“Holdren told me the controversy was no big deal, ‘just a blip.’”
At his Senate confirmation hearing in the early months of 2009, the current White House science czar John P. Holdren stressed that he does not believe achieving “optimum population is the proper role of government.”
Countless of his statements and writings are testament to the fact that Holdren does indeed believe that government, at both the national and international level, should be the entity enforcing population policies. Regardless of the question if you agree or disagree with his statements on the “optimum” population size, the fact that he deceived the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee of the US Senate in regards to his beliefs, should prompt serious outrage, not to mention formal steps to be undertaken to remove John Holdren from his current position.
If one concurs, one could write to both the majority and minority members of this committee with this article attached, urging them to convince Congress to hold Mr. Holdren accountable for his words at the confirmation hearing on the basis of which he was appointed. You may also write your representative in Congress while the going is good.
At his confirmation hearing before the Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee of the US Senate, Holdren (from 120 minutes, 30 seconds onward, transcript available here) answered several questions. One of them was posed by Senator David Vitter (R-LA) in regards to John Holdren’s advocacy of an optimum population for the United States in his treatise Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency, written in 1973:
Senator Vitter: “In 1973 you encouraged a “decline in fertility to well below replacement” in the United States because “280 million in 2040 is likely to be too many.” What would your number, or the right population in the US, be today?”
John P. Holdren: “I no longer think it’s productive, senator, to focus on the optimum population of the United States. I don’t think any of us know what the right answer is. When I wrote those lines in 1973 I was preoccupied with the fact that many problems the United States face appear to be being made more difficult by the rate of population growth that then prevailed. I think everyone who studies these matters understands that population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time-period. (…).”
To illustrate that Holdren’s search for an optimum population is not some ancient preoccupation, is illustrated by a 2006 Powerpoint presentation in which Holdren states under the header “Population”:
“Lower is better for lots of reasons: 8 billion people in 2100 is preferable by far to 10 billion.”
So, we don’t have to go back as far as 1973, do we? Just a couple of years prior to his confirmation hearing in the senate, that Holdren was quite clear in his advocacy for lowering the number of people to reach an optimum population of 8 billion by 2100.
Again: irrespective of your position on this matter, the fact that Holdren told the Senate Committee that he no longer thinks “it’s productive (…) to focus on the optimum population of the United States” is in clear contrast to his own writings a few years prior to his confirmation hearing. Stating that “population growth brings some benefits and some liabilities. It’s a tough question to determine which will prevail in a given time-period.” is also deceptive, as Holdren has made clear on several occasions he considers population growth to be an absolute liability as opposed to a benefit.
And we don’t have to go by a single remark buried in some PowerPoint presentation. There are many more instances in which Holdren’s remarks before the Senate do not correspond to his stated position on the matter.
In 1995 John P. Holdren (with Paul Ehrlich) authored an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability:
“(…) what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”
In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects, cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of reducing the population at the global level. From page 36 onward:
“(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be levelled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.”
On page 42, Holdren elaborates:
“In the long run, the world will not be able to have an effective energy strategy without also having an effective population strategy. Quite probably the best that can now be expected is that population growth might be halted at around 10 billion- an accomplishment that would require reducing the global-average total fertility rate to the replacement level by the year 2025. Achieving that much would be a tremendous challenge, requiring, in all likelihood, massive development assistance and other forms of international cooperation.”
There have been so many instances in which current White House chief science advisor John P. Holdren expressed, both directly and indirectly, such a thorough disdain for human life, combined with such a far-reaching willingness to deceive public officials in order to gain a position of power, that a formal hearing before the people’s representatives in Congress is warranted; indeed- long overdue.
One could fill a medium-sized library with the writings by this Malthusian monster, denouncing humans and their right to live under the sun. In 1972, John P. Holdren and his old buddy Paul Ehrlich wrote an article in “The Canadian Nurse”. The article is entitled “Abortion and Morality”. The subtitle reads as follows: “Has a potential human the right to live inside an actual woman without her consent?”
The article goes on to list the well-known arguments for abortion, such as “If abortion is needed by individuals and by society, is medically safe, and is not patently immoral, it is difficult to be sure exactly what is accomplished in subjecting the procedure to restrictive government scrutiny”, Holdren and Ehrich say.
“Infants”, the two continue, “are entitled to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the (US) Constitution, but fetuses are not. Because of this distinction, the relaxation of abortion laws could scarcely imperil the rights of infants or of elderly and otherwise dependent people. (…) Repeal of abortion laws is long overdue.”
These were not some isolated comment by two overzealous eco-fascists. In the 1973 publication Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote quite candidly about their basic view on life, providing us with yet another peek at the decaying undergrowth out of which the Ecoscience document has emerged- proposing among other things a “planetary regime” to assume command of matters of life and death.
In chapter 8 of the ‘Human Ecology’-document, page 235, Holdren gives us his definition of human life:
“The fetus“, Holdren writes, “given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early yearsafter birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”
In other words, Holdren not only argues, as he did in 1972, that the unborn may not be considered human- he believes that children during the early years after birth, cannot yet be considered human beings. Given this presumption by Obama’s science adviser, it may not come as a surprise that he does not shy away from coercive abortion policies or other such measures to scale back the population. After all, if an infant cannot be construed as a human being, as Holdren argues, God-given rights do not apply to them nor does constitutional protection- and therefore they can be deemed as completely at the government’s mercy.
In a 1995 article written by Gretchen Daily and Ecoscience co-author Paul R. Ehrlich, the authors put forward the proposition that physicians should no longer concentrate on improving the health of their individual patients, or treat occurring infections in order to save the patients life, but rather look to the well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, say Daily and Ehrlich, “a small net increase in deaths” is “a reasonable price to pay”. Here’s the quote in its entirety (page 25):
“Physicians by instinct and training focus on the health of individuals; they must learn to pay more attention to the health of whole societies and to deal with the difficult conflicts of interest that often arise between the two. One physician, Jeffrey Fisher (1994), recommends that physicians be required to take periodic recertification exams in which they are tested on antibiotic knowledge. If antibiotics had been used more judiciously over the past few decades, there doubtless would have been more deaths from bacterial infections misdiagnosed as viral, and fewer deaths from allergic reactions to antibiotics. But a small net increase in deaths would probably have been a reasonable price to pay to avoid the present situation, which portends a return to the pre-antibiotic era and much higher death rates.”
The fact that humans reproduce, Daily and Ehrlich argue, means diseases have an opportunity to thrive and reek havoc amongst them. This is the snake biting its own tail. Less humans means less diseases. The logic is infallible. The same argument can of course be applied to car accidents, plane crashes and other calamities, sure to occur with those darned humans roaming about. In order to reduce the possibility of diseases occurring, the authors list some proposals, including:
“1. Redoubling efforts to halt the growth of the human population and eventually reduce it (Daily et al., 1994). This is a very basic step, because overpopulation makes substantial, diverse contributions to the degradation of the epidemiological environment, in addition to degrading other aspects of Earth’s carrying capacity (Daily and Ehrlich, 1992).”
Another proposal reads as follows:
“7. Instituting worldwide campaigns to emphasize limiting the number of sexual partners, and to increase the use of condoms and spermicides. Such changes would both lower the incidence of STDs and encourage the evolution of reduced virulence in them (Ewald, 1994). Special attention should be paid to methods that can be adopted by women (e.g., Rosenberg and Gollub, 1992; Rosenberg et al., 1992, 1993), which would tie in neatly to related methods of improving the epidemiological environment by limiting human population growth (Ehrlich et al., 1995).
From Ehrlich we again switch gears to John P. Holdren, who authored (also with Paul Ehrlich) an article called “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects” in the World Bank document Defining and Measuring Sustainability. In the article, the diabolical duo propose a stark reduction in the percentage of humans on earth:
“No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable; Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are sustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.”
“This”, Holdren and Ehrlich continue, “is enough to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth),and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person.”
The most gruesome and interesting part of their elucidation is buried in the notes (page 15). In speaking about all kinds of intolerable “harms” that counteract sustainability, Holdren and Ehrlich are willing to make an exception for pollution, if it will cut some time of the average life expectancy:
“Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).”
In the horrible euphemistic way these proposals disguised as “possibilities” are usually being presented lies hidden a horrible truth. These head-hunters of the scientific dictatorship are not simply powerless psychopaths exchanging abstract ideas. They are powerful sociopaths rather, occupying key positions within the marble halls of academia and government. In the final equation, they are after you andyour children.