Skip to main content

Still Crazy: Ted Turner Favors Global One-Child Policy for 100 Years

Tim Graham's picture

LifeSiteNews reports that CNN founder Ted Turner is still valiantly holding to his belief that the world is dramatically overpopulated, despite the fact that his pet Paul Ehrlich theories about a “population bomb” causing massive “die-backs” never occurred.

When he was bothered on the street about his ideal population number for Earth, Turner insisted he would like to reduce the world’s population by five billion people, imposing a policy mandating a “one child family…for 100 years.”

“I think two billion is about right,” Turner said as he walked briskly away. Last year, the number of people in the world reached seven billion.

Before disappearing around the corner Turner said he hoped to eliminate five billion people through the “one child family.” The interviewer responded, “One child policy.” Turner answered, “For 100 years.”

It's easy to forget the anti-capitalist, anti-American propaganda Turner used to foist on the airwaves to push this agenda. Twenty years ago, CNN was airing a month-long series called "The People Bomb" on alleged overpopulation. Here's a taste:

Anchor Susan Rook began the story: "Our month-long series on global overpopulation begins with CNN's Mark Walton's report on responsibility. When it comes to damaging our world, you may be surprised at who's to blame."

Walton continued: "Picture the developing world. Too many people on the edge of survival. Fouling the land, water, air. Compounding a crisis of poverty. It is the very face of overpopulation. But what about this? It's a middle-class suburb outside San Francisco called Pleasant Hill. And it really is a nice place to live: nice houses, nice cars, plenty to eat. The size of an average household is about 2.4 people. Certainly a place like this has nothing to do with overpopulation. Or does it?"

The rest of the piece, salted only with [Sierra Club chief Carl] Pope and [Paul] Ehrlich, theorized that industrialized nations and their conveniences are much more destructive than the Third World. Ehrlich explained: "Generally one can say that the birth of a baby in the United States is on the order of thirty times as big a disaster for things like global climate change, the ozone layer, acid precipitation, and so on, as a baby born in a poor family in Nepal, Bangladesh, Colombia, or whatever."

Even American environmental do-gooders were condemned. Walton faulted the family they spotlighted in California: "The Bakers are conscientious waste recyclers, with special bins for cans, bottles, and newspapers. Still, the very lifestyle that demands such materials traps them in a cycle of environmental destruction."

Comments

#1 And why should we care what

And why should we care what Ted Turner thinks?

Oh, yeah, he's rich and famous, so his opinion is important.

#2 Thanks Motherbelt

I dont have to post now. You took the words right out of my mouth.

If you're not getting flak, you're not over the target.

#3 Do as I say, not as I do

Ted Turner has five children. Al Gore, another advocate for population control, has four children. Of course, these children are blue-eyed and blond, so, in their minds, that's different.

#4 Yeah

Yeah. I did forget about Turner's anit-capitalism rants - just as I've forgotten to take Ted Turner seriously about anything at all. Here is a man who spent way to many years admiring himself in a mirror. He is now just a fool and court jester - brought out to be laughed at when there is a lull in the news cycle.

#5 what an idiot

I see Drunkle Ted is still babbling thru his empty Grey Goose bottle..... either that, or he hasn't yet been able to shake off the "Hanoi Jane" programming from his former marriage with that JEZEBEL.

#6 Turner

Ok. Which 4 of his 5 children does he plan to execute?

#7 Exactly!

Always the elitist, Turner proposes that the world conform to a radical, counter-natural behavior that he himself never practiced.

When Ted Turner tells us that he is converting his massive ranch into a wind farm, he may begin to grow some credility. 'Til then, he's nothing but hot air.

#8 Ted

And again conformation is not needed when talking about the IDIOTS on the left.....

#9 Why, Ted?

Because it's working out so well in China, right?

China's one child policy has been a disaster. Forced abortions. Killing babies. Shortage of female marriage partners (maybe Ted could mandate x% of male gay couples for a hundred years too, to fix that one.....oh wait, sorry gay guys, you can't adopt any kids because there's no one available to be your surrogate, so solly).

He's an idiot.

#10 I don't get it. What is so

I don't get it. What is so horrifically wrong with a world population of one billion instead of 7 billion, or 15 billion, or 50 billion,,,which is where we are headed because we are too freaking unintelligent to stop breeding like rabbits.

#11 Who is this "we" Kemosabe?

Think before you type.

#12 Ain't going to happen, 2.1 is the population flat line.

As one can see, the fertility rate is falling all over the planet...

