Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6955|San Diego, CA, USA
Obama's science czar suggested compulsory abortion, sterilization
By: David Freddoso

Washington Examiner wrote:

Internet reports are now circulating that Obama's Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, penned a 1977 book that approved of and recommended compulsory sterilization and even abortion in some cases, as part of a government population control regime.

Given the general unreliability of Internet quotations, I wanted to go straight to this now-rare text and make sure the reports were both accurate and kept Holdren's writings in context. Generally speaking, they are, and they do.

The Holdren book, titled Ecoscience and co-authored with Malthus enthusiasts Paul and Anne Ehrlich, weighs in at more than 1,000 pages. Of greatest importance to its discussion of how to limit the human population is its disregard for any ethical considerations.

Holdren (with the Ehrlichs) notes the existence of “moral objections to some proposals...especially to any kind of compulsion.” But his approach is completely amoral. He implies that compulsory population control is less preferable, because of some people's objections, but he argues repeatedly that it is sometimes necessary, and necessity trumps all ethical objections.

He writes:

Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth rates are rapidly reversed by other means. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive or discriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measures suggested.

Holdren refers approvingly, for example, to Indira Gandhi's government for its then-recent attempt at a compulsory sterilization program:

India in the mid-1970s not only entertained the idea of compulsory sterilization, but moved toward implementing it...This decision was greeted with dismay abroad, but Indira Gandhi's government felt it had little other choice. There is too little time left to experiment further with educational programs and hope that social change will generate a spontaneous fertility decline, and most of the Indian population is too poor for direct economic pressures (especially penalties) to be effective.

When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously discussed.
We discussed this before, but a prominent scientist in the Obama administration.  Would any of this be part of the new health bill, snuck in there somewhere???
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6936|Global Command
" President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care. "
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 8875.story

"  But some health experts argue preventive care isn't always cost effective.

"I think it almost always costs more money," said Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at Dartmouth Medical School and author of "Should I Be Tested for Cancer."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/17/pr … index.html

Also, A Living Will is a subtle sort of assisted suicide imo.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5992

Wikipedia wrote:

Overpopulation was an early concern and interest, and in 1969, writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[10] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many"[11]. In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience[12], which discussed the possible role of a "planetary regime" in enforcing population control. Currently, the U.S. population is 306,916,000[13].

In 1969 he advocated (with Paul R Ehrlich) substantial spending for expansion of nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear plants generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren#Controversy
Good call
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7081|Canberra, AUS
I can't speak for Holdren, but I know about Ehrlich. Seemingly insane but his logic is very, very good. Not someone you can dismiss lightly.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7123
Who picks these czars?  The senate the house... the people? 

  The President does and the positions are highly ambiguous...
http://theobamalegacy.blogspot.com/2009 … as-18.html

This is not about liberal or conservative... this is about elitists...

  "Want an example of how untransparent the czar process is? Barrosso provided a gem:
    The New York Times ran an article in May entitled “Vow of silence key to White House-California Fuel Economy Talks.” The article stated that there was a simple rule for negotiations between the White House and California on vehicle fuel economy – “Put nothing in writing.” Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, stated that Browner “quietly orchestrated private discussions from the White House with auto industry officials.” The paper said Nichols and Browner “decided to keep their discussions as quiet as possible, holding no group meetings and taking care to not leak updates to the press.” Nichols was quoted as saying “We put nothing in writing, ever.” This is unacceptable Madame Chairman.

How are we, the oversight committee, able to do our job with Administration officials putting nothing in writing, holding secret meetings in the dark of night without other officials present. All of this occurring outside the prying eyes of the people. This is not transparency. This is not good government. This threatens scientific integrity."

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-07-15 22:20:37)

Love is the answer
BVC
Member
+325|7102
The most efficient use of medical resources isn't always the most humane.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6907|so randum
And india did (and still does) realistically need something to curb their population explosion. It's not a nice or pretty suggestion, but it is logical.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6852|The Land of Scott Walker

Harmor wrote:

Would any of this be part of the new health bill, snuck in there somewhere???
Wouldn't surprise me one bit considering they're trying to ramrod this through before the American people figure out how much it's going to screw up their healthcare and how much it will cost.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7056

I'd support the mass sterilization of stupid people, especially if we could administer said sterilizations by repeated kicks in the genitals.
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7113

Washington Examiner wrote:

When necessary, then, compulsory sterilization is justified. This attitude suffuses the following passage, in which the possibility of putting a “sterilant” into a population's drinking water is seriously discussed.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7028|London, England
I've read loads of things that said the world can sustain massive populations, it's just that right now we're so wasteful and inefficient that it seems like the world is at its limits. I always find it funny when people talk about over population and "draining resources" especially when it comes to countries like China and India when most of us consume a massive factor times more resources than any of them do. So yeah, if you want to save the world and cull the population, kill yourself and your family instead because that would make a much better impact on the world than some poor bastards elsewhere.

