the system by waging war over precious resources due to price spikes and cultural views of entitlement of those resources (such as Americans and oil).

Instead of fighting the rest of the world for oil and other precious resources, maybe truncating back consumption or coming up with alternative sources? I would love the idea of an America that uses oil for lubrication of machinery run by other fuel/energy sources!

 

[Dentoro]

Ted is old and needs to have a heart attack to make room for the young.

 

[kevinj110]

I know I wont be popular for this but I kinda agree with him. I have a family one child that I love beyond anything. That being said we will not be having another. If we want another child we will adopt. Planned Parenthood is a good thing in my opinion. I don't think there needs to be a new law maybe just alot of education and research into new methods of birth control.