This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Population Bomb
Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich released his ground-breaking book The Population Bomb, which awoke the national consciousness to the collision-course world population growth is on with our planet's finite resources. His work was reinforced several years later by the Limits To Growth report issued by the Club of Rome.
Fast-forward almost 50 years later, and Ehrlich's book reads more like a 'how to' manual. Nearly all the predictions it made are coming to pass, if they haven't already. Ehrlich admits that things are even more dire than he originally forecasted; not just from the size of the predicament, but because of the lack of social willingness and political courage to address or even acknowledge the situation:
The situation is much more grim because, of course, when the population bomb was written, there were 3.5 billion people on the planet. Now there are 7.3 billion people on the planet. And we are projected to have something on the order of 9.6 billion people 35 years from now. That means that we are scheduled to add to the population many more people than were alive when I was born in 1932. When I was born there were 2 billion people. The idea that, in 35 years when we already have billions of people hungry or micronutrient-malnourished, we are somehow going to have to take care of 2.5 billion more people is a daunting idea.
I think it's going to get a lot worse for a lot more people. You've got to remember that each person we add disproportionately causes ecological damage. For example, human beings are smart. So human beings use the easiest to get to, the purest, the finest resources first.
When thousands of years ago we started to fool around with copper, copper was lying on the surface of the earth. Now we have at least one mine that goes down at least two miles and is mining copper that is about 0.3% ore. And yet we go that deep and we refine that much. Same thing the first commercial oil well in the United States. We went down 69.5 feet in 1859 to hit oil. The one off in the Gulf of Mexico started a mile under water and went down a couple of more miles before it had the blow-out that ruined the Gulf of Mexico.
Each person you add has to be fed from poorer land, drink water that has to be pumped from deeper wells or transported further or purified more, and have their materials sourced from other depleting resources. And so there is a disproportion there. When you figure that we are going to have to try and feed several billion more people and that the agricultural system itself, the food system supplies something like 30% of the greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere. Those greenhouse gases are changing the climate rapidly, yet rapid climate change is the big enemy of agriculture -- you can see that we are heading down a road that leads to a bridge that’s out. And we are not paying any attention to trying to apply the brakes
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Paul Ehrlich (47m:06s)
»
- 31468 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Well, yeah! No rocket science here.
Hey! A useless eater article on Zerohedge! What's next? Eugenics article?
Time for one family one child policy except zero for you white folks
Stupid crackers
Back in the early 60's when living in London I always enjoyed Speaker's Corner (At the time the police were there to protect anybody's right of free speech, Glory Be and Halleluiahs) there was a group called "ZPG", Zero Population Growth. They were right.
The problem is not too few resources, but way the fuck too many people. Life was far different and better way back then.
And this meme about "Saving the Earth" is pure unadulterated BS. The Earth will be here long after mankind has become extinct, by his very own little actions.
See, it's all about Ego. Seeing the problem as resource limitation as opposed to Mankind being a Cancer upon the Earth.
Man is a predator, a destructive self-centered parasite to Mother Earth.
Can't even figure out a symbiotic relationship
It's not tragic. It's pure doom, signed, sealed and delivered.
One would think that man himself is the anomaly and meant to self-destruct.
"Too many people" is propoganda b*s* to prime everyone for war/massive population losses. Everyone in the world could be given over an acre of arable land in Texas. Problem is not too many people, it's too much consumption, fueled by central banking cheap debt that pulls consumption forward from the future (generations). People in the West use 30x more resources than those in the east. If you really wanted to cut consumption, you'd start with people in the West.
I'm sure your read that somewhere, but like my husband likes to ask "is that true, or internet true?"
That was based on 6 billion people and we have something like 7 billion now, so even more crowded. The extended 6 billion people breakdown:
L'enfer, c'est les autres. Only thing worth remembering from Sartre.
Obama's solution: throw open the borders and let the poor from those overpopulated countries overpopulate America.
I would much rather have nature sort out human overpopulation than the horrors of a "Planetary Regime" enforcing population control through sterilization, abortion, and putting sterilants in the food and water supply that Obama's current Science Czar John P Holdren actually has advocated in his textbook Ecoscience that he actually co-authored with Paul Ehrlich.
If you click on that link it takes you to excerpts his book. Yes it's real, I actually own a hard copy of the book and read it cover to cover.
Amen. ZHers see through "Limits to Growth" pap, surely. The approved "geometric" scenario is merely another self-serving oligarchic lie. Western nations are seeing negative population growth. The same is in store for the developing world now that it's FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY being permitted to modernise, freeing families from the obligation to screw like crazy just to compensate for chronically high mortality. Another thing seems clear: the enlightened world is running out of patience for the lies and snares of pathological liars and manipulators.
it is all simple; food supply determines population growth/decline. as long as we can increase food production in gross volumes the population will increase. sure the system does not distribute the food fairly amounst. and sure some are starving now. but overall it is quite simple. when the capacity to add anothe bussel hits peak food, the decline will begin in earnest as the decline in oil will not be offset in streatching production to fed new mouths. peak oil, peak food and at what cost? plenty of oil at what cost and who will get it? sounds like a war of final;ity before the great purge of humans in fashion that will be purely mathematical...
Bruce Jenner has shown us the way - more guys need to cut their dicks off.
You miss the point. It's about standard of living, not food supply. We have all the food we want, yet our population keeps falling!
Sally Struthers says that for a dollar a day, you can feed a starving useless eater that will begin breeding in 12 years.
Have you looked at Sally Struthers lately?
Good gravy, they're dusting off this cadaver? Erlich's original book couldn't have been more wrong. I guess Casandraville works a lot like government programs and investment advisors. Being wrong merely gives you more credibility there.
Statists are only to ready to eliminate those who disagree or are otherwise expendable.
Since we're so overpopulated, why hasn't this speaker put a bullet in his head a long time ago to save the earth....
Oh, he means that HE is ok to overconsume, but it's all those other "useless eaters" that need to be taken out...
Hillary and everyone on her private jet should be among the first to volunteer to be soylent green.
You must be one of those fuck tards who thinks resources are unlimited. See, anyone can make assumptions and turn them into an insult.
Those georgia guildstone people had it right, targeting a world population of 500 million being sustainable. I hope it happens soon before every one of god's beautiful creatures are pushed into extinction. I've done my part -- no kids. Too bad the brown people are still breeding like roaches. That is the crux of the problem right there.
