09 Sep 09
President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,"
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
These are to say the least very radical ideas.Are we to believe Holdrens statement or what he co-wrote in a text book?
Was Obama aware of his book and back ground or is this another mere co-incidence of a radical connection?
Should people like Jones,Sunstein,and John Holdren be in the white house and advising the President?
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonThey probably will let a gal have a kid unless she has a Ron Paul bumper sticker or something.
[b]President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his ...[text shortened]... Sunstein,and John Holdren be in the white house and advising the President?[/b]
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI'm impressed that you've dug this book out and read it, utherpendragon.
he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,"
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
Does it "discuss" the things you talked about? Should it not have "discussed" them? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that a textbook on population, resources, environment should not "discuss" totalitarian measures? What other aspects of the topic should not be discussed according to you? And why did you say the book "seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth"? It either advocates them or it doesn't. Why did you use the word "seem"? You are familiar with the book, so why don't you just tell us what it "advocates"?
09 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou would be surprised the books I have read!
I'm impressed that you've dug this book out and read it, utherpendragon.
Does it "discuss" the things you talked about? Should it not have "discussed" them? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that a textbook on population, resources, environment should not "discuss" totalitarian measures? What other aspects of the topic should [b]not be d are familiar with the book, so why don't you just tell us what it "advocates"?[/b]
I am not saying that the topics should not be discussed in the book. I AM saying I find these views a bit alarming from someone who is now in Obamas circle of trust.
I already said what it advocates I do not know how you missed that.The word "seem" you "seem" to be focusing on was a lead up to the next paragraph.Here it is again:
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonAre they his views? Or are they views discussed in a textbook he co-authored? You say that the topics should be discussed but then you appear to be holding it against him for discussing them in a textbook. You even used the get-out word "seem"... he SEEMS to "advocate totalitarian measures". What are his views on this? Is it possible that you've taken topics that were discussed in a book - something you do not disapprove of - and then asserting that they are HIS views. Why? He has denied that they are, so doesn't that clear this up?
I am not saying that the topics should not be discussed in the book. I AM saying I find these views a bit alarming from someone who is now in Obamas circle of trust.
09 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonIt is not a huge leap from czar to commisar. These are a bunch of non-vetted radicals like Van Jones. Therein lies the problem. These are all a bunch of radical, marxist hacks. Forced stilization has never been disavowed by Holdren, nor his view on putting sterilzants in the water. His view is save the planet, kill the people. Machiavellian end justifying the means. Find me an Obama czar who does not resemble commisar and you get an award! What is scary is that Holdren and Peter Singer are health care reform advisors and also Zeke Emmanuel.
You would be surprised the books I have read!
I am not saying that the topics should not be discussed in the book. I AM saying I find these views a bit alarming from someone who is now in Obamas circle of trust.
I already said what it advocates I do not know how you missed that.The word "seem" you "seem" to be focusing on was a lead up to the nex gue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty. [/b]
09 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by scacchipazzoOh but he has. Flatly. It's even in the OP:
Forced stilization has never been disavowed by Holdren, nor his view on putting sterilzants in the water. His view is save the planet, kill the people. Machiavellian end justifying the means.
"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.
Can't be clearer that that. How can you intepret this as meaning that "compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth" has, as you say "never been disavowed by Holdren" ?
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFThats the point. Is he to be believed? As Van Jones w/the petition?
Oh but he has. Flatly. It's even in the OP:
[b]"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said. [/b]
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWell your OP appears to concede that the topics were merely discussed in a textbook, as they should be. And when asked if he advocated those things he's says an unequivocal no. Have you got anything more convincing than this to offer?
Thats the point. Is he to be believed? As Van Jones w/the petition?
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by FMFHere is a deeper look at some of the passages.
Well your OP appears to concede that the topics were merely discussed in a textbook, as they should be. And when asked if he advocated those things he's says an unequivocal no. Have you got anything more convincing than this to offer?
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock."
"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men. The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."
"Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits."
Alot of thought was put into something he does not believe in
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by sh76Why do I get the feeling the president picked these czars by following up on his promise to the builderberg conference.
Why do I get the feeling the President picked these czars by picking a bunch of random people at last year's Star Trek convention?
09 Sep 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonAre these passages from a textbook discussing or describing ideas or statements of his own beliefs?
[b]Here is a deeper look at some of the passages.
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or ...[text shortened]... agreed limits."
Alot of thought was put into something he does not believe in[/b]
09 Sep 09
3 edits
Originally posted by utherpendragon"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
[b]Here is a deeper look at some of the passages.
"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or agreed limits."
Alot of thought was put into something he does not believe in[/b]
First of all, this was from 1977. Disco was actually popular back then. I would be very wary of judging anyone based on what they said or did more than 30 years ago.
More to the point. Clearly this discussion involved what would happen if the Malthusian scenario actually came to pass. If it became necessary to greatly reduce the world's population, what would we do? Remember that the 1970's oil crises set off a whole cascade of Malthusian worries.
The reality is that there would be no way of sharply reducing populations without doing something absolutely awful. For this reason, you almost never find any discussion on this topic. And it's a good reason to consider ways of making sure we never reach the point of being forced to have such a discussion.