The Coming Tragedy Of
The Commons For America

By Frosty Wooldridge
You've heard the argument that you could place all 6.4 billion human beings on our planet into the State of Texas with a plot of land big enough to park a trailer, garage a car and grow a garden. Yippee yeehaa yahoo! What a concept! Unfortunately, like the Scarecrow in the "Wizard of Oz," leaders thinking our looming population crisis can be solved with such magical ideas--lack a brain!
What the proponents of unending and limitless growth in the United States do not understand finds its manifestation in the country of China. They ignored their exploding population 50 years ago. Today, at 1.3 billion people, they force one child families, forced abortion and severely restricted freedom and subsistence level living. Can they solve it? Not today or any time in the future. Like much of the Third World, they simply tolerate their misery. Thanks to similar 'non-thinking' by our national leaders, press and the elite, our country heads in the same direction as China.
In 2004, the Sierra Club based in San Francisco became embroiled in a crisis of leadership. Former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm, along with a host of progressive candidates, ran for board slots that would change the focus of the Sierra Club. They wanted to bring America's escalating immigration crisis into sharper focus.
John Muir, its founder, would turn over in his grave if he were alive today to see the mismanagement of common sense in the club's ostrich-like direction. Sierra Club purports to ensure environmental integrity for wildlife, habitat and future generations. Instead, Carl Pope, former president of the club along with his cadre of cronies, refused to address the immigration-driven population growth that will double the U.S. to 600 million people within this century--well on its way to a billion.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that 700,000 members pay $35.00 in annual fees thinking the club's leaders work in the best interests of all. Unfortunately, they are wasting their donations because no matter how much money they pay to those managing the club, it's all for nothing.
Why? Like a man swimming up the Colorado River, he may be making progress, but he's being swept down stream-never reaching his goal. The current leadership of the Sierra Club proves Muir correct when he said, "There isn't a sane man in San Francisco."
Why? Simple arithmetic shows we cannot grow by five million annually (current U.S. growth rate with three million illegal aliens entering in 2004, one million legal immigrants and one million U.S. citizen births net gain per year) and hope to maintain a functioning society for future generations.
In 1965, California enjoyed 17 million people. But as immigration floodgates opened, the Golden State burst out of its Oshgosh overhauls like a fat man at an all-you-can-eat Ponderosa buffet having exploded to 36 million people. California will add 20 million in 30 years at the current rate of immigration. Colorado will add five million as will Arizona. The entire U.S. population will double to 600 million around mid century. What's the problem here?
Plain answer: Water, or, the lack of it. It's called exceeding 'carrying capacity.' It features another name. Every farmer in California and the world understands the "Tragedy of the Commons."
For example, a farmer can run four cows into a one-acre paddock with a water tank. Those cows can eat, drink, romp and chew their cud to their hearts content. More grass will grow, cow-pies will absorb into the soil and all cows will enjoy quiet moments contemplating before being led off to the meatpacking plant.
If the farmer runs 100 cows into that paddock, it soon resembles a Montfort cattle feed lot. The cows and manure stink like holy hell for miles around. Cows sleep on piles of dung. The grass dies, which means those cows will be fed artificially. It's known as the 'Tragedy of the Commons." Along with it, a multitude of other problems arise with disease, crowding, etc.
"The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them." Einstein with the above quote, Lamm ran for the club's board of directors to bring "new thinking" by stepping out of the box.
However, a smear campaign by Sierra's old guard worked! Sierra members, like cows herded into a one-acre paddock, voted for continued Third World thinking. What is that? As a traveler throughout much of that struggling misery around the planet where billions suffer from overpopulation via the "Tragedy of the Commons," I describe it as 'ignoring problems until they grow into irreversible crises with no way to solve them while victims live in misery.'
What country comes to mind worse than China? The best is Bangladesh with 129 million people in a country with the land mass the size of Ohio. Add India and the list grows as the world adds 80 million people net gain annually while the human race explodes toward 10 billion! Where does that leave California? John Muir? Einstein? Common sense? Rational leadership and thinking as well as proactive action? Where does it leave you?
Where it leaves you is sitting in gridlock, breathing poison air, forced into sprawl thicker than hair on a gorilla, quality of life much like a Montfort feed lot and neurotic Excedrin headaches not to mention your kids suffer at school, diseases and hospitals collapsing-for starters! In another 60 years, at the current rate of immigration-driven growth, each state will double its population. Yippee yeehaa yahoo! I'll bet your vocal cords are singing up a storm with that prospect facing your children.
However, the "Tragedy of the Commons" leaves out one aspect. YOU! That's right, you don't have be led into a population-nightmare future of California or for that matter, all of these United States, like a cow to its slaughter. Choose personal responsibility, action and result. Join with others for the battle that will ensure the viability of American society. John Muir would say, "Use your common sense and take action." We need a 10-year moratorium on all immigration into this country. After that, a maximum of 100,000 people annually, only if that maintains a stable and sustainable population.
Write me for the 20-point action letter that you may send to all your networks to create the 'critical mass' of Americans who will not tolerate this immigration nightmare another year.
© 2005 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
From Milt Hays, Jr
Dear Frosty --
Thanks for the timely response to my comments on your recent piece. I suppose that my real observation -- maybe I was a little too oblique in saying it -- is that what you and others observe to be happening in this poor country of ours is not merely the result of accident and unintended consequences, gross ignorance and stupidity, but rather by "design."
