Eco Science Quotes Obama Science Czar Holdren

8/14/2019 Eco Science Quotes Obama Science Czar Holdren

1/25

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

ohn Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forceabortions and mass sterilization needed to save

the planet

Bo o k h e au th o re d i n 1 9 7 7 a d vo ca te s fo r e x t re m e to ta l i t a r i a n m e asu re s to co n t ro l t

p o p u la t i o n

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

the person 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 House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the

esident for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

ormally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in co

science policy in this country wrote that:

Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

he population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in fo

ingle mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other

uples to raise;

eople who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive

ponsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate

ails of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

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

ell, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and t

ort contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the bookEcoscience,

hored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are

ovided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

is report was originally inspired by this article in FrontPage magazine, which covers some of the same information g

re. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impac

blic opinion. Why not? Because, as I discovered when discussing the article with various friends, there was noproof

quotes were accurate -- so most folks (even those opposed to Obama's policies) doubted their veracity, because the

tements seemed too inflammatory to be true. In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so

ttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/ (1 of 25)7/11/2009 8:18:08 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdrenhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_czars_of_the_Obama_administrationhttp://www.ilab.org/db/book47_80430.htmlhttp://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198http://www.ilab.org/db/book47_80430.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_czars_of_the_Obama_administrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren


2/25


esumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains t

dence.

course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time (l

70s) was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation. He felt extreme measures would be required to comb

reme problem. Whether or not you think this provides him a valid "excuse" for having descended into a totalitarian

ntasy is up to you: personally, I don't think it's a valid excuse at all, since the crisis he was in a panic over was mostly

imagination. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable

tification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.

irect quotes from John Holdren's Ecoscience

low you will find a series of ten short passages fromEcoscience. On the left in each case is a scanned image taken

ectly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy section

ghlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me.

llowing these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorte

otes were excerpted, to provide the full context.

d at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans (and photos) of the full pages from which all of these passa

re taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the qure taken "out of context."

ady? Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked.

ge 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

Indeed, it has beenconcluded that compulspopulation-control laws

even including lawsrequiring compulsoryabortion, could besustained under theexisting Constitutionthe population crisisbecame sufficiently sevto endanger the society

noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it h

en concluded." Really? By whom? By the authors of the book, that's whom. What Holdren's really saying here is, "I

ermined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies." And as we

e later, although Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there's no need for such laws, he and his co-authorsieve that the population crisis is so severe that the time has indeed come for "compulsory population-control laws."

t, they spend the entire book arguing that "the population crisis" has already become "sufficiently severe to endange

ciety."

ge 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or

ey could be forced to have abortions



3/25


One way to carry out this disapproval might be insist that all illegitimate babies be put up adoptionespecially those born to minors, whogenerally are not capable of caring properly for child alone. If a single mother really w ishedkeep her baby, she might be obliged to gothrough adoption proceedings and demonstrher ability to support and care for it. Adoption

proceedings probably should remain more difficufor single people than for married couples, inrecognition of the relative difficulty of raisingchildren alone. It w ould even be possible torequire pregnant single women to marry orhave abortions, perhaps as an alternative toplacement for adoption, depending on the societ

ldren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an

erpopulation crisis. But what's especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely made these proposals -- wrenchin

bies from their mothers' arms and giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they would be

rents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether they wanted to or not -- but that he does so in such a dispassionreaucratic way. Don't be fooled by the innocuous and "level-headed" tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish,

wever euphemistically they are expressed.

ldren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many

men have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.

is kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possib

el is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I'm reminded of the phrase "banality

l."

t that it matters, but I myself am "pro-choice" -- i.e. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn't meano-abortion -- I don't particularly like abortions, but I do believe women should be allowed the choice to have them. B

hn Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- toforce women to have abortions. One doesn't need to be a "pro

e" activist to see the horror of this proposal -- people on all sides of the political spectrum should be outraged. My

ection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a

dical procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself (regardless of my vi

y find particularly immoral or traumatic.

