forced abortions and mass sterilization needed

John Holdren is advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

His areas of interest and specialization is in population reduction by by foreced abortions and sterilization.

This guy advises and what addatives are added to the food supply and and what is put in vaccines etc. Not sure if I am comfortable with this knowing what he specializes in and the authority he has been given.

Its an interesting read!
Enjoy.

"John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


Book he authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of theperson now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren,whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White HouseOffice of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President forScience and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council ofAdvisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the UnitedStates' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugsintentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seizedfrom them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e.undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductiveresponsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or besterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of theglobal economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans'lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, noexaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this reportcontains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, andtranscriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience,co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues PaulEhrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supplyconclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unalteredand accurately transcribed.

This report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPagemagazine, which covers some of the same information given here. Butthat article, although it contained many shocking quotes from JohnHoldren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion. Why not?Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with variousfriends, there was no proof that the quotes were accurate -- somost folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted theirveracity, because the statements seemed too inflammatory to be true. Inthe modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and soare presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence isoffered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains thatevidence.

Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book heco-authored about what he imagined at the time (late 1970s) was anapocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extrememeasures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Whether or notyou think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended intoa totalitarian fantasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's avalid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostlyin his imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almostalways have what seems internally like a reasonable justification foractions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

Direct quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

Below you will find a series of ten short passages from Ecoscience.On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from thepages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription ofeach passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote isa short analysis by me.

Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the fullextended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted,to provide the full context.

And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (andphotos) of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken,to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real,and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out ofcontext."

Ready? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.





Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal





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.

As noted in the FrontPage article cited above,Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "ithas been concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book,that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "Ihave determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws whichwould force women to abort their babies." And as we will see later,although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's noneed for such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the populationcrisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsorypopulation-control laws." In fact, they spend the entire book arguingthat "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe toendanger the society."



Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions





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 proceedingsand demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoptionproceedings probably should remain more difficult for single peoplethan for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty ofraising 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 and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievablydraconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. Butwhat's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made theseproposals -- wrenching babies from their mothers' arms and giving themaway; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would begood parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wantedto or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionate, bureaucraticway. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes:the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically they areexpressed.

Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between motherand child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughouthistory when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that wouldaffect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeplyunsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name.I'm reminded of the phrase "banality of evil."

Not that it matters, but I myself am "pro-choice" -- i.e. I think thatabortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- to forcewomen to have abortions. One doesn't need to be a "pro-life" activistto see the horror of this proposal -- people on all sides of thepolitical spectrum should be outraged. My objection to forced abortionis not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the motherfrom undergoing a medical procedure against her will. And not just anymedical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my views)may find particularly immoral or traumatic.

There's a bumper sticker that's popular in liberal areaswhich says: "Against abortion? Then don't have one." Well, John Holdrenwants to MAKE you have one, whether you're against it or not.



Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock





Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is asuggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals forinvoluntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some verydifficult 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 despitevarying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it mustbe 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.

OK, John, now you're really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants inthe water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion"seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently arenot among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list ofproblems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever ofany ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impedimentto involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought toaffect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects orhurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize all the humans safelywithout hurting the livestock, that'd be peachy! The fact that Holdrenhas no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme(aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) isextremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualifyhim from holding a position of power in the government.



Page 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control





Involuntary fertility control
...
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.

Note well the phrase "with official permission" in theabove quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the governmentimplants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as theyreach puberty, who then must apply for official permissionto temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant atsome later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes allwomen once they have two children. Do you want to live in such asociety? Because I sure as hell don't.



Page 838: The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children





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.

To me, this is in some ways the most horrifyingsentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Becausehere Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved indetermining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies.Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contributeto social deterioration" could be "forced to exercise reproductiveresponsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortionor involuntary sterilization. What other alternative would there be to"force" people to not have children? Will government monitors bestationed in irresponsible people's bedrooms to ensure they usecondoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way to"force" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them ormake them have abortions.

But what manner of insanity is this? "Social deterioration"? Is Holdrenseriously suggesting that "some" people contribute to socialdeterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized orforced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind?Isn't that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn't eugenics universallycondemned as a grotesquely evil practice?

