A 2009 VACCINATION ODDYSEY

By A. True Ott, PhD, ND

Source:  Labvirus.com

Download Word Doc

According to the U.K. Sunday Times (timesonline.co.uk) newspaper dated May 24, 2009, a meeting of some of the world’s richest billionaires took place in Manhattan on May 5, 2009.  (See addendum #1).  These “elite” reached a uniform consensus during this meeting – that OVERPOPULATION is the single greatest threat facing Planet Earth.

Mr. George Soros, international banker and agent of the Rothschild family, was also in attendance, and actually led much of the discussion, it was reported.  For a biography and curriculum vitae of this warped individual and his vision for mass sterilization/depopulation of the planet, see Addendum #2.

The elite’s agenda of mass depopulation is no longer covert.  It is no longer the realm of “National Secret Memorandums” (see NSSM-200 authored by Henry Kissinger and Zbignew Brezinsky back in 1974)  It is today public knowledge.  It is indeed their top “agenda” item for immediate implementation this year – 2009.

I would submit that these billionaires are men and women of action.  When they come to a joint consensus, a detailed plan is quickly and decisively put into action – especially if they perceive that their “plan” is literally going to “save the planet”.    There should be little doubt that they would have a brilliant plan of action that they are most definitely implementing as you are reading this.  These individuals did not get to be billionaires by being stupid, or by merely discussing ideas and concepts over dinner.  They, of course, would also know how to keep their depopulation activities camouflaged and hidden from public scrutiny.   After all, they reason that only THEY know what is best for the planet.

Let’s look at the elite’s depopulation plan from a standpoint of logic and common sense.  Of course they realize that only a very small fraction of the world’s population (especially in the Western 1^st World nations) would eagerly and willingly step forward and volunteer that their lineage and bloodlines would be severed by means of a permanent sterilization “vaccination”.  It is obvious, therefore, that such a “sterilization vaccine” would need to be disguised as something else, a truly global false-flag program fueled by their controlled media propaganda and fear-mongering.  I would submit that a worldwide faux “influenza pandemic” would be an absolutely perfect cover.

Prior to the year 1998, the available depopulation tools that could be utilized by such “global elitists” were fairly limited; diseases, famine, wars and even natural disasters could each be developed and actually implemented by a designed plan. These depopulation tools are rather messy, however, and often hard to completely control. However, thanks to the work of Dr. Richard A. Fayrer –Hosken at the University of Georgia, a new and completely effective depopulation tool is now available – indeed, a simple little VACCINE SHOT can today cause permanent sterility.   (See Addendum 3 attached for the international patent of this “immunosterilization vaccine”.)

Fayrer-Hosken’s invention has been successfully tested and found to be effective on all mammals, including the African elephant, although the potential long-term side effects are still being compiled.  What exactly is the active ingredients of this sterilization vaccine?  Primarily the sterilization vaccine contains antigens from PORCINE (pig) glyco-proteins (viruses are a form of glyco-proteins) bonded with a powerful oil-in-water “adjuvant” called squalene.   (See addendum 3).

Is it just a coincidence that Novartis’ master patent for the “swine flu” vaccine utilizes swine (porcine) glycol-proteins bonded with a powerful oil-in-water “adjuvant” called squalene?

Is it just a coincidence that Novartis’ “swine flu” vaccine product information circular, section 8.1, includes this warning paragraph: “Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with this —[vaccine].  It is also not known whether the vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman, OR CAN AFFECT REPRODUCTION CAPACITY.” (Emphasis added.)

It would also seem highly logical that a sterilization vaccine disguised as a pandemic influenza vaccine would require a complete blanket shield against liability lawsuits and litigation as well – for such claims would undoubtedly number in the hundreds of millions.  (Oops, sorry the vaccine made you sterile Mrs. Jones – we had absolutely no idea, you see!)   Of course, such blanket immunity from lawsuits is exactly what has been given to the “swine flu” vaccine manufacturers and promoters by our corrupt federal government.

It is clear that the “swine flu” pandemic is no more serious than the common cold – but it is also increasingly clear that the VACCINE is the real danger.  If the squalene adjuvant cripples and even kills the victim in addition to making him/her permanently sterile, then I am confident that is perfectly ok with George Soros and his breed.  Make no mistake, however, the entire agenda behind this pandemic vaccine hype is very likely the covert “immunosterilization” of the human herd!

True Ott, PhD, ND

ADDENDUM #1

Billionaire Club Meets to Curb Population Growth

by John Harlow

Los Angeles

The Sunday Times

May 24, 2009

Source:  TimesOnLine Website

America’s richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat

SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included:

• David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty
• Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers
• Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York
• media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey

These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programs in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.

They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.

Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented.

“We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.

Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favorite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.

The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.

This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.

Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.

At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points.

“Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.

Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.

Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.

“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”

Why all the secrecy?

“They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said.

ADDENDUM #2

Monday, September 21, 2009

George Soros – Republic Enemy #1

Updated with the link for the streaming archive of The Awakening, tonight ~ Read about Soros, the man who is making the Marxofascist insurrection happen, with America being destroyed, in it’s path. And listen to the author of this piece. Jim O’Neill was a special guest on The Awakening, this Monday night, 9/21, in the second hour (10-11pm ET). Obama eligibility plaintiff, Markham Robinson (Barnett, et. al. v. Obama) was our guest for the first hour (9-10pm ET). Mr. Robinson explained why he fired Orly Taitz and how Gary Kreep has saved the case… so far.

by Jim O’Neill

“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros

“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and
anti-good.” —Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

It is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.

Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?

Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”

In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”

Sweetness & Light

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who
swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the
psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No.

Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”

In 1994 Soros crowed in “The New Republic” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.” (Source)

The website Greek national Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars. (Source)

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros’] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.” (Source)

Soros’ grasp, greed, gluttony have a global reach

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach. But what about America? Soros told Australia’s national newspaper “The Australian” “America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.

Ready to tighten your belts, America?

World financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

Stimulating. Have you found the job losses, house foreclosures, and incredible national debt—stimulating?  Me neither.

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil (yes, billion with a “b”), in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security.”

Do you get the feeling that American taxpayers are being treated like gullible suckers?

(By the way, if you want a short primer on Far Left economics—and a great cartoon from a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch—go to actor Michael Moriarty’s website).

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. This is their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all…who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of…George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day stop preying upon the world’s poor…that justice will be served.”

Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous….” (Source)

In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change—or more accurately deconstruct—the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.”

Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. I don’t have time to do the subject justice in this article, but FrontPage’s Jamie Glazov has an excellent interview with Richard Poe, which will fill you in on many of the facts.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros’] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government—a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”

The above quote was, of course, written before the Presidential Election. So was the following quote from a November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package….” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”

Any of this sound familiar?

Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton—Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the “Soros Convention” (so labelled by the late Robert Novak) in Philadelphia.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.

As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”

Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments
in social engineering.”

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.
Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”

As I’ve said before, America currently faces the greatest challenge to its existence as a free republic since the Civil War. And as we go, so goes the world.

So is Soros to blame for all of America’s woes?

Without Soros, would the Saul Alinsky Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes—but to much less of a degree.

The purpose of this article is to point out that without the financial skullduggery and Machiavellian manipulations of Soros, America would be a considerably safer, saner, and stabler place to live.

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America.

His conduct has been immoral, duplicitous, and traitorous. Stripping Soros of his U.S. citizenship, should be one of the first steps taken during the upcoming courtroom trials.

And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos:  “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago—it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.

Laus Deo.

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award. The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel.

ADDENDUM #3      http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=1999034825

Report in PDF (downloadable from SCRIBD):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22099927/Fertility-Impairing-Vaccine-and-Method-of-Use-Immunosterilization-WIPO-Study-FAYRER-HOSKEN-Richard-A

Excerpt:

“The vaccine is administered in a manner and an amount effective to cause the desired infertility in the mammalian subject. For example, to immunosterilize a dog or a cat, the vaccine is preferably administered in the form of a plurality of doses (typically about 1.0 mL for a dog, 0.5 mL for a cat), each dose containing zona pellucida glycoprotein, or an antigenic fragment thereof, in an amount of about 100 g to about 2 mg, more preferably about 200 ug to about 400 u. g. An immunostimulant such as STDCM is typically present in a per dose amount of about 50 Hg to about 5 mg, preferably in an amount of about 1 mg to about 3.5 mg, more preferably in an amount of about 2 mg to about 3 mg. The animal is given an initial dose, usually via intramuscular injection although subcutaneous injection can also be used. The initial injection is followed by two or more booster injections at two to four week intervals, although the boosters can be administered from about 9 days to about twelve months following the previous vaccination. The body’s immunological response to the vaccine at this dosing regimen appears to render the ovaries permanently inactive as a result of, for example, follicle disruption or destruction, as evidenced by immunocytochemical analysis and histological evaluation of the ovarian tissue of vaccinated subjects. Sterility is permanent and irreversible. Immunosterilization of carnivores in accordance with the present method typically does not cause abnormal estrus cycles or other significant undesirable side effects in the vaccinated subjects.”