Oh yeah, and I vote instead of compusary sterilisation for civilians. Let's switch it around and make it compulsory sterilisation for the government/police/military/health services and anyone else who would have to "enforce" such a rule.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-07-16 13:39:31)

Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7143|Salt Lake City

Mekstizzle wrote:

I've read loads of things that said the world can sustain massive populations, it's just that right now we're so wasteful and inefficient that it seems like the world is at its limits. I always find it funny when people talk about over population and "draining resources" especially when it comes to countries like China and India when most of us consume a massive factor times more resources than any of them do. So yeah, if you want to save the world and cull the population, kill yourself and your family instead because that would make a much better impact on the world than some poor bastards elsewhere.

Oh yeah, and I vote instead of compusary sterilisation for civilians. Let's switch it around and make it compulsory sterilisation for the government/police/military/health services and anyone else who would have to "enforce" such a rule.
Doesn't matter.  Resources are finite, so you have to deal with population control at some point.  The question is, do you deal with it while you can, and still have a reasonable standard of living, or do you deal with it when issues of famine start to grip the entire world, including more advanced Western countries.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,071|7179|PNW

Well, we can watch his approval ratings drop even lower. But remember: Obama still has to deal with the other governing branches, and these men and women want to be re-elected.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I've read loads of things that said the world can sustain massive populations, it's just that right now we're so wasteful and inefficient that it seems like the world is at its limits. I always find it funny when people talk about over population and "draining resources" especially when it comes to countries like China and India when most of us consume a massive factor times more resources than any of them do. So yeah, if you want to save the world and cull the population, kill yourself and your family instead because that would make a much better impact on the world than some poor bastards elsewhere.

Oh yeah, and I vote instead of compusary sterilisation for civilians. Let's switch it around and make it compulsory sterilisation for the government/police/military/health services and anyone else who would have to "enforce" such a rule.
Doesn't matter.  Resources are finite, so you have to deal with population control at some point.  The question is, do you deal with it while you can, and still have a reasonable standard of living, or do you deal with it when issues of famine start to grip the entire world, including more advanced Western countries.
Or do you science your way around it with new farming technology and vertical expansion?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2009-07-16 14:21:14)

Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7143|Salt Lake City

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Well, we can watch his approval ratings drop even lower. But remember: Obama still has to deal with the other governing branches, and these men and women want to be re-elected.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I've read loads of things that said the world can sustain massive populations, it's just that right now we're so wasteful and inefficient that it seems like the world is at its limits. I always find it funny when people talk about over population and "draining resources" especially when it comes to countries like China and India when most of us consume a massive factor times more resources than any of them do. So yeah, if you want to save the world and cull the population, kill yourself and your family instead because that would make a much better impact on the world than some poor bastards elsewhere.

Oh yeah, and I vote instead of compusary sterilisation for civilians. Let's switch it around and make it compulsory sterilisation for the government/police/military/health services and anyone else who would have to "enforce" such a rule.
Doesn't matter.  Resources are finite, so you have to deal with population control at some point.  The question is, do you deal with it while you can, and still have a reasonable standard of living, or do you deal with it when issues of famine start to grip the entire world, including more advanced Western countries.
Or do you science your way around it with new farming technology and vertical expansion?
You can only take that so far.  You will never be able to have an infinitely growing population.  Failure to realize that is what you aren't getting.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5992

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Well, we can watch his approval ratings drop even lower. But remember: Obama still has to deal with the other governing branches, and these men and women want to be re-elected.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:


Doesn't matter.  Resources are finite, so you have to deal with population control at some point.  The question is, do you deal with it while you can, and still have a reasonable standard of living, or do you deal with it when issues of famine start to grip the entire world, including more advanced Western countries.
Or do you science your way around it with new farming technology and vertical expansion?
You can only take that so far.  You will never be able to have an infinitely growing population.  Failure to realize that is what you aren't getting.
Grrr, maybe with advancements in technology we would one day be working with endless resources. In theory you can have infinately growing populatyions as long as the tech follows up.

From the wiki section I posted you can see he thought we would all be starving to death in a barren wasteland when we reached 280 million, we're pushing 300 million because of advancements in tech.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard