Advertisement

Recent Ted Turner Interview

This is the main board on The Outhouse, where Outhousers talk about everything. No topics are off limits, and it doesn't have to be about comics. All the topics from the other boards also show up in The Asylum, so you never have to leave1

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Logged in users see WAY LESS ADS, so why not register? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

Alex Delarge
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1005
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:56 pm


Recent Ted Turner Interview

Postby Alex Delarge » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:55 am

I just read a recent interview with Ted Turner making the rounds. Most people are calling him crazy, but I have to disagree with them. He is onto something.

First of all he said that there are too many people and this overpopulation is causing Global Warming because too many people are using too much stuff. I firmly believe that this is true.

Second he talks about the after effects of Global Warming. Now this is just a guess and not everyone can agree on what will happen exactly and when, but I agree with his conclusions. Cannibalism. People will be starving as crops and food supplies will die off due to the climate shift and will eventually have to turn to cannibalism to survive...it isn't like we have any wild game anymore to eat. I just hope we don't have people eating endangered species which will be dying off like mad anyway during the crisis.

He mentioned that we spend too much on military, which I think we do. He said China just wants to sell us shoes and Russia just be our friend....given that America is doing so poorly lately I cannot help but agree to this from what is going on on the surface. China or Russia could hurt us if they wanted to, but they don't. We suffer from the delusion that we are the center of the universe. It just isn't the case. We are getting beat in Iraq by people who don't have any tanks, headquarters, Pentagon, or even generals that we know of, he says. This is partially true, our military is geared towards fighting a cthulhu invasion or major world war, not the kind of battle we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are the same types of battles we lost in Vietnam, and in my opinion the types of battles you just cannot win no matter how much money and bodies you throw at the problem.

The other thing he mentioned that is getting him in trouble is that the Iraqi insurgents are patriots. I agree with this too. If someone invaded America and some locals, like you and me who are American, took to the streets to attack our oppressors, now that has been and will be considered patriotism. Oh no, but America created patriotism, no way that it can be applied to anyone else, especially anyone against OUR interests.

Some people's reactions to these comments are really sad to me, but I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

Sorry, I don't have a link to the interview. If anyone could find a proper link it will help with discussions.

Anyway, what are your opinions on the subject?
Image

Advertisement

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:59 am

Cannibalism.......Hmm....

I'm curious how some of my coworkers would taste as a burger.
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

L Independant
User avatar
25 To Life
 
Posts: 13927
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: 3 Clicks SE of Obama


Postby L Independant » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:15 am

If he's at all concerned about global warming and hunger, maybe he should turn his buffalo loose into the wild, till his land and start planting wheat to feed the world. Until then, he can talk all he wants and I'll continue not to take him seriously, especially considering a lack of credentials on the subject. When he eats his first human, then I'll give him another thought.

nietoperz
User avatar
The Goddamn Bat-min
 
Posts: 42614
Likes: 131 posts
Liked in: 145 posts
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 5:36 pm
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Title: Forum Manager


Postby nietoperz » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:18 am

I'm not about to pay any attention to his ramblings.
Image

Alex Delarge
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1005
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:56 pm


Postby Alex Delarge » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:19 am

L'Indépendant wrote:If he's at all concerned about global warming and hunger, maybe he should turn his buffalo loose into the wild, till his land and start planting wheat to feed the world. Until then, he can talk all he wants and I'll continue not to take him seriously, especially considering a lack of credentials on the subject. When he eats his first human, then I'll give him another thought.


I think you misunderstand the problem...

Making more food only makes more people. What we have been doing for the past decades is trying to make as much food as possible. That only works so far, eventually without population controls, people will begin starving once population max nears. Then you will have yourself a true crisis. We need to look at what we can safely sustain long term in terms of food production and limit human growth based on that.

It is the only responsible thing to do and the only true solution to the problem, unless we start colonizing other worlds and outsourcing population.
Image

L Independant
User avatar
25 To Life
 
Posts: 13927
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: 3 Clicks SE of Obama


Postby L Independant » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:26 am

Alex Delarge wrote:I think you misunderstand the problem...

Making more food only makes more people. What we have been doing for the past decades is trying to make as much food as possible. That only works so far, eventually without population controls, people will begin starving once population max nears. Then you will have yourself a true crisis. We need to look at what we can safely sustain long term in terms of food production and limit human growth based on that.