IPC: A61K 39/00 (2006.01), C07K 14/705 (2006.01) Applicants:  THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC. [US/US]; Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center Athens, GA 30602-7411 (US) (All Except US).

FAYRER-HOSKEN, Richard, A. [US/US]; (US) (US Only). Inventor:FAYRER-HOSKEN, Richard, A.; (US). Agent:SANDBERG, Victoria, A.; Mueting, Raasch & Gebhardt P.O. Box 581415 Minneapolis, MN 55458-1415 (US). Priority Data:

Title:  FERTILITY IMPAIRING VACCINE AND METHOD OF USE

Abstract: A vaccine comprising an antigen derived from a zona pellucida glycoprotein is effective to impair fertility in animals, preferably carnivores. The vaccine can be used as an immunosterilant or an immunocontraceptive.

FERTILITY IMPAIRING VACCINE AND METHOD OF USE

This application claims the benefit of U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/070,375, filed January 2,1998, U. S. Provisional Application No. 60/071,406, filed January 15,1998, and U. S. Provisional Application No.

60/076,368, filed February 27,1998.

Background of the Invention Traditional methods of population control in dogs have been unsuccessful. Surgical spaying is a laborious procedure, requiring the initial induction of the animal, gas anesthesia during surgery, a surgical pack with suture materials and post-operative medications. Common surgical complications include problems associated with the procedure itself, allergic reactions to anesthetics or post-operative medications, and adverse local or systemic effects during the recovery period. Examples include ovarian remnant syndrome, where dogs continue to cycle despite being spayed, uterine infections, abdominal hemorrhage, and premature opening of the suture line. A substantial recovery period is typically needed even after an uncomplicated procedure.

Surgical spaying is also expensive, and pet owners are often unwilling to assume the costs.

Hormonal therapies have also been used to curb pet overpopulation. However these methods usually require daily administration of the drug, and they only result in temporary infertility. Furthermore, most protracted hormonal therapies have undesirable side effects such as uterine infections, mammary cancer, and diabetes.

Previous studies (e. g., C. Mahi-Brown et al., J. Exp. Zool., 222, 89-95 (1982)) have shown that fertility impairment in the female dog can be achieved by vaccinating with a preparation containing a glycoprotein associated with the mammalian egg, namely the pig zona pellucida (pZP). The vaccine contained a crude extract of porcine zona pellucida, obtained via collegenase digestion of ovarian material to remove follicular cells and an adjuvant, namely Freund’s Complete adjuvant, alum adjuvant, or CP-20,961 (C. Mahi-Brown et al., Biol. Reprod., 32,761-772 (1985)). Collegenase treatment of zona pellucida proteins is known to alter the proteins in a way that can be demonstrated immunocytochemically. Abnormal estrus cycles, characterized by constant or prolonged estrus, and other deleterious side effects, such as ovarian cyst formation, were found to be associated with the vaccinations (C. Mahi-Brown, Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. Microbiol., 18,94-103 (1988)), and were never satisfactorily explained.

A vaccine comprising porcine zona pellucida and an adjuvant comprising synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate has been successfully used to cause immunocontraception in horses (P. Willis et al., J. Equine Vet. Sci., 364- 370 (1994)) and elephants (R. F-H., Wildlife Soc. Bull., 25 (1): 18-21 (1997)).

Dunbar et al. (e. g., EP 599822, U. S. Pat. No. 5,637,300) have experimented with reproductive control in non-rodent mammals using a recombinant zona pellucida protein. Due to limitations imposed by recombinant DNA technology and available expression systems, however, the recombinant protein lacks the glycosylation pattern of the native glycoprotein.

In humane shelters population control of unwanted pets is currently achieved through euthanasia of the animals. In general, after capture, dogs are held for a period of one week. If they are not adopted, they are humanely destroyed.

There is, therefore, a demonstrated need for a safe, simple method for sterilizing animals, particularly cats and dogs, that is both permanent and relatively inexpensive.

Summary of the Invention The present invention provides a vaccine and a method for impairing fertility in an animal. The method for impairing fertility in the animal comprises administering to the animal a vaccine comprising substantially pure, nonrecombinant zona pellucida glycoprotein, or an antigenic fragment thereof.

The vaccine is administered in a manner and an amount effective to cause fertility impairment in the animal. When administered as an immunocontraceptive, the fertility impairment vaccine causes temporary, reversible infertility in the animal. When administered as an immunosterilant, the fertility impairing vaccine causes permanent, irreversible infertility in the animal. Preferably, the animal to which the vaccine is administered is a carnivore. Preferably, the carnivore is a dog or a cat; more preferably, the carnivore is a dog. The vaccine preferably does not cause abnormal estrus cycles in a vaccinated dog.

The fertility impairing vaccine of the invention preferably comprises porcine zona pellucida glycoprotein, and optionally includes an immunological adjuvant comprising an immunostimulant, preferably synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate (STDCM). Also optionally, the vaccine contains an oil, preferably squalene oil.

In a preferred embodiment, the fertility impairing vaccine is an immunosterilant vaccine. The immunosterilization method of the invention is far preferable to surgical sterilization and hormone regimens as a population control tool for domestic dogs and cats, and can further be used to control ferrel dog and cat populations, for example by development of a species-specific oral delivery vehicle.

Brief Description of the Drawings Figure 1 shows one version of the oocyte purification apparatus of the invention.

Figure 2 is a graph depicting serum anti-porcine zona pellucida antibody titers in experimental dogs (subjects 9727,9728,9729 and 9731) and clinical dogs (subjects 2-5) during the course of vaccination with a porcine zona pellucida (pZP) vaccine.

Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments The fertility impairing vaccine of the invention comprises an antigen comprising zona pellucida glycoprotein, preferably substantially pure zona pellucida glycoprotein, or an antigenic fragment thereof. Preferably, zona pellucida glycoprotein is a total porcine zona pellucida glycoprotein. A total zona pellucida glycoprotein preparation obtained from pig ovaries includes all three major heavily glycosylated porcine zona pellucida glycoproteins: pZPI, pZP3a and pZP3,. pZP3a and pZP3 P each have reported molecular weights of about 55 kD, and pZP1 has a reported molecular weight of about 82 kD. The amino acid sequences of these three glycoproteins are known (J. D. Harris et al., DNA Seq., 4,361-393 (1994)). Other reported pZP glycoproteins are believed to be degradation products of pZP 1.

Purity of the zona pellucida glycoprotein can be evaluated analytically using a combination or series of two-dimensional sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gels (SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, or SDS- PAGE) with silver staining, Coomassie Blue staining, and Western blot analysis, as described in the following Examples. Glycoproteins typically migrate electrophoretically in gels as broad smears rather than narrow bands, as a result of the variable levels of negative charge present in the constituent oligosaccharide chains. A “substantially pure” total zona pellucida glycoprotein preparation isolated from pig ovaries migrates as two distinct smears in the gel electrophoretic experiments (one smaller smear representing pZP 1, and one larger smear representing pZP3a and pZP3p), and shows immunological reactivity in Western blot analysis using a polyclonal antibody raised in rabbits to highly purified total porcine zona pellucida glycoprotein. In a substantially pure zona pellucida glycoprotein preparation used for fertility impairment, there are no detectable contaminating proteins. The absence of detectable contaminating proteins is determined by demonstrating that there are no proteins in the preparation that have electromigration patterns different from those exhibited by the zona pellucida glycoproteins as determined by two-dimensional SDS-PAGE (silver-stained) or Western blot analyses of two-dimensional SDS- PAGE gels. An antigenic fragment of a zona pellucida glycoprotein is a peptide fragment, preferably a glycosylated peptide fragment, that elicits an immune response characterized by detectable anti-pZP antibody levels in the subject using ELISA as described in Example II. The peptide fragment preferably contains more than seven amino acids, more preferably at least about 10 amino acids, most preferably at least about 20 amino acids.

