It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bobafett1972

Is this why Ted has bought up half of the mid-west?
Heck Ted, with all of the land you own, you could grow something to help out no?


Oh snap!

Seriously if he truly believed the world was going to experience such devistating food shortages, and he cared so much, he would indeed be maximizing that land for food production. Granted he is saying GW will prevent crops from growing, but there is quite a few growing seasons until 2040 hits..


If I am alive in 2040, Ted won't be but I am going to dig him up and eat him anyway...




[edit on 073030p://3u45 by Lucid Lunacy]




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040:


Well this is one way to thin the herds which would benefit society! I am going to begin writing a cookbook!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Personally, i sincerely doubt 'mass cannibalism' is ever goingt happen on a scale that Ted is talking about here.

Although when i consider the mass-suicides that will be occuring as a result of such social catastrophe perhaps the people willing to cannibalise will have something of a feast on their hands.

I don't see myself getting to the stage of desperation where i'd be willing to kill and eat another person, simply in order to survive in such a world.

There's only so much flesh you can gorge on before it all starts to decompose, and then you're faced with the option of killin' and feastin' on your fellow cannibals in order to survive - eventually it'll get to a point where the people who didn't resort to cannibalism will get their act together, perhaps shoving the cannibal's faces in the fact that while they were resorting to such a macabre short-term solution, the survivors unwilling to give in to the temptation of an easy meal were busy cultivating vast underground plantations the same way one would cultivate an indoor dope-farm.

And of course, those who resorted to cannibalism may find themselves asking whether or not it was truly worth eating up that poor defenseless cripple.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dk3000

Well this is one way to thin the herds which would benefit society! I am going to begin writing a cookbook!


Helps with over-population I suppose but...

Society eats itself and that is benifiting Society how? Kinda oxymoronic.

It doesn't help the people that get eaten, and they are members of Society too, no? If they were dead first then sure, but if times become as drastic and desperate as Turner is claiming, then I highly doubt people will wait for cadavers to turn up. I mean, people are eating human meat! It's not too big of a moral jump to hunt for it at that point



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


The Problem(TM) is that there are a a LOT Of people that DO believe the propagandist tripe of "Mankind bad, killing earth, must reduce populace!"

I was meaning to comment earlier that a whole lot of people I've talked to on the matter don't LIKE people, don't like stupid people, don't like people for the way they behave and etc. I would argue that the population reduction point of view is a result of a dislike of highly populace areas, or other people in general... possibly resulting from various discomforting social situations that the person has experienced.

Perhaps it might have something to do with the fact that people don't socialize much anymore period, that humanity as a whole has become risk-averse (In western countries), and insulates themselves into their immediate social groups.

Whatever the reason, there is a goodly portion of people who WANT population reduction (As a fulfillment of some strange anti-desire for company), or who have taken the bait and agreed with the consensus that somehow we have a responsibility to destroy ourselves for the sake of mother earth.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
If they were dead first then sure


Mhmm, this human is so tasty!

You can almost get a whole rump off this one's bone!

Pity everyone's starving and hasn't been eating much, eh - otherwise you'd be able to get a decent meal in once and a while!

*laughs inanely, while chewing on the defenseless cripple's leg-bone*



The idea that you would start on the weak and desperate is lunacy anyway, considering that all the meat will be on the guys big enough to defend themselves (hench pack mentality).

edit; i'm not actually trying to contradict you here, you just set me off on a tangent that gave me some rather interesting ideas.

But i still think that humans should not eat humans, because if they do then it means there's something seriously wrong with the way we're going about things if we do*.

Tis' nothing but madness, MADNESS I TELL YOU!

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Throbber]

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Throbber]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
*Eating other people when you could be spending time tooling up your group of plucky survivors with heavy weapons and farming your way to a nutritional meal?

Tis' nothing but madness.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Wow interesting topic! Now I'm not sure whether we're overburdened or not. I thought so but then hearing these different views.

This is completely in theory:

If there's going to be any population control I think the cap should be on two children (though it's hard to put a limit on something, how do you enforce that while retaining a person's human rights? tricky tricky). That way you're guaranteed that at least one child will carry on you name. Then just let nature take it's course, between people who die before reproducing, homosexual couples, those with fertility issues and those who choose to be child free, the population will slowly get smaller and smaller. Of course you have IVF/surrogacy/adoption for fertility issues and homosexual couples but not everyone utilizes them.