In 100 years, if you want to build a jumbo jet you'll have to send 1000 mexicans to the dump for a million aluminum cans and various other kinds of scrap metal. All the easily mined mineral will be in landfills.
You told on yourself: YOU FELL FOR THEIR LIES. By telling whites they would be hip and a member of the ed-jew-cated elite if only they would buy the lies of the Population Council. The goal is to get whites to have as little off spring as possible, better yet, none at all. Their programs were never targeted to blacks and browns. In fact, they would be paid to have more children through federal subsidies. Man does not have to lift a finger for the world to find "balance", nature will do that for us whether by pandemic, famine, etc. They know this. What they are counting on is you not knowing/understanding this.
Hey shit for brains -- nobody convinced me of anything. I just didn't want kids because they're hard work and I enjoy an easy life. You must be some animal that just eats, shits and fucks without a thought in the world.
Oh yeah -- you're saving your DNA. Comedy gold.
And a good part of Texas is far from 'arable".
and last i checked the texans don't think any of it is available to be "given" away.
clearly there are too many people living a too-rapacious life style.
however it really won't last forever. perhaps humans will die in an apocalyptic fashion.
but, if not, after those thirty five years, and probably sooner, the population of the earth will shrink at an increasing rate, for a while, because women refuse to have more children.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Population-Crash-Surprising/dp/0807001228
It's not just raw numbers. What are the consequences for entire cultures? For example Italy which now has more deaths than births.
Demographic Winter - the decline of the human family: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZeyYIsGdAA
The New Economic Reality Demographic Winter Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw3OQgFsHZI
http://www.amazon.com/What-Expect-When-Ones-Expecting/dp/1594037310/ref=...
I had some Millenial enginerring grad tell me over the weekend that Great Lakes water should be trucked to CA (in Natrual Gas run trucks) and that it would be economically viable. To make a dent in residential supply in CA, a 50K gallon tanker would have to be unloaded every second. I don't thinnk a 10-lane freeway could carry all the trucks. It's this kind of soft-headed thinking that got us The Obama.
Seems to me if we pumped water from the Great Lakes to the arid parts of Texas, much could be produced from there. And being warmer, more water vapor would go into the air than is now happening from the Great Lakes. That water vapor would come down as rain somewhere making that land more arable as well. Downside is we may need more pollution for the rain to precipitate.
Heck, we don't have big issues pumping our oil and refined products to the Lake Michigan area. Why shouldn't we pump water from Lake Michigan down to Texas. It's easier than pumping the oil up. It's downhill all the way. :-)
Another idea: All that vacant land in Detroit is more arable than parts of Texas. Maybe we should set up a reservation in Texas and move Detroit people there ... and then return Detroit to raising crops.
We did those kinds of things 200 years ago. No big deal.
The problem is not land or food or water or shelter or ... anything else mentioned in that silly link.
The underlying problem is Human Stupidity - and no one has come up with an answer to that in the last 5,000 years.
Moved out to acreage in the country well over a decade ago. There is no fox shortage or any other type of critter. You know what I've watched happen?
Nature is coming back. It is adapting to modern humans - especially with their ridiculous reverence for things like Bambi.
We are hundreds of miles from foorhills and mountains - but we've had two mountain lions struck and killed by cars. The experts came and investigated in depth - nope, they weren't someone's pets. The autopsies indicated they were identical to the "natural environment" mountain lions that eat one or two bikers per year in California. New answer: Mountain lions have moved into new habitats.
I guess Nature is smarter than humans.
No, more humans means that we need to live in more places, we have just moved into the mountain lions habitat (or at least our agriculture/industry).
It is like that all over the planet, even the poor quality bits of land are being repurposed today to try and produce things human's need, hence the slashing and burning of vast areas of mediocre forests out in Indonesia, is it a futile effort, but in the short term it makes a profit and it will be the next generation who take the loss.
They can just QE that loss away. or at least try...
there is only one outcome to overpopulation, lemmings and lucusts unite and cry out aloud, "time to move out"...
everything else is just the build up. enjoy today! and tomorrow...
barliman -
The underlying problem is Human Stupidity - and no one has come up with an answer to that in the last 5,000 years.
to the contrary, the 20th century did yield many treatments to counter human stupidity - these include many of the psychedelic medicines. They are "Consciousness Expanders" and called that for the reason that is precisely what they do. This is also why the PTB felt threatened at the time and their agenda of "dumbing down" does not fit with egalitarian mental helpers.
Most people today go along with the incredibly simplified "drugs" war failing basic critical thinking of what that entails. However, the calls for a smarter approach and a giant overhaul of the ridiculous criminal penalties and prison accommodations for substance possession and use is gaining strength daily.
I own 5.3 of those acres and I am not sharing. If, however, all those people move in I am moving out. Land values should be huge and I'll be rich. I'll be able to squat free on the French Rivera or the Greek Isles cuz all those people are squeezed up in TX.
Yep and 1 acre is something that relies on fossil fuel intensive farming to produce a poor vegan diet (assuming the land does not degrade either, which it will under such intensive agrilculture).
So add in meat, and start farming the land in a sustainable manner, e.g. using legumes to replenish the soil and rotating crops, and we need a heck of a lot more, my guess (a pure guess) would be 8-10 acres a person based on no green revolution (1960's oil products) meaning 4x as much needed, and some space for meat.
While the west consumes a lot and has too high a population, we are not the worst. Because if we stopped immigration our population would begin to fall, and if bad times came we would be forced to be more efficient. It is Asia that is truly screwed, they live much more efficiently then we do but have rising populations, if bad times came they would go crazy with hunger.
As for when it all goes bad, no idea, but the result of trying to purue infinite growth in a finite world will have an inevitable result.
Always some amusement here on the weekend when the "intern Tyler" gets free rein to post any delusional tripe.
One of life's hardest lessons: Some problems do not allow for a solution.
How important is that knowledge? Anyone on here posting supporting statements for this nonsense, should have it reversed tattooed on their forehead.
And not one of you will realize any value from it.
So ... simpler take-away?
Nuclear war will solve "over-population" via direct deaths, indirect deaths from secondary effects, zero medical capabilities and starvation.
The UN just blessed it and the SCOAMF is going all out to push it through Congress.
Solution? See the bold sentence above.
this problem not only has a solution, it is being solved as i type. and you don't have to do anything about it (i'm guessing you haven't a uterus). no explosions are required.
women globally have been reducing their birthrates for decades in many cases (half a century for the u.s.). shortly (nearly now in any historical perspective) the world's population will shrink voluntarily.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Did your mother drop you on your head a LOT?
India has an official policy of ENCOURAGING population growth.
China no longer enforces it's ONE CHILD policy because their skew towards male children only (astonishingly high FEMALE infant mortality rate) is causing significant societal problems.
The global birth rate decline is due to DEVELOPED countries producing far fewer children per generation.
Go visit the extreme LEFT eco sites and drill down.
Those folks view sacrificing BILLIONS as necessary and unavoidable - and the ONLY way to do that is with nukes.
Certainly not.
I do not expect bombs.
A fetus is an obligate parasite. A VERY LARGE ONE!!
Neonates are helpless and require constant care to keep alive and well.
Women want to care for their children. Very few women who have any control over the situation op to have more children than they can care for. Only only powerless culturally captive women do that.
So you postulate that cultures will continue to hold women captive.
That is a strong possiblility but,
While I am not advocating this in any way, I have noticed a certain movie genre that postulates a virus that
1. Kills most women, or 2. makes them infertile.
Child of Man comes to mind as does that Vin Diesel movie Babalon A D.
I have also noticed the rise of certain gene editing technology called CRISPER. Take a look at the artical in the last Wired mag.
Using this technology it seems to me that it would be realtively trivial to engineer any number of viruses that would render a woman exposed to them immune to sperm protein coats.
That would propbably cut fertility about 70%.
Which would enrage the slavers.
I used to interface with the biotech companies. Befiore that, I had a friend in the military who had very high clearances.
Bioweapons are extremely hard to develop, produce and use. Once released in "the wild", they are MORE likely to NOT work as planned than the Swiss watch fallacy Hollywood perpetuates.
BTW, a 70% reduction in fertility CAUSES World War III - non-breeeders would be viewed as the most expendable.
Universe 25.
exactly right. There is so much food thrown away in this country that it could feed millions. Just imagine the resources we waste. When any product gets a few years old, we just throw them away. Look at the trash we produce from worthless packaging. There are plenty of resources to provide for everyone on the planet. if there is an overpopulation problem, it's over populated with too many elitist assholes, not poor useless eaters.
Daft comment. The issue of who owns what and the concentration of resources is KEY to everything. No one is going to change this and give up what they own. The system is incapable of self-reform. Any increase in population given the current wealth and resource distribution will result in a catastrophe. Sure we could all wear the same clothes and eat gruel but that will never happen.
"Too many people" is propoganda b*s* to prime everyone for war/massive population losses. Everyone in the world could be given over an acre of arable land in Texas. Problem is not too many people, it's too much consumption, fueled by central banking cheap debt that pulls consumption forward from the future (generations). People in the West use 30x more resources than those in the east. If you really wanted to cut consumption, you'd start with people in the West.
if you had traveled around the world and especially the " east" you would have noticed the east people and not only, but also the africans, thru television, just want the west life. so, no, sorry, as white in the west, cutting my lifestyle to let other blacks and yellows and brown fanatics do the same as my parents did in last 50 years while i get MY privileges removed, fuck it.
selfish ? maybe, then fuck you too by the way.
there is no solution. hammer it in your brain, we have no solution.
just because it is the human race which is the problem. i am, you are, part of the problem.
i will not pay taxe to let actual lazy old fuck farts go retreat. you will not accept to go offgrid to abandon computer and revert to work in barn & farm... so what.... any idea ? you want to go back assembly shit in factory for 15h per dray and no hollidays ?
even chinese start being replaced by robotics....
we are post job era. human is the problem for the next 100 years. face it.
beein yourself and live a personnal resilient life is a hell of a job, a pita, condamned to stay every day in the same location making same things.
make rendezvous with hamish for 1 month of job, you will return to you actual life with please like a dog pissing on ground regaining his master after a day of solitude in the house.
China (just China alone) has purchased more new cars than all of the Americas, North and South, for years now. China has been building and taking on line one new dirty coal fired electricity plant for a decade. so, as far as "want", they are getting it, and have been.
vie Everything you've stated is completely false. The total number of acres of land in the USA(a small fraction of which is arable) is only 2.3 billion. And there are over 7 billion humans on the planet. People in the west use 30x the resources of poeple in the East? Sounds like you haven't been to the Far East in 40 years. For many years now, more cars have been sold in China (just China) than all of the Americas, north and south.
As ugly a thought as it is to entertain, the planet is in fact reaching its limits to support more humans.
let's not call it eugenics
sounds too much like "you"-genics
let's instead call it oui-genics
the carrying capacity of the planet turns out to be, at best, about 0.1% of the current population
which, coincidentally, happens to be the size of the top tenth of a percent of the world as measured by wealth
hugs,
dave rockefeller and ted turner
Not to worry Knuks...the soon approaching WW3 will help thin the numbers out.
Any population reduction that happens through war won't change a thing, we will only learn the lesson of resource constraints when we have our population reduced by those same resource constraints.
Errmmm - I think that's happening on it's own already (at least with the whites) - no "policy" required ....
This site is schizoid. One day you have nutty climate deniers posting here, the next day a famous scientist telling us about the truth of our climate and population predicament. Make up your minds, ZH management. What is it going to be, libertarian antiscience garbage, or go with the vast consensus of climate scientists? You can't have it both ways!
Teh stoopid be strong with this 1!
This motha fuka lookin for a fight!
I think Pinch is just being tongue-in-cheek, quoting the party line. Maybe MDB took a new pseudonym.
lets look for a good debate.......unlike the jew stream media.......
It aint the vast majority of climate scientists. It certainly isnt the vast number of scientists who actually are competent to chime in. It might be more than half. This article is one mor ein a long line of malthusian bullshit. And anyone who quotes the criminal Paul Ehrlich is not to be taken at all seriously. Of course warmists love Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich would have fit right in with the eugenics freaks who killed millions in line with their crackpot theories. Taggart is obviously an asshole and a moron. There are few people more dangerous or wrong than Ehrlich.
I have an idea. Let's come up with a new area of "science" and then label everyone who agrees with us something like "climate scientists". Then we can say 100% of climate scientists agree... because science is based on majority(/mob) rule, like democracy! Does the Sun go around the Earth?... as long as everyone agrees, it does! SCIENCE!
As Eisenhower so eloquently warned in his farewell speech, scientism is captive to the technocratic elite because the average citizen is lazy and apathetic.
The power of money is truly to be gravely regarded, just as Eisenhower said.
Read his farewell speech, it is quite prescient - almost as though the oligarchs used him to deliver a message to their victims in order to laugh at how stupid we are for having the message delivered and then ignoring it.
Unfortunately for your passionately-held opinions, basic mathematics says Erlich, and Malthus before him, were right. Exponential eater growth in a world of finite resources guarantees an unpleasant outcome. I don't give a fuck whether you like Erlich or not. Or whether I do. Just give me the maths.
And that is not even taking into account the uncomfortable factoid that our civilization is built on the assumption of an unlimited supply of essentially free energy. Wave your fucking arms all you like about "renewables", there is nothing to replace oil as the basis for our civilization.
Then add a financial system based on the exponential growth of debt, when repayment capability can only grow linearly, and think about the fact that the health (functioning) of our commercial (trading) system is totally dependent on the health of our financial system. When the financial system nearly went south in 2007-8, the commercial system was only a day or two behind it. This ain't your pappies world, when trade stops starvation for most in the west comes shortly thereafter. Courtesy of gross overpopulation.
Incidently, I don't give a fuck about global warming. If it's true, it's self-limiting. As in, dead civilizations don't produce many greenhouse gases.
"Greenhouse Gas"=more food production. Plants feed off of carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. That's why I don't buy into the global warming bullshit.
However, conservation and reducing waste are practical ideas that most conservatives and liberals can agree on. Killing more than you can eat, unless in self-defense, makes you a psychopath. Using more than you need is similar. Wasting food is criminal in my mind...in my own household. I view your food waste similar but I'm not going to push my views on you.
I've finally convinced my wife that 'expiration dates' on cans are absolute bullshit...there is no need to toss out a can of anything past it 'expiration date' unless its bubbled. Most medicines are good three months later than the date says to toss. In the sixties, we were buying WWII C-Rats in the commissary, the shit was still edible. 1970's USMC still had C-Rats and P-38's.
Takes a lot of pressure off the stock rotation when what is checked is the can itself rather than some marketing 'Use By' date.
Three months for medicines???!!!! Most (not all) medicines are good for decades after the "expiration" date: http://www.pharmacytimes.com/news/some-medications-last-long-past-expira.... Per a U.S. Army study.
I know, but have a shitload of nurses in the family that tell us that potency dives off a cliff. Can only argue so far.
Indeed worst case it's just not as effective as it was the day you bought it. Not like it's going to damage anything if you use it after the date. Either way, I usually take half the recomended dose and then take more if it doesn't do the job well enough. If it's not working at that point and it's "expired", I go buy more... though in a pinch taking a little more of anything OTC isn't going to kill you either... if it did, they'd be killing people everyday.
Ain't fer sure jest yet. The way I figure it, the planet always has warmed and cooled. A lot. Sometimes a WHOLE lot. There is some scientists who studied California and found that if you go back 7,000 years, there were droughts lasting 100, 200, even 240 years long, followed by floods of biblical proportions. That's thousands of years before coal heat, factories, cars, oil, ... Something caused all those droughts and floods and such. So, Im thinkin like that all happened before, it will prolly happen agin. How much humans contributed to the current climate changes, we won't know for another 10,000 years or so.... or maybe never.
What a fool you are. Think for a moment how internet media works.
ZH is a zoo and Tyler is the zoo keeper. Throws some red meat in the lion cage, and some bird seed in the peacock cage, and all the animals are happy except one.
They are giving you all the clues you need. You just are not smart enough to put two and two together.
All casualties of the mass mind rape
This article is not the tone I come here for
...because this website is supposed to be all about what you come here for.
YOU are just that important and you pay for the maintenance of this website, right?
You are just another fucking narcissist with an entitlement mentality, a SOCIALIST...which you exposed withyour self centered post.
This goes back to Malthus. Malthusian ring a bell? The globalists have a plan. It's called Agenda21
There are two alternatives to the PREDICAMENT. It is not a problem as there are NO SOLUTIONS.
One is a culling of the population. Now that is what Agenda 21 is about. (I DO NOT LIKE THAT. I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT.)
The other is that we can STOP USING RESOURCES. That takes PERSONAL SACRIFICE. (I DO NOT LIKE THAT, EITHER.)
Of course this is NOT ABOUT MY PREFERENCE.
If you do not do the other voluntarily then one option, the other option, or, in all probability, a COMBINATION OF BOTH OF THE OPTIONS, will NOT BE FORCED UPON YOU BY the Laws of Men, but, it WILL BE FORCED UPON YOU by the Laws of Nature.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have continual growth in an ADIABATIC SYSTEM. There are actual LIMITS to the amount of Natural Resources.
Of course Exponential Growth, in any Adiabatic System leads to an Exponential Collapse. The Collapse MIGHT BE IN POPULATION. Or the Collapse MIGHT be in the resources available. Or, and much more likely, it will be the COMBINATION OF BOTH CONCURRENTLY.
Yet, WITH ALL ASSURANCE, one, or the other, or BOTH, WILL COLLAPSE. IT WILL HAPPEN.
This is NOT a Hegelian Dialectic setup by some Machivellian elitists plotting to achieve a political goal. This is a Mathematical Fact.
Growth in the size of population concurrent with the amount of resources used MUST STOP.
In fact the uses of resources need to be more efficient and the extractions need to decline, along with population reductions, just to maintain the current standard of living...which is terrible as it stands now...for most of the World's Population.
You can junk this post if you'd like. Knock yourself out. Express your displeasure with the Truth. (HELL. I WANT TO JUNK MY POST. GOD DAMN IT.)
But your junks and your displeasure will do nothing to change that Mathematical TRUTH. Not one thing. (IF I COULD CHANGE ANYTHING...BY SIMPLY JUNKING THIS POST...I'D DO IT IN A HEARTBEAT. MY FUCKING EGO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. PLEASE CONVINCE ME THAT I AM WRONG!!!)
People on this site are paranoid about agenda 21. It should be ignored. The UN employs legions of bureaucrats with nothing to do all day but write papers. None of it is taken seriously.
Obviously the math says some day resource demand will outstrip supply. When that happens the poorest people will get priced out of food, water and energy. It's already happened in 3rd world slums, where people shit right next to their cardboard shacks, and compete with rats for garbage dump vittles. Here's looking at you India, Mexico and a lot of others.
As resources get more and more contrained, the population will slowly wind down. Over decades we will trend toward that 500 million sustainable number.
Go check the data...I call bs on this article. Peak global population growth occurred in 1990 at almost +90 million annually but has been falling since now at about +80 million annually. China, Brazil have negative birthrate for a decade plus and the global birthrate has fallen 55% in the last 50 years from over 5 to 2.4 (2.1 children per female is neutral). India is on track to go negative in the next decade to join nearly all advanced econimies.
Lastly, the global economic slowdown and likely depression will send global birthrates negative...this growth curve already peaked and peak population reaaly likely in next 20 years...check actual details at econimica.blogspot.com.
America and their boss Isreal have been killing and bombing as best as they can, just look at Cheney's bank account!
Not ready for Malthusian theories yet. Incompetence and corruption are worse than numbers of people.
We are post scarcity. The Oligarch tactic of creating artificial scarcity is what is failing. This is due to the fact that the masses become aware of this by looking the fuck around themselves and seeing cars, tv's, and mountains of food everywhere.
That's why the owners of the State invented war.
So kill yourself Paul Ehrlich! You too Ted Turner! And take all the progressive death cult with you. Then we will have peace.
Rock on, brother. I love the ones who vow to sterilize themselves. That's an effort I'd support government subsidies for.
They promise to sterilize them selves and then force it upon others.
The greatest of all sins, self-adminsitered "Dispensation of Indulgences"
Mayhaps the Sermon on the Mount and Book of Vanities might illuminate the conditions.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
The problem is, Rock, the way the thing is structured, we won't know about it until its too late. At least, no major media outlet or government cronie is going to talk about it.
the only population "bomb" sits within the muslims
You don't see much hand wringing about over population from Muslim countries. White counties seem far more interested in the issue and resource depletion. Maybe muslims feel they can handle it if it does become a problem.
Miffed
The problem of population growth is of little importance in comparison to the decline in the worlds gene pool. Think of the movie 'Idiotocracy'. It is all happening now.
Darwin has that one covered. That's what genetic bottlenecks are all about.
Idiocracy is wrong in one important way. No matter how dumbed down the gene pool, there will always be a few super smart people who have a gigantic advantage. When the masses are starving because they're watering the crops with brawndo, the smarties will have their own working systems.
Knowledge will always survive in some form, but only a few will know how to use it. Eventually the idiots will die off or become slaves to their betters. Who will reinvent fractional reserve banking, fiat currency and microchips?
Serious issues in genetic pools are not to be undersestimated.
Sadly the poor and stupid DO have more children - 'Idiocracy' pegged it (and the long term implications). The problem is that in a society of imbeciles the few intelligent people end up slaves to the masses - they are the only ones that are capable of handling the work needed to keep society functioning. Thwy are overworked while the imbecilic masses are supported buy the state.
But you cannot under any circumstances suggest that having unlimited numbers of children- irrespective of your genetic limitations or ability to support those children is bad and should not be a 'right'. In times past you had children if you could afford them and those that had little ability to earn a living could not attract spouses and did not marry or have children.
Todat the state provided 'safety net' has resulted in reverse behavioralism. It rewards BAD behavior and encourages more of it while discouraging 'good' behavior. We waited a dozen years to have children - until financially secure - and spent cpnsiderable time and effort in parenting those we had. We produced astoundingly accomplished and intelligent children but got NO help at any point in the rpocess from gov and paid full freight for ourt children to go to college. Meanwhile relatives whgo married badly, or not at all, had children with no thought and barely got by received all kinds of gov aid while producing children who will do little to advance the species (and most of whom have already proven to be a burden on others). WTF?
I do NOT trust the state or anyone else to determine who should breed BUT there are clear and obvious problems with uncontrolled breeding that SHOULD be addressed.
Ignoring the politically loaded issue of 'intelligence' you have many conservative religious groups insisting on their right to breed without restriction - and vehemently opposed to abortion or any form of contraception - while churning out large numbers of seriously damaged children that demand substantial rewsources of society. Certain groups that marry and procreate ONLY within their limited group have HUGE genetic problems but don't DARE point out that this is a problem. There are some valid points raised by eugenics but it is a radioactive topic.
Look at the issues among certain Jewish groups - huge numbers of genetic illness coupled with unlimited procreation. Look at the number of 'special needs' children in places like Rockland NY. You have similar issues among some Amish and Mennonite groups as well but at least they aren't milking the gov for help. Any suggestion that genetic testing of parents BEFORE they have children when in groups with a proven history of genetic problems is racist and don't dare suggest that those carrying such problems should avoid having children.
But when you are the "Chosen One" you have to reproduce at all cost ...
You seem to be well educated so what part of that you don't understand?
Ah! you are from Britain then?
I don't refer to it as a movie. I refer to it as the documentary "Idiocracy". Now with Extra Big Ass Fries....
Yup. I guess it's time for you jerks to start killing yourselves.
You take The Quietus and then when you are dead you become Soylent Green.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VnIrXmdYhY
Why don't we talk about all the things Ehrlich was wrong about? It's even harder to take this idiot seriously when commodities are crashing. Taggart has just lost all credibility with me.
Limbaugh's right about this - People are starving not for lack of food/land/water, but for lack of capitalism.
Commodities SEEM TO BE crashing, but the highs and lows get higher every cycle. When oil crashed in the 80s it went down to like $7.
Don't get confused by the noise. US frackers drilled a lot of wells that would never be economic if money wasn't free. We are largely wasting that valuable resource simply because banksters have no end to their greed.
The obvious solution is redistribution. Take wealth from societies who are failing to do their part to contribute to the population boom and send it to needy and failing economies who breed like rabbits. And then once they are healthy enough to travel bring them to those non performing areas where they can democratically vote for even more redistribution to pay for even more kids. Its working great.
Redistribution and debt have contributed mightily to malinvestment, the enabling of failed systems.
lol...moar predictions from Ehrlich that never happened, was this before or after an Ice Age was going to KILL EVERYONE!?
I've lost track.
Al gore used to live in the largest house east of the missisipi. His running mate built a bigger one and then created a bastard with a newsbabe.
I just hope when they do a carbon tax they realize how pathetic and needy certian personality types are. We might learner somthing. Or get a drought.
predictions that "never" happened? i didn't realize that we had already reached the end of history, in order for you to be able to use the word never.
is that anything like saying:
the dollar has not collapsed yet, so all those who have predicted the collapse of the dollar, were clearly wrong.
Dude, he predicted doom would happen in the 70's & 80's, meaning, the prediction failed. Much like "If we don't do something about manmade global warming NYC will be underwater by 2012!"
Its not.
Watch the exact verbiage nmewn. I thought I had Al Gore in his stupid prediction Dec 2008 the polar ice would be gone in 5 years but the quote was “SOME of the models SUGGEST that there is a 75 percent CHANCE that the entire north polar ice cap, during SOME of the SUMMER months, COULD be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,”
Typical lawyer doublespeak he could worm out of at any future date. If the modeling was so tenuous in accuracy, why bring it up at all? Obviously to furthur his agenda on the weak minded.
Miffed
dude, i listened to the whole interview, and i don't recall any mention made of a specific timeline as to what would happen when.
i'm not familiar with his past work, but everything he said in this interview seems pretty much spot on
In aword:POPULLUTION. Milestones
We just need more Somalis and fewer Swedes.
Population Bomb ... CORRECT.
This is the driving problem (critical problem) for this century. Erhlich was a long way ahead of his time. And so he was ignored. That's too bad, because his warnings were 100% correct.
TODAY it is Climate Scientists in the USA who are preaching "CHANGE". Its' interesting that those particular scientists have taken up the banner for "Global Change" while many other scientists sit quietly at their desks. But the truth is that ther melting of icecaps takes a long time, and it is a gradual process. We can see it unfolding, but it's slow.
When the Population Bomb is added to all the other things happening on Planet Earth - you wind up with a very short timescale. That is where we are now. On a very short timescale, much shorter than what the Climate Science people are saying.
There are TOO MANY humans on Planet Earth. And it only plays out one way.
So..rope is cheap.
I hear vasectomies are covered under Obammycare after you pay your $6,000 copay and 100 hours of community service.
I did mine 16 years ago. What 'cha waiting for PS?
Bullshit article, and you primal seem like a troll.
http://geoengineeringwatch.org/
geoengineering is the culprit bitches, don't let the elite fool you..
Sashko
Population is a strange topic on ZH.
Plenty of articles about too many people; not enough jobs. Comments about labor arbitrage, IOW moving jobs to places with large populations of people poorer than those in the markets to be served.
One can argue about how far we can stretch the available resources and manage the waste, but at some point an equilibrium will occur, either we collectively get a grip and strike a balance or we overshoot and collapse.
If you point out the overshoot/collapse scenario you will get some up votes.
But if you breath a word about any kind of population control you get the "so go kill yourself" replies.
We kind of do offer people money to have kids (increased public benefits), so why would offering them money to not have kids be so awful? Seems kinder to me overall and as side benefits fewer children = children more valued.
thank you - your comment is like a voice of reason in a vast wilderness of flaming, hostility, and denial.
Children of immigrants—defined as children with at least one foreign-born parent—are a large and growing segment of the child population of the United States.
And in 2012, the Census Bureau made it official, white births are no longer a majority in the United States.
The AP reported that for the first time ever, U.S. public schools were projected in the fall of 2014 to have more minority students than white students enrolled, a shift largely fueled by growth in the number of Hispanic children.
The National Education Statistics concurred, saying minority students, when added together, will now make up the majority.”
And the US government is making it profitable for ethnic “minorities” to have even more children.
TeethVillage88s pulls the numbers:
- Below isn't even the Tax Assistance, WIC, TANF, SNAP, or MEDICAID
Department of Health and Human Services:
Administration for Children and Families:
2014 Total Outlays - Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs = $4.11 Billion
2014 Total Outlays - Refugee and Entrant Assistance = $1.28 Billion
2014 Total Outlays - Child Care Entitlement to States = $2.8 Billion
2014 Total Outlays - Payments to States for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant = $2.2 Billion
2014 Total Outlays - Social Services Block Grant = $1.75 Billion
2014 Total Outlays - Children and Families Services Programs = $9.4 Billion
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/white-students-no-longer-be-majority-school
The women with infants and children program (WIC) is another revenue stream that provides supplemental food assistance, health care referrals, and nutrition education and support for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women and to infants and children up to the age of 5.
Left out of many studies are programs such as job training assistance and child care, such as Head Start. In fiscal year 2014, Congress approved $6.41 billion for Head Start, which equated to $7,886 per pupil. Also left out of many calculations are the Earned Income Tax Credit (maximum benefit for 2015 is $6,242 with three or more qualifying children.) and the child tax credit. CATO found that “there is a significant tax penalty for those leaving welfare for work.”
Not sure why you got dinged for that. The US is going to a Hispanic majority. 49% of US births in 2006 were Hispanic.
Learn Spanish. Invest in businesses that serve the Hispanic market.
I think most people (at least the soft hearted) don't think that innocent children should suffer for their parents bad decisions (having kids they couldn't afford).
So, if you have children you can't afford, is it evil to require you to become sterile to continue to receive government support for those children?
You could always give up the bennies. We aren't talking a literal gun to the head here.
I don't have a hate on for poor people and I don't think all poor people are stupid and/or lazy.
I do believe our planet is finite, and odds of reaching another to replace/relieve it are steep.
Plane Jane, there is NO REASON for actively managing population. Just stop subsidizing having kids.
People understand that if you feed the god dammed pigeons, they multiply and you get a bigger problem to deal with. It's the same with 3rd world people. The liberal screamers see a hungry nigger in africa and they have to redistribute (i.e. steal from everyone). It's all they know how to do. But what happens is they multiply and you get even more starving kids. And more and more... until you have billions.
Just let capitalism do it's magic and everything works out. I realize socialists in all their forms will never allow this.
Thats why these satanic fucks have Agenda 21 in full swing.
Ah ha! So this is why we're being flooded with millions of Mexicoons to resource stretched USSW from barren empty parts of Mexshithole.
Geez, this crap was debunked years ago.
Please read The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Simon
In a world full of queers and lesbian muff munchers there will be no future generations.
Peak Predicting Peakness
Malthusian and global warming alarmist claptrap. Articles like this and writers like you are keeping some of the most precious women on Earth from having children or very many. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are a harbinger of death.
Some countries are at their Malthusian limit; their masses are literally starving to death, or would be without foreign aid. Other countries have already passed through the "demographic transition" and their people are slowly going extinct.
Our intellectual superiors wish to reward irresponsible breeding by opening our borders. So instead of just overpopulating e.g. Egypt, let the stupid fuckers overpopulate the whole world!
r/K Selection Theory explains the Population Bomb quite easily.
Solution: Do not feed the Africans.
mmm a dash of climate change lies always makes for a tasty article
Yeah, there must be a vaccine to cure humanity of this over population disease /s
Bill and Melinda Gates are working on it.
Miffed
Take a common highly contagious (aerosol and contact transmission) non-lethal or preferably non-symptomatic virus.
The chosen virus has to have protein rather than glycoprotein antigenic regions in its coat.
Splice genes into the virus such that the antigenic determining coat regions present portions of LHRH and/or LH (Lutenizing Hormone). The immune system does the rest.
Simple.
*Cue Cornucopians*
I think we can handle 12 billion people or more. Why else would I be getting all these ads for hot chicks?
I like the presentation as I do with all Peak Prosperity's presentations but you really need to know about this and bet accordingly
https://youtu.be/7whL9jvdL5s
S0 is a good source in general.
I have not had time to do deeper reading but I do check out their daily offerings.
They use this thing called the scientific method. I hear it works better than 'consensus.' Apparently a bunch of paid scientists voting on something does not make it true.
I get that there are those that wish to build consent for population reduction, I don't want to add to that but looking at future population growth and leaving the issue of having enough commodities aside, what kind of quality of life can we expect if we continue to grow like this? I look at China and Mexico City and the way they are stacked up in their own filth and to me that is not living.
America has a higher quality of life because we still have space, at least until they the fill the place with Mexicans. Even if there is enough who wants to live in a cram packed world? And if there is a contrived shortage why the hell would I or anyone else want to have a bunch of children so that they suffer and have an uncertain future at best? The more our numbers magnify the cheaper life seems to become. To each there own but I don't get it.
The numbers I've seen (which could be wrong) indicate that the birth rate is dropping - most Western countries aren't reproducing at maintenance levels. Japan for example is selling more adult diapers than infant diapers. Worldwide, it's not so much the quantity as it is the quality of that reproduction. In poorer countries, your retirement is your kids - so they tend to have as many as they can.
America's "higher quality of living" came from what was once an economy that was more egalatarian - a place where the average guy could make a decent living - not from an excess of space. The countries you mention have plenty of space - the vast majority of which is controlled by governments who aren't keen on sharing.
Might be worth researching Agenda 21 and the Rewilding of America .....
I see your points and agree with much of what you said and I'm aware of Agenda 21 but being that the circumstance is the way it is, who would want to bring a kid into the world just to suffer? If I had to have numerous children who were going to be born into a hell life because I needed to be supported off of their labor, such as in some areas of Africa, I would refuse. I would rather starve than live off the short suffering lives of children. These bastards have created this circumstance but that doesn't change the fact that it is the reality.
I realize that America isn't quite in this situation yet but things aren't looking too good.
To panic most effectively one should chose sides. Global warming is good but a repeat of the Maunder minimum is too. The difference is that there is some data to support the latter.
WoW!!!! Reading these comments it becomes very clear that we are TOTALLY SCROOMED!!!!
That is my opinion too, Eeyores Enigma.
A lot of those who publish comments on Zero Hedge routinely push their cynicism to the point of stupidity. Those who somewhat wake up to the relatively hidden stories regarding what the ruling classes have been doing then tend to go utterly overboard with those insights. Discovering some fraudulent science tends to be over-generalized to assert that all science is fraudulent.
My view is that the ruling classes have developed expedient sets of solutions for the chronic political problems that benefit those ruling classes. However, those who superficially recognize that then tend to blame the ruling classes for everything, as if those ruling classes, and the intellectuals those ruling classes promoted, created the chronic political problems, rather than only developed expedient sets of solutions that benefited them (while screwing everyone else, of course.) That kind of approach then enables those who push their cynicism to the point of stupidity to NOT have to come up with better solutions, since they can blame everything on the ruling classes, as if the chronic political problems inherent in the nature of life would not exist if the ruling classes did not make those problems exist.
The vast majority of people who bother to post comments on an article like the one above are classic reactionary revolutionaries. They tend to denounce the ruling classes, and those intellectuals who were promoted, due to the hidden agenda of the ruling classes, BUT, never provide better sets of solutions, because any such better sets of solutions would necessarily have to become manifested as better death control systems. It is totally typical for the reactionary revolutionaries to denounce the established money/murder systems, without ever bothering to promote what could actually work as any better combined money/murder systems. The ONLY theoretically better resolutions of our real problems must necessarily be better death control systems.
Therefore, we are indeed TOTALLY SCROOMED! There is nothing but a core of organized crime (the ruling classes), surrounded by controlled opposition groups, who are still controlled by the same bullshit world view, despite their superficial recognitions of the degree to which the ruling classes are controlling civilization through their applications of the principles and methods of organized crime. Of course, the attitudes towards that have developed to become as unscientific as possible, within the oxymoronic scientific dictatorship that the ruling classes have made and maintained, along with the assistance of their favourite intellectuals. However, that profoundly unscientific attitude almost totally includes all of the various controlled opposition groups, which is how and why so many of the comments published on Zero Hedge regarding any of the topics which are similar to that in the article above tend to become cynicism pushed to the point of stupidity. Those people tend to never become cynical enough, but rather, like to stay within their preferred, relatively superficial, cynical assessments ... despite that, by doing so, they are actually continuing to be stupid.
