I had first learned about the true nature of eugenics in Jonah Goldberg’s outstanding book Liberal Fascism. Until then, I had always identified the seemingly nebulous term with Nazism’s bizarre quest for developing the perfect Aryan Man. However, this finely honed misconception merely confirmed me as another victim of American public education as I subsequently learned that Nazi eugenic theory was in fact influenced by American eugenic practice. Margaret Sanger, the popularizer of what came to be described as “negative eugenics”, advocated a program of abortion, sterilization, and breeding in order to eliminate retrograde types such as the “feebleminded, idiots, morons, [the] insane, syphilitic[s], epileptic[s], criminal[s], [and] professional prostitutes”, among others, from the American gene pool and ultimately society. Of course it would be up to Sanger and her disciples to define and ultimately identify who these types were. And within Sanger’s dystopia, these types were frequently found within certain ethnic and racial stereotypes. Complaining that “Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are human weeds [and] a deadweight of human waste” and that “Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a menace to the [white] race”, she concluded that “We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
“It is a vicious cycle: ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization. For upon the foundation of an enlightened and voluntary motherhood shall a future civilization emerge.”
- Margaret Sanger
Almost one hundred years later, Ruth Bader Ginsberg unnervingly channeled Sanger when she dispassionately discussed Roe vs. Wade in a New York Times interview by asserting that “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Was she referring to the “Blacks, Latins, Hebrews, and soldiers” of Sanger’s dispensation? Since she never elaborated, we don’t know. What we do know is that the relentlessness of liberalism in constantly imposing the failed policies of its past onto contemporary society in order to achieve the elusive utopia of the future has resulted in a kaleidoscope of tragedy and horror. Progressives, ironically pursuing an ideology that has proven itself to be anything but progressive, have never learned from the history of unintended consequences their good intentions have consistently resulted in.
In the following, you’ll find several related articles and multimedia presentations regarding Obama’s Science and Technology “Czar” John Holdren, a Sangerite, and eugenics aficionado. Out of fairness, I’ve included an excerpt and link to Holdren’s Presidential Address at the American Association for the Advancement of Science delivered in 2007. Be afraid, be very afraid…
Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions
By Joseph Abrams
Fox News | July 21, 2009
President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president’s chief science adviser.
He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.
But many of Holdren’s radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.
The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.
The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: “To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people.”
As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.
Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.
To help achieve those goals, they formulate a “world government scheme” they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world’s resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an “armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force” to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.
Holdren’s office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.
“Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth,” the statement said.
“Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake.”
But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for “coercive,” “involuntary fertility control,” including “a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,” which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.
“Unfortunately,” they write, “such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries,” where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.
While Holdren and his co-authors don’t openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment — “unfortunately” — that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.
“It’s very problematic that he said these things,” said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.
But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.
“John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming,” wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.
Holdren’s co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were “shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren,” caused by what they called misreadings of the book.
“We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended” in the book, they wrote.
Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.
Despite “the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out” and vote no, Yeatman said.
Some of Holdren’s views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.
“I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren’s positions — specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong,” Vitter told FOXNews.com.
“I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along,” Vitter said.
Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.
“You would still say,” Vitter asked, “that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?”
“It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid,” Holdren replied.
Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren’s good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had “ample opportunity” to question Holdren, who “made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.
“The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known — that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade.”
Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics,” as the Nobel Committee said.
Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.”
Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.
“Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated,” his office told FOXNews.com.
Four months after Holdren’s confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president’s ear on scientific issues.
“It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light,” said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.
“The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn’t do enough homework.”
(link to Fox News article here)
Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions
‘Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources’
By Drew Zahn
World Net Daily | July 11, 2009
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the “population crisis” feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a “Planetary Regime” with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
“There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated,” wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. “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.”
Holdren’s comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
In 1977, when many scientists were alarmed by predictions of harmful environmental effects of human population growth, Holdren teamed with Paul R. Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” and his wife, Anne, to pen “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.”
Holdren’s book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
“Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs reportedly wrote. “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. … The Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Learn how close to home “Planetary Regime” really is by reading Jerome Corsi’s New York Times best-seller, “The Late Great USA.” This weekend only, get an autographed, hardcover copy for only $4.95 – a $21 discount!
The website Zombietime has posted photos of text excerpts from “Ecoscience,” referencing even further strategies from Holdren and the Ehrlichs, including compulsory adoption of children born to teenage mothers, forced sterilization and other government-mandated population control measures.