Then again everything works better in theory than in reality.

I agree the best idea is to go back to basics, be self sustaining and as enviromentally friendly as possible.

I don't wanna get eaten...
If you look into history there has been a LOT of cannibalism throughout the years due to varying reasons, cultural or through famines. I actually got a friend a book that talks about all the recorded accounts of cannibalism... Cool book. I guess it's not impossible that it will happen on a widerspread basis in the future.

edit: excuse my lazy english, thanks!

[edit on 3-4-2008 by poisonmekare]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


Throbber I was trying to put myself in the shoes of the the people in this extremely apoc scenario.

I have been a vegetarian for 6 years now. I don't even eat animal meat


Long before times get that desperate I will have undergound crop production to sustain my veggie-lifestyle


**Edit for spelling

[edit on 103030p://3u08 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by dk3000

Well this is one way to thin the herds which would benefit society! I am going to begin writing a cookbook!


Helps with over-population I suppose but...

Society eats itself and that is benifiting Society how? Kinda oxymoronic.

It doesn't help the people that get eaten, and they are members of Society too, no? If they were dead first then sure, but if times become as drastic and desperate as Turner is claiming, then I highly doubt people will wait for cadavers to turn up. I mean, people are eating human meat! It's not too big of a moral jump to hunt for it at that point


It benefits society by thinning (population) itself and nourishing itself at the same time. It is an oxymoron as is society as is government!

I was trying to funny and sell a book idea at the same time!!!! I know, I know- I need some sleep!



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harman
In the netherlands we have a saying: "zoals de waar is vertrouwd hij zijn gasten' loosely translated: The way someone is dictates how he trusts someone else.


I love that.

Here it goes something like "The person who yells the loudest is usually the most guilty."

They scared the crap out of us, just like the Global Warming bunch today, when this nonsense got heated in the late 60's and into the 70's. Then they said we would all starve from overpopulation in 30 years and that all plant-life would die also.
Some want these things to happen so they start to believe their own madness and others profit off of them. Years go by but nothing changes. There will always be money in fake predictions and terrifying the less informed and those without normal faculties.

I'll make a counter-prediction. In the year 2040 we will be more advanced technologically, our standard of living will be higher, our life expectancy will be higher, we will be able to grow more food on less acreage and the situation in the 3rd World will continue to improve. There will also be a new batch of end of the world and civilization predictions very similar to Turners except the date will be moved. Many will still be laughing at themselves over the 2012 nonsense and Planet "X". Some will just say they got the dates wrong and the young people will fall for it because they never believe the last generation made the exact same predictions.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Good luck with that - You're giving hope to people who otherwise might be chowing down on the locals.




posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
For all sorts of reasons Ted's predictions are dead on, but it will be happening a heck of a lot sooner than that. There is a general collapse of the system coming, anyone who doesn't see that is blind either by ignorance or a defense mechanism. This isn't the 'good old days' anymore, people are packed into urban centers and rely %100 on food that is grown and transported by a system that is totally reliant on cheap oil and a working infrastructure to deliver it.

Of course there will be cannabilism, what do you think is going to happen when large concrete jungle stop receiving their shipments of food? People are pretty smug and think technology can save us all. Too bad reality gets in the way of that little dream. Wake up people, there is no such thing as a replacement for oil. Without oil there is no food. It takes exactly 3 days for civilization to completely collapse in the face of a lack of supplies. Just the lack of drinking water alone in a city is enough to cause everything to fall apart the moment power outages start.

I am baffled that people think overpopulation isn't an issue. It has nothing to do with 'space'. It has EVERYTHING to do with energy. We are on the verge of climbing onto the crazy carpet and sliding headlong into Olduvai Gorge and yet people think it will just keep going like this, that everything will be fine. It starts with people grudgingly admitting that there may be a recession. Then they will talk about 'depression'. Then, when there are rolling blackouts and the jobless rate hits %50 and government services start to fail as the vipers retreat into their den... You bet there will be people eating people. Don't kid yourself for a moment - in Russia they called it 'chicken' and joked about it because that is all you can do when things get to that point.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by KaiBosh]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MajKarma
 


Ya I never really get a good vibe off this Ted Turner person... I'm gonna go out on a limb here... I think he's an alien or demon or something... If not that, then he's definitely not a good human being... Maybe he is a vampire?


Too much money and people go sour it seems... Whether they turn into pro depopulationalist's or just go nuts money never really seems to be as good as it's made out to be...

Cannibals? hmmm... Come on Ted, what's up man? Ted needs to sit down and read a bible...



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
This is scaremongering and we will not resort to cannabilism. Unfortunately it gives the GW deniers something to desperately latch on to....again. The worst that will happen is, which has happened in the past and present, is that camps of starving humans would appear. They would literally starve to death slowly as the world watches and demands government do something about it......as long as you leave my taxes alone....oh and my car......and I still want to go shopping......

The claim that we are not overpopulated is wrong. The idea that there is lots of open spaces and untouched wilderness out there and so how can we be overpopulated is a simplistic argument. What matters is that the balance between what humans consume compared to what the earth replenishes. We passed the tipping point just recently and we are now quite literally over consuming the earths resources so those open spaces will be consumed at some point. Now it is true that this could be reversed by the , mainly, west changing its wasteful over consumption. However, this is again very simplistic and assumes that should the problem be identified (it has) and the solution found (it has) millions of people would quite happily conform. DREAM ON. There is far too much greed and denial in the world for that to happen. These extreme changes only occur after extreme events when the population has had a proverbial exceptionally painful kick up the butt. This usually takes the form of war.

China and India are coming on stream with their population starting to consume resources at the same rate as the west so the problem will accelerate and quite rapidly as well, probably a decade left before something somewhere breaks. My guess is oil, the west will try and "protect" the middle east and african supplies and the emerging nations, mainly China, will "protect" their supplies as well. Iran for instance who just happen to supply most of China's oil.

There will be no need to cull the human population because it will happen by default, starvation and war. Now it is sad that I believe this but there is absolutley NOTHING happening in the west at present to suggest the problem is being addressed, business as usual denial basically. Therefore the only solution will be the default one. Advanced economies do indeed have low population growth, some even reverse. So that coupled with a more managed use of resources would avoid war and starvation. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. We are tinkering at the edges with token wind farms, green recycling bins etc etc Yet we continue to build airports, fly more, consume more, throw away more and bitch and complain bitterly (like here) about having to change our ways.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
bobafett you killed with that. I'll take a leg shank 'well done'. If he goes toasty save me a line.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Cannibalism: A Moral Solution to World Hunger


First in my argument, I present the fact that in the United States, we have many unwanted individuals. For example, criminals such as murderers and rapists that have so violated the rules of society, that they have nullified their right to live; it is my suggestion that these criminals be liquidated from society because we as a society must establish a moral foundation. However, this poses a question. What should we do with the bodies of criminals? Should we waste these bodies by burring them? Thus, allowing innocent people to starve in third world countries? Of course not! So the answer is simple. We must do the only moral thing, and use these bodies to feed the world’s hungry.



Second, this solution is not only effective, it is also extremely efficient. Currently, society has a surplus of people, but a shortage of food; therefore, it is ultimately efficient to allow the world’s innocent hungry to consume those individuals that have forfeited their right to live. This would in turn, eliminate the immense burden that feeding the aforementioned criminals would have on our society. This would also lower the surplus of people, therefore, establishing a more germane and balanced relationship between humans and food.



Third, by using criminals to feed the world’s hungry, we can establish a moral foundation for our society. This would happen by diminishing crime because people would be less likely to commit crimes if they knew that they would be slaughtered like cows and used for food. Thus, by lowering crime rates, we can assume that our world would therefore become a safer and better world, which would allow for the world’s populous to live in peaceful harmony, therefore, establishing a moral society. Who would have thought that cannibalism would help establish a moral and peaceful society?



In conclusion, today’s society is one where criminals—such as murders and rapists—are a burden on society, while on the other hand, innocent people in third world countries starve. Do you think it is right or moral to allow innocent people to starve, while criminals burden our society? It is therefore my conclusion that a moral society would liquidate its criminals and feed the hungry, and through the magic of cannibalism, we can do both. So why not kill two birds with one stone? Why not give aid to those in desperate need, and at the same time establish a moral and peaceful society?


[edit on 043030p://4u56 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
The claim that we are not overpopulated is wrong.


Stating it doesn't make it so. Saying there are too many people is essentially saying that people need to A) Not breed, or B) Die.



The idea that there is lots of open spaces and untouched wilderness out there and so how can we be overpopulated is a simplistic argument. What matters is that the balance between what humans consume compared to what the earth replenishes.


