Billionaire Ted Turner: 'adopt global one-child policy'

[ed miliband]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ted-turner-urges-global-one-child-policy-to-save-planet/article1825977/

While I disagree with population control completely, I'd probably give this argument more credence if it was not being made by the largest private landowner in the US, who uses much of that land to graze bison for his fast-food chain. Mary Robinson's response to Turner's suggestion ("[I]f we do it the wrong way, we can divide the world,") reminds me of a CLR James quote I can't quite remember, basically pointing out how bureaucrats view human beings as chess pieces to be moved or something like that. It's all pretty sinister anyway.

[IronEastBloc]

this asshole spends his life raping the world's resources and accumulating capital, and then tells us to adopt a one-child policy?

if that doesn't immediately make you suspicious of his intentions, I don't know what else will.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yet there will still be plenty of "green leftists" cheering on their new Malthusian spokesman.

[piet11111]

I thought population totals where still dropping in europe and north america (and russia).

[Tifosi]

I thought population totals where still dropping in europe and north america (and russia).

All of the former Soviet Republic's have falling population's, expect those with a Muslim majority population were birth rates have traditionally been high. Life expectancy in Russia today is only 59 years of age. Source (http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/11/russia?cat=world&type=article)

---

This assholes fucked up idea would mostly hurt people living in poor countrys with low life expectancy's were people have 6 or 7 children as an 'insurance' policy. In case the others die, to put them to work and to look after them when their to old to work.

If this guy really wanted to lower the planets birth rate the way to go about it would be to improve the lives of people in less developed countrys, but that's clearly not what he plans on trying to do. Why do people in Western Europe not have loads of children, because they are not essential things for getting by and their fucking expensive!

[Kiev Communard]

I have a counter-proposal: let's adopt "no-billionaire" global policy.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

What Ted Turner really meant:

sgpa7wEAz7I

[ZeroNowhere]

In India at least, quite a lot of people would die if they were forced to adhere to this policy, due to lack of support and income. Silly them, they should just become billionaires.

[Pravda Soyuz]

I do not support rich billionaires telling us what to do, but population control is necessary in certain areas (china, india). Not globally though.

[Cheung Mo]

Yet there will still be plenty of "green leftists" cheering on their new Malthusian spokesman.

By American standards, Turner might as well be Trotsky that's how reactionary they are.

[Revy]

No need for a one-child policy, just adopt global legalization of abortion, promote contraception. That way you're not forcing anyone to stop having kids. It's their choice. In many countries women do not even have their full legal right to an abortion, and in some countries it is banned and treated like some horrible crime, even where it is legal, it still can be stigmatized.

The Earth does not have unlimited resources for unlimited people, but I don't think we have yet reached our carrying capacity. The problem is the disparity of resources, how it is not being distributed fairly. I think under a socialist world, population growth will slow, it won't be as fast as it is now.

[IronEastBloc]

No need for a one-child policy, just adopt global legalization of abortion, promote contraception. That way you're not forcing anyone to stop having kids. It's their choice. In many countries women do not even have their full legal right to an abortion, and in some countries it is banned and treated like some horrible crime, even where it is legal, it still can be stigmatized..

spoken like a true liberal.
Look, I'm for the legalization of abortion and promotion of contraception, but there you are attacking the poor people rather than the cause (rich controllers of capital).
There is limited resources, yes, but as it is, the world can currently support a population many times our current level, but there are many who don't want to give up their billions of dollars to do so.

we don't need to reduce the population. we need to reduce income disparity. one billionaire can probably support the lives of at least 1,000,000 people in the poorest countries on earth, so that is where the real problem lies.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Earth does not have unlimited resources for unlimited people

False.

Resources are fluid.

Examples: Many years ago, iron was used to basic tools by humans who couldn't fathom that the same material would one day be used to build skyscrapers and bridges that span huge distances. Coal was once used for jewelery by people who never thought it would later power the industrial revolution, and once the industrial revolution came it was used to produce steam power by people who had no idea that power would one day come from uranium. That's because uranium was used to color glass, not as an energy source.

Get it?

The human species is truly brilliant. We continue to find ways to move forward with the things available, and create them where they don't exist.

The problem is not and has never been that there are “too many people,” or “not enough resources.” The problem is social: the capitalist minority controls the tools and technology used to produce the things we want and need.

The Malthusian doomsday prophecies have been around since ... the days of Malthus, and in fact much earlier than that. They always fall flat.

Of course they're useful for powerful people -- who want to maintain their positions of power by restricting the development of everyone else -- and religious hucksters.