2/02/99
The article on the World Health Organization answers a question I had concerning an interview written in The Environment Magazine (E) this month (Jan/Feb) with Ted Turner who said, "The simplest answer is that the world population should be about two billion, and we've got six billion right now....And how you get there is very complicated. It's going to take a lot of education and improvement in health care." It was easy to understand the remark about education but how does improving health care lower the population? Wouldn't it raise population numbers? Well, as I said, your WINDS article answered that. Their meaning of "improvement" is the improvement of secret ways to destroy life, not preserve it.
Mr. Turner kept using the the arugument that the earth is not capable of supporting the current population, to justify the elimination of four billion lives, and as your article says, he stated he would prefer to eliminate more. Well, I did a little figuring and this is what I came up with.
According to the Webster New World Dictionary, copyright 1975, Texas has a land area of 267,339 square miles, which comes out to be about 7,453,012,038,504.37 square feet. Then divide that number by 6 billion and you get 1242.17 square feet. That is to say, if you placed every person in the world in Texas they would each have 1242.17 square feet of living space. That's a room aproximately 35 feet by 35 feet. Now someone might say that is not enough room; well, that's true if we don't take into account the other forty-nine now empty states, not to exclude Canada, Mexico, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, Russia, Australia, the islands, etc. Doesn't that make one think that six billion is really a small number compared with the vaste land mass of the earth.
It seems to me, after a little figuring, that Ted Turner's concerns about the earth's inablity to support human life is but another New World Order fabrication. It seems to me the real issue is that it is easier to control two billion lives than six billion.
Tim B