Science Czar Holdren's Population Control Proposals

I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile, but I've been too lazy. :) John Holdren was recently appointed as Obama's Science Czar (I'm sure I'm the only one that finds it disturbing that all these czars answer directly and exclusively to the White House). As if everything that the One has done hasn't warned you about what's coming, this should help clarify it.

In 1977, Holdren co-authored a book titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. In the book, Holdren sets forth his plans to help save the environment, and humanity in general. Here are some of his proposals, complete with page references and translations, just so you don't think I'm making this stuff up, and that you understand exactly what he's saying.

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. [p. 837]

TRANSLATION: I have determined that there's nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force women to abort their babies.

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. [p. 786]

TRANSLATION: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government, or they could be forced to have abortions.

Are we having fun yet? Well, the ride's just starting, kids.

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. [p. 787-8]

TRANSLATION: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is ok as long as it doesn't harm pets or livestock.

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. [p. 786-7]

TRANSLATION: The government could control women's reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control. (NOTE: This is under the section titled, "Involuntary Fertility Control").

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. [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Anyone whom we deem causes "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children. (I'll admit, this one's tempting).

In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? [p. 838]

TRANSLATION: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.

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. [p. 942-3]

TRANSLATION: A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born. (NOTE: This is found under the section titled, "Toward a Planetary Regime").

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. [p. 917]

TRANSLATION: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force.

Well, that all sounds lovely, doesn't it? Oh, and by the way, we need to do all of this by 2000, or we will face a global population "catastrophe." Nice foresight, John. And this is the man who will help the determine the direction of technology and science research. I know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's on the job. Trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does someone this radical even get a legitimate job, let alone a powerful government position (and no, I'm not claiming that the czars are legitimate jobs...they don't even have to be approved by Congress!). If the above snippets aren't enough for you, check out the in-depth analysis of Ecoscience performed by Zombie.