http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/…

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.

Pretty sick. Gets better.

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.

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.

Again… some wonder where Alex Jones gets his stuff. Straight from the mouths of those in charge.

32 years is a long time and the mans opinions on the topic surely could have changed… but it is really no less fucking scary. Everyone I’ve ever met who takes Malthusian catastrophe theory seriously has very disturbing beliefs regarding humanity. Recently at work I had a short debate with someone who made the comment “there are too many humans on the planet anyway” after I brought up a story regarding a town government that was restricting the sale of land because they didn’t want it split up for more homes to be built. I quickly backed him into an uncomfortable corner were he had to quantify his statement and provide a solution. He backed out and said “You won’t change my mind. I need to get back to work.”

Related posts:

1. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) urges Barack Obama to include computer science as core component of science, math education
2. Obama’s “drug czar”, Gil Kerlikowske, declares marijuana has no medical value
3. White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
4. Obama administration has more blood on it’s hands: Thousands flee bomb attacks by US drones
5. Churches, mosques say offering broadband net access is a moral obligation, advocate forced wealth redistribution

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 8:37 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.