"World-Wide "Soylent Green" Conditions?" Topic

Just wondering . . .

How long, do you think, before "Soylent Green" conditions happen all over the planet?

the-riotact.com/?p=1242
link
link
link

Or do you think it would never happen?

CC

We need to get rid of religions that don't endorse contraception first. follow that with the removal of cultural prohibitions and taboos over boys having more standing than girls.

Then if the world population still continues to rise and outstrip the ability to feed itself then maybe we can begin to think about enforcing some sort of policy.

Although I do think that the world is a more informed place than it was when these stroylines were originally written. Most SF of this nature was written and conceived before the introduction of a single worldwide information network. This in itself should help to prevent any major changes in the social structure where the elite feed of the lesser classes (of course assuming that we accept that today's system isn't quite upto that point yet).

this is way too heavy for a Monday morning after a night partying with the some Italian friends.

As Bob Barker says on 'The Price Is Right'…almost every day….'Get your pet spayed or neutered'…

People are NOT going to stop having sex, 'unprotected' or not, married or not…(well actually…maybe with their own spouses after marriage, but not with other folks spouses??)

and since Birth Control is not 'recognized' by several of the top religeons of the world…(other than abstinance or 'rhythm'?)…

and since in many 'poorer countries'…the males consume most of the available protein/women are considered 'chattel/breeding stock' for sons…maybe it will take a 'soylent green-type solution'…

Although, I'd think with current oil/fuel prices…excess human population would be better used to make some sort of 'bio-fuel' rather than food? I mean, we can grow enough soybeans and corn to 'BURN' it as fuel…(but we don't)…so why not do it for food and 'convert' surplus population, into 'bio-fuel'/methane production like pig waste was in 'Thunderdome'???

Think of all the good land we're using up just 'burying bodies'…that in most cases 'convert' to basic materials, methane etc anyway??? Land that could be used for farming, housing, mfg…etc…

Of course…if we had the perfect 'fusion furnace' as mentioned in several sci-fi stories…human remains/waste would be 'converted' in fusion processes to basic raw materials/energy anyway…with no 'messy' leftovers???

When you consider the cost of the 'average funeral' is 6K for most in the USA for example…and a lot of faiths don't believe in cremation…do you honestly think conversion to soylent green would 'work'??? Dying is big business!

I don't particularly relish the idea of being 'fish food' but I don't think I'd care when I'm 'gone' from this body.

Now if we had 'disintegrators' like in star trek…where our matter was broken down instantly to energy or carbon, oxygen, water and calcium, etc….and then recycled as fertilizer and so on…(and light a few energy-saving florescent bulbs along the way)…I'd feel much 'better' NOW…knowing that 'from ashes to ashes'…without getting charged out the wazoo for the process, (or my descendents footing the bill???)

A vanilla accountant or chocolate attorney or strawberry airline pilot 'chip' anyone…*CHOMP* munch, munch….

Carpe' Food of the Gods…(especially Cthullu)…
Sgt DWW

It will never happen as it is vastly more energy & land efficient to actually grow soya beans & lentils and eat those rather than render humans into soylent green.

What is more likely are Malthusian population reductions via famine, disease and war – which pretty much summarises the situation for 80% of the worlds population right now. Hunman beings have already shown themselves quite capable of overusing resources to the point of self extinction on a number of occasions, in the West we are just insulated from it by our wealth, technology & firepower.

Well, we eat twinkies. Some of us to anyway.

In every thread that has come up about this… I continue to relate the following stories…

These are factual events that I witnessed first hand, and was present when a close friend ended the practice by at least one person…

In the 1980s, I was "self-employed" in a business that took me to many far flung places and in contact with people who were not exactly above board in all of their endeavors. Places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Columbia, Peru, etc…

I would go to these places in search of various high valued commodities in order to secure a larger share of profits on them myself.

In the process I discovered some very disturbing scenes and events.

In India (I cannot remember whether it was in Dehli, Bombay, or Calcutta… Or maybe one of the other large cities), and the slums of Rio de Janeiro there was a farily rampant amount of people eating each other. It was much worse in S. America than it was in India, but I was shocked by both instances…

The absolutely most shocking instance of it was in a small mountain villiage in Venezuela. There, a thug and a small group of his cronies had taken over control of the villiage and were impregnating women in order to eat the children… bit at a time. This was where my friend put a stop to the practice. Especially since it was not necessary to the sustinence of the villiage or of the men who were perpetrating it… They were doing it solely to instill fear in the villiage (and they had the only guns until we showed up)….