The zona pellucida glycoprotein used in the present vaccine is preferably a naturally occurring glycoprotein or a chemically or enzymatically synthesized glycoprotein. The glycoprotein is preferably not a recombinant glycoprotein, but use of a recombinant glycoprotein in the present vaccine is not necessarily excluded in alternative embodiments of the invention.

The vaccine of the invention preferably additionally includes an immunological adjuvant to enhance the immunological response of the subject to the glycoprotein antigen. Examples of adjuvants include Freund’s Complete Adjuvant, Freund’s Incomplete Adjuvant, and an adjuvant comprising an immunostimulant such as synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate (STDCM) and an oil such as squalene oil (see P. Willis et al., J. Equine Vet. Sci., 14,364-370 (1994)). An adjuvant comprising synthetic trehalose dicorynemycolate, squalene oil, and a surfactant such as lecithin is preferred. Lecithin typically includes phosphatidyl choline.

In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil, in an amount of about 2.5% to about 15%, preferably about 8% to about 12%. In preparing the vaccine it is advantageous to combine a concentrated oily adjuvant composition with an aqueous solution of the antigen, pZP glycoprotein. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin (about 5% to about 15 % wt/vol, preferably about 12% wt/vol) and STDCM (preferably about 25 mg/mL to about 50 mg/mL) in squalene oil. The term % wt/vol means grams per 100 mL of liquid. The aqueous solution containing the isolated pZP glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80 (about 0.2% vol/vol to about 0.8% vol/vol, preferably about 0.4% vol/vol). See J. A. Rudbach et al.,”Ribi Adjuvants: Chemistry, Biology and Utility in Vaccines for Human and Veterinary Medicine,”in The Theorv and Practical Application of Adjuvants, D. E. S. Stewart-Tull, Ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (1995)).

Homogenization of the oily adjuvant concentrate with the aqueous pZP solution can be accomplished using any convenient means known in the art, such that the oil disperses within the aqueous solution to form an oil in water emulsion. Oil droplet sizes of about 200 nm or less are particularly preferred as they produce a more uniform and stable suspension. A particularly preferred vaccine comprises predetermined amounts of pZP and STDCM in an emulsion containing about 10% squalene oil and about 90% aqueous phase.

The invention further includes a method for administering a fertility impairing vaccine as described herein in a manner effective to cause impaired fertility in an animal, preferably a carnivore (i. e., a member of the order Carnivora). Preferably the carnivore is not a primate, and is a dog or a cat, more preferably a dog. Impairment of fertility in an animal in accordance with the invention can take the form of either immunocontraception and immunosteriliztion. Immunosterilization means permanent, irreversible infertility, in contrast to immunocontraception wherein infertility is temporary or transient, and reversible. Immunocontraception and immunosterilization are both dependent on the antibody titer level in the serum of the subject, but immunosterilization is typically the result of ovarian pathology caused by vaccine administration and high titers of anti-pZP antibodies, as evidenced by, for example, total destruction of the zona pellucida glycoproteins and/or influx of leukocytes into the follicles. Reducing the number of boosters leads to lower antibody titers which results in immunocontraception (i. e., infertility that is temporary and reversible) instead of immunosterilization.

The vaccine is administered in a manner and an amount effective to cause the desired infertility in the mammalian subject. For example, to immunosterilize a dog or a cat, the vaccine is preferably administered in the form of a plurality of doses (typically about 1.0 mL for a dog, 0.5 mL for a cat), each dose containing zona pellucida glycoprotein, or an antigenic fragment thereof, in an amount of about 100 g to about 2 mg, more preferably about 200 ug to about 400 u. g. An immunostimulant such as STDCM is typically present in a per dose amount of about 50 Hg to about 5 mg, preferably in an amount of about 1 mg to about 3.5 mg, more preferably in an amount of about 2 mg to about 3 mg. The animal is given an initial dose, usually via intramuscular injection although subcutaneous injection can also be used. The initial injection is followed by two or more booster injections at two to four week intervals, although the boosters can be administered from about 9 days to about twelve months following the previous vaccination. The body’s immunological response to the vaccine at this dosing regimen appears to render the ovaries permanently inactive as a result of, for example, follicle disruption or destruction, as evidenced by immunocytochemical analysis and histological evaluation of the ovarian tissue of vaccinated subjects. Sterility is permanent and irreversible. Immunosterilization of carnivores in accordance with the present method typically does not cause abnormal estrus cycles or other significant undesirable side effects in the vaccinated subjects.

When the vaccine is administered to a dog or a cat as described above, but with only one booster instead of two or more boosters, the vaccine typically results in immunocontraception (i. e., temporary or transient, reversible infertility) rather than immunosterilization.

EXAMPLES Advantages of the invention are illustrated by the following examples. However, the particular materials and amounts thereof recited in these examples, as well as other conditions and details, are to be interpreted to apply broadly in the art and should not be construed to unduly restrict or limit the invention in any way.

Example I. Isolation of Porcine Zona Pellucide and Extraction of pZP Glycoproteins Buffers. Saline buffer (40 L) was made by addition 4 L of the following solution: 0.9% NaCI, 0.01 M dibasic sodium phosphate, 0.01 M monobasic sodium phosphate, and 0.002 M sodium citrate dihydrate, pH 7.2, in triple distilled water, to 36 L of triple distilled water. Tris buffer (3L) was made by adding 484 g Tris base, 119 g ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 47 g sodium citrate dihydrate and 16 g sodium azide to 3L of triple distilled water, then adjusting the pH to 7.9. Tris detergent buffer (1L) was made by combining 2 mL of NP-40 (Cat. No. N-6507, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) with 998 mL Tris buffer.

Other materials. The oocyte purification apparatus (Fig. 1) consisted of three chambers. Each chamber consisted of a stainless steel wire mesh container (Home Depot) suspended inside a buffer container set on an orbital shaker (shown in Fig. 1) or a rotary washing system with an internal agitator. The pore size of the wire mesh used to form the wire mesh containers in the first, second, and third chambers was 1000 pm, 500 um, and 150 um, respectively. Tubing connecting the chambers allowed fluid transfer from the buffer space external to the wire mesh of one chamber to a collection or holding carboy, or, alternatively, to the inside of the next succeeding downstream wire mesh container in a continuous flow process, as shown in Fig. 1. Peristaltic pumps are used to effect fluid movement within the tubing between chambers (as shown in Fig. I) or between the chambers and any collection carboys used (not shown in Fig. 1).

Pig ovaries were obtained from pig slaughterhouses.

Zona pellucida isolation. Porcine ovaries (5-6 Ibs.) were twice ground through a commercial meat grinder (Hobart), and the homogenate was collected. The homogenate and grinder were rinsed with 4L of saline buffer, and the homogenate solution was placed in the wire mesh container of the first chamber of the purification apparatus. The three buffer containers of the purification apparatus were filled with saline buffer. The shakers were operated at an orbital shaker rotation speed of about 20 revolutions per minute during the oocyte purification process. Periods of rotary agitation were alternated with periods of fluid removal from the region surrounding the mesh container.

Filtered oocytes, together with a small amount of tissue, passed through the 1000 um mesh and were thus pumped from the buffer space of the first chamber into a collection carboy or into the wire mesh container in the second chamber. In purification procedures making use of a collection carboy, the filtered oocytes are subsequently pumped into the wire mesh container in the second chamber.

With rotary agitation and new saline buffer addition, the oocytes were then passed through the 500 um mesh of the wire mesh container of the second chamber while the fibrous tissue remained in the mesh container. The oocytes and saline buffer were then pumped from the buffer space of the second chamber into a collection carboy or directly into the 150 um wire mesh container in the third chamber. Rotary agitation was continued in the third chamber and the solution surrounding the wire mesh (containing the oocytes) was removed.

The solution containing the oocytes was then passed over a 75 um <BR> <BR> <BR> screen (13/4 inches or 2/inches in diameter). The oocytes were collected on the 75 um screen and were then backwashed into a 100 mL beaker using Tris buffer.

The 100 mL solution was divided into 2 x 50 mL vials and homogenized at 15,000 rpm for 3 to 5 minutes in a Powergen 700D (Fisher) homogenizer.

The zona fragments were then poured onto a 13/4 inches or 2 1/2 inches diameter, 0.040mm (401lu) filter screen and washed with Tris detergent buffer. The zona fragments were removed from the screen by backwashing with Tris detergent buffer into a small polypropylene beaker, then incubated at 4°C with constant mechanical stirring to dissociate any undesired proteins, such as albumin. The zona material is preferably handled in polypropylene or siliconized glass beakers to prevent adherence to surfaces which results in loss of the material.

After incubation and stirring, the zona fragments were again poured a 1 3/4 inch diameter, 0.040mm (40pm) filter screen and washed with Tris buffer to remove any protein contaminants. The zona fragments retained on the screen were collected by spooning or backwashing (using Tris buffer) into a small polypropylene beaker to a maximal volume of 25 mL. The beaker was covered and placed in a 75-76°C water bath and incubated for 20 minutes to solubilize the zona protein such that the temperature of the zona protein- containing solution was 73 1°C.

After solubilization, the mixture was centrifuged at 21,000 rpm for 25 minutes or until a pellet was observed at the base of the tube. The supernatant was collected, and protein concentration was estimated. The supernatant was aliquoted (3mg/vial), lyophilized, and stored under N2 gas in a desiccator at 4°C. Typically about 1.5 mg to 1.9 mg of highly purified pZP protein per pound of ovaries can be produced, amounting to about 10 mg on a daily basis. Previous techniques produced only about 200-300 g quantities over a two day period. It is anticipated that this harvesting technique of the present invention can be increased to produce even greater amounts.

Purity was demonstrated and confirme using two-dimensional sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis combined with Western blot analysis, silver staining, and, at times, Coomassie blue staining, using standard protocols. The preparation was tested for viral and bacterial contaminants at the Diagnostic Laboratory at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia.

Example II. Preparation of pZP Vaccine The vaccine was prepared by homogenizing a concentrated oily adjuvant concentrate with an aqueous antigen solution containing isolated pZP glycoprotein. The oily adjuvant concentrate contained a surfactant, lecithin, and an immunostimulant, synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate (SDTCM), in squalene oil. A typical adjuvant concentrate contained about 12% wt/vol (gram/100 mL) lecithin and about 25-50 mg/mL STDCM in squalene oil. The aqueous antigen solution contained the pZP glycoprotein preparation in saline or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and Tween 80. When prepared for use in combination with an adjuvant concentrate to yield the vaccine composition, the aqueous composition typically contained 0.4% (vol/vol) Tween 80 and an amount of pZP calculated to yield a dose of about 200 g to about 400 llg per vaccination. Vaccine doses for dogs were about 1 mL in volume.

Homogenizing was accomplished by combining adjuvant concentrate (to a final concentration of no greater than 10% vol/vol) with aqueous pZP solution and emulsifying using a Powerjam 700D homogenizer at 15,000 rpm for 6 minutes. The resulting emulsion is then homogenized with phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (containing 0.4% vol/vol Tween 80) at 20,000 for 8-12 minutes. The homogenization process resulted in a vaccine composition that is an oil-in-water emulsion or possibly a water-in-oil-in-water emulsion. While the inventors do not intend that the invention be bound by any particular scientific theory, it is believed that the STDCM, an amphiphilic glycolipid, partitions to the oil/water interfaces in the emulsion, and that the antigen is attracted to and associates with the STDCM at these interfaces.

Example III. Immunosterilization of Dogs using pZP Vaccine Vaccinations. Four experimental dogs were vaccinated, and an FDA approved clinical trial has begun in which privately owned dogs in Clark and Walton Counties, Georgia, have also been vaccinated. To date, 43 dogs (four experimental dogs and 39 privately owned dogs) have been through the series of injections and have had serum antibody levels determined.

Female dogs were vaccinated with 200 g of pZP per dose (I mL) in a vaccine adjuvanted with synthetic trehalose dicorynomycolate (STDCM, commercially available from RIBI Immunochem Co., Hamilton, MT) in squalene oil. The amount of STDCM per dose was about 2.5 mg. An adjuvant concentrate as described in Example II was provided by RIBI Immunochem Co., Hamilton, MT, and the vaccines were prepared as described in Example II. The dogs were vaccinated consecutive boosters (containing the same amount of pZP, 200 ug) administered at 30-day intervals. Under veterinary supervision, vaccinations were delivered to dogs intra-muscularly in the longissimus muscle (loin area), although subcutaneous vaccination is also acceptable. Follow up booster injections were administered on the contra-lateral side. No pain or adverse reactions were observed at the injection sites. In some cases boosters were administered subcutaneously with equivalent results.

Antibody titers. Blood was drawn from each dog weekly, and serum antibody titers were determined using an enzyme linked immunosorbant assay (ELISA). Adjacent wells of a microwell plate were coated with 2 u. g pZP, and incubated for 6 hours. The wells were then blocked with 5% bovine serum albumin (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) in TBST (Tris-buffered saline + 5% Tween-20) and incubated overnight. Wells were then loaded with the primary antibody (canine serum) in TBST at a 1: 500 and 1: 1,000 dilution and incubated for 4 hours. The wells were then washed and loaded with 50 ul of the secondary antibody (rabbit anti-dog IgG) and incubated for 2 hours. Color change was observed after the addition of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for 30 minutes and the reaction terminated by the addition of 3 M NaOH. The optical density was read at a 405-492 nm range on a Spectramax spectrophotometer.

The dogs pre-immune serum served as the negative controls.

The ELISA trials (Fig. 2) revealed that there was a similar antibody profile in all eight dogs (experimental and clinical) characterized by a significant rise in antibody titers between the first and second booster. Antibody levels rose slightly after the initial vaccination and then significantly (p<0.05) after the first and second boosters. The rise in titer was the greatest in the clinical trial dogs (trials 2-5). These data clearly show that the there is a significant immune response to the pZP vaccine and synthetic adjuvant.

Immunochemical and histochemical studies. The nature and extent of the immune response was investigated by performing histological and immunohistochemical studies on ovarian sections of the experimental dogs.

Histological evaluation revealed that all tertiary follicles were significantly invaded by neutrophils. In these follicles all of the oocyte-granulosa cell complexes had been disrupted, and there were virtually no immunoreactive canine zona pellucida glycoproteins remaining in the ovary. Primary and secondary oocytes showed vacuolization and neutrophil infiltration.

The immunological response was further investigated by treating formalin fixed, paraffin embedded ovarian sections with anti-pZP antibodies raised in rabbits against highly purified pZP, and incubating for 1 hour. The sections were then treated with biotin-conjugated anti-rabbit IgG (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO), followed by avidin-conjugated horseradish peroxidase (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO). Finally, the sections were stained with diaminobenzidine and counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin. In the vaccinated dogs, the integrity of all ovarian follicles was found to have been breached, and no immunodetectable zona material was present on the ovarian sections. In contrast, normal dog ovaries have distinct oocytes with a zona pellucida. These results suggest that canine sterility was achieved as a result of destruction of all ovarian follicles.

None of the vaccinated dogs have shown any abnormal estrus cycles. Moreover, the vaccine is effective in pre-pubertal dogs, suggesting that if dogs are sterilized before their first estrus, their chances of developing mammary cancer or uterine infections are virtually zero.

Modi is not the first one to have enforced prohibition, all in the name of Gandhi, and failed. He won’t be the last. That’s what Dharker says. And what “Gandhian values,” he asks-

As it happens, soon after Independence, out of a twisted sense of obligation to the Mahatma, several Indian states (Maharashtra and the then Madras state among others) did try to enforce prohibition. They tried once, they tried twice, they tried yet again. But each attempt ended in dismal failure, just as such attempts have failed all over the world including Britain and the US. They failed because drinking is a private activity and, more importantly, most people do not believe that drinking in moderation is either morally reprehensible or physically debilitating. In fact, the effects of prohibition have generally been damaging, driving the activity underground and resulting in the deaths of many people.

There is, therefore, no rational or moral reason for Gujarat to continue with its prohibition policy. The real reason is elsewhere. In the 50 years or so that the policy has been in force, a parallel underground liquor distribution network has grown and flourished in the state. Its beneficiaries are politicians, bureaucrats and the police. In fact, in Gujarat, they will tell you about the close proximity of several political leaders with the big bootleggers and the massive pay-backs involved. If the Gujarat government itself estimates the excise loss from liquor at Rs 3,000 crore per year, you can guess the size of the illegal trade. The cheaper liquors called potli (pouch) made of fermented jaggery or desi (country) made from fermented fruit are locally produced, but Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) is smuggled in with impunity from the North (Rajasthan), the East (Madhya Pradesh), the South (Maharashtra) and Daman and Diu. The only reason there is no smuggling from the West is that there’s only the Arabian Sea there.

What are the Gandhian moral values being upheld here?

In the Mallya vs. Gujarat Government verbal duel, the minister who often appears on television, Vyas, says this-

“This is an internal matter of the Gujarat government and Mr Mallya should avoid making suggestions on what should be done in Gujarat,” Vyas told reporters in Gandhinagar.

Citing incidents of similar tragedies of recent months in several states that do not impose Prohibition, specifically Kerala, Karnataka, Delhi and Maharashtra, insisted Prohibition had existed in Mahatma Gandhi’s land since the state’s birth in 1960 and will remain.

“Unilateral assessment that Prohibition policy was responsible for the tragedy from the largest producer of liquor who has vested interest in the business is unfortunate and coming at the wrong time,”

He’s right as well. One cannot forget taxes, and regulation. They should be blamed too. And India’s “justice” system where cases drag on for hundreds of years. Apply the civil law of tort, not the criminal law, Sauvik says-

News has it that the purveyor of the poisonous hooch has been charged with homicide. Yet, the first law that should apply is Tort: he must pay restitution for the damages he has inflicted upon others. This should be under civil, not criminal law, so judgement should be delivered “on the preponderance of evidence,” not the “beyond reasonable doubt” required for criminal cases. Thus, restitution can be delivered to the victims through quick legal action; and that too, without calling for the police.

—

O&M writes about Paul Ehrlich, the man who always predicts an approaching doomsday. The day has never come, he has been proved wrong time and again, but he just doesn’t give up-

Paul Ehrlich, author (with Anne Ehrlich) of The Population Bomb (1968), one of the biggest, um, bombs of the last several decades, is unrepentant. Ehrlich’s main thesis was that the world was running out of natural resources, and population growth was expanding exponentially, leading to an inevitable decline in living standards. Needless to say, none of the three predictions came true, and Bomb became one of those books that cultural anthropologists study for its train-wreck value. Now, apparently for laughs, the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development has invited the Ehrlichs to write “The Population Bomb Revisited” for a forthcoming symposium.

This is of interest because the Indian government doesn’t believe that population is a resource either. Especially Azad.

—

Even more serious is the growth in green fascism. The Gorean mentality is spreading. People are afraid of being perceived as committing “treason against the planet” (Krugman). For an example, read K.M’s post. On the other subject he deals with, an article on the views that US “science czar” John Holdren held in a book co-authored by the usual suspects, the Ehrlichs, he says-

The man is a monster. He is in power and he has merely substituted overpopulation with climate change. Worse, the president who appointed him was elected with a comfortable majority. It has come to this. Can the situation still be reversed peacefully? I doubt it.

I consider Holdren’s and the Ehrlichs’ views to be monstrous. However I wanted to check the veracity of the quotes. Google books does not offer a preview of the 1977 edition of Ecoscience. Questia does allow a brief preview, and a text search. Read the preface carefully-

The realization has dawned that seemingly disparate events in the economic, environmental, and political spheres are interconnected. That civilization has entered a period of grave crisis is now doubted only by those afflicted with incurable Micawberism; everyone who is alertable is alerted.

But being alert to the existence of a crisis is not enough if a rational response to it is to be generated. One must also thoroughly understand the elements of the crisis and how they interact. The present book, based on Population, Resources, Environment, is an attempt to provide a more thorough, up-to-date understanding of the population-resource-environment predicament and to discuss strategies for dealing with it. In format and emphasis it is quite different from the earlier book.

[...]

We have tried throughout the book to state clearly where we stand on various matters of controversy. Our apprehension about the course of humanity expressed in Population, Resources, Environment and Human Ecology has deepened; if there is another edition of Ecoscience, we hope that events will then permit a more optimistic evaluation.

I queried Questia with about ten separate quotations supplied by the article. And nearly everyone of them was on the page cited by the article. From the preface, and the material surrounding the quotations, it is clear that they are not being “taken out of context.”

The only ones that can write about how to forcibly sterilize people, how to force people to either bear children, or abort them depending on the needs of society, who declare that since “neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce,” one must not assume such a right—all this in a clinical manner—are the ones who would have no problems if some one does engage in such activities.

“Every environmental problem is ultimately a population problem. If the world’s population were only 100 million, we would be hard-pressed to generate enough waste to overwhelm nature’s cleanup systems. Population experts agree that the best way to limit population is to educate women and raise the standard of living generally in developing countries. But that strategy cannot possibly happen quickly enough to put a dent in the population on any useful timescale. The U.N. projects that the planet will have to sustain another 2.6 billion people by 2050. But even at the current population level of 6.5 billion, we’re using up resources at an unsustainable rate. There is no way to reduce the population significantly without trampling egregiously on individual rights (as China has done with its one-child policy), encouraging mass suicide, or worse. None of those proposals seems preferable to focusing directly on less wasteful use of resources.”

===== BUT THAT WON’T WORK — attempting to solve the problem through ‘less wasteful use of resources’ is an absurd dream; we’ll never be able to un-waste ourselves out of our mess even with today’s population, much less the future’s. Seems to me, we can either (a) Restrict human reproduction, starting as soon as possible, until we reach a sustainable number of people on this planet, or (b) Wait for our inevitable die-off, when we take with us most of our fellow mammals and everything else but bugs and slugs.

Alternative (a) will be unpleasant and repressive, but no one need be physically hurt.

Alternative (b) will bring millions (at least) of agonizing deaths and, probably, devastating resource wars as well. And even then, we will leave a ruined earth.

What will it be, brother?

]]> http://ozfire.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/climate-change-all-it-needs-is-you/ Sat, 14 Feb 2009 04:52:08 +0000 ozfire http://ozfire.wordpress.com/2009/02/14/climate-change-all-it-needs-is-you/ Such was the tourist advertising campaign by our Victorian State Government some years ago.

Climate Change wasn’t even thought about.  “Eat, Drink and Be Merry” was our motto.

Human society, and big cars, would go on forever.  Sixth Extinction, Peak Oil, Ozone Layer, Water Scarcity, El Nino, were merely ideas of a few nerdy underworked types.

Some ideas, such as the urgency to curb population growth, highlighted by Paul R Ehrlich in 1968,  and the saturation of  all life by electromagnetic radiation (EMR), eg 1, 2, are still kept off the radar.  This poor Earth desperately needs people who care AND think AND are prepared to tosee through PR trickery.CARE AND THINK AND  CAN SEE THROUGH THE FOGS OF !

In the immediate past, bigger was better and economic growth pointed straight to infinity.  (Even today, Supply graphs in economics assume the Earth will take unlimited pollution from companies /industries.)

“I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2˚C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4˚C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. … [T]he cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. …” [Q: It’s a depressing outlook.] “Not necessarily. I don’t think 9 billion is better than 1 billion.”

<END>

“In our rush to modernize, did we throw the baby out with the bathwater?” asks the little-seen 2007 documentary Demographic Winter: the Decline of the Human Family.

The documentary theorizes that declining fertility (among whites) in the West will lead the entire world into a spiral of economic, social and moral collapse. It deploys science to ensure the viewer that its dire warning is not to be dismissed: pie charts, graphs, statistics, professors. There are 21 experts interviewed in the film, all of whom have impressive résumés, and some of whom seem so disturbed by the message they are forced to impart that they can barely look directly at the camera. Interestingly, 76% of the experts were male, and 81% (or more, I erred on the side of caution when I wasn’t sure) were white.

I just watched the documentary today, after long anticipation, and I want to break down what I saw, as the thinking behind this film is strongly influencing a certain strain of political and social thought these days. Even someone as prominent as Mitt Romney, in his concession speech, discussed the Demographic Disaster. It’s popping up on right-leaning media sources and blogs. It’s used to justify a whole slew of discriminatory practices and laws. And it’s dressed in the clothing of SCIENCE.

The basic argument sketched by the experts and the narrator is as follows:

If we experience a population decline, then progressive causes rooted in the 70s belief of an impending “population bomb” are invalid, possibly harmful, and need to be reversed. We are experiencing a population decline. Therefore, progressive causes must be reversed.

The harmful “progressive causes” implicated are listed only as women’s rights, gay rights, and environmentalism. Of course, we can spot a case of false premise in these neat argument… are these three causes really invalid in the event of a population decline? Of course not. Are these three causes the sole result of concerns of over-population? No. Are these three causes homogeneous enough with each other and internally within themselves to be dismissed with a single simple argument? Nope.

