Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040

Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040

www.worldnetdaily.com

The year 2040 – or about then – will find the world's crops dead, most of the people in a similar state of decay, and those few left alive will be cannibals, according to a prediction from Ted Turner, founder of Turner Broadcasting and CNN.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think he may have a good point. Though he blames global warming for the cause. I'm leaning more to peak oil, pollution and overpopulation as the primary causes for such a scenario.

If things dont begin to improve in the near future in some areas of the Third World, we may see it happen far before 2040 more like 2014.

www.worldnetdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Bank urges 'new deal' on hunger

The above article seems to agree with Turner, only sooner rather than later.

Mr Zoellick said the top priority was to give the UN World Food Programme an extra $500m for emergency food aid.

The World Bank estimates 33 countries face potential social unrest because of rising food and energy prices.

Despite the source being WorldNutDaily, I don't find this all nuts, as it is supported by a videographed interview with Turner.

This quote struck me as something for all the deniers of global warming to ponder upon.

"The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say – over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films," a notice on the Heartland Institute website proclaims. "But they have lost the debate."

Bizarre.

I hope he's wrong and, in 2040, we'll have a good laugh about this eccentric and failed prophet.

F

I saw that interview of Turner but don't be fooled, he is pro-depopulation.

"Multi-billionaire, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NEPRHA), "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election." Ted Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner, Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of two billion people, as opposed to today's six billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years." How did Mr. Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor Professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb." In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the U.S. and by "the 1970s. . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Professor Erlich saw England in more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

www.gmu.edu...

This is what is in store for us in 2012. We will have to sacrifice for, and obey, the planet. Billions will die in sacrifice. No end of the world, just an end to the status quo human civilization. It will be an Earth worshiping civilization.

All of it is starting with Global Warming and food shortages. They're using warmth period data caused by the Sun, not greenhouse gases, to spread the fear of Global Warming so that the masses will give up their rights and their lives to the ultimate boogeyman threat - the end of the world.

There's no terrorist group in a cave here. No madman with his finger on a nuclear trigger.

It's our one and only home, and to save it, we must give up everything we have to big brother in order to save ourselves as a species. In the process, 6 billion people must be sacrificed.

Over-blown data and control over the food and water supplies, which I'm sure are perfectly fine, or at least much better than they claim, have created this hysteria and this begging from the masses to do something, anything, to reverse it, and it doesn't matter what is lost or what has to be done.

All of this may sound crazy, but it's not so crazy when you truly think about it and compare it to the daily fear mongering headlines.

It is a distinct possibility when you have 'corporations' like Monsanto plowing billions into making it happen.

Originally posted by MajKarma
I saw that interview of Turner but don't be fooled, he is pro-depopulation.

"Multi-billionaire, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda's husband, told last week's 27th annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NEPRHA), "We have to defeat those congressmen and senators who are standing in the way of progress. We've got to win the next election." Ted Turner, founder of CNN and vice chairman of Time-Warner, Inc., was sounding the alarm that something must be done about overpopulation. This father of five said we could achieve the "ideal" world population of two billion people, as opposed to today's six billion, "if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years." How did Mr. Turner arrive at the ideal population? He learned it from his mentor Professor Paul Erlich, author of the 1968 best-seller, "The Population Bomb." In that book, Erlich predicted major food shortages in the U.S. and by "the 1970s. . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Erlich forecasted the starvation of 65 million Americans between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Professor Erlich saw England in more desperate situation, saying, "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."

www.gmu.edu...

A man with 5 kids suggesting everyone else should be limited to having 1 child? That level of hypocrisy loses all credibility in my book. Just another nutjob trying to get some publicity and scare people. Another form of control.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


It disheartens me that you either believe the propaganda that we are overburdening the world and nothing is to be done about it but depopulate, or that you are part of the upper eschelon who feels what is best for humanity is to get rid of that worthless bottom 95% of us.

We, as a species, have certainly mucked things up quite a bit. There's an island in the pacific ocean completely comprised of plastic trash, stuck in the doldrums. Huge legions of Jellyfish scour the sea, unimpeded by predators which we've reduced the populations of. The impact of humanity is certainly verifiable.

However, we as a species are a part of nature. Nature's goal with all life is to overcome, it is only through adversity that evolution happens; a challenge presents itself to a life form, and that life form either adapts or dies. Nature is brutal and unforgiving, and the driving impetus is towards improvement.

We, as a species, exist in our current iteration because of hardships we have adapted to overcome. Without our brains and tools, we are probably the most helpless creatures on the planet; we have no fur, we have no protective outer shell, we have no natural defenses and no means of defending ourselves. We are soft, pink meat which cannot run nearly as fast as nature's other predators... and we would be relegated to prey if we had no means of inventing solutions to these problems.

And all of this came about because Nature bid it to be so. As the dominant species on the planet, we do have a responsibility to try and protect Nature and preserve the myriad delicacies of her habitats and niches, but we also have the Credo of Nature which drives us always onwards and upwards.

