Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Our Presidents Science Advisor Is a Eugenicist

Obama’s Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating “Planetary Regime” Which Would Require Mass Sterilizations, Forced Abortions

Holdren writes in his 1977 book ECOSCIENCE
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control lawas, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

Holdren scientific inspiration number 2:
One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Holdren lays plans for mass sterilization in water supply:
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.

 The choice of John Holdren also explains, in part, the President’s recent “health care reform townhall” remarks about the needless expense of end-of-life care, as well as his stance on things like abortion and stem cell research.  But let Professor Holdren tell us, in his own words, one answer he proposed back in 1977 to the “dangerous human disruption of the global climate” - population control.  Among the techniques suggested were:
All illegitimate babies [must] be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors
Single mother … obliged to go through adoption proceedings
Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples
Require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods
Sterilizing women after their second or third child
Long-term sterilizing capsule … implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission

The discourse used to justify actually attempting to implement all this is what I can only call self-servingly twisted:

“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. 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.
“It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protection of each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on the right to have more than a given number of children could easily be based on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated that the larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to be and the less likely they are to realize their potential levels of achievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a small family can be cared for better and can be educated better than children of a large family, income and other things being equal. The law could properly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children she already has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on the sizes of adopted families would have to be the same.)

“A legal restriction on the right to have children could also be based on the right not to be disadvantaged by excessive numbers of children produced by others. Differing rates of reproduction among groups can give rise to serious social problems. For example, differential rates of reproduction between ethnic, racial, religious, or economic groups might result in increased competition for resources and political power and thereby undermine social order. If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

“Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the “right responsibly to choose” the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children. But the right is not unlimited. Where the society has a
“compelling, subordinating interest” in regulating population size, the right of the individual may be curtailed. If society’s survival depended on having more children, women could he required to bear children, just as men can constitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly, given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws to control excessive reproduction could be enacted.

“It is often argued that the right to have children is so personal that the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to the desires of the parents. In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

“Toward a Planetary Regime”

“Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serve as a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use of airspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmospheric pollution. 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 the 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 should have some power to enforce the agreed limits. As with the Law of the Sea an other international agreements, all agreements for regulating population sizes, resource development, and pollution should be subject to revision and modification in accordance with changing conditions.

“The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposed world government schemes in not being primarily political in its emphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of all discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas the Regime would control are not now being regulated or controlled by nations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve far less surrendering of national power. Nevertheless it might function powerfully to suppress international conflict simply because the interrelated global resource-environment structure would not permit such an outdated luxury.

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”


Pendark Pendark 36-40, M 8 Responses Jul 12, 2009

Your Response

Cancel

I do not think these ideas are acceptable. <br />
America is a sick country, no mater how one looks at it, but I agree at one point. All should go for the "max children" rule, but the other parts are uther rubish.

Well, thanks for that. If reading and research make good writing, then I suppose I do alright for myself.

Pendark I think you will be a more insightful student and you can def. debate with those profs. all day long.<br />
Congratulations on t eaching yourself, you have done a remarkable job well done!!<br />
Your pieces are always well researched and enlightening.

I'm a few years behind the curve, admittedly. I'm 38 this year. But, since I intend to live to be at least 98, I don't think it is too big a problem.

I didn't do too well, my first go round at college. I needed to grow up a little first. I graduated at 30.<br />
<br />
"Conflict" in an educational setting can be a good thing. It always leads to interesting discussion that everyone can benefit from. Your participation would be an asset.

I taught myself everything I learned beyond the 6th grade. Which is probably why I am now ready to face college on my terms, as a full haired over adult and not some idealistic kid that is going to accept what they try to feed me. I fully anticipate some "conflict".

Dat's a lot to wrap your brain around. Don't none of it sound no good. Ya must have got an awful lot of learn'n. How'd ya get so smart?<br />
<br />
Seriously though, government scares me.

I have read some Chomsky. And he makes good sense. Particularly when you look at the current situation and the actions of this administration while you consider:<br />
<br />
"Only in America? I mean, there they actually have elections where you can choose somebody from your own ranks. With different policies. That's inconceivable in the United States." <br />
<br />
"..jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them."<br />
<br />
We are all racist who oppose this president or his policies.<br />
<br />
"The only justification for repressive institutions is material and cultural deficit. But such institutions, at certain stages of history, perpetuate and produce such a deficit, and even threaten human survival. "<br />
<br />
The bailouts and the plan to "fix" everything is contributing to the material and cultural deficit.<br />
<br />
"All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume."<br />
<br />
Look at any major story in the paper right now. It is all about doom, gloom, helplessness, and how we must conform to and consume the policies of this administration if it is ever to change.<br />
<br />
"The most effective way to restrict democracy is to transfer decision-making from the public arena to unaccountable institutions: kings and princes, priestly castes, military juntas, party dictatorships, or modern corporations. "<br />
<br />
Much like transferring 70% of major corporations to the control of the government, or centralizing the health care system.<br />
<br />
"If you quietly accept and go along no matter what your feelings are, ultimately you internalize what you're saying, because it's too hard to believe one thing and say another. I can see it very strikingly in my own background. Go to any elite university and you are usually speaking to very disciplined people, people who have been selected for obedience. And that makes sense. If you've resisted the temptation to tell the teacher, "You're an *******," which maybe he or she is, and if you don't say, "That's idiotic," when you get a stupid assignment, you will gradually pass through the required filters. You will end up at a good college and eventually with a good job. "<br />
<br />
And be considered a good citizen.<br />
<br />
"There's a good reason why nobody studies history, it just teaches you too much. "