It takes a way more radical approach to go through enough paradigm shifts to perceive the ways that the ruling classes, and their intellectuals, were somewhat right about the problems, but then, promoted solutions which would benefit them. Many of the comments posted under articles like the one above on Zero Hedge tend to conflate those two issues. However, there are important differences between the degrees of fraudulent science due to fraudulent solutions (which benefit the ruling classes) contrasted to genuine science, which arises due to problems that exist, and necessarily include everyone.
The source of that sort of social situation traces back to the ways that warfare was the oldest and best developed social science and social engineering, whose social success was based on backing up deceits with destruction. By and large, most of the cynical idiots that post comments upon environmental ecology issues on Zero Hedge tend to deliberately not want to understand the deeper reasons for how and why our political economy is controlled by enforced frauds. Furthermore, they even less want to appreciate the bigger picture with respect to the overall environmental issues.
THE BASIC PROBLEMS ARE THAT THERE MUST BE SOME DEATH CONTROL SYSTEMS, WHILE THE ACTUALLY EXISTING SYSTEMS DEVELOPED TO BECOME THE MOST SOCIALLY SUCCESSFUL WHEN DONE IN THE MOST DECEITFUL AND TREACHEROUS WAYS.
Of course, my opinion is that Peak Prosperity only presents grossly superficial assessments of the deeper problems, and that Paul Erhlich, et alia, have always been presenting the problems regarding "The Population Bomb" without going through deeper analysis of the history of the death control systems in general, and the human murder systems in particular. However, at the same time, those who begin to perceive that then also tend to stay within their own favourite over-simplifications and over-generalizations. Of course, that overview applies to "The Population Bomb," as well as any suggestions regarding how to defuse that kind of Bomb.
Granny said, don’t feed the stray cats (Third World) unless you want to kill the kittens.
GREG ALLMAN MIDNIGHT RIDER
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yojZ-Ksr8AE
What if sudenly there were only 3 billion people on earth none of which had an IQ less than 103?
No rapture jokes please
Walmarts would be empty, PT Cruisers would be driverless
The jazz cafe's would be packed with finger snapping ass wipes FRED!
They would redraw the lines and turn on each other.
The technology exists to support billions more.
But they would rather kill you.
um the copper is still laying around dude. all over zee place.
Yeah, and water is still flowing down the Ohio, same as it was 500 years ago.
Only it's cleaner than it was 50 years ago.
Everyone to the bunker.
Peak Proserity has gone full retard.
Exactly. America did not become the world's greatest success by burning and consuming her resources; she got there by developing and growing her resources. By replenishing the earth.
America’s gift to the world, the gift that lifted the standards of living for all people, was the fruit produced from individual freedom: the opportunity to own property and develop the means of production. America, as steward of her resources, advanced man’s progress that for more than 60 known centuries had advanced no farther than wagon wheels and open fire cooking, where men were no more than beasts of burden, carrying their possessions upon their backs.
The fruits of freedom has lifted poverty and fed peoples throughout the globe.
Ruth Wilder Lane in The Discovery of Freedon: Man’s Struggle Against Authority (1943) explains the situation:
“Why did men die of hunger, for six thousand years?
Why did they walk, and carry goods and other men on their backs, for six thousand years, and suddenly, in one century, only on a sixth of this earth’s surface, they make steamships, railroads, motors, airplanes, and now are flying around the earth in its utmost height of air?
“Why did families live six thousand years in floorless hovels, without windows or chimneys, then, in eighty years and only in these United States, they are taking floors, chimneys, glass windows for granted, and regarding electric lights, porcelain toilets, and window screens as minimum necessities?
“Why did workers walk barefoot, in rags, with lousy hair and unwashed teeth, and workingmen wear no pants, for six thousand years, and here, in less than a century –silk stockings, lip sticks, permanent waves, sweaters, overcoats, shaving cream, safety razors. It’s incredible.
“For thousands of years, human beings used their energies in unsuccessful efforts to get wretched shelter and meager food. Then on one small part of the earth, a few men use their energies so effectively that three generations create a completely new world.
“What explains this?”
Human energy has not varied greatly in 6000 years; the physical earth has not changed historically. It is “not raw materials, but the uses that human energy makes of raw materials, that create this rich new world.”
In short, freedom, not hydrocarbons, created this new world.
Lots of posters are forgetting their sarc tags today. Makes it hard to tell who is just being a smart ass apart from those that are just full of shit.
I receive Peak Prosperity by email but I am not sure I want to continue now. Under-population is the problem now - especially of young people. And the next generation is going to be smaller as student loan debt prevents today's young people from starting families and buying homes.
I would like to thank all of you who broach the difficult subject of decreasing population. I await your leading by example.
You are welcome. My wife and I have made the decision to only have as many offspring as we can support ourselves to adulthood with NO assistance from the .gov or anyone else; with a maximum of two, since there are only two of us.
We have one. She is lovely and loved.
Paul Ehrlich was a frequent guest on Johnny Carson's Tonight show . He was the Jewish author of the book Population Bomb and he lectured all over the universities and colleges preaching the gospel that whites shouldn't have kids due to population explosion. Well Carson had a HUGE audience and the propaganda worked, white women have about 1.6 children according to last information I read and it was trending down from there.
Now I look around and see Mexican and other Latinas with 4, 5, 6 children, Vietnamese women with, in Cali, one had 17 children, and black women seem to be replenishing and growing their community. They may be 13% of the population they used to be 9% but that is only because the growth due to immigration and immigrant births keeps going, the Asians are the fastest growing race in the USA today, one would have thought the Mexicans but no. And that Asian immigration is largely LEGAL.
What about all the niños coming through the border? Why America will have one of the youngest populations soon, despite some of the 6x underwear wearing, gray hair and wrinkles "children" attending school from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador.
Of course another reason America is older is that so many young Whites have been murdered over the last decades, even little babies, last year an illegal Mexican who had shacked up with a single mom in Washington state raped the 1 year old and finished her off. If you think that is RARE, think again. See: http://newnation.org/
When a native species is overwhelmed by an invasive species their birthrates go down. This is what happens in nature and that is what happened, IS happening, in America today to those WHO BUILT THE COUNTRY.
The Sierra Club has been BOUGHT & OWNED by a Jewish gentleman by name of David Gelbaum there was a story about it in the LA TIMES:
The Man Behind the Land
by Kenneth R. Weiss, Oct. 17, 2004
Ted Kennedy is not responsible for the Immigration Act of 1965