We've already been down this road before. In one of the most shamefulepisodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme Court ruledin the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buckagainst her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was"feeble-minded" and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmesconcluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Nowadays, ofcourse, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concepthas been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

The italicized phrase at the end ("providing they are not denied equal protection"),which Holdren seems to think gets him off the eugenics hook, refers tothe 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version ofthis passage quoted below), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn'tbe racially based or discriminatory -- merely based on the whim andassessments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not anundesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren's America determines thatyou are "contributing to social deterioration" by being promiscuous orpregnant or both, will government agents break down your door and andhaul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, theSupreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

No no, you say, Holdren isn't claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he's stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more.If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and hisco-authors have not really thought this through, because what they aresuggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does heenvision: All women who commit the crime of having more than twochildren be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilizationcenters? Or -- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.

Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shootingthe breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who among ushasn't looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars andsoda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought: Lady, why don't you just get your tubes tied already?But it's a different matter when the Science Czar of the United Statessuggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being aharmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it couldbecome government policy. And then it's not so funny anymore.



Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size





Intoday's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matterof profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personalmatters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse ata time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Why?

I'll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas corpusupon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsoryabortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedomof each individual's body from detention or interference, until thatperson has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggestingthat, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, themere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even lessof a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecosciencerely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much aboutscience, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allowtotalitarian population-control measures.



Page 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born





Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into aPlanetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population,resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime couldcontrol the development, administration, conservation, and distributionof all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, atleast insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regimecould have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphereand oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes thatcross 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 determiningthe optimum population for the world and for each region and forarbitrating 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.

In case you were wondering exactly who wouldenforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it'llbe the "Planetary Regime"! Of course! I should have seen that onecoming.

The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all thethings the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring toit, doesn't it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will havetotal power over the global economy, since according to Holdren thisPlanetary Regime will control "allnatural resources, renewable or nonrenewable" (which basically meansall goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and anyrivers "that discharge into the oceans" (i.e. 99% of all navigablerivers). What's left? Not much.



Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force





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 itremains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to beincreasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrendernational sovereignty to an international organization (the "PlanetaryRegime," presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to actas a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rulesthis armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsorybirth control, and all economic activity.

It would be laughable if Holdren weren't so deadly serious. Do youwant this man to be in charge of science and technology in the UnitedStates? Because he already is in charge.



Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism





Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups.White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too manyblacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the highbirth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics,and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all.This is another case of the "tragedy of the commons," wherein the"commons" is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at leastin the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.

This passage is not particularly noteworthy except forthe inclusion of the odd phrase "pronatalist attitude," which Holdrenspends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a"pronatalist attitude"? Basically it means the urge to have children,and to like babies. If only we could suppress people's natural urge towant children and start families, we could solve all our problems!

What's disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing andculturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting likehe has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that theyshould allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase theirpopulations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed upon the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that therewere simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stopbreeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnicgroup in the world to John Holdren's proposal would be: Cram it, John.Stop telling us what to do.



Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000





Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny.Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe.But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to amuch better world.

This is the final paragraph of the book, which Iinclude here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his"scientific" projections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we wereteetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposedimplementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impendingdisaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the world managed tosurvive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressivesociety which Holdren proposed. Yes, there still is overpopulation, butthe problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions"which John Holdren wanted us to adopt.






I actually don't disagree with everything Holdren says. I agreewith him that overpopulation is a problem, and that much of theenvironmental degradation that has happened is due in large part tooverpopulation (mostly in the developing world). Where we disagree isin the solution. While Holdren does occasionally advocate for mildersolutions elsewhere in the book, his basic premise is that thepopulation explosion has gotten so out of control that only the mostoppressive and totalitarian measures can possibly stop humanity fromstripping the planet bare and causing a catastrophe beyond ourimagining. Holdren has (apparently) no problem saying we should force people to not have children, by any means necessary. And that is where we part ways. I draw the line at even the hintof compulsory compliance to draconian laws about pregnancy andabortion; Holdren does not hesitate to cross that line without a secondthought.

My solution would be to adopt social policies that are known to lead to voluntaryand non-coercive trends toward a lower birth rate: increased educationfor girls in poor countries, better access to (voluntarily adopted)birth control, higher standards of living. In fact, population trendssince 1977 have started to level off in the crisis areas of Asia andLatin America, primarily due to better standards of living and bettereducation, which are known to decrease population growth. Thesenon-oppressive policies appear to be sufficient to control thepopulation -- and Holdren's decades-long panic attack seems to beunfounded.