ere's a bumper sticker that's popular in liberal areas which says: "Against abortion? Then don't have one." Well, John

ldren wants to MAKE you have one, whether you're against it or not.

ge 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as lon

it doesn't harm livestock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evilhttp://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/114813929_01245725e5.jpg?v=0http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/114813929_01245725e5.jpg?v=0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil


4/25


Adding a sterilant to drinking water or stapfoods is a suggestion that seems to horrify peomore than most proposals for involuntary fertilicontrol. Indeed, this would pose some very diffipolitical, legal, and social questions, to saynothing of the technical problems. No suchsterilant exists today, nor does one appear to bunder development. To be acceptable, such asubstance would have to meet some rather stif

requirements: it must be uniformly effectivedespite widely varying doses received byindividuals, and despite varying degrees of fertiand sensitivity among individuals; it must be frof dangerous or unpleasant side effects; anmust have no effect on members of the oppositsex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

K, John, now you're really starting to scare me. Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise th

s suggestion "seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently are not among those people it horri

cause in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical

ncerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it

ght to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize

humans safely without hurting the livestock, that'd be peachy! The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about suc

eply invasive and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement) is extremely unsettlin

d in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government.

ge 786-7: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing

em or implanting mandatory long-term birth control

Involuntary fertility control

...A program of sterilizing women after theirsecond or third child, despite the relativelygreater difficulty of the operation than vasectommight be easier to implement than trying tosterilize men....The development ofa long-term sterilizingcapsule that could be implanted under theskin and removed when pregnancy is desiredopens additional possibilities for coercive ferticontrol. The capsule could be implanted atpuberty and might be removable, with officiapermission , for a limited number of births.

te well the phrase "with official permission" in the above quote. Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the

vernment implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply fo

icial permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he

nts a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society? Because I

hell don't.

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



5/25


ve children

If some individucontribute togeneral socialdeterioration byoverproducingchildren, and if thneed is compellingthey can berequired by law exercisereproductiveresponsibilityjuas they can berequired to exercisresponsibility in thresource-consumppatternsprovidinthey are not denieequal protection.

me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Because h

ldren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their

bies. Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contribute to social deterioration" could be "forced to

ercise reproductive responsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilizati

hat other alternative would there be to "force" people to not have children? Will government monitors be stationed in

esponsible people's bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way

rce" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.

t what manner of insanity is this? "Social deterioration"? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that "some" people contrib

social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from

opagating their kind? Isn't that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn't eugenics universally condemned as a grotesquel

l practice?

e've already been down this road before. In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, th

preme Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a w

med Carrie Buckagainst her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was "feeble-minded" and promiscuo

th Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Nowadays, of course, w

ok back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now

ards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.

e italicized phrase at the end ("providing they are not denied equal protection"), which Holdren seems to think gets h

the eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the more complete version of this passage quot

ow), meaning that the eugenics program wouldn't be racially based or discriminatory -- merely based on the whim a

essments of government bureaucrats deciding who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren'smerica determines that you are "contributing to social deterioration" by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will

vernment agents break down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the abortion clinic? In fact, th

preme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

tinctlyprohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.

no, you say,Holdren isn't claiming that some kind of people contribute to social deterioration more than others; ra

s stating thatanyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to social deterioration and needs to be stopped

m having more. If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this

ough, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who

mmit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization cent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buckhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8128121.stmhttp://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahomahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahomahttp://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8128121.stmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Buckhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell


6/25


-- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian

ciety he envisions in this book.

re, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden

oughts; who among us hasn't looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy bars and soda for her immense

ood of unruly children and thought:Lady, why don't you just get your tubes tied already? But it's a different matter w

Science Czar of the United States suggests the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless fantasy

ddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. And then it's not so funny anymore.

ge 838: Nothing is w rong or illegal about the government dictating family size

In today's world,however, the number children in a family is matter of profound puconcern. The lawregulates other highlypersonal matters. Forexample, no one maylawfully have more thaone spouse at a time.