I am really beginning to wonder about these constant posts of cannibalism on here. I have nothing against it as a practice per se, but it is really strange that it just keeps coming up…

Especially by those who have no practical experience with it… I can easily remedy that if need be…

Oh, and I can readily believe (and do believe) that the practice of Cannibalism is only going to become worse until it becomes either unecessary or less of a taboo…

I would guess long before we have Soylent Green conditions on the planet we will have a mass die off in population caused by wars of annhilation. Nukes and biological weapons followed up with famine and disease. Cannibalism will probably get worse until there is no need for it. (Not counting places like the Congo and their DAWA beliefs).

"I am really beginning to wonder about these constant posts of cannibalism on here. I have nothing against it as a practice per se, but it is really strange that it just keeps coming up…"

You have nothing against cannibalism per se???

Must remember not to accept any dinner invitations from Judas.

Now where have I heard that before? :)

Rich

They predicted mass starvation in the 60s, but increases in yeild and especially the development of dwarf wheat solved a lot of those problems. We aren't running out of resources. People starve because their govts are corrupt, and they lack the infrastructure to get the food to people before it spoils. Look at the famines that hit russia under communism. Some of the richest farmland in the world, but people went hungry because potatoes rotted in storage. And we're not spraying pesticides willy-nilly to do it. US farmers can't afford to do that, they measure and dose pesticides/fertilizers by the square meter. The fact that Organic produce prices continue to fall implies we can get similair yields through enviro-friendly methods as well. The problem is a lot of the world is ignorant of even basic farming technology, how to rotate crops, avoid erosion, mitigate pests. It's a 4 year college degree here in the states.

The entire population of the world could in a area the size of Serbia at NY densities, and in Texas at suburb density.

Ore wise, we haven't mined the world out. If we ran low, we'd mine the asteroids, or even old landfills ( The way the italians mined roman slag heaps for iron in WWII ).

Crusoe, you are correct, sir! I'm a West Virginia farm boy, I'll validate much of what you say.

BTW, My mother has a degree in Horticulture and Botany…

She will be quick to point out that it is indeed politics and corruption that keeps the third world from being able to feed itself…

For instance, Dr. Borlog (I hope that I have spelled his name correctly) a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize invented a strain of wheat that has roughly 50 times the yeild as regular wheat. He just GAVE the Genome and patent away making it effectively open source, so that anyone could create this strain and plant it (this was what he won the peace prize for). Many countries in Africa were given tons of seed for crops that would have fed them for all time to come, included with the seed were a battalion of advisors and teachers to school them in methods of crop rotation, and which crops wold be best for their climate (And how to use those crops to affect the long term climate for the better).

Then, some fundamentalist Christian Charities got hold of the information and began to tell the tribes who would have been saved by this crop that theh seeds were a crime against the Gods (Notice that I say "Gods"; they were real quick to use the tribal fears and religion to their own benefit if it fit into their plans. They also threw in an "Our god says they are an abomination as well). They began to tell the people that the food would cause their children to mutate and fall ill, or that it would cause them to fall under the control of those who gave them the grain.

As a result, Millions of people were saved from having to eat a crop that was genetically modified and died as a result. Fortunately, the seed crops are replaced every year with seeds that are grown hydroponically here in the US.

There are areas that have succumb to cannibalism for one reason or another (Hunger, to create fear and control in a populace, ritual religious practices, and so on), and there will probably be more of it until it begins to subside…

Then, some fundamentalist Christian Charities got hold of the information and began to tell the tribes who would have been saved by this crop that theh seeds were a crime against the Gods (Notice that I say "Gods"; they were real quick to use the tribal fears and religion to their own benefit if it fit into their plans. They also threw in an "Our god says they are an abomination as well). They began to tell the people that the food would cause their children to mutate and fall ill, or that it would cause them to fall under the control of those who gave them the grain.

Those pesky Christians again. Have any specific proof, or is this just another internet drive-by at other peoples faith(s)?

