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?
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||14 April 2016|
|PDF File Size:||14.2 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.21 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
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? Impossible, you say?
That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things. Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof.
Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience , co-authored in by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed. But that article, although it contained many shocking quotes from John Holdren, failed to make much of an impact on public opinion.
Why not? In the modern era, it seems, journalists have lost all credibility, and so are presumed to be lying or exaggerating unless solid evidence is offered to back up the claims. Well, this report contains that evidence. Of course, Holdren wrote these things in the framework of a book he co-authored about what he imagined at the time late s was an apocalyptic crisis facing mankind: overpopulation.
He felt extreme measures would be required to combat an extreme problem. Totalitarian regimes and unhinged people almost always have what seems internally like a reasonable justification for actions which to the outside world seem incomprehensible.
On the left in each case is a scanned image taken directly from the pages of the book itself; on the right is an exact transcription of each passage, with noteworthy sections highlighted. Below each quote is a short analysis by me. Following these short quotes, I take a "step back" and provide the full extended passages from which each of the shorter quotes were excerpted, to provide the full context.
And at the bottom of this report, I provide untouched scans and photos of the full pages from which all of these passages were taken, to quash any doubts anyone might have that these are absolutely real, and to forestall any claims that the quotes were taken "out of context. Brace yourself. And prepare to be shocked. Page Compulsory abortions would be legal 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.
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above, Holdren "hides behind the passive voice" in this passage, by saying "it has been concluded. By whom? 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.
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation crisis. Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt throughout history when their babies were taken away from them involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad name. I think that abortion should not be illegal. But John Holdren here proposes to take away that choice -- to force women to have abortions. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical procedure against her will.
And not just any medical procedure, but one which she herself regardless of my views may find particularly immoral or traumatic. 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.
Putting sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this suggestion "seems to horrify people more than most proposals," you apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterlization of the population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any unintended side effects or hurt animals.
The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive and unethical scheme aside from the fact that it would be difficult to implement is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the government. 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. Note well the phrase "with official permission" in the above quote.
Johh Holdren envisions a society in which the government implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women once they have two children.
Do you want to live in such a society? Page The kind of people who cause "social deterioration" can be compelled to not have children 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.
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the entire book -- and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people will be left alone -- but those who "contribute to social deterioration" could be "forced to exercise reproductive responsibility" which could only mean one thing -- compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization.
What other alternative would there be to "force" people to not have children? Will we bring back the chastity belt? No -- the only way to "force" people to not become or remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions. But what manner of insanity is this? Is Holdren seriously suggesting that "some" people contribute to social deterioriation more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind?
In one of the most shameful episodes in the history of U. Bell case that the State of Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck against her will, based solely on the spurious criteria that she was "feeble-minded" and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluding, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
In fact, the United Nations now regards forced sterilization as a crime against humanity. In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being applied unequally to only certain types of people.
If so -- how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or -- most disturbingly of all -- perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this book.
It ceases being a harmless fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become government policy. 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? Or are you seriously suggesting that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?
I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holgren is even less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning.
The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures. Page A "Planetary Regime" should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born 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.
Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. Of course! I should have seen that one coming. The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Not much. Page We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force 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 other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily surrender national sovereignty to an international organization the "Planetary Regime," presumably , which will be armed and have the ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote exactly which rules this armed international police force will be enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.
Do you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the United States? Because he already is in charge. Page Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups.
Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups.
Start your review of Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment Write a review Shelves: lost-interest , disturbing , cultural-commentary , non-fiction , read-in-part I picked up this book because John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-authored this book. I was shocked to read some of the Brave New World-esque ideas that were mentioned. Interestingly, Holdren was addressed by the Senate on the controversial ideas in the book and I picked up this book because John Holdren, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-authored this book. Interestingly, Holdren was addressed by the Senate on the controversial ideas in the book and he officially distanced himself from the idea that the government should have a role in population control.
Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment
Nalar Morrigan marked it as to-read Nov 18, Richard Cordova marked it as to-read Jan 26, Topics eugenicsnewworldorderpopulationcontroldepopulationcarbonsterile. Advanced embedding details, examples, and help! Director, Office of Health Reform. White House Press Secretary.
ECOSCIENCE JOHN HOLDREN PDF
Edit "Individual rights must be balanced against the power of the government to control human reproduction. Some people - respected legislators, judges, and lawyers included - have viewed the right to have children as a fundamental and inalienable right. Yet neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mentions a right to reproduce. Nor does the UN Charter describe such a right, although a resolution of the United Nations affirms the "right responsibly to choose" the number and spacing of children our emphasis. In the United States, individuals have a constitutional right to privacy and it has been held that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have children, at least to the extent that a woman has a right to choose not to have children.