No more 12 kids to a single family....

#13 There's nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing wrong with it, but you can't force people to stop breeding. It's in our very nature to reproduce. It's in our genes. Any attempt to control that is going to fail, miserably. The only way you'll ever control the population is to kill off the "excessive" people, and that's not going to happen. Hitler tried that with the Jews in Europe in the 40's, and look how that turned out. There's more Jews alive in Europe now than in the 40's, despite his attempts to eradicate them completely.

Of course, it's not necessary for us to try to control our own population levels. Nature will do it for us. Nature, as always, will find the perfect balance. We just haven't reached a tipping point. And it looks like we won't reach one for a long time yet.

Look at it from the other direction: What's wrong with a global population of, say, 15 trillion? Nothing. If we can reach that number then it's obvious that we can support it. There's no arbitrary level that we need to achieve and maintain. Biology is a self-maintaining process. Left alone, a sustainable level will be achieved and maintained all by itself.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#14 Walter Williams on population size and density

Walter Williams repliedto a proposal made by the very same Terrible Ted Turner in 1999 to limit the world's population to 2 billion individuals (instead of 6 billion then) by ... adopting a one-child policy. Whoa. He's been selling that snake oil for 13 years.

Williams made short work of Turner's idea, and this is the kicker: "If the entire world's population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land."

Here's the link:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022499.asp

#15 Ridiculous!

With under 7 Billion people in the world, we could comfortably place everyone alive in Texas with over a thousand square feet per person (yeah, that doesn't consider roadways or anything). Ted Turner's houses, therefore, could accommodate more than a few of them!

In fact, if you took the entire population of the world, shoved them shoulder to shoulder in New York City, they'd still fit! Be the biggest, smelliest mosh pit EVER...

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

#16 Similar ideas, Dmntd1

Just different math.

#17 new Who is this "we"

new Who is this "we" Kemosabe?

Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 1:17pm.

Think before you type.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talking about the human species as a whole. There are probably some rabbits out there that are also not breeding, but most do.

#18 cajun says get rid of pinetrees*

But then if we do that, the green trolls will show up. Troll tsunami...;-(

#19 Pinetree

There's a nifty thing here, called a "reply" button.

That way you don't have to cut/paste what you are replying to.

So, do tell......how do you propose to enforce Ted's one child policy? Since you don't find your fellow Americans to be responsible for our own? And how, pray tell, are you going to enforce it on the rest of the world?

#20 Ain't going to happen, 2.1 is

Ain't going to happen, 2.1 is the population flat line.

Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:33pm.

As one can see, the fertility rate is falling all over the planet...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not going to happen? Yes, the fertility rate is dropping. But because there are already so many of us, the overall population continues to skyrocket.

#21 Pt3- crock, to your 50 billion,

So many if us .... Is that too much?

Tell us what to do with the extra?

#22 Huh?

If the fertility rates are dropping, as even you admit that they are, then it is impossible for a population to "skyrocket." That would necessitate a large increase in fertility rates. A drop in fertility rates means that the population is stabilizing.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#23 Hahahahaha

Hey Ted...... Go F*ck yourself..... and never have to worry about population again.. Oh yeah i forgot... ya all ready have 5 kids!!!!

roflmao

#24 "Sustainable population levels"

Every time I hear someone lament about how we need to reduce the world's population, they always claim that it's because it's unsustainable," I keep thinking about how the global population is continually rising, which negates the theory that the current population is "unsustainable."

If it truly were unsustainable, as they keep insisting, then, obviously, the population would be reducing, not increasing. As it is increasing, it is obvious that, not only are is the population levels "sustainable," they're actually low enough that we can add to it, which is what we're doing. What is the "sustainable" level? I don't know, but I know that we haven't reached it yet. We can "sustain" a population level much higher than it is today.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution

Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court

Or Anwar al-Awlaki.

#25 Ted's first commandment: "1.

Ted's first commandment: "1. MAINTAIN HUMANITY UNDER 500,000,000 IN PERPETUAL BALANCE WITH NATURE." - Georgia Guidestones.

To get human population down to the number the New Agers want in 100 years would require a decrease in human population of 55 million per year.

I think Ted should put his money where his mouth is and be the first to off himself for the cause.

#26 One-child policy

Oh, boy, that'll f*** Social Security to the wall, which will take all the entitlement programs with it and raise retirement age to 70 or 75, which will have the effect of freeing up fewer jobs through attrition, slowing down the typical increase in an employee's salary over time, etc.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.