A former Teresa and John Heinz professor of environmental policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Holdren was appointed as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and confirmed on March 20 to assume the position informally known as Obama’s “science czar.”
Holdren’s track record shows a trend of alarmist viewpoints on scientific issues, including a statement made in 1973 that the U.S. population of 210 million at the time was “too many, and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” In response, Holdren recommended “a continued decline in fertility to well below replacement should be encouraged, with the aim of achieving [zero population growth] before the year 2000.”
The current U.S. population is approximately 304 million.
After the perceived “crisis” of population growth faded, however, Holdren began sounding the alarm over global climate change
. In the 1980s Holdren warned of human-caused ecological disasters resulting in the deaths of a billion people before 2020, and as recently as 2006, Holdren warned that sea levels could rise as much as 13 feet by the year 2010.
WND reported Holdren’s participation in a panel predicting a dire future caused by global warming and calling for a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions in a report to the U.N.
Holdren’s activism for greater government involvement drew a negative reaction from other scientists in the form of an open letter to Congress, WND reported.
“This is the same science adviser who has given us predictions of ‘almost certain’ thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.
“The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for 10 years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.
“The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.”
During his confirmation, at a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Holdren was grilled about his history of predicting calamity and advocating radical measures in response.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., expressed concern at the hearing that Holdren’s alarmist positions violated a statement made by President Obama when he nominated the Harvard professor:
“The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources – it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”
In response, Holdren sought to differentiate between alarmist “predictions” and simply “descriptions” of where America could wind up if it continues on its current path:
“The motivation for looking at the downside possibilities, the possibilities that can go wrong if things continue in a bad direction, is to motivate people to change direction. That was my intention at the time.” Holdren explained. “I think it is responsible to call attention to the dangers that society faces so we will make the investments and make the changes needed to reduce those dangers.”
Regarding his more recent forecasts of environmental doom, Holdren affirmed, “We continue to be on a perilous path with respect to climate change, and I think we need to do more work to get that reversed.”
Nonetheless, Vitter persisted in questioning Holdren’s potential political ideology behind advocating government-mandated population control:
“I’m scared to death that you think this is a proper function of government,” Vitter said. “Do you think that determining optimal population is a proper role of government?”
“No, Senator, I do not,” Holdren answered.
Holdren then explained that current policies, including those that promote health care
and opportunities for women, as well as education, naturally create families more likely to have fewer children, thus solving the potential problems of population growth.
(link to article here)
An excerpt from page 786 of John Holdren’s magisterial tome, Ecoscience:
Obama’s Biggest Radical
By Ben Johnson
Front Page Magazine | February 27, 2009
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.
-John Holdren in Ecoscience.
When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated “promoting science isn’t just about providing resources” but “ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.
Some critics have noted Holdren’s penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed “surrender of sovereignty” to “a comprehensive Planetary Regime” that would control all the world’s resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the “de-development” of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as “the meanest of wealthy countries,” written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming “deniers” for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama’s idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.
First Lab on the Left
All of these positions are consistent with a man who began his career as a “dissident scientist.” Peter Collier remembers Holdren working by day at a national laboratory and by night writing for Ramparts, the intellectual journal of the New Left. Holdren has authored numerous books and journal articles with his mentors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the infamous doomsayers who predicted overpopulation would force most of the world’s population to perish during the 1980s “great die-off.” Holdren has gone on to a distinguished academic career in his own right. A longtime professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Teresa Heinz Kerry used her late husband’s tax-exempt billions to endow a chair at Harvard for Ehrlich’s disciple; Holdren is now the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, where his (and her) ideas influence the next generation of policymakers. Holdren himself has a background in political “philanthropy,” serving for 14 years on John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation‘s Board of Trustees, steering its grants to far-Left organizations. He also pursued the intersection of science and diplomacy by joining the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an organization founded during the Cold War by former nuclear scientist and fellow traveler Joseph Rotblat. Pugwash hewed to the Communist Party line and was subsequently feted by Czechslovakian and Polish Communist leaders.
Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich.  In its pages, the authors noted, “The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes…population limitation and redistribution of wealth.” They concluded, “On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp” (p. 954).
Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In “An Essay on the Principle of Population” Malthus wrote, “All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use…and court the return of the plague.” Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment.
Compulsory Abortion for American Women
The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained “there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated.” Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, “it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, “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” (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.
“A Comprehensive Planetary Regime”
Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world’s wealth, controlling the world’s resources, and operating a standing World Army.
Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable…not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes…The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade…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…the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)
Part of the power wielded by this “Regime” would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. “Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force…The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization” (p. 917, emphasis added).
Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash, declaiming, “The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force — owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations.” As recently as last January, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs “a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance.” (Emphasis added.)
U.S. Blood and Treasure for the UN
The redistribution of blood and treasure were high priorities for Holdren, et. al. They advised the “de-development of overdeveloped countries…should be given top priority” (p. 926), and such nations — e.g., the United States and the developed West — should “divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them” (p. 931).
How much wealth redistribution would be sufficient? The authors favorably cited a proposal that “the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to the task of population control and development of the poor countries.” They comment, “We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential.” (p. 925). Reaffirming the goal in his 1995 Nobel speech, he stretched this to a program “sustained over several decades.” (Emphasis added.)
He detailed the mechanism for global socialism just two years ago. In a February 2007 report of which he was a coordinating lead author, urges the United Nations to undertake “a global framework” that is “more comprehensive and ambitious” than the Kyoto Protocol. Holdren states the UN must mandate “A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach.” Although he prefers a global carbon tax presided over by a United Nations-strength IRS, he is open to a stringent global cap-and-trade program. However, that program must contain: “A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions” (pp. 70-72). (Emphases in original.)
Every Man a Duke
His thirst for economic redistribution (read: socialism) is not limited to foreign affairs. In a chapter of Ecoscience entitled “Changing American Institutions,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs call for a “considerably more equitable distribution of wealth and income” in the United States, offering in passing, “Possibly this would be achieved by some formal mechanism” (p. 875). Might that mechanism perchance be government force? The text praises an economist’s plan to limit American achievement at a $100,000 maximum annual salary, or just under $350,000 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation (p. 850). Such would be the most socialistic proposal made in modern times. Even Huey Long allowed men a million dollars a year, in 1934.
“The Meanest of Wealthy Countries”
But the intervening years have not been pleasant ones for such as Holdren. In a 1995 article co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a “sustainable” world such “Underlying human frailties” as “Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness.” These, he expounds, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo.”
Holdren blasted his country last January before the AAAS as “the stingiest among all” wealthy nations in its development of the Third World, making us “the meanest of wealthy countries.” He summed up his view of the U.S. budget by favorably quoting Robert Kates: “Too much for warfare, too little for welfare.”
Making You Poorer For Your Own Good
The function of such welfare is twofold: to enrich citizens of the Global South and to impoverish Americans for their own good. In a 2006 paper, Holdren noted that reducing “GDP per person” — that is, cutting your personal wealth — also reduces Greenhouse Gas emissions. True, it is “not a lever that most people would want to use to reduce emissions”; “People are not getting rich as fast as they think, however, if GDP growth is being achieved at the expense of the environmental underpinnings of well-being” (pp. 15-16).
Holdren addressed the economic costs of his massive restructuring of the economy some 32 years ago, acknowledging it “will entail considerable retraining and temporary unemployment in the workforce” (p. 853). Yet he continues to support economy-crushing energy taxation. In a 1997 press conference, he surmised that if alternative energy sources were to get a foothold, either they “would have to get a great deal cheaper, which seems unlikely, or natural gas would have to get considerably more expensive. The latter is actually a good idea.” One is hardly encouraged to learn that last December, environmentalist Dr. James Hansen sent a four-page letter via Holdren to “Michelle and Barack.” (Hansen wrote it as surgeons in Vienna placed a stent in his wife’s chest following an unexpected heart attack.) His personal note to “John” states, “When gasoline hits $4-5/gallons again, most of that should be tax.” Five months earlier, Holdren rated Hansen “one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world.”
Anti-Military, Anti-Christian Statements
Dr. James Hansen may be in Holdren’s good graces, but neither the military nor the Apostle Paul are. Holdren and company warn, “Civilians should realize that peace and freedom from tension are not viewed as an ideal situation by many members of the military-industrial-government complex. By and large, professional military officers, especially field grade and higher, hope for an end to international tensions about as fervently as farmers hope for drought” (p. 918).
And in their eyes, what soldiers are to war, Jesus is to the climate. “The Christian concept of life in this world, as voiced by Saint Paul, that ‘here we have no abiding city,’ for example, conceivably could help explain why some people show rather little concern for the long-term future of the global environment or for the well-being of future generations” (p. 807).
P.S.: He’s Frequently Wrong
With a values system like this, it should come as little surprise that Holdren is frequently mistaken about his alleged field of specialization, environmental science — often tremendously so. As with Ehrlich, he has been predicting global catastrophes since the 1970s, beginning with the global cooling scare. Modern critics have noted his role in Paul Ehrlich’s famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that he believed would be more expensive in ten years’ time due to scarcity, while Simon predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich’s group was $1,000 poorer (a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps). Holdren advised Al Gore on An Inconvenient Truth, a film that by one scholar’s count contained 10 pages of falsehoods, exaggerations, distortions, and ignored evidence.
And there is the little matter of his prediction a billion people will die within the next 11 years.
Paul Ehrlich recorded that in 1986 Holdren predicted “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” Holdren reiterated this view in Newsweek just two years ago. When he faced Senate questioning this February 12, only one man, Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, dared to ask him about his failed predictions. The Washington Post reported Holdren’s response as a brilliant riposte, artfully parrying the query. On the contrary, the transcript shows Holdren actually reaffirmed that he still believes one billion people may die within the next 11 years from a climate-related drought:
Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort – considerable effort – to reduce the likelihood further.
Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and …
Vitter: One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.
Vitter managed to show Holdren was wrong on yet another front: just two years ago, he wrote that current emissions levels could cause the a 13-foot rise in sea levels. Under cross-examination, Holdren admitted science’s most dire estimates are now half as much as Holdren pronounced just two years ago. Yet this “expert” will have the ear of the president in setting scientific policy.
Criticizing Holdren = “Crimes Against Humanity”?
Holdren reacts to correction the way a rattlesnake reacts to sudden movement: with velocity and venom. As long ago as the early 1970s, he and Paul Ehrlich engaged in a campaign to silence fellow radical Barry Commoner, a onetime fringe presidential candidate, because the latter viewed technology as more damaging than overpopulation. More recently, he co-authored a scathing, 11-page attack against Bjorn Lomborg for having the temerity to question Green-Left orthodoxy. Yet that pales in comparison to his view of some global warming “deniers.”
Last July 3, as an advisor to the Obama campaign, Holdren appeared on the radical program “Democracy Now!” hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman asked him about comments made by his friend Dr. James Hansen (see above). Specifically, Hansen said, “large energy companies are guilty of crimes against humanity, if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and to fund contrarians, and if they push us past tipping points that end up destroying many species on the planet and having a huge impact on humanity itself.” Goodman asked Holdren if he agreed “the CEOs of large energy companies are guilty of, should be tried for crimes against humanity?”
Holdren replied: “I couldn’t really say. I’m not qualified to assess what the heads of oil companies, past or present, have done in this domain. My understanding is that Exxon, in particular, did fund a variety of small think tanks to generate what amounts to propaganda against understanding of what climate change was doing, the human role in causing it. Whether that sort of activity really constitutes crimes against humanity is something for people more embedded in the legal system than I to judge.” He went on to say heads of oil companies now were more “enlightened” on carbon emissions, so “I guess I would find the statement that all oil company CEOs, past and present, are guilty of crimes against humanity is maybe a little bit over the top.” (Emphasis added.)
In other words, he hedged his bets, pleaded that he was not a legal scholar, but still held out that at least some of the CEOs may well be guilty of crimes against humanity. His reply to whether American citizens should be tried for a capital offense because they exercised their First Amendment rights to disagree with him was a firm maybe.
DDT: A Truly Malthusian Policy
The lack of correction has led to a correlative lack of introspection. This author could find no retraction of his 1977 statement, “In our opinion, no biologist has made a greater contribution to humanity in this century than Rachel Carson” (p. 854). Carson’s primary contribution, through banning the DDT on erroneous grounds, has been the preventable death of 50-90 million souls in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
In a way, Holdren’s support for Carson is a microcosm of his entire philosophy: a deadly and ill-conceived policy based on false evidence of potential harm, whose catastrophic impact has been the opposite of that intended — never retracted, never regretted, never reconsidered. Such a reflexively self-reverential tone is unhelpful in any public servant. John Holdren’s globalist, redistributionist, Malthusian views could prove more damaging for the world than those of his hero.
1. Unless otherwise noted, all page citations are from Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977).
link to article here
Here’s a great link to the fascinating Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Science and Technology for Sustainable Well-Being
John P. Holdren
- Margaret Sanger
“The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is not about the advancement of science just for science’s sake. Rather, as indicated by the Association’s motto, “Advancing Science, Serving Society,” it is about advancing science in the context of a desire to improve the human condition. This mission necessarily entails attention to the social as well as natural sciences; attention to the embodiment of science in technology through engineering; and attention to the processes by which understandings from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and engineering influence–or fail to influence–public policy.”
- John Holdren
…try to read the whole thing here.