Dictatorships and corruption and government thugs, not lack of birth control, cause starvation, as others in this thread have commented. For more on Normal Borlaug (whose work in crop science saved a billion lives) and the Green Revolution, go to link

D'oh! That should be NormaN Borlaug.

Yeah, Hacksaw, I think that's a drive-by shot as well. Sounds bogus to me, as my grandfather served as a volunteer communications link for Baptist missionaries in Africa (via ham radio) throughout the last half of the 20th Century, and I know that he would have had nothing to do with any such abuse as that.

I can believe that local charlatans/politicians might have tried such tactics, even posing as "Christian charities" in order to gain wealth or power, but I know of no mainstream religious organization in the West that would have done any such thing.

However, I do know that the various "famines" in Africa have all been pretty much the result of direct actions taken by communist and socialist governments in Africa to control the transportation of food so as to starve opposition populations. Nice bunch of guys. (Note sarcasm.) I can also imagine that some radical anti-bio-engineering ultra-green types might have preyed on the ignorance of the subsistence cultures in Africa to scare them away from "artificially improved" wheat strains.

Back on topic, the history of food development is one of continuing progress rather than increasing scarcity. Mankind has an incredible ability to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances. The story of wheat itself puts the Malthusian doomsayers on pretty thin ice: link

And that's not the only example. A few years ago, I read an article in Analog that put paid to the scarcity mongers, pointing out that people have been predicting major crises of one form or another resulting from "dwindling" supplies of various mineral resources, from copper to zinc to arsenic to whatever, only to have the demand for these resources either suddenly diminish due to unexpected new technology, or to have new sources or processing methods radically alter the supply.

Extreme reactions to failures of supply of any substance are usually localized and very short-lived. Solyent Green may be a fun movie, but on a grand scale it will never happen.

For some people the sky is always falling. People will try to tell you we are running out of water. What's next, we're running out of silicon?

"Beware the beast man, for he is the devil's pawn. Alone among God's primates, he kills for sport, or lust or greed.
Yes, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him. Drive him back into his jungle lair: For he is the harbinger of death."

… so it was written (or will be written) in the twentythird Scroll, ninth Verse.

link

"Then, some fundamentalist Christian Charities"

Actually, the problem there is local governments, and the EU's trade policies. Regular wheat yields more than enough to feed everyone.

Dr. Borlaug is a personal friend of my mother's… I got to hear it straight from his mouth.

I think it just takes a quick google search of Genetic crops and famine in Africa to find out what has been happening…

LOL…yet again……great stuff Mr Piquetone.

Stupid post bug! Thats not what I typed…

think it just takes a quick google search of Genetic crops and famine in Africa to find out what has been happening…

Then by all means, please present your evidence. If its happening like you say, I want to know. But I wont take such statements at face value off the internet, sounds too much like the usual "Oh those darned Christians" internet yammering, your screen name notwithstanding ;-)

Some of the proaganda that caused the rejection of the GMO crops

alternet.org/story/15895

A group that is backed by a fundamentalist christian church in the US

safeage.org

Propaganda that says that the GMO food stuffs are part of a conspiracy to make the farmers that use GMOs dependent upon buying seed yearly because the grain crops are engineered to create sterile seeds so that they cannot be replanted.

greens.org/s-r/34/34-06.html

Basic background of Borlaug's work including his work on the "Miracle Wheat", and links to the resistance he has had in Sub-Saharan Africa to most crops, including those that are neither GE or GMO, but have been bred using new methods that are often seen as being GE or GMO (I am no expert on biology, I deal with cybernetics, religious history and cultural history). Norman tried to explain it once, but it was a bit above my understanding as to the subtle difference between some of his cross breeds and GE/GMO crops:

link

Do you need anything more?

Do you need anything more?

Well, yes, at least in order for you to make any sort of case that this is somehow connected to "fundamentalist Christians".

The story from alternet.org/story/15895 while interesting, has nothing to do with the dreaded "fundamentalist Christians", unless you can read something in there that I missed? The author appears to be a member of the Green Party, not exactly a hotbed of fundamentalist Christian thought….

A group that is backed by a fundamentalist christian church in the US – safeage.org

And that church would be? I looked at pretty much everything on the site, but I found no association with nor any link to a "fundamentalist Christian" bogeyman. There are links on the links page to diverse organisations- from the Worldwide Council of Churches all the way to statements from the Directors of the Realm Buddhist Association (DRBA)…again, not exactly hotbeds of "fundamentalist Christian" ideaology.