Why should the lawbe able to prevent aperson from havingmore than twochildren?

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

hy?

tell you why, John. Because the the principle ofhabeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders an

mpulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual's body from

ention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting that, shouldreaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?

m no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schem

ggested inEcoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is

out reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.

ge 942-3: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by for

e number of children allowed to be born

Toward a P lanetary

Regime...Perhaps those agencicombined with UNEP the United Nationspopulation agencies,might eventually bedeveloped into aPlanetary Regimesort of an internatisuperagency forpopulation, resourcand environment. S



7/25


a comprehensivePlanetary Regimecould control thedevelopment,administration,conservation, anddistribution ofal lnatural resources,renewable ornonrenewable, at le

insofar as internationimplications exist. Ththe Regime could havthe power to controlpollution not only in tatmosphere and oceabut also in suchfreshwater bodies asrivers and lakes thatcross internationalboundaries or thatdischarge into theoceans. The Regimemight also be a logcentral agency forregulating allinternational tradeperhaps includingassistance from DCs tLDCs, and including food on theinternational marke

The P lanetary Regimight be given

responsibility fordetermining theoptimum populatiofor the world and foeach region and forarbitrating variouscountries' shares wtheir regional limits.Control of population might remain theresponsibility of eachgovernment, but theRegime would havesome power to enfothe agreed limits.

case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it'll be

anetary Regime"! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.

e rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice scienc

tion ring to it, doesn't it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will have total power over the global economy, s

cording to Holdren this Planetary Regime will control "all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable" (which

sically means all goods) as well as all food, and commerce on the oceans and any rivers "that discharge into the ocea

99% of all navigable rivers). What's left? Not much.



8/25


ge 917: We w ill need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international po

rce

If this could beaccomplished, securitymight be provided by aarmed internationalorganization, a globa

analogue of a policeforce. Many people harecognized this as a gobut the way to reach itremains obscure in a wwhere factionalism seeif anything, to beincreasing. The first stenecessarily involvespartial surrender ofsovereignty to aninternationalorganization .

e other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organizatio

anetary Regime," presumably), which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the

evious quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, an

onomic activity.

would be laughable if Holdren weren't so deadly serious. Do you want this man to be in charge of science and techno

the United States? Because he already is in charge.

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

Another related issue that seems to encourage apronatalist attitude in many people is thequestion of the differential reproduction of sociaethnic groups. Many people seem to bepossessed by fear that their group may beoutbred by other groups. White Americans anSouth Africans are worried there will be too manblacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel aredisturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli ArabsProtestants are worried about Catholics, and lboabout Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries tooutbreed everyone else, the result will be

catastrophe for all. This is another case of the"tragedy of the commons," wherein the "commois the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercisireproductive restraint.

is passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the inclusion of the odd phrase "pronatalist attitude," which Hold

ends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a "pronatalist attitude"? Basically it means the urge

ve children, and to like babies. If only we could suppress people's natural urge to want children and start families, we

uld solve all our problems!

hat's disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically actin



9/25


has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not inc

ir populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up on the steps of the Capitol in Washin

C. and announced that there were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop breeding

mediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic group in the world to John Holdren's proposal would be: C

John. Stop telling us what to do.

ge 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be

solved at all costs by the year 2000

Humanity cannot affto muddle through threst of the tw entiethcentury; the risks are great, and the stakes atoo high. This may belast opportunity tochoose our own and descendants' destinyFailing to choose ormaking the wrong choimay lead to catastroph

But it must never beforgotten that the rightchoices could lead to amuch better world.

is is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his "scientific

ojections were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global catastrophe, and he proposed

plementing fascistic rules and laws to stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet the wo

naged to survive anyway without the need to punish ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed.

re still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as morally repugnant as the "solutions" which John Hold

nted us to adopt.

ctually don't disagree with everything Holdren says. I agree with him that overpopulation is a problem, and that muc

environmental degradation that has happened is due in large part to overpopulation (mostly in the developing world

here we disagree is in the solution. While Holdren does occasionally advocate for milder solutions elsewhere in the b

basic premise is that the population explosion has gotten so out of control that only the most oppressive and totalita

asures can possibly stop humanity from stripping the planet bare and causing a catastrophe beyond our imagining.

ldren has (apparently) no problem saying we should force people to not have children, by any means necessary. And

where we part ways. I draw the line at even the hintof compulsory compliance to draconian laws about pregnancy an

ortion; Holdren does not hesitate to cross that line without a second thought.

y solution would be to adopt social policies that are known to lead to voluntary and non-coercive trends toward a low

th rate: increased education for girls in poor countries, better access to (voluntarily adopted) birth control, higher

ndards of living. In fact, population trends since 1977 have started to level off in the crisis areas of Asia and Latin

merica, primarily due to better standards of living and better education, which are known to decrease population grow

ese non-oppressive policies appear to be sufficient to control the population -- and Holdren's decades-long panic atta

ems to be unfounded.

w, consider all the recommendations by Holdren given above, and then note that at his Senate confirmation hearing

d he would "keep policy free from politics" if confirmed. In fact Holdren has repeatedly said that science should not

tainted by politics. But have you everseen more politicized science-policy recommendations than those given in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN).svghttp://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/ny-ustran136033686feb13,0,6533796.storyhttp://www.baltimoresun.com/topic/ny-ustran136033686feb13,0,6533796.storyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_(UN).svg


10/25


oscience?

r the doubters and the naysayers...

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

I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.

He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.

What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.

He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.

address each in turn:

I'm lying, Holdren wrote no such thing, and this whole page is one big hoax.

roll to the bottom of this page, and look at the photos of the book -- especially the last two photos, showing the book

ened to pages quoted in this report. Then look at the full-page scans directly above those photos, showing each page

ntioned here in full, unaltered. What more proof do you need? If you're still not convinced, go to any large library aneck out the book yourself, and you'll see: everything I claim here is true.

He may have said those things, but I'm taking them out of context.

me have argued that the FrontPage article "takes quotes out of context," which is the very reason why I went and

vestigated the original book itself. Turns out that not only are the quotes not out of context, but the additional paragra

either side of each passage only serve to make Holdren's ideas appear even more sinister. You want context? Be car

at you ask for, because the context makes things worse.

t yes, to satisfy the curious and the doubters, the "extended passages" and full-page scans given below provide more

fficient context for the quotes.

truth, I weary of the "context game" in which every controversial statement is always claimed to be "out of context,"

matter how much context is then given, it's never enough, until one must present every single word someone has eve

itten -- at which point the reader becomes overwhelmed and loses interest. Which is the whole point of the context g

begin with.

He was just the co-author -- he probably didn't write these particular passages, nor did he agree with them.

st of all: If you are a co-author of a book, you are signing your name to it, and you must take responsibility for every

t is in that book. This is true for John Holdren and every other author.

t there's plenty more evidence than that. Most significantly, Holdren has held similar views for years and frequently

ote about them under his own name. It's not like these quotes are unexpected and came out of the blue -- they fit intotern of other Holdren writings and viewpoints.

stly, below I present full-page scans ofthe"Acknowledgments"pages inEcoscience, and in those Acknowledgment

ges are dozens of thank-yous to people at U.C. Berkeley -- where Holdren was a professor at the time. In fact, there a

ore acknowledgments involving Berkeley than anywhere else, and since Holdren was the only one of the three author

th a connection to Berkeley, they must be his thank-yous -- indicating that he wrote a substantial portion of the book

en his wife is thanked.

ave no way of knowing if Holdren himself typed the exact words quoted on this page, but he certainly at a minimum

ted them and gave them his stamp of approval.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_full.jpghttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2368


11/25


What he said really isn't that egregious: in fact, it seems pretty reasonable.

ell, if you believe that, then I guess this page holds no interest for you, and you are thereby free to ignore it. But I hav

picion that the vast majority of Americans find the views expressed by Holdren to be alarming and abhorrent.

He wrote all this a long time ago -- he's probably changed his views by now.

u might argue that this book was written in a different era, during which time a certain clique of radical scientists

cluding Holdren) were in a frenzy over what they thought at the time was a crisis so severe it threatend the whole pla

erpopulation. But all that is in the past, an embarrassing episode which Holdren might wish everyone would now for

an, people change their opinions all the time. Senator Robert Byrd was once in the KKK, after all, but by now he hanounced those views. Perhaps in a similar vein John Holdren no longer believes any of the things he wrote inEcoscie

we can't hold them against him any more.

fortunately, as fas as I've been able to discover, Holdren has never disavowed or distanced himself from the views h

d in the 1970s and spelled out inEcoscience and other books. In fact, he kept writing on similar topics up until quite

ently.

PDATE:] At his confirmation hearings, Holdren did answer one question on a differentstatement he made in the '70

out government-controlled population levels, and it might be considered somewhat of a backpedal. You can view the

deo here, but be warned that it is an extremely long streaming video that doesn't work in all browsers, and the answer

estion doesn't come until the 120th minute. Here's a quick transcript of the relevant part (I will post a more completersion later), and you can decide for yourself if his statement counts as a disavowal of the recommendations he made

oscience. (Personally, I don't think it does at all.)

arting at 120:30]

Senator David Vitter: In 1973, you encouraged "a decline in fertility well below replacement" in the

United States because "280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many." What would your number for the

right population in the US be today?

John Holdren:I no longer think it's productive, Senator, to focus on the optimum population of the

United States. I dont think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973,

uh, I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States faced appeared to be being

made more difficult by the greater population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies

these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities, its a tough

question to determine which will prevail in a given time period.

t yes, it is possible that Holdren has changed. Yet we'll never know until he announces his change of heart publicly.

I say:

I challenge John Holdren to publicly renounce and disavow the opinions and

recommendations he made in the bookEcoscience; and until he does so, I will hold him

responsible for those statements.

all very well and good to say, "Oh, none of that could ever really happen in the United States," or "It's just a fantasy

d so on. But consider this: The man who advocated the policies quoted above is now in the inner circle of power in th

hite House, and currently advises the President on all matters involving science, medicine and technology. If you rea

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=9ba25fea-5f68-4211-a181-79ff35a3c6c6http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=9ba25fea-5f68-4211-a181-79ff35a3c6c6


12/25


nk forced abortions could never happen here, aren't you at least a little nervous that someone who sees them as accep

s so much power?

efore you read any further...

you accept the self-evident veracity of these quotations, and are outraged enough already, then you can stop reading

re. Very little new information is presented below.

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

t if you still harbor doubts that the United States Science Czar could possibly harbor such views, and want more proo

n read on for longer and fuller citations, and full-page scans of the pages in the book, as well as photographs of the b

elf. And if by chance you are a Holdren or Obama supporter, and want to falsely claim that I have taken Holdren's

tements out of context, then you'd better stop reading here too, because if you go any further then you'll see that I ha

ven full context for the quotes and conclusive evidence that they're Holdren's -- removing any basis by which you cou

ve questioned this report.

ore Context: Complete extended passages from which the quotebove were taken

r most of these, I will present the following extended passages without further commentary -- judge for yourself if yo

nk the context mitigates Holdren's intent, or only worsens the impression that he's completely serious about all this.

ge 837 full-length extended quote:

To date, there hbeen no seriousattempt in Westecountries to uselaws to controlexcessive populagrowth, althoughthere exists ampauthority underwhich population

growth could beregulated. Forexample, under United StatesConstitution,effective populatcontrol programcould be enactedunder the clausethat empowerCongress toappropriate fundprovide for the

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576


13/25


general welfare to regulatecommerce, or unthe equal-protecclause of theFourteenthAmendment. Sulaws constitutioncould be very brIndeed, it has be

concluded thatcompulsorypopulation-contrlaws, even includlaws requiringcompulsoryabortion, could bsustained under existing Constituif the populationcrisis becamesufficiently seve

endanger thesociety. Few todconsider thesituation in theUnited Statesserious enough tjustify compulsiohowever.

t it be noted that John Holdren himself is among the few who "consider the situation in the United States serious eno

ustify compulsion" -- in fact, that's the entire thrust ofEcoscience, to convince everyone that overpopulation is a

astrophic crisis which requires immediate and extreme solutions. So although the final sentence of the extended pass

ems at first to mollify the extreme nature of his speculation, in reality Holdren is only speaking of all the unaware ma

o don't see things his way.


Social pressures on both men and women to maand have children must be removed. As formerSecretary of Interior Stewart Udall observed, "Alives are not enhanced by marital union;parenthood is not necessarily a fulfillment for evmarried couple." If society were convinced of th



14/25


need for low birth rates, no doubt the stigma thhas customarily been assigned to bachelors,spinsters, and childless couples would soondisappear. But alternative lifestyles should be oto single people, and perhaps the institution of ainformal, easily dissolved "marriage" for thechildless is one possibility. Indeed, many DCsocieties now seem to be evolving in this directias women's liberation gains momentum. It ispossible that fully developed societies may prod

such arrangements naturally, and their associatwith lower fertility is becoming increasingly cleaLDCs a childless or single lifestyle might beencouraged deliberately as the status of womenapproaches parity with that of men.

Although free and easy association of the sexesmight be tolerated in such a society, responsibleparenthood ought to be encouraged and illegitimchildbearing could be strongly discouraged. Oneway to carry out this disapproval might be to insthat all illegitimate babies be put up for adoptioespecially those born to minors, who generally a

not capable of caring properly for a child alone. single mother really wished to keep her baby, smight be obliged to go through adoptionproceedings and demonstrate her ability to suppand care for it. Adoption proceedings probablyshould remain more difficult for single people thfor married couples, in recognition of the relativdifficulty of raising children alone. It would evenpossible to require pregnant single women to mor have abortions, perhaps as an alternative toplacement for adoption, depending on the societ

Somewhat more repressive measures fordiscouraging large families have also beenproposed, such as assigning public housing withregard for family size and removing dependencyallowances from student grants or military pay.Some of these have been implemented in crowdSingapore, whose population program has beencounted as one of the most successful.

the final sentence of this passage, Holdren speaks approvingly of Singapore's infamous totalitarian micromanaging o

ople's daily lives.

t to me, the most bizarre and disturbing aspect of the quote given here is that Holgren seems to think that economic

incentives to have large families are more repressive and extreme than taking away basic bodily rights. To Holdren,

moving dependency allowances from student grants" is more repressive than compelling women to have abortions



15/25


ainst their will. A very peculiar and twisted view of the world, I must say.

ge 787-8 full-length extended quote:

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple fois a suggestion that seems to horrify people mothan most proposals for involuntary fertility conIndeed, this would pose some very difficult politlegal, and social questions, to say nothing of thtechnical problems. No such sterilant exists todnor does one appear to be under development. be acceptable, such a substance would have tomeet some rather stiff requirements: it must beuniformly effective, despite widely varying dosereceived by individuals, and despite varyingdegrees of fertility and sensitivity amongindividuals; it must be free of dangerous orunpleasant side effects; and it must have no effon members of the opposite sex, children, oldpeople, pets, or livestock.

Physiologist Melvin Ketchel, of the Tufts UniversSchool of Medicine, suggested that a sterilant cbe developed that had a very specific actionfoexample, preventing implantation of the fertilizeovum. He proposed that it be used to reducefertility levels by adjustable amounts, anywherefrom five to 75 percent, rather than to sterilize whole population completely. In this way, fertilicould be adjusted from time to time to meet asociety's changing needs, and there would be nneed to provide an antidote. Contraceptives wostill be needed for couples who were highlymotivated to have small families. Subfertile and

functionally sterile couples who strongly desiredchildren would be medically assisted, as they arnow, or encouraged to adopt. Again, there is nosign of such an agent on the horizon. And the riof serious, unforeseen side effects would, in ouropinion, militate against the use of any such ageven though this plan has the advantage ofavoiding the need for socioeconomic pressures might tend to discriminate against particular groor penalize children.

Most of the population control measures beyond

family planning discussed above have never beetried. Some are as yet technically impossible anothers are and probably will remain unacceptabmost societies (although, of course, the potentieffectiveness of those least acceptable measuremay be great).

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalataidea, but the alternatives may be much morehorrifying. As those alternatives become cleareran increasing number of people in the 1980s, thmay begin demanding such control. A far betterchoice, in our view, is to expand the use of mild



16/25


methods of influencing family size preferenceswhile redoubling efforts to ensure that the meaof birth control, including abortion and sterilizatare accessible to every human being on Earthwithin the shortest possible time. If effective acis taken promptly against population growth,perhaps the need for the more extreme involunor repressive measures can be averted in mostcountries.


Involuntary fertility control

The third approach to population limitation is thof involuntary fertility control. Several coerciveproposals deserve discussion, mainly becausesome countries may ultimately have to resort tthem unless current trends in birthrates are rapreversed by other means. Some involuntarymeasures could be less repressive ordiscriminatory, in fact, than some of thesocioeconomic measure suggested.

...

A program of sterilizing women after their secoor third child, despite the relatively greaterdifficulty of the operation than vasectomy, migbe easier to implement than trying to sterilize mThis of course would be feasible only in countriwhere the majority of births are medically assis

Unfortunately, such a program therefore is notpractical for most less developed countries(although in China, mothers of three children acommonly "expected" to undergo sterilization).

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsthat could be implanted under the skin andremoved when pregnancy is desired opensadditional possibilities for coercive fertility contThe capsule could be implanted at puberty andmight be removable, with official permission, folimited number of births. No capsule that wouldlast that long (30 years or more) has yet been

developed, but it is technically within the realmpossibility.




17/25


It is accepted that the law has as itsproper function the protection of eachperson and each group of people. A legrestriction on the right to have more tha given number of children could easilybased on the needs of the first childrenStudies have indicated that the larger tfamily, the less healthy the children arelikely to be and the less likely they are

realize their potential levels ofachievement. Certainly there is noquestion that children of a small familybe cared for better and can be educatebetter than children of a large family,income and other things being equal. Tlaw could properly say to a mother thaorder to protect the children she alreadhas, she could have no more.(Presumably, regulations on the sizes oadopted families would have to be thesame.)

A legal restriction on the right to havechildren could also be based on the rignot to be disadvantaged by excessivenumbers of children produced by otherDiffering rates of reproduction amonggroups can give rise to serious socialproblems. For example, differential ratof reproduction between ethnic, racial,religious, or economic groups might rein increased competition for resources political power and thereby underminesocial order. If some individuals contribto general social deterioration byoverproducing children, and if the needcompelling, they can be required by lawexercise reproductive responsibilityjuas they can be required to exerciseresponsibility in their resource-consumption patternsproviding they not denied equal protection.

udy this whole extended passage carefully for an extremely unsettling view into the legal brain of John Holdren. Som

sentiments he expresses here are beyond the pale, and his legal reasoning boggles the mind.




18/25


Individual rights. Individual rights must bebalanced against the power of the governmencontrol human reproduction. Some peoplerespected legislators, judges, and lawyers inclhave viewed the right to have children as afundamental and inalienable right. Yet neitherDeclaration of Independence nor the Constitutmentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the U

Charter describe such a right, although aresolution of the United Nations affirms the "rresponsibly to choose" the number and spacinchildren (our emphasis). In the United States,individuals have a constitutional right to privaand it has been held that the right to privacyincludes the right to choose whether or not tohave children, at least to the extent that a wohas a right to choose not to have children. Buright is not unlimited. Where the society has a"compelling, subordinating interest" in regulatpopulation size, the right of the individual maycurtailed. If society's survival depended on ha

more children, women could he required to bechildren, just as men can constitutionally berequired to serve in the armed forces. Similargiven a crisis caused by overpopulation,reasonably necessary laws to control excessivreproduction could be enacted.