Agreed. We waste a lot, but that waste doesn't up and disappear... and one man's trash is another man's treasure. Re-purposing waste and refining our recycling techniques to maximize efficiency holds more promise than reducing the population.


We passed the tipping point just recently and we are now quite literally over consuming the earths resources so those open spaces will be consumed at some point.


Of this, I have my sincere doubts. While food and such is increasing in cost, that has more to do with efficiencies of distribution and the cost of gas for truckers. The U.S. alone makes enough food to feed most of the world, all renewable.

I'd ask for you to show me figures, but statistics is a breeding ground for propaganda. I think it is prudent to note that the same was said 30 years ago about the 1990's... that the sacred untouched wilderness would shortly be depleted.



Now it is true that this could be reversed by the , mainly, west changing its wasteful over consumption. However, this is again very simplistic and assumes that should the problem be identified (it has) and the solution found (it has) millions of people would quite happily conform.


If you are stating the solution is de-population, that is not a solution. It is an unacceptable suggestion. The only viable solution is to improve our usage of waste, resources and water. The population must continue to grow, because nobody can stop it. So find another solution. Mine is that we thrust forward, because going backwards is sheer fantasy and impractical.



There is far too much greed and denial in the world for that to happen.


Wanting to live is not greed. Desiring children is not greed. Realizing that de-population isn't a viable alternative for anyone who cares about other human beings is not denial. My solution to the problem of stupid people is for me to kill them and take their stuff. Society frowns on that sort of solution, and people should frown on killing 95% of people (Or finding some way to LET them die or kill eachother).



These extreme changes only occur after extreme events when the population has had a proverbial exceptionally painful kick up the butt. This usually takes the form of war.


That's probably the most cogent (And true) thing you've said in this post. Overcoming Obstacles is what Humanity does best... usually after something has kicked us hard into getting moving.



China and India are coming on stream with their population starting to consume resources at the same rate as the west so the problem will accelerate and quite rapidly as well, probably a decade left before something somewhere breaks.


Well, that entirely depends. Like I said before, there are economies of scale... it is prudent to note that China has rapidly gone through it's industrial age and is brushing against the post-industrial society alongside America. I posit that any civilization advancing itself will take the minimum amount of time to equalize with the most advanced society of the age... which means that we need to get our act together so that we can bootstrap India and China into the post-industrial era.



My guess is oil, the west will try and "protect" the middle east and african supplies and the emerging nations, mainly China, will "protect" their supplies as well. Iran for instance who just happen to supply most of China's oil.


Oil is only a problem if we don't find solutions to the finite supply. If solutions are found, Oil CEASES to be a problem. We already have multiple solutions towards energy consumption and production, but not the willpower to carry them out. Nuclear is clean, efficient, and safe (using common day practices). But the same people who propose we kill humanity off (extreme environmentalists claim humanity is a scourge and deserves to die) also don't want humanity finding solutions that are sustainable for the human race. I've never quite fathomed how a human being can be so ultimately self-loathing of their own species.


Now it is sad that I believe this but there is absolutley NOTHING happening in the west at present to suggest the problem is being addressed, business as usual denial basically.


You don't follow science journals much, do you? There is quite a bit happening here in the U.S. that is improving the day to day life and quality of how we use our resources.



Therefore the only solution will be the default one.


Bollocks. There is always another way, and solutions are what we come by best in tough situations.



Advanced economies do indeed have low population growth, some even reverse. So that coupled with a more managed use of resources would avoid war and starvation. IT IS NOT HAPPENING. We are tinkering at the edges with token wind farms, green recycling bins etc etc Yet we continue to build airports, fly more, consume more, throw away more and bitch and complain bitterly (like here) about having to change our ways.


I'll give you that much, we aren't making enough of an effort at curbing the issue... but we aren't out of time, and we are making SOME effort. Maybe we need a disaster to kick it off, but I am confident we won't need 5 billion people to as some form of solution.


sty

posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:24 AM
link   
we do not need to kill 4 billions or implement 1 child policy - we just need to find another way of living without affecting the planet this much. What about releasing energy alternatives and not keep them secret for the sake of selling petrol?? this would save 4 billion people ! but of course , this is not what is wanted.. right?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Seriously?!?!? WOW! Last time they were saying 2100! Wait no 2005! Wow!!! I sure believe this is going to happen!




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join