Obama's Science Advisor: For Mass Sterilization & Abortions

DriftingByTheStorm

I'm not going to bother even getting in to it today.
Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

The book all these ideas\quotes come from was co-authored by one of Bush's top Science idiots as well, so i don't want to hear any of this "you just hate obama" bullshit. This is bipartisan. Or that is, "THE PARTY" is in control. There IS NO opposition.

With that out of the way, here are the highlights straight from Mr. Holdren's own book:

Mass public sterilization through the water supply.
Forced abortions.
Forced adoptions for unwed and teen mothers.
Forced limits on child births, deemed by Holdren to be legal under current Constitution (WTF?)
De facto licenses needed for childbirth, and implants at puberty to permanently block pregnancy,
temporarily removable if and when one receives proper government clearance to breed.

Just read the article,
then read the posted scanned images of Holdren's book,
everything is sourced and scanned for proof,
and then come back here to try and rationalize to me and tell me how this is all just fear mongering and misinterpretation\representation.

If it doesn't scare people that at the very least Obama has picked a raving Malthusian idiot madman as his chief science & technology adviser, then i don't know what to say.

This guy is OFF THE MARK, by a WIDE margin.
Beyond that, some of his apparent morals (or lack there of) are WAY OUT OF SYNC with the American legal tradition.

jlew24asu

I support this 100%

DriftingByTheStorm

jlew24asu wrote:

I support this 100%

and we salute you.
congratulations.

WaveCameCrashin

:shock: Im going to bed I'll read more on this tomorrow morning. Strange indeed

cornnifer

Well, the scanned book is in tatters. It was published 32 years ago. And as always context is everything. If indeed the population was DANGEROUSLY high, measures to control said population may be considerable. We do it with animal populations all the time when ecosystems are in severe danger. So what we have is one book published over three decades ago, which is actually thought provoking, and you use it to imply that Barack Obama has some hidden agenda to kill babies and cut out womens' uterus. Wow. I have to ask. Is this a meticulously rehearsed act, or do you seriously believe even half the crazy shit you post on here?
One more thing. Enough, already, with the Hitler comparisons. They are cliche, ridiculously stupid and only serve to buttress the case that you just may be bat-shit crazy.

gabers

okey doke

_

I'm gonna need to read the book itself before I can make a judgement based solely on one person's (obviously slanted) interpretation of it. (I say it's slanted in part because, although I've never heard of this website before, it's hard to trust anyone who would demonize someone just for donating to the United Nations.)

Personally, I think long-acting, reversible contraceptive implants (like IUDs) at puberty is a great idea..... provided, of course, that it's not forced.

_

cornnifer wrote:

bat-shit crazy.

This is a term I need to use more frequently.

OutOfBreath

I just skimmed the introduction and the 3 first direct quotes. However, if that is par for the course, well...

“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.”

My emphasis. Really the essential part of that statement. "IF".

“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.”

Continuing on the vibe of the former quote. I may agree that this one seems a bit harsh on single mothers. But actually this is kinda moral considering that if new children must be restricted, then they should all have good opportunity in life. But very paternalistic.

“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.”

Note here that he doesn't promote this at all in this statement. He acknowledges that this solution will horrify people, and that the legal and political questions are pretty big. Also that no such drug exists, and goes on to outline the (near impossible) qualities a theoretical drug would have to have. So he does not promote this here...

My impression is that it is a book about population control, outlining every possible scenario and tool that can or can't be used. They mention everything, outlining every possible solution no matter how harsh or desperate. It's not a 10 point plan to kill the world or something. The slant seems fairly ridiculous, or perhaps just made by people not used to reading academic texts. Or if they are, they are inclined to make the most hubbub out of it as possible as it fits their general agenda and worldview.

As for the story not going forward first in february 09, it may have been rejected not because of it's unbelievability, but because the book is over 30 years old, and it doesn't become much scary unless you read it "like Satan reads the bible".

(edit) Point is, regardless what you think about the theorized measures described (and I agree that many are harsh, and not particularly to my liking), do not read as a blueprint for action what is a theoretical exercise given a worst case scenario. It is common in academics to describe "what can be done", while not advocating it. Often it may be used to show what we may be forced to do, if we do not take the matter seriously right now. Or, it could be to show how impossible it will be to solve without violating core values. So when I attended a lecture by a renowned sociologist who says that "we will not have equal pay among the sexes before we interfere with and regulate family life", his point was not to do this. His point was that this (in his view) is very undesirable, and we may have to settle for somewhat uncomplete pay-equality to be able to continue family life as now.

As for this man specifically, given 30 years of new developments may have changed his opinions, if he held those opinions in the first place. As I suggest here, the point may well have been to "scare us straight" so that we will voluntarily take measures against this, instead of waiting for harsh state intervention in a crisis.

Context = everything, when it comes to written texts. Which is why jumping back and forth cherry-picking quotes out of a large book can quickly be as unrepresentative as a direct lie, and actually even worse, since it gives an even more convincing surface of truth.

Peace
Dan