Now, consider all the recommendations by Holdren given above, and then note that at his Senate confirmation hearinghe said he would "keep policy free from politics" if confirmed. In factHoldren has repeatedly said that science should not be be tainted bypolitics. But have you ever seen more politicized science-policy recommendations than those given in Ecoscience?






For the doubters and the naysayers...

There are five possible counter-claims which you might make against this report:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.

I'll address each in turn:

1. I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.
Scroll to the bottom of this page, and look at the photos of the book-- especially the last two photos, showing the book opened to pagesquoted in this report. Then look at the full-page scans directly abovethose photos, showing each page mentioned here in full, unaltered. Whatmore proof do you need? If you're still not convinced, go to any largelibrary and check out the book yourself, and you'll see: everything Iclaim here is true.

2. He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.
Some have argued that the FrontPage article "takes quotesout of context," which is the very reason why I went and investigatedthe original book itself. Turns out that not only are the quotes notout of context, but the additional paragraphs on either side of eachpassage only serve to make Holdren's ideas appear even more sinister.You want context? Be careful what you ask for, because the contextmakes things worse.

But yes, to satisfy the curious and the doubters, the "extendedpassages" and full-page scans given below provide more than sufficientcontext for the quotes.

In truth, I weary of the "context game" in which every controversial statement is alwaysclaimed to be "out of context," and no matter how much context is thengiven, it's never enough, until one must present every single wordsomeone has ever written -- at which point the reader becomesoverwhelmed and loses interest. Which is the whole point of the contextgame to begin with.

3. He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.
First of all: If you are a co-author of a book, you are signingyour name to it, and you must take responsibility for everything thatis in that book. This is true for John Holdren and every other author.

But there's plenty more evidence than that. Most significantly, Holdren has held similar views for years and frequently wrote about themunder his own name. It's not like these quotes are unexpected and cameout of the blue -- they fit into a pattern of other Holdren writingsand viewpoints.

Lastly, below I present full-page scans of the "Acknowledgments" pages in Ecoscience,and in those Acknowledgments pages are dozens of thank-yous to peopleat U.C. Berkeley -- where Holdren was a professor at the time. In fact,there are more acknowledgments involving Berkeley than anywhere else,and since Holdren was the only one of the three authors with aconnection to Berkeley, they must be his thank-yous -- indicating that he wrote a substantial portion of the book. Even his wife is thanked.

I have no way of knowing if Holdren himself typed the exact wordsquoted on this page, but he certainly at a minimum edited them and gavethem his stamp of approval.

4. What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.
Well, if you believe that, then I guess this page holds no interestfor you, and you are thereby free to ignore it. But I have a suspicionthat the vast majority of Americans find the views expressed by Holdrento be alarming and abhorrent.

5. He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.
You might argue that this book was written in a different era, duringwhich time a certain clique of radical scientists (including Holdren)were in a frenzy over what they thought at the time was a crisis sosevere it threatend the whole planet: overpopulation. But all that isin the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyonewould now forget. I mean, people change their opinions all the time.Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he hasrenounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longerbelieves any of the things he wrote in Ecoscience, so we can't hold them against him any more.

Unfortunately, as fas as I've been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed or distanced himself from the views he held in the 1970s and spelled out in Ecoscience and other books. In fact, he kept writing on similar topics up until quite recently.

But yes, it is possible that Holdren has changed. Yet we'll never knowuntil he announces his change of heart publicly. And so I say:
I challenge John Holdren to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him responsible for those statements.
It'sall very well and good to say, "Oh, none of that could ever reallyhappen in the United States," or "It's just a fantasy," and so on. Butconsider this: The man who advocated the policies quoted above is nowin the inner circle of power in the White House, and currently advisesthe President on all matters involving science, medicine andtechnology. If you really think forced abortions could never happenhere, aren't you at least a little nervous that someone who sees themas acceptable has so much power?





Before you read any further...

If you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading here. Very little new information is presented below.

(And if you'd like to comment on this report, you can do so HERE at zomblog.)

But if you still harbor doubts that the United States Science Czarcould possibly harbor such views, and want more proof, then read on forlonger and fuller citations, and full-page scans of the pages in thebook, as well as photographs of the book itself. And if by chance youare a Holdren or Obama supporter, and want to falsely claim that I havetaken Holdren's statements out of context, then you'd better stopreading here too, because if you go any further then you'll see that Ihave given full context for the quotes and conclusive evidence thatthey're Holdren's -- removing any basis by which you could havequestioned this report.





More Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotes above were taken

For most of these, I will present the following extended passageswithout further commentary -- judge for yourself if you think thecontext mitigates Holdren's intent, or only worsens the impression thathe's completely serious about all this.



Page 837 full-length extended quote:





Todate, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to uselaws to control excessive population growth, although there existsample authority under which population growth could be regulated. Forexample, under the United States Constitution, effectivepopulation-control programs could be enacted under the clauses thatempower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the generalwelfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clauseof the Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be verybroad. Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-controllaws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could besustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisisbecame sufficiently severe to endanger the society. Few today considerthe situation in the United States serious enough to justifycompulsion, however.

Let it be noted that John Holdren himself is among thefew who "consider the situation in the United States serious enough tojustify compulsion" -- in fact, that's the entire thrust of Ecoscience,to convince everyone that overpopulation is a catastrophic crisis whichrequires immediate and extreme solutions. So although the finalsentence of the extended passage seems at first to mollify the extremenature of his speculation, in reality Holdren is only speaking of allthe unaware masses who don't see things his way.



Page 786 full-length extended quote:





Socialpressures on both men and women to marry and have children must beremoved. As former Secretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "Alllives are not enhanced by marital union; parenthood is not necessarilya fulfillment for every married couple." If society were convinced ofthe need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma that has customarilybeen assigned to bachelors, spinsters, and childless couples would soondisappear. But alternative lifestyles should be open to single people,and perhaps the institution of an informal, easily dissolved "marriage"for the childless is one possibility. Indeed, many DC societies nowseem to be evolving in this direction as women's liberation gainsmomentum. It is possible that fully developed societies may producesuch arrangements naturally, and their association with lower fertilityis becoming increasingly clear. In LDCs a childless or single lifestylemight be encouraged deliberately as the status of women approachesparity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexes might be toleratedin such a society, responsible parenthood ought to be encouraged andillegitimate childbearing could be strongly discouraged. One way tocarry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimatebabies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, whogenerally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If asingle mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged togo through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to supportand care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain moredifficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition ofthe relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even hepossible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions,perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on thesociety.

Somewhat more repressive measures for discouraging large familieshave also been proposed, such as assigning public housing withoutregard for family size and removing dependency allowances from studentgrants or military pay. Some of these have been implemented in crowdedSingapore, whose population program has been counted as one of the mostsuccessful.

In the final sentence of this passage, Holdren speaksapprovingly of Singapore's infamous totalitarian micromanaging ofpeople's daily lives.

But to me, the most bizarre and disturbing aspect of the quotegiven here is that Holgren seems to think that economic disincentivesto have large families are morerepressive and extreme than taking away basic bodily rights. ToHoldren, "removing dependency allowances from student grants" is morerepressive than compelling women to have abortions against their will.A very peculiar and twisted view of the world, I must say.



Page 787-8 full-length extended quote:





Addinga sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion thatseems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntaryfertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficultpolitical, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technicalproblems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to beunder development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have tomeet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective,despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despitevarying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it mustbe free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have noeffect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, orlivestock.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts University School ofMedicine, suggested that a sterilant could be developed that had a veryspecific action—for example, preventing implantation of the fertilizedovum. He proposed that it be used to reduce fertility levels byadjustable amounts, anywhere from five to 75 percent, rather than tosterilize the whole population completely. In this way, fertility couldbe adjusted from time to time to meet a society's changing needs, andthere would be no need to provide an antidote. Contraceptives wouldstill be needed for couples who were highly motivated to have smallfamilies. Subfertile and functionally sterile couples who stronglydesired children would be medically assisted, as they are now, orencouraged to adopt. Again, there is no sign of such an agent on thehorizon. And the risk of serious, unforeseen side effects would, in ouropinion, militate against the use of any such agent, even though thisplan has the advantage of avoiding the need for socioeconomic pressuresthat might tend to discriminate against particular groups or penalizechildren.

Most of the population control measures beyond family planningdiscussed above have never been tried. Some are as yet technicallyimpossible and others are and probably will remain unacceptable to mostsocieties (although, of course, the potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but thealternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives becomeclearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demandingsuch control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use ofmilder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoublingefforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortionand sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth withinthe shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptlyagainst population growth, perhaps the need for the more extremeinvoluntary or repressive measures can be averted in most countries.





Page 786-7 full-length extended quote:





Involuntary fertility control

The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntaryfertility control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion,mainly because some countries may ultimately have to resort to themunless current trends in birthrates are rapidly reversed by othermeans. Some involuntary measures could be less repressive ordiscriminatory, in fact, than some of the socioeconomic measuresuggested.

...

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation thanvasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.This of course would be feasible only in countries where the majorityof births are medically assisted. Unfortunately, such a programtherefore is not practical for most less developed countries (althoughin China, mothers of three children are commonly "expected" to undergosterilization).

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could beimplanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opensadditional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsulecould be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with officialpermission, for a limited number of births. No capsule that would lastthat long (30 years or more) has yet been developed, but it istechnically within the realm of possibility.





Page 838 full-length extended quote:





It is accepted that the law has as its proper function the protectionof each person and each group of people. A legal restriction on theright to have more than a given number of children could easily bebased on the needs of the first children. Studies have indicated thatthe larger the family, the less healthy the children are likely to beand the less likely they are to realize their potential levels ofachievement. Certainly there is no question that children of a smallfamily can be cared for better and can be educated better than childrenof a large family, income and other things being equal. The law couldproperly say to a mother that, in order to protect the children shealready has, she could have no more. (Presumably, regulations on thesizes of adopted families would have to be the same.)

A legal restriction on the right to have children could also bebased on the right not to be disadvantaged by excessive numbers ofchildren produced by others. Differing rates of reproduction amonggroups 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 resourcesand political power and thereby undermine social order. If someindividuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducingchildren, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law toexercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required toexercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

Study this whole extended passage carefully for an extremely unsettlingview into the legal brain of John Holdren. Some of the sentiments heexpresses here are beyond the pale, and his legal reasoning boggles themind.



Page 838 full-length extended quote:





Individual rights. Individual rights must be balanced againstthe power of the government to control human reproduction. Somepeople—respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included—have viewedthe right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yetneither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions aright to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right,although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsiblyto choose" the number and spacing of children (our emphasis). In theUnited States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy andit has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choosewhether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a womanhas a right to choose not to have children. But the right isnot unlimited. Where the society has a "compelling, subordinatinginterest" in regulating population size, the right of the individualmay be curtailed. If society's survival depended on having morechildren, women could he required to bear children, just as men canconstitutionally be required to serve in the armed forces. Similarly,given a crisis caused by overpopulation, reasonably necessary laws tocontrol excessive reproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have children is so personalthat the government should not regulate it. In an ideal society, nodoubt the state should leave family size and composition solely to thedesires of the parents. In today's world, however, the number ofchildren in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The lawregulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one maylawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not beable to prevent a person from having more than two children?

This extended passage is a perfect example of how the "full context" ofa short quote only makes it worse; once you see Holdren's completeelaboration on the idea, you realize it's not some flippant notion hetossed off, but something he feels deeply about.



Page 942-3 full-length extended quote:





Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Should a Law of the Sea be successfully established, it could serveas a model for a future Law of the Atmosphere to regulate the use ofairspace, to monitor climate change, and to control atmosphericpollution. Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the UnitedNations population agencies, might eventually be developed into aPlanetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population,resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime couldcontrol the development, administration, conservation, and distributionof all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofaras international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have thepower to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceansbut also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that crossinternational boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regimemight also be a logical central agency for regulating all internationaltrade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including allfood on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determiningthe optimum population for the world and for each region and forarbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits.Control of population size might remain the responsibility of eachgovernment, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreedlimits. 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 inaccordance with changing conditions.

The Planetary Regime might have the advantage over earlier proposedworld government schemes in not being primarily political in itsemphasis—even though politics would inevitably be a part of alldiscussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since most of the areas theRegime would control are not now being regulated or controlled bynations or anyone else, establishment of the Regime would involve farless surrendering of national power. Nevertheless it might functionpowerfully to suppress international conflict simply because theinterrelated global resource-environment structure would not permitsuch an outdated luxury.





Page 917 full-length extended quote:





If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armedinternational organization, a global analogue of a police force. Manypeople have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remainsobscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to beincreasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender ofsovereignty to an international organization. But it seems probablethat, as long as most people fail to comprehend the magnitude of thedanger, that step will be impossible

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716700298/ref=nosim/cryptogoncom-20"