It is the only responsible thing to do and the only true solution to the problem, unless we start colonizing other worlds and outsourcing population.
Nope, I just think he's sticking with a very Malthusian thought, which I don't necessarily agree with. There's plenty to go around right now, the problems are distribution, ignoring common sense (as far as agriculture and wise resource use) and excess.

His argument is the type that leads to population control measures. What right does anybody have to decide who breeds and who doesn't?

Trust me, there's plenty to go around. Spreading it around will take sacrifice, and that's something I'm not sure Turner or many of us want to do so that others have what they need. Our current plan (as Westerners) is to take what we don't claim and tell people how to share that for their benefit. He owns more land and more stuff than any person needs, if we're to spread it evenly, so I'm calling him on his hypocrisy.

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:30 am

Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

Alex Delarge
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1005
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:56 pm


Postby Alex Delarge » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:37 am

L'Indépendant wrote:His argument is the type that leads to population control measures. What right does anybody have to decide who breeds and who doesn't?


I guess my argument would be what right does anybody have to decide anything? Not just who breeds and who doesn't. You cannot have someone else deciding how much you eat for the very same reasons.

Here is your problem. Finite space. Our current system is freedom and let people do what they want. Ok, let's dial up the speed and see what happens over time...As long as conditions are good, people thrive, when conditions are bad, people die. Given finite space and resources, only so many people can be currently living without hitting some barrier, no matter how large and no matter how far away that barrier is. Any needed increase of food production, after effective use of current resources will hurt the environment and make life here worse off over time. Once we approach population max all the things we destroyed for food production can NEVER come back. NEVER.

So it becomes an inevitable conclusion and a simple question. Which is worse, population control forced upon by society, or population control forced upon you by the environment? One is living people suffering and dying and the other is telling people you cannot have more than two children. That seems like a simple choice to me.

Now once we start having more deaths than births, due to some random event, you can adjust the birth rate, but in all honesty, I can see no other way, the things you mention are only band-aids on a more serious problem.
Image

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:45 am

I think we should take the "Do not eat" warning off of those little packets that come with electronics.

If we need to explain that your stereo didn't come with a snack, we're just holding back the natural order of things.
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

L Independant
User avatar
25 To Life
 
Posts: 13927
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: 3 Clicks SE of Obama


Postby L Independant » Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:55 am

Alex Delarge wrote:I guess my argument would be what right does anybody have to decide anything? Not just who breeds and who doesn't. You cannot have someone else deciding how much you eat for the very same reasons.

Here is your problem. Finite space. Our current system is freedom and let people do what they want. Ok, let's dial up the speed and see what happens over time...As long as conditions are good, people thrive, when conditions are bad, people die. Given finite space and resources, only so many people can be currently living without hitting some barrier, no matter how large and no matter how far away that barrier is. Any needed increase of food production, after effective use of current resources will hurt the environment and make life here worse off over time. Once we approach population max all the things we destroyed for food production can NEVER come back. NEVER.

So it becomes an inevitable conclusion and a simple question. Which is worse, population control forced upon by society, or population control forced upon you by the environment? One is living people suffering and dying and the other is telling people you cannot have more than two children. That seems like a simple choice to me.

Now once we start having more deaths than births, due to some random event, you can adjust the birth rate, but in all honesty, I can see no other way, the things you mention are only band-aids on a more serious problem.
I don't think we can really get into the real solutions on a message board. We can despair, which is what these arguments sound like, or we can actually find solutions, which are out there, being employed (just not on the scale they need to be), mostly for lack of political power.

My opinion is, political population control is not the way. If Ted Turner thinks it's the answer, he should move to China.

Global warming is more about excess and poor choices than it is about too many people. He ignores the fact that the biggest contributors aren't the overpopulated poor construct he creates but people like him who drive and fly everywhere and probably haven't had a bike commute since he had a newspaper route as a kid and who eat at buffets where food is thrown to the dumpster.

How much water does it take to raise a cow? Think of the water it drinks, the water it takes to grow the crops that could be food crops, and the water used on some factory farms to clean up after them. Think of all that manure being leaked out of lagoons into local water supplies. Think of all those methane emissions contributing to global warming (they're greenhouse gases, too). Think how that manure COULD be used to create energy and a compostable material.

Food shortages? Stop making ethanol from corn. It's already a horrible feedstock, not to mention horrible inefficient and resource-intensive to produce. Think how much oil goes into the fertilizer (and watch how fertilizer prices are increasing alongside food prices because of it). China's actually banned domestic production of biofuels from food crops. With 1.4 billion people, that was probably a wise idea for the country.

Ted Turner needs to go to school, study economics, political science, anthropology, energy and agriculture and then get back to us when he realizes that there are a lot of economists out there with a lot of great answers who aren't being listened to because it's not politically feasible for any American administration wanting to keep their party in power to piss off agribusiness - the Bush Administration was supported by a LOT of people in agricultural areas. That's a huge voting base, and one that the Democrats are trying to capture (but will fail because they think of farmers as laborers and not as businesses, as farmers think of themselves).

Or he just needs to start reading CNN (d'oh!) and the BBC to get an outline of what's going on, then come off his ivory tower where he can't notice the good things going on that are, little by little, fixing the mess humanity is in.

He needs hope.

Starlord
User avatar
Outhouse Editor
 
Posts: 35133
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:03 pm
Location: Michigan


Postby Starlord » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:04 am

MoneyMelon wrote:I think we should take the "Do not eat" warning off of those little packets that come with electronics.

If we need to explain that your stereo didn't come with a snack, we're just holding back the natural order of things.


This made me laugh so hard I spit out my salad onto my desk. I think it's time for Melon to consider running for President. :-D

As for Ted, he lost all credibility when he divorced Jane. She was the sane one in that marraige. :wink:
Image

Max Blyss wrote:Months and months and months and the whole thing is still just an intersection at Dipshit Lane & Chip on my Shoulder Ave.

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:07 am

starlord wrote:This made me laugh so hard I spit out my salad onto my desk. I think it's time for Melon to consider running for President. :-D

*takes a bow*
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

Alex Delarge
User avatar
Post Whore
 
Posts: 1005
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:56 pm


Postby Alex Delarge » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:52 am

L'Indépendant, it seems you take a more practical, present day approach to these problems. I have a habit of "living in the future" and looking at things on really long time lines. I get that habit being a computer scientist, looking at an algorithm and seeing what it will do, no matter how long that takes.

Your approach will not work long term. It may work today and tomorrow, but not in the distant future.

Imagine the world as a Rubik's Cube. Each square represents space for things. Your ideas are to take those squares and make them more useful or productive, but it is still a Rubik's Cube. I agree that we should do all the things you say, but they won't solve the problem, only prolong it.

Finite space, will always eventually fill up.

Once that point is achieved whether that is 50-90% of surface usage or whatever, people will eventually starve and suffer. No matter what you do, letting people grow and allowing them to go in a finite space is going to breed suffering once things stop thriving.

No way around it.
Image

L Independant
User avatar
25 To Life
 
Posts: 13927
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:39 pm
Location: 3 Clicks SE of Obama


Postby L Independant » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:08 pm

Alex Delarge wrote:L'Indépendant, it seems you take a more practical, present day approach to these problems. I have a habit of "living in the future" and looking at things on really long time lines. I get that habit being a computer scientist, looking at an algorithm and seeing what it will do, no matter how long that takes.

Your approach will not work long term. It may work today and tomorrow, but not in the distant future.

Imagine the world as a Rubik's Cube. Each square represents space for things. Your ideas are to take those squares and make them more useful or productive, but it is still a Rubik's Cube. I agree that we should do all the things you say, but they won't solve the problem, only prolong it.

Finite space, will always eventually fill up.

Once that point is achieved whether that is 50-90% of surface usage or whatever, people will eventually starve and suffer. No matter what you do, letting people grow and allowing them to go in a finite space is going to breed suffering once things stop thriving.

No way around it.
You're forgetting, though - humankind's reason and rationale and ability to act against nature may be its saving grace, if looked at optimistically. There'll be a point where more and more people get on the "oh shit I should do my part" bandwagon and tailor their actions a little in defense of the common good.

I'm a bit of an optimist.

And a misanthrope. Secretly, I want all those people dumb enough to eat the Silica Gel packets to just eat them and save us their stupidity. I have a feeling our president would be one of them.

MoneyMelon
User avatar
Chief Yankee Wanker
 
Posts: 26406
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 1 post
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:02 pm
Title: Internet Celebrity


Postby MoneyMelon » Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:16 pm

L'Indépendant wrote:I have a feeling our president would be one of them.

I'm willing to bet on it.

He has a hard enough time with pretzels.
Image

Man of Steel wrote:get over myself? You're the one who fancies himself some sort of internet celebrity.

leave a comment with facebook

Next

Return to The Asylum



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FaceBook [Linkcheck], Google [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 47 guests

Advertisement