The "propoganda" on this site – greens.org/s-r/34/34-06.html is from the Green Party. No "fundamentalist Christians" in sight there.

Thats three strikes. Care to try again, but perhaps with specific facts, or would it be easier to just do another drive-by? ;-)

While I agree that the issue of GM foods is an important one, trying to lay the blame on a nebulous "they", in this case "fundamentalist Christians" is less than effective as a rational argument. I see lots of connections to folks like Greenpeace, Mothers for Natural Law, and the Green Party, but no "fundamentalist Churches".

I'd be interested in something specific, if you can provide it.

First,

I consider Greenpeace and the Green Party to be about as fanatic and fundamentalist as I do Christians.

On the topic of SAFeAGE. It is supported by several churches in the Houston area as well as many others who run missions in Africa (I discovered this from my uncle who through his church sponsors people to go to Africa to prevent GMO or GE crops from being used. He considers them the devil's food). I am told that many organizations like this have fundamentalist support.

My point is more that fanaticism is keeping the crops out of the mouths that need them. They are neither harmful nor insidious, as some would claim…

If you would like more proof than this… If I can keep track of it, I will try to get a list of donors and see how many come from churches who oppose any sort of genetic modification of anything. It is no secret that most fundamentalist christians are opposed to most genetic research as "Playing god"…

Avoiding the whole religous angle- something I don't think that no one has pointed out is that economics are the greatest form of birth control. Family size in '1st world' nations has been dropping steadily during the 20th century. In fact, many 1st world nations have stable or even decreasing overall populations. The US is the only 1st world nation with an appreciable population growth rate, iirc, and that is mostly thanks to immigration. Essentially, in 1st world countries childern are an expensive proposition, and raising more then 1 or 2 is a major hassel in terms of money. Hence, there is no economic incentive for large families. In areas where population growth is a problem you see a combination of factors- 1) percieved economic incentives for large families, even if those incentives in fact no longer exist 2) higher children survival rate thanks to medical advances. Basically, the family rearing traditions of these areas hasn't caught up with thier current economic development and medical technology. Once it does, these areas too will see thier population growth level off. If this happens fast enough to prevent problems in the mean time is anybody's guess.

So are we going to be eating people? I wouldn't bet on it.

-Will

consider Greenpeace and the Green Party to be about as fanatic and fundamentalist as I do Christians.

That may be, but its laughable at best for someone to use the websites and opinions of Greenpeace and the Green Party as proof of "fundamentalist Christian" involvement. So far all I see are the usual "fellow travellers", collectivists/utopians/etc and the Christians I see involved (as per SAFeAGE's links) seem to be those who preach the "Social Gospel", hardly hardcore "fundamentalists".

My point is more that fanaticism is keeping the crops out of the mouths that need them. They are neither harmful nor insidious, as some would claim…

That may be as well, but your efforts to convince anyone of that have IMO gone somewhat pear-shaped due to your inisistance upon having a go at other people faith(s) whilst making your case.

On the topic of SAFeAGE. It is supported by several churches in the Houston area as well as many others who run missions in Africa (I discovered this from my uncle who through his church sponsors people to go to Africa to prevent GMO or GE crops from being used. He considers them the devil's food). I am told that many organizations like this have fundamentalist support.

Heh, thats fine. You have made your own use of the term "fundamentalist" a bit suspect, so you'll have to pardon me once again if I fail to just trust you on this one.

Im interested in proof that is verifiable, not a drive-by.

I am not having a go at other people's faith…

I am having a go at wackos who insist that their faith is the only rules by which we all must play, regardless of whether they be christian, agnostic, muslim, jewish, atheist, or buddhist..