It is often argued that the right to have childrso personal that the government should notregulate it. In an ideal society, no doubt the sshould leave family size and composition solelthe desires of the parents. In today's world,however, the number of children in a family ismatter of profound public concern. The lawregulates other highly personal matters. Forexample, no one may lawfully have more thanone spouse at a time. Why should the law notable to prevent a person from having more thtwo children?

is extended passage is a perfect example of how the "full context" of a short quote only makes it worse; once you see

ldren's complete elaboration on the idea, you realize it's not some flippant notion he tossed off, but something he fee

eply about.




19/25


Toward a P lanetary Regime...Should a Law of the Sea be successfullyestablished, it could serve as a model for a futLaw of the Atmosphere to regulate the use ofairspace, to monitor climate change, and tocontrol atmospheric pollution. Perhaps thoseagencies, combined with UNEP and the UnitedNations population agencies, might eventuallydeveloped into a Planetary Regimesort of aninternational superagency for population,resources, and environment. Such acomprehensive Planetary Regime could controdevelopment, administration, conservation, andistribution of all natural resources, renewablenonrenewable, at least insofar as internationaimplications exist. Thus, the Regime could havthe power to control pollution not only in theatmosphere and the oceans but also in suchfreshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that crosinternational boundaries or that discharge into

oceans. The Regime might also be a logical ceagency for regulating all international trade,perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCand including all food on the international mar

The Planetary Regime might be givenresponsibility for determining the optimumpopulation for the world and for each region afor arbitrating various countries' shares withintheir regional limits. Control of population sizemight remain the responsibility of eachgovernment, but the Regime should have sompower to enforce the agreed limits. As with the

Law of the Sea an other international agreemeall agreements for regulating population sizes,resource development, and pollution should besubject to revision and modification in accordawith changing conditions.

The Planetary Regime might have the advantaover earlier proposed world government schemin not being primarily political in its emphasiseven though politics would inevitably be a partall discussions, implicitly or explicitly. Since mof the areas the Regime would control are not

being regulated or controlled by nations or anyelse, establishment of the Regime would involvfar less surrendering of national power.Nevertheless it might function powerfully tosuppress international conflict simply because interrelated global resource-environment strucwould not permit such an outdated luxury.




20/25


If this could beaccomplished, securitymight be provided by armed internationalorganization, a globalanalogue of a police foMany people haverecognized this as a gbut the way to reach iremains obscure in a

world where factionaliseems, if anything, toincreasing. The first stnecessarily involvespartial surrender ofsovereignty to aninternational organizaBut it seems probablethat, as long as mostpeople fail to comprehthe magnitude of thedanger, that step will

impossible.

ull Context: High-res scans of all pages cited in this report

ck on each of the images below to see the full-size scans of the pages mentioned in this report:

Front cover Back coverTitle page

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/title_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/back_cover_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/front_cover_full.jpg


21/25


Page 749Page 786Page 787

Page 788Page 789 Page 837

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/837_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/789_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/788_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/787_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/786_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/749_full.jpg


22/25


Page 838 Page 839Page 917

Page 942Page 943

Page 944

Page 1003

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1003_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1001_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/944_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/943_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/942_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/917_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/839_full.jpghttp://zombietime.com/john_holdren/838_full.jpg


23/25


Page 1001

Page 1002

Photographs ofEcoscience, inside anout

Any finally, for the final proof that thi

real book co-authored by John Holdre

and that these are real quotes from tha

book -- and not some elaborate hoax,

some photographs (as opposed to scans) of the book itself:

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/1002_full.jpg


24/25




25/25


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

lick here to return to the main zombietime page.)
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576http://www.zombietime.com/http://www.zombietime.com/http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576

Eco Science Quotes Obama Science Czar Holdren

Documents

Transcript of Eco Science Quotes Obama Science Czar Holdren