Prince Phillip seems to suggest we all eat soylent green.
This is about the dumbest thing I have heard of in a long time…
Shame he didn’t take his own advice - we wouldn’t be burdened with those four largely useless children of his then :shrug:
What do you expect from Prince Phillip? He’s always insulting people.
Exactly. Phil isn’t known for his social tact.
This came about (I’m not justifying what he wrote, BTW)…because the British are conservative, and have small families. Eastern Indians started moving to Britain years ago, and had many children. The old British families therefore over time, are becoming the minority.
He’s kinda late…like shutting the door after the cat got out.
Odd, isn’t it, that a man who has never worked a day in his life is concerned about the cost of food worldwide? :rolleyes:
By the way, the last time I heard, Prince Philip’s wife, Queen Elizabeth II, was worth something in the neighborhood of 7 **billion **dollars. You can support a few families with that, huh???
Nu-uh. Even Oprah isn’t quite worth 3 bil, and she’s far richer than the Queen.
The vast majority of the palaces, artwork and other things associated with the Queen are in fact not her personal property at all, not even much of the jewellery, but the property of the state. Even so, she’s still stonking rich, of course, but nowhere near 7 billion.
I marvel that in this day and age, being ‘eco-friendly,’ is blurring with having smaller families. How on earth (no pun) is reproduction related to being eco-friendly??? :rolleyes:
“I believe it is immoral and should be illegal for people to have very large numbers of children because they are then co-opting for themselves and their children resources that should be spread elsewhere in the world. You only get a chance to get your fair share.”
Look closely at those words. Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University argues that “it is immoral and should be illegal” for couples to have “very large numbers of children.” Immoral? Should be illegal?
The most amazing thing about this interview is that anyone would take Paul Ehrlich seriously - but the ideological Left still does. Ehrlich has been spectacularly wrong time and time again. In the 1960s, he predicted mass starvation around the world that would threaten the existence of humanity. It didn’t happen. In the 1970s, he warned that within the next decade all major species in the oceans would be dead. Didn’t happen. He warned that great smog attacks in New York City would kill hundreds of thousands in the city in 1973. Didn’t happen. He once predicted that there was a good chance that London would not even exist in the year 2000. We can assume that the interview with Prince Philip is a sign that London still exists
I agree with Ehrlich.
Oh course you agree with him; you seem to agree with any fool that advocates population control. The problem is not the supply of food, it is within the distribution of food. Tin pot dictators control the distribution is their countries; why don’t you advocate to deal with the real problem?
Here is the Salon interview by Paul Ehrlich…
Of course it is. It has the audacity to disagree with you. :rolleyes:
No. When a guy is proved spectacularly wrong in his prognostications, it is reasonable to discount what he says later.
If you shorted the Dow in 1999, you would lose money even if you were correct that it would eventually crash (it did in 2001). Ehrlich made his gloomy predictions too early.
Look at a picture of him in uniform and count his medals, then count your own.
What has the amount of medals he has got to do with the amount of stupid things he says?
What did he actually do to earn any of them? I mean sure he served in the Navy, and I respect him for that, but what did he actually DO there that any common sailor didn’t also do and/or couldn’t have done much better?
Silly man :rolleyes: