Obama's Science Czar believes in Mass Sterlizations and Forced Abortions

Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
This is for those who are up to gathering new info on those around B.O.

John Holdren

Little Bio.
Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President 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.

He wrote a book called Eco-science: Population, Resources, Environment


in this 1977 book he wrote many eye-brow moving quotes and alarming statements.

Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment by Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren | Questia, Your Online Research Library






Page 837
"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.


Page 786

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


Page 787-8
Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock


page 942
Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.



page 917

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

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
It reads more like a list of possible population control scenarios than an endorsement of population control. He even specifically says that few consider such measures justified or acceptable.
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
88,199
Reputation
3,616
Daps
157,245
Reppin
Brooklyn
It reads more like a list of possible population control scenarios than an endorsement of population control. He even specifically says that few consider such measures justified or acceptable.


I swear people can't read thing and put them into context anymore!
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,742
This seems extreme, but population control should be honestly one of the biggest areas of concern for human beings moving forward. Like Real already said, you're not applying the context to it. Moreover, you seem to be turning one aspect of this man's views against Obama- does this mean that Obama advocates said measures in a population crisis? Do you advocate every single view of someone you may adopt to fill a position? Or even the views of all the people you look up to in life?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
It reads more like a list of possible population control scenarios than an endorsement of population control. He even specifically says that few consider such measures justified or acceptable.

So you need population control? The terms he uses remind me of Kissinger but again you think it's hoopla.
 

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,353
Reputation
725
Daps
10,724
Reppin
NYC
So you need population control?

Not now, certainly. Would we ever need it? I'd lean towards no, but the situation in which it would become a legitimate topic of discussion isn't currently conceivable to me. I wouldn't say it's a completely illegitimate topic in any and every context, though.

The terms may seem extreme to you, but the hypothetical he describes is also extreme. As he says, he's talking about a time when a population crisis would sufficiently endanger society. He's not talking about a world that resembles our own.

If that situation happened, and society was in real danger of complete collapse, then population control would no doubt be a subject of legitimate debate, seeing as society's existence would depend on lowering the population somehow. Would you say that it should be off the table even when society's existence is at stake?
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
This seems extreme, but population control should be honestly one of the biggest areas of concern for human beings moving forward. Like Real already said, you're not applying the context to it. Moreover, you seem to be turning one aspect of this man's views against Obama- does this mean that Obama advocates said measures in a population crisis? Do you advocate every single view of someone you may adopt to fill a position? Or even the views of all the people you look up to in life?

:youngsabo: Population control isn't an issue but for those who need to control resources, land and food consumption. The question is why would Obama who you praise so much would have any Nazi/Stalin/Mao thinker on his team. The man never recanted or not condone his own work til this day.
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-150
Daps
65,108
Reppin
NULL
Not now, certainly. Would we ever need it? I'd lean towards no, but the situation in which it would become a legitimate topic of discussion isn't currently conceivable to me. I wouldn't say it's a completely illegitimate topic in any and every context, though.

We don't need population control...natures does that on it's own. It's neither legitimate or a topic of discussion on the minds when it comes to saving lives. It goes the same hand and hand with gun control laws, War on Poverty, War on Drugs and War on Terror. They don't work cause they don't fix the core problem.


The terms may seem extreme to you, but the hypothetical he describes is also extreme. As he says, he's talking about a time when the population crisis would sufficiently endanger society. He's not talking about a world that resembles our own.

:beli: So he is writing about Bizarro World....a made up planet called Earth? :snoop:


If that situation happened, and that society was in danger of complete collapse, then population control would no doubt be a subject of legitimate debate, seeing as society's existence would depend on lowering the population somehow

What is a collapse? Financial? Explain cause the argument you are selling follows right into the 2000 Global Report about Depopulation.


.
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,385
Daps
32,641
Reppin
humans
I kind of side with thekingsmen on the population control tip.

People that advocate these things are usually trying to protect economic stability. This planet is capable of sustaining double or triple the population now. The problem is we still behave like primitive animals in many regards.

Also, we should be looking to expand to space. That should be our common goal.

Forced population control methods are just a means to maintain economic status quo.
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,742
:youngsabo: Population control isn't an issue but for those who need to control resources, land and food consumption. The question is why would Obama who you praise so much would have any Nazi/Stalin/Mao thinker on his team. The man never recanted or not condone his own work til this day.

We ALL need to do this. The more people we have, the more we consume, the more land we convert to farming, the more diversity we lose in our earth, as well as disruption of the natural balance. And what on earth are you talking about? I don't exclusively praise Obama. Don't fill in blanks on your own.

We as a species are augmenting our carrying capacity by devouring the earth for our own needs and you see something wrong with curtailing our expansion? Surprising. I always saw you as a naturalist kind of guy :skip:
 

Julius Skrrvin

I be winkin' through the scope
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
16,319
Reputation
3,285
Daps
30,742
I kind of side with thekingsmen on the population control tip.

People that advocate these things are usually trying to protect economic stability. This planet is capable of sustaining double or triple the population now. The problem is we still behave like primitive animals in many regards.

Also, we should be looking to expand to space. That should be our common goal.

Forced population control methods are just a means to maintain economic status quo.

Yes, but at the cost of a great deal of the earth's wealth of species and would necessitate massive improvements in efficiency. Expanding to space is one thing. We need to streamline and cut the fat off our cost of living imho. I don't believe humanity should relentlessly expand and consume because we simply can.
 
Top