After more than a dozen years of trying to figure out what is "really" going on in this country, including doing a bit of minor writing work for Chuck Harder (For the People) a few years ago, various tours of duty in state and local government as a planner/resoruce manager, and a good bit of involvement in local politics. From all of my own personal experience, academic studies [Ph.D. level work in planning and urban geography], and directed private investigations, I can only conclude that things are as they are because certain very powerful people want them to be that way. What we observe happening in the United States today -- including the general dumbing down of the population -- is part of an agenda, and (although greatly facilitated by it) is NOT simply due to ignorance or an inability to think clearly about the issues that are confronting us.
Illegal immigration, moreover, is not only not an exception to this, but is a powerful proof that the usually accepted "model" of how "our" government works has, at best, been supplanted by something else entirely. Most Americans, as supported by both the anecdotal evidence of popular opinion outlets [talk radio, the Internet, etc.] and legitimate polling data, overwhelmingly support your position on this issue. Yet, when you talk to almost any elected official [and party affiliation makes absolutely no difference] at any level of government -- and I have made it a personal point to do this -- there is inevitably a total "disconnect*" between what they say (and do) and what their constituents want them to do. The more "polite" response that I get from all of "my" elected officials is that immigration (illegal or otherwise) is "good" for the country, etc., and certainly nothing to be concerned about.
If, as you suggest, the logic** of limiting immigration into this country is so overwhelmingly on our side, and in the clear "best interest" of most Americans, again, why, then, do almost none of our elected officials take any action to do anything about this?
The only intellectually honest answer (supported by all the available data) that I can come up with is that there is an enormously powerful "agenda" that is being followed that is understood to be of such enormous importance that it dwarfs any concern for public opinion or even the legal provisions of the Constitution itself. Again, simply observe what the Bush Administration and "our" Congress are doing about the immigration issue, and tell me -- honestly -- that you believe that they are in any way acting in our national interest or according to the Laws of the Land?
In this country today, Frosty, there are two kinds of people who are on "the right side," but they differ enormously in the level of their understanding and effectiveness. Folks in the first group clearly see and understand the problems [Illegal immigration, for example], but they still cling to the belief that "the system" -- once it is made aware of the problem -- is capable of taking rational action to "fix" it. In this respect, I am reminded of the story of the rather naive Russian peasant woman who believed that the problems on her collective farm could all be solved -- if only people were aware that they existed. "Surely," she lamented, "dear Comrade Stalin would never allow such things to happen to us if he knew!"
Well, "Comrade" Bush -- and Congress -- DO know exactly what is going on with respect to the immigration issue, and that the American people are not very happy about it. As in Communist Russia of the 1920s and 30s, however, the issue is NOT what the American people want, but what geopolitical agenda (globalism) is being advanced at all costs. Thus, a smaller group of us -- obviously including myself -- have come to realize that we are effectively in a "war" with "our" own government, and that "appealing to authority" -- unless it is done with overwhelming public support and with full media coverage -- is mostly a waste of our time and effort. [Again, have you tried getting a straight answer on immigration from any of your elected officials lately? Makes your head hurt, doesn't it?]
Frosty, you are a good person and "on the right side," but please don't have any illusions that the existing "system" wants to (or will) fix the immigration problem unless we can "force" them to do it. Whatever the role of illegal immigration is to play in the Globalist agenda, it is obviously of such critical importance to their plans for this nation that nothing short of a "popular revolution" by the public can possibly blunt its planned trajectory.
The question before us, I beleve, is HOW to turn this anti-illegal immigration movement into just this sort of popular (Populist?) uprising to reclaim our government? Your suggestins (appended to your reply) would seem to be a good start. What's next?
*This growing "disconnect" between American citizens and "their" public officials has been term has been aptly documented and chronicled by Dr. Alan F. Kay, the noted scientist^ and founder of the Americans Talk Issues public polling project. In his decades-long surveys, Alan has discovered that -- contrary those who fear the worst about what we are becoming -- the majority of Americans CAN think clearly about critical issues, if they are given the opportunity by (1) being given the real data, and (2) being asked the right questions.
^Unlike Al Gore, Alan really DID help create the Internet! See John Naughton's book, A Brief History of the Future, pp. 224 and 226, plus Dr. Kay's account in his own book.
Alan's other most significant finding was -- what a surprise?! -- that "our" elected officials in Congress [not to mention the sterling characters in the Executive branch] do not want to know what the public really thinks about significant national issues like immigration. They have their own predetermined "agendas," thank you, and they will spin what they do as best they can to appear to be listening [think of those wonderful form letters that you get back from "your" elected member of Congress...], but their real marching orders do not come from that direction. All of this is wonderfully laid out in Alan's book, Locating Consensus for Democracy: A Ten-Year U.S. Experiment, 1998. I played a very minor research and editing role in this venture, but I like to think that I contributed a tiny bit to its overall quality.
**As you make very clear, limits on immigration are supported by both the ecological (carrying capacity) arguments that you cite and -- perhaps of even more immediate importance -- by the case for preserving the borders, language, and traditional culture of this nation. Pat Buchanan, in his recent books, and -- most notably -- Victor Davis Hanson in his Mexifornia, have made compelling and all but irrefutable arguments for fundamental immigratin reform. Yet, nothing happens.
In the plainest possible language, we are (literally!) under attack in terms of the planned destruction of our resource base AND the deliberate eradication of our traditional American culture. Sadly, most of "our" elected representatives either (1) don't "get it," (2) don't care, or -- worst of all -- (3) are themselves part of the conspiracy to destroy this country.
Am I saying all this plainly enough?
Milt Hays, Jr.
Jacksonville, FL



This Site Served by TheHostPros