DescentBB

Posted this on the other board. Curious to see what replies I get here:

Obama's Pick? Why one John Holdren. Now I know Bee is big on science so maybe she will enjoy this topic for a change but will she breathlessly embrace Obama's choice. Lets take a look at a few view points Mr Holdren has expounded upon in a book called the \"Ecoscience\" from back in 1977:


Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal

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

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

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

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

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

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Just another case of Glorious Leaders desire to help all us poor suffering citizens or \"Better Living Through Science\".

PLEASE tell me the context was in a work of fiction he tried to publish?!?

You mean someone wrote a book 32 years ago outlining the extraordinary measures that may have to be taken in the future if the population of our planet should swell to critical mass?

Jeepers. Another Obama failure.

Bettina

what Bet said

Will Robinson wrote:PLEASE tell me the context was in a work of fiction he tried to publish?!?

Sorry dude, this is the "Real McCoy". Another shining example of quintessential Darwinism.
God help us all.

I don’t know…his thinking is scary, whether it was 25 years ago, or 25 years from now.

How that reflects on Obama…can’t say.

I don't know. From my reading of the quotes, I have never seen any *endorsement* of the measures, but a neutral description of their feasibility. Which would make sense since it is a classical textbook, and giving neutral descriptions - without value judgments - is what scientists are supposed to do. But I did not have time for a closer look, so I might be wrong.

edit: the only value judgment I found so far is the following (p. 787), where they advocate the use of milder measures.

Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences while redoubling efforts to ensure that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time.

Bee/Pandora you are both incredibly short sighted. Want to see population control at it's finest? Read up on Pol Pot's regime or Hitlers Great Solution.

Ask your self this, who do you think would have their babies taken away (page 786)? Daughters of the ruling elite? Daughters of large party contributors? White girls from respectable well to do family's? Or would it wind up being a type of ethnic cleansing.

The problem here is Glorius Leader has surrounded himself with questionable people like Wright/Ayers/Rezko and Holdren is just another example of how whacked out Obama really is.

this guys is a CZAR. HE answers ONLY to the president. He shares power with NO ONE. HE is second only to President. He can do what he wants. There is a lot that can be done under the radar and the President would never catch wind of it if a CZAR so chooses.

Woody, I - of course - agree totally with you with regards to the policies described in there. I would never stand for somebody who truly wants to implement something like this. My point is that it could be that the authors of the book also don't really want to implement them but just point out different measures that *could* be taken to control population size.

The specific example you provided does make it seen that they are seeing this measure in a positive light, I agree with that. But keep in mind that this was written 30 years ago in a totally different climate and when Holdren was probably still more idealistic and less realistic. At least in the recent quotes he makes it clear that he does *not* advocate such measures.

Pandora, if Holdren has changed his tune, then all is well. Problem I have, of all the science minded people out there, I think Obama could of chosen a better person. As it is, Obama continually chooses to associate with radical people that can only lead one to assume, down deep, Obama is of a like mind.

woodchip wrote:Pandora, if Holdren has changed his tune, then all is well.

So, you posted without knowing the facts?

woodchip wrote:As it is, Obama continually chooses to associate with radical people that can only lead one to assume, down deep, Obama is of a like mind.

Or, was it just a guise for more Obama bashing.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:

woodchip wrote:Pandora, if Holdren has changed his tune, then all is well.

So, you posted without knowing the facts?

Bee, the operative word was "If". We do not know if Holdren has really changed his tune, only time will tell.

Bet51987 wrote:

woodchip wrote:As it is, Obama continually chooses to associate with radical people that can only lead one to assume, down deep, Obama is of a like mind.

Or, was it just a guise for more Obama bashing.

Bettina

I will continually "Bash" Obama in the hopes he is only a one term president. Tell us Bee, after 7 months in office, what good has Obama done for the country? Economy better? Deficit reduced? Improved Americas image abroad? Pray tell us what you like about the guy at this stage of the game.

Well even if the book is only academic, it’s still scary. Academic thinking at that level should remain private, I don’t see the reasoning behind publishing such a thing. (if only academic)

We could go to war to reduce the population…(only a possibility)

See…still scary.

....................

Woody...improved race relations...

Pandora wrote:...But keep in mind that this was written 30 years ago in a totally different climate and when Holdren was probably still more idealistic and less realistic....

My problem with liberals in general is I find them to have never grown up in that fashion so they have silly notions about how to solve problems...like raising taxes to buy your way out of hard financial times.
I see Obama and his circle of advisers as thinking all they need to do is put in place the programs and policy they want based on the outcome they wish for and not worrying at all about the cost and negative affect of those changes. They actually laugh at the idea that someone would expect them to read the content of a bill before they vote on it! I'm sure they believe any negative result of their new legislation can be fixed after the fact by simply passing yet another bill...which they also won't read...

It's like listening to children talk about how they would fix the government if they were President. 'I'd make everyone be nice and eat good foods and give everyone jobs and a nice house and a car that doesn't burn gas...etc.'
The similarity is depressing.

We are assuming that Holdren has had a Epiphany and realized his earlier thinking is flawed...much like a little boy who liked to pull the wings off of flies and then realized burning puppies was ever so much more fun.

woodchip wrote:We are assuming that Holdren has had a Epiphany and realized his earlier thinking is flawed...much like a little boy who liked to pull the wings off of flies and then realized burning puppies was ever so much more fun.

Awwww poor puppies.

Holder won't be touching California's Quasi-Legal marijuana \"medical\" dispensaries Gets a nod from me just for that.

But you don't hit the reefer now do you woody? Can you even still get a woody? ;p

No to Mary Jane but bigger than you'll ever hope to be on the second question.