Here are five causes of fertility decline, according to the film:
1. Women Working
2. Prosperity
3. Sexual Revolution
4. Divorce Revolution (their term)
5. Inaccurate Assumptions about the “population bomb”

And here are the three possible solutions they suggest:
1. Providing economic incentives to have more children
2. The “Swedish Model”: a strong welfare state
3. Patriarchy (their word, not mine)

Their analysis of these:
1. Tried in Russia and failed.
2. Tried in Sweden and failed.
3. THE ONLY SOLUTION THAT WORKS. Evidence and examples of countries succeeding under Patriarchy are not provided, probably because the obvious correctness of this solution precludes the usual formality of scientific inquiry. Comparative studies of societies outside of the West with patriarchal and non-patriarchal structures are not mentioned once.

We are taught that children grow up stupid and criminal unless raised by both biological parents who cannot divorce, who married young, who are heterosexual, who are white (this is not stated explicitly, but is implied), who were abstinent until marriage, who do not use birth control, who are strongly religious, and preferably with a stay-at-home wife. “Married biological parents is the Gold Standard,” says one expert.

On the flip side, sex before marriage, having children out of wedlock, gays having rights, women in careers, divorce, non-religiousness, birth control, single-parent households, belief in Darwin’s theories, and late marriage are all listed as indicators of an unhealthy society where families are weakening and which may soon become extinct. One expert even suggests that non-religious people will go extinct first, as religious families have disproportionately more children.

This is of course all said very carefully. Nothing directly anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom of religion, or anti-POC is stated out loud. But I am interested in looking further into the backgrounds of the experts and funders in order to figure out who is behind this theory.

Below is a list of the experts and the funders. If readers here want look up their credentials and affiliations and post information in the comments, please do! In a later post I want to write more about who was chosen to appear in this documentary. They are not listed here for purposes of harassment, however. No hate mail!

THE EXPERTS

Harry S. Dent, Harvard MBA
Norval Glenn PhD, Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
Nicholas Eberstadt PhD Harvard, American Enterprise Institute
Alan Viard PhD Harvard Economics, American Enterprise Institute
Lola Velarde PhD, President of European Network Institute for Family Policies
Viktor Medkov PhD, Professor of Sociology, Lomonossov Moscow State University, Russia
David Popenoe PhD, Professor of Sociology Rutgers University
Steve Nock PhD, Professor of Sociology & Director of Marriage Matters Project, University of Virginia
Bradford Wilcox PhD, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia
Kay Hymowitz, Manhattan Institute fellow
Linda Waite PhD, Professor of Urban Sociology, University of Chicago
Gary Becker PhD, Nobel Prize in Economics 1992, University of Chicago
Maria Sophia Aguirre PhD, Associate Professor of Business, Catholic University of America
Alban d’Entremont PhD, Professor of Economics, University of Navarra, Spain
Mark Regnerus PhD, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin
Robert Michael PhD, Professor of Public Policy, University of Chicago
Dr. Jianguo Liu, Director of Sustainability, Michigan State University
Patrick Fagan, Psychologist, Family Research Council
Phil Longman, New America Foundation Fellow
Alan Tapper PhD, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Edith Cowan University, Australia
Inese Slesere, Latvia Member of Parliament

THE FUNDERS

Barry McLerran
Rick Stout
Steven Smoot
Family First Foundation
GFC Foundation
Audience Alliance Motion Picture Foundation

More on this topic in the future! Discuss! Respect the human dignity of everyone when doing so!

In this series:
Part 1 on my initial reactions to the documentary Demographic Winter
Part 2 digs deeper into the meaning of the film
Part 3 looks at who is in and behind the film
Part 4 examines partisan media coverage of DW

See what happens when the “Population Bomb” turns into an unprecedented “Economic Bust” that not only causes the greatest depression in history, but destroys the only social mechanism that holds out any hope of ever fixing the problem.

Watch the trailer. Explore the website 

Submitted by Beetle Blogger 

The Decline of the Human Family

How the road to self fulfillment led us to the perfect storm

From Rick Stout’s Demographic Winter

Of all of the causes we have in the world today, many of which particularly capture the time and space of the media and academia, it is singularly peculiar that the disintegration of an institution as important as the human family should want for attention.  Perhaps it is because the family is made up of individual people, and we have become a society obsessed with a focus on the self.  Be that as it may, we have ignored this institution to our great detriment.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights got it right when it declared that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society”.  Implicit in this inclusion in an international founding document declaring universal human rights, is the recognition that stable society’s very survival rests on the strength of this fundamental group unit.

The years have not been kind to this most important institution – the family, particularly the last four decades.  Worldwide, families have broken down at a historically unprecedented pace.  There are certainly records of how now-extinct societies have experienced similar declines before their demise, but what we now face is unique in that it has a global spread.  This has ominous portent.

The family’s importance to basic social structures has perhaps been more explored and discussed than its importance to other aspects of our world, and certainly deserves continued study.  What is probably less obvious, and therefore less examined, is the family’s impact on such things as the rule of law, democratic structures, societal and even technological advancement, education, successful commerce and economic structures.  Society depends on these in order to remain stable and the family’s impact on them is profound.

When the great social experiments of the 1960’s were launched, and when concern over a “population bomb” loomed large, we did not have the social science and economic studies we have available to us today.  So the world embarked unknowingly on a self-destructive course.

Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family seeks to reawaken society to the importance of the stable, intact family, and engender a discussion and greater focus in the media, in academia, in the halls of policy makers, in religious circles, in the committees of civil society and in households around the world.  Our hope is that all of these circles will bring to bear on the problems facing the family the tremendous contributions each can uniquely make.  In this way, we hope to avert the storm that is now most surely coming on.

See more:  Rick Stout’s Demographic Winter Documentary

The continual and extending sexualisation of free-people’s children was written about earlier on here. Now, Trooper has made the connection with earlier but still fairly modern fascist Utopian literature on the subject, which could give us reasons why our children are all being sexualised by the State.

This may or may not have anything to do with why I, running this blog, now find it useful to outreach previously un-libertarianised groups in British society and elsewhere, such as young British men.

There’s nothing wrong with sex. I even agree with the horrible Paul Ehrlich that it’s nice. It is the reward, programmed into the operation of our bodies, and contrived from first principles for us by our genes, for us being successfully able to pass them on before we fry. They (our genes) are toast, otherwise. Er, that’s why it’s nice. Otherwise we wouldn’t be programmed to spend time working out obessively how to do it with someone.

But what he forgets is that the tragedy of civilisation, language, morality and goodness versus evil has crept into the woodwork. Matter has at last reached the state of consciousness where it contemplates its own existence, its origin, its possible fate, and what it ought to do in the meantime.

,

Thank God I don't yet look like that...He's had too much sex, clearly. (Terrible hands.)

“This article shows a bland acquiescence to the presence on this planet of billions of voracious members of a single species — ours. It is time to engage in a debate as to a reasonable and responsible target level of human population, plus or minus a hundred million or so, and the best scientific and ethical ways of achieving that population level. 50 billion? Way too many. Zero? Too few. Somewhere between there should be a point we could all agree on, plus or minus a few hundred million.” – Terence Kuch

<END>

I love your counter arguments.

I still disagree with all of them.

Having been a student of population issues since I was a teenager (as I said in an earlier post, I was a geek), I am a big follower of Thomas Robert Malthus and Paul R. Erhlich, so I would like to challenge the arguments for overpopulation (or the argument that we just cannot do it). I am also a Christian (so I am always taking on my “brothers” in this discussion). But, I consider myself a realistic Christian. I only want the best for people under realistic conditions. I would just say that both scientists above were off by 30 years or so, but they are right all the same.

First of all, where I stand, overpopulation comes down to a matter of choices?

What do I mean by choices?

Well, okay, take all your arguments, that we can support more people, for the moment, but why?

Why do we want to be so crowded?

Why do we want to have billions at or below the poverty line?

Why do we constantly want to seek and develop technology to help stay just a foot ahead or even with population growth (most of this technology is or has been very damaging to our environment)?

Why do we want to eliminate entire ecosystems and species of animals?

Of course the first answer is that we cannot tell people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, or how many children they can have. Well, yes, I agree with that (I hate how big and controlling our government has gotten). But, being a student of the Constitution, one of the aspects other than the pursuit of happiness is the responsibilities of the citizens. What the citizens return to the state for their security and their freedoms to pursue their dreams.  It is each citizens’ obligation to others to plan their families. As I have began to realize as I work harder and earn more, I get taxed a lot more. The person, regardless of income, has a large family (I consider anything over two kids this), who pays for everything? Well, yes, if the person is making good money, you can say they are? But, are they really? No, lets take public schools. Who pays for public schools? Well, I will tell you that most people by themselves cannot afford to pay for their child’s public school bill on top of everything else. But, people don’t see it that way.