If you feel attacked because I am suspect of fundamentalist Christians, and any other sort of fanatic (which I feel fundamentalist Christians are. They seem to conveniently take portions of their religious work to suit them, but seem to conveniently ignore them when it does not. Like Fundamentalist Jews or Muslims, they seem to want to inflict their views on other, especially the evangelical types – which go beyond Christianity as well… Proslytizing Greens are just as annoying)

If you want verifyable proof, you know how to use Google, I am not going to do your footwork for you. It is going to require doing some digging though…

I was opening up a bag of Old Glory Austrian Grenadiers for the Napoleonic period and one of the figures was not wearing a bearskin. In fact he was hatless and was wearing mutton chop sideburns. Now for one thing, the bearskin hat is the only thing that distinguishes the grenadier from the line fusilier, so what is the point of providing a hatless grenadier? Furthermore, a lot of these hatless heads were originally sculpted by Dave Alsop for the original Old Glory ACW line. I wish that they would stop using these same hatless heads over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Sheesh! End of rant.

I should point out that I like the OG figures in general and will keep buying them, but this is a minor nit to pick.

So my question is, would you like to see the "sans chapeau" heads retired from future Old Glory lines or do you like having one or two useless poses included in each bag?

And could OG put a little bit more metal on the bases so that at least there is enough metal connecting the two feet on the base? In the bag that I worked with this morning, half of the figures barely had enough metal on the base for the figure to stand up or be glued to a wargame base.

Fitzgerald did not determine that no laws were broken. What he decided was that he couldn't successfully prosecute anyone but Libby who was actually lied under oath, and was caught in the lie. Historically, it has proven extremely difficult, if not impossible to successfully prosecute members of the White House for leaking information.

But I find the conservative spin on this incident to be astonishing. They will expend huge amounts of energy and blog time picking at irrelevant details and expanding on blogged inuendo, first to challenge Wilson's integrity (the favorite tactic of this Whitehouse) and second to minimize the event and or the status of Ms. Plame, but on the other hand ignore the bigger issues and consequences.

To illustrate here are some basic facts that we now know for certain (not in strict chronological order):

The Administration declared that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program and looking to purchase yellow cake from Niger. This information was learned from "Curveball," an informant that both the British and the CIA deemed highly unreliable. Actually they knew him to be a lyer. Nevertheless, and against the advice of the CIA, the Administration referred to Curveball's assertions as unequivical proof.

Wilson returned from his CIA directed trip to Niger and reported that he, through his sources, had found no evidence to support the Administration's claims.

After hearing the Administration's claims (Bush's speech) as to the certainty that Iraq was reconstituting their nuke program, Wilson wrote an Op-Ed column for the NY Times saying that his particular findings said otherwise.

Soon after Novack reported in his column that Wilson's wife, Natalie Plame, was a CIA operative. He and two other reporters stated that they had received this information fromm anonymous Administration sources.

We invade Iraq to sieze and destroy these WMDs. There are none.

That summer, the President declares that he is initiating an investigation into the Plame affair, and will fire any staff member that had any involvement in the leak.

>>>

Knowing just these basics, we must make the following observations:

Point 1-
The Administration cooked and misrepresented the intelligence in order to justify invading Iraq. They lied to start a war.

Point #2-
The timing of the Plame identity leak is perfect. If one argues that it was accidental and coincidental, then I doubt this person would see the danger of a speeding truck coming right at them, and pity them for their lack of critical analytical ability.

Point #3-
Even if we believe that Wilson is a moron, that Plame was a only a CIA receptionist, and that her identity was "accidently" leaked to three different reporters, by more than one annonymous source, federal law was still broken. The last time I explained to the cop that I had accidently gone over the speed limit, I got a ticket anyway.

Point #4
The president's declaration that he would get to the bottom of the incident implies, at the very least that he was previously unaware of it. From this we must conclude that he does a poor job of managing his staff, and that they do not respect him enough to keep him properly informed. Or that he was being deliberately deceptive—lying.

Some Conclusions

It is a fact that releasing the name of a CIA operative (which is what Plame's status was during the initial leak), is in violation of federal law—accidental or otherwise. One or more members of the Whitehouse staff are guilty of having broken this law, whether it can be proven or not.

The fact that the initial leak was so well orchestrated and timed, indicates this was not an accidental act. If the president was unaware, then it is a disgraceful example of negligance on his part. The only alternative is that he was aware, and lied about it.

Assuming he was ignorant, does anyone really believe he didn't know who all the players were the day after he made his promise of getting to the bottom of the event? If we do, then must we conclude that Cheney and Rove were simply hiding the details from him?

