Obama’s Science Czar: Traditional family is obsolete, punish large families

David Freddoso
Washington Examiner
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances. His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs write:

Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not. Inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority, will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial. Thus, it is beside the point to object to population-control measures simply on the grounds that they might change the social structure or family relationships.

Holdren, with a blithe “of course,” encourages government to wage an effective war on the family in America. It begins with the abolition of “pronatalist” policies and continues with their complete reversal:

As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing…Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family.

Holdren notes that some of these proposals “have the potential disadvantage of heavily penalizing children (and in the long run society as well).” This is not a disqualifier, though, as long as the proposals are “carefully adjusted to avoid denying at least minimum care for poor families, regardless of the number of children they may have.” Even here, the objection is practical, not ethical. It’s fine to level stiff penalties against those who choose families and children, but not to the point that this policy exacerbates the original problem (unwanted children, living in squalor) that population control purports to combat.

Some Americans might cite the Founding Fathers and argue that a government whose policy is to make war on the family in the name of science has clearly overstepped its mandate. That was not the opinion expressed by John Holdren, the man President Obama has put in charge in the nation’s science policy.

Here is one area where I agree with the Messiah, (BHO).
His idea to help curb overpopulation.

That's what I've been wondering.
Why pay incintives to have kids?
Allowances for kids should be abolished and those with kids should pay for their own kids education as well.
Quit taxing us, who have no kids, to pay for those who do.

I respectfully disagree with the education part of your post. We all benefit from an educated society from getting the correct change back when makeing a purchase or not haveing your head bashed in by some un educated fool who cannot support themselves or make a rational decision when you accidently bump into them while walking down the street.

If human beings took personal responsibility when it comes to number of kids they have and their future ability to compete, then we wouldn't need to consider things like this. But the fact is people don't, so I don't have much of a problem with this.

People should be aware of their impact on the world around them, and act accordingly but they just don't in most cases, so eventually the time has to come when there are more people than resources. Just makes sense to me.

You believe BHO is the Messiah???

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion. "

-Thomas Jefferson


This was a wise man. I wish he were here.

a little context from his time. Only landowners could vote, woman and minorties couldnt vote so by people he meant the rich white landowners. I wonder how he would addapt himself to these times?

1776 - White men with property can vote. Free black men can vote in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. (The Progress Report adds -- in Maryland between 1776-1783 free black men could vote, but between 1783-1810 only those who were freed prior to 1783 were permitted to vote, and after 1810 no black men at all were allowed to vote.)

1789 - Establishment of US democracy. White men with property can vote. Poor people, Women, Native Americans, and enslaved African- Americans cannot vote.

http://www.progress.org/2004/vote28.htm

How does that make his statement any less true? I would like to see the fallacy in his judgement...

His defenition of "people" would differ from yours and mine. In the context of his times and how it is used and practised "people" would imply white land owners. Everyone else realy had no legal rights. That is my thinking on it anyhow.

So use our current definition of "people". The statement would then be flawless no?

Look at the idea of freedom for all. Take our forefathers' rules and apply it to everyone. Then you have freedom.

Giving minoritys rights which they did not have, means very little when the rights of the "majority" are being taken away.

The philosophy of being responsible for oneself instead of expecting your leaders to take care of you is the only sure way we will not end up as slaves.

People forget that civilization is merely an elaborate form of nature.

In nature, nothing is free. We must all be productive. Or we will not survive as a species.

I think we were supposed to rise above the cruelty and dog eat dog of nature though. Why evolve at all if we were meant to exist at that level. We can survive using our brains, but if a larger segment of society can't seem to get that over population is a problem then some one has to create incentives to prevent over population.

I don't see the general population governing themselves responsibly when the government has to take steps to control population because the people are not, so what is the government to do? I think our world is way to populated to expect that we can live as we once did with few laws.

I agree it is a great quote if applied to todays defenitions of people but for his time it was hardly radical or inspireing in the context of the times. Its rather Orwellian when you consider that so many people were allready disenfrachised from the start. sorry if I got off topic allways enjoy your posts Drivinmenutz

I'm baffled by this post. The quotes from Holdren show him to be a reasonable person, taking an open minded look at a complicated and serious problem.

But they are preceded by this bizarre claim: "by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances."

Who exactly is recommending compulsory sterilization or force abortion, and where do they make this recommendation?

Is this a desperate effort to mis-represent Holdren?

Okay War, this is scientific theorizing at best, not presidential policy.

Scientists dabble in a whole lot of different areas of study and theory their whole lives as scientists. If we hold all of their studies against them, science will not be able to continue to expand and learn more.

I have heard several "studies" of this type of government "population" control. Most of them get pretty sick with their ideals throughout the whole study. Of course forced sterilization was discussed when I was a kid and sent on as non American. They actually did offer women who were on drugs free sterilization in courts for a minute there and it was determined that a women on drugs is not of sane mind to make this choice for herself. That is a brief of what I remember and my memory is not what it used to be but it can probably be found if someone will look it up. My point here is that it is not a viable place to go in a country built on human freedoms. Now you will hear alot of this discussed by racists on their websites because they do not want the minorities having lots of babies. They will use the excuse that it is because they are on welfare and the state supports them but in truth it is eugenics at play.

This study by Holden is just that a study in governmental population control. Not meaning it is going to be instituted by any government here, it was just a study.

We have at least one natural population control already in place if people would let nature progress. Homosexuality is a population control of the most natural kind. Also abortion is a population control that is already in place if people would let it lie.

The way we are headed, socialization, the Gov doing our thinking and manipulating our lives, it might be a good idea to follow the policy China has. They allow, after reviewing the application, couples to concieve children based on their ability to provide for them. Can't afford 'em, can't have 'em.

the human race is a virus that is spreading wildly and destroying the very things it needs to exist

I'm really kinda disappointed. There are already companies working to make this a reality, Holden, when he said there was no such research was either wrong or a liar.

All you have to do is simply google GMO corn kills sperm.

This is a horrible idea, it's insane to turn control of reproduction over to government, or does anyone else remember the forced sterilization of the Native Americans?

War,

Do you think that GMO corn adversely effects sperm count BY DESIGN ???

And what kind of control are you talking about?

I am against the policy china has had, but I am all for the reversal of 'baby incentives' we have here in america.

In fact, maybe your right, we should get the government OUT of population influencing, and eliminate all tax (and welfare?) baby incentives!

How about free screening for genetic diseases? I would love to see us take sane steps to eliminate genetic diseases, its a crime that people might continue to suffer from these diseases after we have the tech to prevent them... but such procedures should be voluntary.

The policy decisions are complicated & multifaceted, and when it comes down to it, you and I may actually agree on the details as far as preserving individual liberty...

But I still want to know, where this absurd claim comes from:

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought that was rather bizarre myself.