There are also the issues of road use, free space, land use, etc…Additionally, we now have crowded public schools, less learning as discipline declines. I know many teachers and they tell me that the issue is with the parents (my Father was a principle and said the same to me all the time), they want kids because of the image, but beyond that, they dump them off on the schools for everything. So, it would be nice that every large family home schooled, and truly devoted their lives to their children. But even if they did, they are still a burden to their fellow citizens for the reasons I cite above.

The other counter argument to overpopulation has always been the care and funding for the older generations. It is a good one, but one that again goes to civic obligation of my fellow citizens. First of all, It is my responsibility to ensure I can care for myself, in old age, where ever. It is not the government’s, as many people have been brain washed into believing.

We must be held responsible for our choices. A year ago, I had both heart surgery and got diagnosed with Gout right after that. For weeks in September and October I was bedridden with my wife caring for me constantly. When I found out I had Gout in late September, I asked myself, this is a warning. I have two choices, I can continue to live as I am and get worse, or I can change my lifestyle (no drinking, red meat, get back to constant exercise, etc…, which applied to my heart as well). I chose the latter. I am now 29 pounds lighter and feeling great. But, I also have to think about being dependent on others, and them having to take care of me. I don’t want that. This is why I am against national health insurance as well. Why should you and I pay for the fat ass who sits on the couch after work and eats away? Who is going to pay for that person’s medical bill? When they are older? People are relying too much on our government for everything. I also saw what the great free medical care did to the military, it indirectly encouraged larger families. When people don’t directly pay for their actions, well they tend to act in certain ways.

Second, another reason our culture (politicians) doesn’t want to talk about the issue of overpopulation, is for two reasons, one we are a culture that measures success on short term growth. More people, more cheap labor and more consumers (why have the government always looked the other way at illegal immigration? Until recently when local areas cannot afford them anymore, and people are starting to get stressed by crowded conditions).  This in turn means constant growth somewhere, housing, Wal-Mart sales, whatever. I contend that a viable, smart run economy does not need a growing population to be successful. Businesses must be innovative to be successful in a culture of stable non-growing population.

Second, if you cannot be responsible yourself, then how can you tell others to be so? Meaning, the large percentage of our politicians today, our “leaders” are former business men and or lawyers. They were measured by today’s short term definition of success, they made money and they have a lot of stuff, sometimes under questionable conditions. But, all the same, they were selected based upon a definition that has little if nothing to do with leadership. Politicians are survivors, and they tell the people what they want to hear. Overpopulation, the discussion of it, can get into some sticky areas with religious and special interest groups who have misinterpreted the Bible’s “go forth and bear fruit.” But, all the same, they want to avoid arguments and confrontation (got to know your subject as well, and most of our politicians will not look beyond their morning EXSUM to do so).

By the way, I took on two children when I got married, and that was my obligation. I did not want my own children because I see how the world is going.

Third, we are now at the most critical stage of resources, the main two: energy and water. Everything else depends on them. One of my constant contentions is that overpopulation is outstripping the ability to support it. There has been no pause time. Our nation needs this badly, a leveling off of the population so we can fix our infrastructure, damaged ecosystems, slow down sprawl, etc…The result of what is occurring to us today, is a result of the fact that overpopulation is stripping our ability to support it. Overpopulation has now outstripped the ability of water to support us. What is the Middle East really in conflict over? Water. Look at our far west, mega cities built upon nothing starting to have water wars. Hell, it is happening to my home town of Chattanooga, Tennessee who have oversized Atlanta breathing down their neck to move the border with Georgia a mile north so they can claim some of the Tennessee River.

I will not even go into the pollution issues. China, hell they are having problems keeping the air clean around the Olympics. I remember someone a year ago arguing with me that the green revolution in food production has allowed us and will allow us to keep abreast of population growth. Okay, say it does. How do you get the food there? What are the consequences of the petro based runoff of fertilizers? Now, you are in competition with petroleum use for cars?

My question to myself, ”but why do we have to go through all this?”

Why cannot we level or balance our population, both as a nation and as a globe, so people have a better quality of life, so children can grow up healthy and better educated. Where is the mandate that we must have 9 billion people? 10 billion? 12 billion? There is no sound reason to support this. The only argument for is individual choice. But at what cost? Our globe cannot support it. The cultures cannot support it, and my prediction is that we will soon reach the breaking point, which is going to lead to chaos and anarchy. We are creating an entire new class of people, the underclass-criminal and warfighting groups composed of deposed men and women that cannot go anywhere else, but because of our unrealistic views of population, we are to blame.

This is where overpopulation becomes a big national security issue.

When anyone argues with pro overpopulation, I always end up asking them,

“Now, just be honest with me on this one, are you willing to give up, lower, your standard of living to take on more people?”

Everyone that answers, says “no.”

The rest just ignore the question.

Second, I will ask, “do you like dealing with congestion, constant lines, overcrowded parks, waterways, etc…?

They all say “no” as well. I say, well we have already got there, and it is only going to get worse.

My solution, is using the positive, a world with a manageable population (2-4 billion), in that our society has the moral courage to talk this issue in public instead of it being a forbidden or shameful subject-”you must be a Nazi or racist if you believe that.” No, I just want a better life for everyone that is here.

Thanks for your time.

Don

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No
Derivative Works 3.0 License.

–Paul Ehrlick, The Population Bomb (1968)

Try this one on for an environmental doomsday scenario: a disaster of epic proportions is threatening Earth. It is man made in nature. In ten years–ten years!–life as we know it will be radically changed for the worst. And if mankind doesn’t do something right now, it will soon be too late.

Oh, and how do we know that the disaster is big, bad and scary?

A scientific consensus has developed which supports it. Scientists are scared, so everyone else better be prepared to hunker down for doom, too.

Global warming? Nope.

Try “the population explosion”. The year was 1968 and the World Wide Web was still over 20 years away in the future. That’s when Paul Ehrlich released his best-seller, “The Population Bomb”, and seemingly overnight, population control was all the rage.

Americans were peppered with stories of global doom, in a world stripped of food and resources by an exploding, out-of-control population.

Then, as now, the prescription was more government control and regulation.

Be responsible! Quit having children! Better yet: put the government in charge of how many children a woman can have.

The Population Bomb (1968) is a book written by Paul R. Ehrlich. A best-selling work, it predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the “population explosion”. The book predicted that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death”, that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.

Ehrlich wanted government action and he wanted it now–before the earth reached the point of no-return. As with most environmentalist morality tales, the instrument of Mother Earth’s destruction would be humans living their lives.

To radical environmentalists, or socialists masquerading as environmentalists, it’s always the same equation: Humans are the root of all evil.

The Population Bomb became one of the best-selling environmental books of all time. Its main message was that continued population growth would place tremendous stress on natural resources and the environment. He predicted that, as a result, society would face war, famine, pestilence, and general calamity. Ehrlich asserted that only drastic governmental measures could curtail the impending disaster. He suggested a national Department of Population and Environment to police population growth and, in some instances, order mandatory sterilization. He expressed strong opposition to the antiabortion doctrines of the Catholic Church and the profit motive and aggressive consumption of the free enterprise economic system.

National Department of Population? A population czar? Mandatory, government measures? Radical government takeover of what had previously been private decisions?

Beginning to sound familiar?

It should–if the reader has been following the suggestions of the global warming crowd.

Ehrlich and his supporters insist that his predictions came true, but that the effects of his predictions go largely unnoticed because world food production exploded faster than the population.

That spin is partially true: Norman Borlaug’s “Green Revolution” in the 1960s did push food per capita to the highest levels in the history of mankind. But what Ehrlich and the rest of his scientific consensus don’t say is that birth rates in much of the world have fallen off dramatically.

Birth rates have fallen so far so fast that parts of the world, particularly Europe and Japan are experiencing “baby busts” that no country has ever recovered from previously.

Today about half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility. That is, births are not equaling deaths and migration, so the country will lose population in the future.

Want to read more? “Enviro Horror Stories: Before Global Warming, There was The Population Bomb” at DBKP.com.

by Mondoreb
images:
* DBKP
* Hoover Institute
* telegraph
Sources:
* Enviro Horror Stories: Before Global Warming, There was The Population Bomb


DBKP/Death by 1000 Papercuts
Also posted at DBKP at Blogger.