Conclusion-

Pointing at the fact that because noone has been actually prosecuted for this act, it must therefore all be smoke, and that no wrong was done, is a disengenuous distortion of the facts, and an astonishingly immoral interpretation and rationalization of the events.

Also, this rationalization, minimizing, and even ignoring of the circumstantial and primary evidence of the Plame incident, is the height of hypocracy when compared to the credibility and weight these same people have given to the very weak, suspect, and now proven factually incorrect intelligence used by the administration to justify the invasion of Iraq. I wonder how they rationalize that contradiction, and take themselves seriously, and considering the lives lost in Iraq that have resulted from this rationalization, how they sleep at night.

STUPID POST BUG!!! this is the third time…

I am not having a go at other people's faith…

You make it awfully hard to agree. Lets see some verfiable facts, otherwise I really cant support your arguments. Its that simple, anything less is just another internet drive-by.

If you feel attacked because I am suspect of fundamentalist Christians, and any other sort of fanatic…

LOL. I hardly feel "attacked" since I am not someone involved in the issue. What I think is that you have raised an issue that interests me, yet you have utterly failed to produce any proof of the involvement of a certain group. Given your screen name its a bit hard to believe you are entirely objective unless there is something to verify what you are saying. The same goes for me and everyone else here…no proof, then its all just talk. Its that simple.

If you want verifyable proof, you know how to use Google, I am not going to do your footwork for you.

Thats beyond laughable. You made the claims, its up to you to prove them. I have found over the years that when someone making a claim tells those who question it to "just go look it up", in nearly every case that person knows they dont have any facts to back up their statements.

You made the claim, you provide the proof. I looked at everything you have given us so far and it was less than useful. Balls in your court, or not, as you see fit.

Wild goose chases are not my idea of a way to spend an evening. Give us something useful, please. I'll be out of town off and on the next few days so Im in no hurry, just post it when you can. Have a nice day.

Hmmmmmmmmm, Soylent Green!!

BTW, Anyone know what day is "Soylant Green Day"?

Tuesday is Soylent Green Day.

And to answer CC, I believe he said he didn't like the green ones when he was talking with his friend Saul either in the market or at their place. The picture you posted is towards the end when he's in the factory. He doesn't say much there.

That "Scoop" dump truck was used in a NW Arkansas film, I'm trying to find suitable conversion body for my table.

Tuesday IS Soylent Green Day!! :)

Now, what actor was in BOTH Soylant Green and Rollerball???

This truck?

picture
link
picture

I think this is the part in the movie where Charlton Heston says "Green? But I don't like the green ones! I'm sooo tired of those green crackers. It's a madhouse. A MADHOUSE!!!":

picture
picture

CC

This is the Soylent Green Heston really wanted . . .

picture
picture
picture
picture
picture

CC

Ah yes..the furniture.

I almost forgot about that!!!

"(Shirl tells Thorn that she's getting a new tenant)
Det. Thorn: He'll like you. You're a helluva piece of furniture.
Shirl: Don't talk to me like that. Please.
Det. Thorn: OK."

"Hatcher: And what about the furniture?
Det. Thorn: [motions to chest] Like grapefruit.
Hatcher: [chuckles] You never saw a grapefruit.
Det. Thorn: You never saw her."

link

CC

Creepiest line in Soylent Green: "What's your favorite color?"

YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link

CC

Nice furniture. Oh yes. Nice furniture:

picture
picture
picture
link

CC

"Peeeple, soylent white is made out of peeeeple!"
I think that was a SNL gag.

I think this thread has strayed out of the Sci-fi area once the political and religious tones were brought into the picture. So if you want to go that route follow the money. Who or what groups have the most to gain from any of this?

But this has become a topic that should be in what ever that serious thread is called.

"Soylent Green"

Boy this brings back a lot of visions of misery:

YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link
YouTube link

Entire movie here:

link

CC

Soylent Green is soon to be a reality! Run! Rrrrrrunnnn!!!

TMP link

CC

and since Birth Control is not 'recognized' by several of the top religeons of the world…(other than abstinance or 'rhythm'?)…
>>>>>>>>>
I think its just Catholics? Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Chinese (must be a religion) can use it.

Re: Bob Barker

picture

;)

Okay . . . was he predicting the Morlocks here?

YouTube link

"Next thing, they'll be breeding us like cattle . . . for food."

CC