Killing off 90% of our population almost ensures mankind will go extinct, not because it's bad, but because it is against nature. Nature is going to throw problems at us, it has for tens of thousands to millions to billions of years. That is what nature DOES.

Life will come up with solutions, especially when times are so dire that life itself is directly threatened with it's own extinction; adapt or die. We adapt, it's what we do. We do it best, and for that, we are the ultimate children of Nature.

Rather than limit population growth, cut our population, reduce it, curb it or what have you... I say we keep going. I say we push ourselves to the brink, because it is in those moments of brevity declaring our nigh destruction that the greatest eureka's are found, it is through suffering, hardship and danger that the human creature stands tall and overcomes... we evolve in the face of nature, our reflector and teacher.

Because the alternative to the ascension of mankind is choosing who lives and who dies. Choosing which people are worth less than others, and nobody has the right to make that choice; only Nature does.

Let's aim for 30 billion people on earth, and let's find solutions to make it happen.

I think aiming for 30 billion people is fine, but that number should be spread between here and Jupiter. The sooner we colonize Mars the better.

I love this. It is so surreal it's comical. A thirty billion dollar guy married to Jane (f over vietnam mia's) just sucked down a Maine rock lobster and is kicking back some Bordeaux '33 sangria while ruminating about us cellar dwellers clawing each other to shreds for sustenance. ROFL, please, just shoot me now, my hamhocks should grill up nicely. I read 'Alive' in h.s., it was disturbing.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
I think aiming for 30 billion people is fine, but that number should be spread between here and Jupiter. The sooner we colonize Mars the better.

Don't forget the Ocean. It's close to 70% of Earths' surface.

We have the technology and resources to create completely self-sustained underwater liveable structures. And there is plenty of food in there! You just need lots of money is all. Money for the underwater mansion, and money for a submersible with remote controlled robotics for your hunting and gathering

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Though he blames global warming for the cause. I'm leaning more to peak oil, pollution and overpopulation as the primary causes for such a scenario.

Actually he says it's overpopulation as well..

We're too many people. That's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff," he said.

And I agree.

I agree we have an over-population problem. First thing we should do is wipe out all violent-crime offenders. Do that first, and if there is still too many people on the Planet maybe we should have a world-wide mandate on max family size?..

It's not that I think 7 billion people is too many for the Planet, it's that I think 7 billion industrialized people is too many for the Planet. The ones that are not industrialized will be soon enough. If we were 7 billion hunters and gatherers, it would be a different story.

Oy Jesus vey. First wipe out all the violent people. Soilient Green. Can I just go back to the womb now? I don't want to play here.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Lucid, I think you need to read "A STEP FURTHER OUT" By Jerry Pournelle. It was written back in the late 70's, early 80's and it specifically addressed solutions to the problems we face today. Technological solutions. Solutions which involved raising up the entire human raise to POST-industrial standards.

The idea that there are "TOO MANY OF US" is directly related to the propaganda they teach you that mankind is killing the earth. We've certainly done our damage, but it isn't damage that can't be UNdone.

Originally posted by jpm1602
Oy Jesus vey. First wipe out all the violent people.

Violence can manifest in ways other then rape and murder. When I said violent-crime offenders I was talking about the latter. This reflects my position in that violent-crime punishment should be increased whereas non-violent crimes should decrease. 'If' we truly have an over-population problem, then they should be the first to go.

[edit on 073030p://3u39 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by TheColdDragon


I havn't read that book, i'll add that to my list as it sounds like something i'd really enjoy reading

I was speaking in the pre-tense of our current world. Yeah I can see how if the world in whole embraced certain socialistic ideals and adopted new energy means, amongst other things, it could transcend our industiral age and be sustainable even at increasing population. But thinking under the pre-tense that the world simply is not willing to comply to that... we have to think about ways to make it sustainable right here and now, in a modern industrial world.

I'd love to transcend and go 'post'. But we would have to unite all the worlds nations for a common good. We would as a whole have to snap out of apathy. I just can't see this happening without some drastic revolution. And I can't see a drastic revolution happening without some drastic catastrophy to bring us all together. You know?

Ted Turner predicts 'mass cannibalism' by 2040

Ted Turner is "shopping cart crazy". We just sort of overlook this because he has a lot of money. He's a billinoaire so he must be right. That's what some seem to think but his satus on the Forture 500 has nothing to do with his powers of prediction. Which I believe are not any better than those of the average guy. Just look at how poor some Africian countries are. Is cannablaism the only means of survival there? Hardly.

I think he's been listening to Al Gore too much and eating pizza late night while watching Night of the Living Dead. I would call anyone else making this prediction a loon so why not Ted Turner? Yep, he's a sandwich or two short of a picknik if you ask me.

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.

In short: i'm not going near the likes of Ted Turner when he is beginning to starve. As someone else has said, Afrika does not eat each other on a massive scale.

I would like to set up an experiment with that guy. See how long he will starve before he eats one of his children or something. I give him 3 days.