Paul R. Ehrlich lecturing at Berkeley California on April 8, 2008. I was looking forward to this lecture because Paul Ehrlich has been a hero of mine for many years. He is one of the founding fathers of the ecology movement and the creator of the Zero Population Growth movement. He originally came to prominence when he published an article in the New Scientist in December 1967 about the coming world hunger and then a book The Population Bomb which I read soon after publication.

My blogs of the last couple of months have been greatly influenced by his concerns and so I was hoping that he would have pursued his original ideas further and would have presented to us some new earth-shaking revelations such as the 1967 article. I was gravely disappointed! There was nothing new, nothing challenging and nothing in the way of new directions which would impact the coming world disaster in any positive meaningful way. Because my personal ideas on these population and survival-of-humanity subjects are rather grim I was hoping he would have something new to offer. A new possibility of bringing the coming disaster under control. Nothing! He many times blamed the whole problem on the politicians and ridiculed them over and over. And yet there was nothing new in his message to present to them for their consideration. His job as a prominent and well paid scientist is to explore new ideas and present them to the public, but there was nothing new. He has a highly visible pulpit but he is using it in such a way that distracts his audience away from even searching for workable new answers. The sophisticated looking Berkeley audience loved his callous jokes sprinkled with needless obscenities. It was like watching The Daily Show, or the Colbert Report on the Comedy Channel. But this wasn’t a comedy venue. Let me say again, I didn’t laugh much and I was disappointed!

In the discussion afterwards, which lasted for well over an hour, I said before a rather distinguished circle of faculty people that gathered—since there are twice as many people now as there were when Ehrlich started his Zero Population Growth movement that his efforts were a total failure. Perhaps it was worse than a failure because it created the false sense that something significant was being done—when it wasn’t. Things are being done of course but since they are not bringing the problem under control, or even starting to bring it under control or even suggesting that they might be trying to write legislation that might bring it under control, that they are in fact counterproductive. Those people out in the field promoting contraception, women’s rights and responsibilities are the real heroes. Ehrlich only spoke these words and there was no leadership in his position. In fact he said he would rather be chasing butterflies.

One complaint I mentioned was that the population that was most compliant to his message were college educated people and therefore this most intelligent part of our population is the very one that isn’t reproducing and the lest informed and therefore least compliant portion of the population is reproducing. As a biologist he should realize that it is this kind of positive feedback loop that has major consequences after a few generations. So, in an effort to ease the situation he has, in fact, set up the social-biological-feedback conditions which make it worse. It is a tragedy of the commons sort of problem where the most cooperative and compliant to some externally imposed rules are the ones who get exterminated in the end. He pilloried Americans for being such wasteful consumers but my experience is that many of them are making a real effort to cut back and the foreign borns who come to this country immediately purchase the biggest car they can afford and start filling it with kids.

I have been having a number of discussions regarding Global Warming with someone who I very much wish could see past their conservative politics and actually appreciate the considerable scientific evidence. Personally I think he disagrees with the policy recommendations that many global climate change “believers” propose and therefore rejects the science of global climate change. Obviously this is backwards but nonetheless his position.

I searched for sometime to come up with a good way to explain why I personally accept global climate change. He has put forth a number of different reasons why global warming isn’t real (Milankovitch cycles, delayed CO2 forcing) but there are a few statements that I think are the most common and the most credible accusations to the average Joe,

1. I’m (the Skeptigator) not a climatologist and therefore unqualified to make any reasonable judgment on my the validity of climate science, which is true.
2. He brings up Global Cooling and Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb as recent examples of science having it wrong and therefore what makes Global Climate change as a scientific position that much better than those.
3. His last allegation is that if you follow the money, those scientists who say global warming is real get funding, those who don’t are marginalized within the scientific community and therefore do not get the funding. This creates a disparity in the ability of believers finding evidence and deniers not being able to have the resources to find evidence.

As I have time and as I become confident that my rebuttals are logically sound and easily explained to a non-believer I will post them. What I would like to do is explain my rebuttal to the first allegation.

Let me first say that this claim is probably some kind of logical fallacy, probably some variation of the Argument from Authority, meaning if I were some kind of authority I therefore could be believed to be speaking the truth but since I’m not therefore I am not speaking the truth. This might not be correct but let’s be realistic even if it were true pointing out logical fallacies really carry any weight for a normal person. I can’t say, “That’s an Argument from Authority logical fallacy and therefore I don’t have to dignify your statement with a response.”

Anyway, perhaps the best analogy is the science behind smoking and your health. Put simply, we know that smoking is bad for your health by the same methods that we know that global warming is caused by mankind. Let me be clear I don’t know anyone that denies that the Earth is warming anymore, the argument usually lies in whether mankind is the cause (and what we should do about it, but let’s figure out how to accept responsibility first and then work from there).

There are 2 primary methods for doing studies regarding the effects of smoking on health. There are empirical methods (or replicatable demonstrations) for determining causation and there are statistical methods for determining causation. Well, first and foremost you really can’t use replicatable demonstrations since you can’t take one person and clone them and then make one smoke and one not smoke and then see which one got lung cancer or emphysema. Not only is this scientifically impossible it’s probably ethically wrong even if it were. So we are stuck using admittedly an inferior way of knowing something by using epidemiological-statistical methods.

Epidemiological-statistical methods can never give you 100% certainty they can only give you varying confidence levels. A particular study by the EPA will come to the conclusion that second-hand smoke is detrimental to your health with a confidence level of 95% (p <.05). What does that mean? It means that the scientists are pretty damn sure that the results of their study show that the net effect is detrimental to your health. In fact, when it comes to this kind of study having a p-value less than or equal to .05 is about as certain as you are ever going to get.

There are enough studies out there that the preponderance of the evidence/results of these studies show that a staggering 87% of all lung cancer in the U.S. is the direct result of smoking. These studies had to use epidemiological methods for determining that smoking/tobacco use were the single largest contributing factor to the development of lung cancer. If you control for age, weight, sex, ethnicity, income, access to healthcare, work environments and whatever else they do science finds over and over again that smoking is the key factor.

What does this have to do with global warming? You guessed it. We can’t rely on empirical methods alone for determining causation of global warming for several reasons. First and foremost, the time scales involved are too great for humanity to be able to make any reasonable, direct observations, second the scope of observing planetary changes and interactions to the climate in real-time is beyond our current technology. So what are we left with? Our understanding of small-scale, regional effects on weather and lots of statistical data. We know that when you remove most of the trees from a large tropical island there is marked decrease in rainfall. Why is that? It’s because the removal of those trees has interfered with the natural cycling of water from ground to atmosphere. This example is a good demonstration of the kind of man-made interference that has local effects that can be understood and more importantly it reveals important mechanisms of how our planet works.

We can analyze all of this statistical data (with computer models, simulations) and begin to make predictions about what should be happening in the future and validate those predictions against what should have happened in the past. We can continue to refine these models as our understanding of different variables increases. Obviously this is an oversimplification of the process involved but the basic idea is there. Over time we have slowly “controlled” for factors as we were able to measure them, understand their impact and interactions in a very complex system. We have gotten to a point that the evidence is significant enough that the IPCC not only released a consensus report on the reality of global warming but gave a 90% confidence level that mankind is responsible for that warming. What gets lost in translation for many people is that a scientific consensus is a significant thing and that a 90% confidence is pretty damn confident. To put that in perspective, I’m mixing sciences here, many studies regarding the detrimental effects of second-hand smoke have confidence levels of 80-85%. Is long-term exposure to second-hand smoke detrimental to your health? Who knows? But we are 90% sure that mankind is responsible for global warming.

Do I personally think a lot of the rhetoric surrounding global climate change and the imminent disaster to mankind is alarmist? Yes. I personally think people are turned off by all the doom and gloom that surrounds global climate change. The opposing viewpoints are too often given equal weight in the media and too often the talking heads from either side are the worst kind of caricatures, you have the “poor gas in the lake it don’t matter” deniers on one end and the “shit in a bucket and smoke eat grass” hippies on the other.

I think if people could accept that we are the cause of Global Climate Change we can begin to make some concrete changes NOW for our future. Let’s do it now while the cost of those changes is small. Should gas be artificially jacked up to $10.00/gallon? No that’s stupid. Let’s do some reasonable things. Start replacing the most commonly used light bulbs in your house with CFLs. The new 2008 EPA CAFE standards in the U.S. are a good start, let’s keep raising the bar. There’s a whole bunch of common sense things that can be done now. I’ll have to compile a list of things sometime.