Study in contrasts: Christian scientist vs. eco-mad scientist
My syndicated column below contrasts the Left’s “unease” over the evangelical Christian faith of NIH director-designate Francis Collins with its radio silence on the eco-zealotry of Obama science czar John Holdren. But first, some late-breaking developments: As Zombie notes, the White House has responded to rising blogosphere unease with Holdren’s cultish ideas by pooh-poohing Holdren’s co-authorship of the nutball manifesto, Ecoscience. Team Obama told the Washington Times that Holdren “never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization.” Never? Whom do you believe: the White House or your own eyes?
Image source: Zombie
The White House also released a statement to the Washington Times from Holdren’s co-authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich downplaying their book Ecoscience as an “encyclopedic textbook” from “a third of a century” ago. Just an archaic relic not worth paying attention to, la-dee-da. Funny. That’s not how Holdren’s own official curriculum vitae treats the book (hat tip – Treacher):
Dr. Holdren is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).
The Ehrlichs also issued this challenge through the White House: “[A]nybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times.”
Well, I have indeed read one of Holdren’s recent works that reveals his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He’s just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full powerpoint presentation (you can download the whole thing here.)
Take a gander at the opening slide that set the tone for his entire speech. Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” is a lifelong obsession inspired by scientist Harrison Brown:
Who is Harrison Brown? And what’s in “The Challenge of Man’s Future?” Holdren’s hero was a “distinguished member” of the International Eugenics Society. And, lo and behold, Harrison Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience.
Harrison Brown, writing to us from the year 1954 in his book, “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” suggests a method that would strike us as a crass violation of the rights mentioned above:
Let us suppose that in a given year the birth rate exceeds the death rate by a certain amount, thus resulting in a population increase. During the following year the number of permitted inseminations is decreased, and the number of permitted abortions is increased, in such a way that the birth rate is lowered by the requisite amount. If the death rate exceeds the birth rate, the number of permitted inseminations would be increased while the number of abortions would be decreased. The number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.
But that wouldn’t be all. If we are to maintain a worldwide sustainable industrial society, we will need to control population across current borders. If we don’t, many members of overpopulated societies will soon be knocking at our doors asking for assistance or even entry.
Brown also suggests that such control over reproduction might be used to slow down the deterioration of the human species. This has occurred in industrial society because humans are no longer subject to natural selection to the same degree that they have been in the past. Those who are healthy and able might be encouraged through incentives to have several offspring, while those who have deficiencies, say, of sight or hearing or mental ability might be discouraged. The problem, he notes, is in deciding what really constitutes “fit” or “unfit” and overcoming our revulsion to such a eugenics scheme. Still, he adds, when one considers the bald evolutionary facts, it behooves human societies, if they want to remain resilient in the face of changing conditions on Earth, to somehow replace nature’s cruel hand in pruning the so-called “unfit” with something less drastic. It’s that or face eventual extinction.
Brown acknowledges that none of this will seem acceptable to the vast majority of his readers. But, he is concerned that unless population stability and other problems are addressed head on, arrangements that are far more restrictive and objectionable than the ones he proposes may be implemented in their place.
Harrison Brown’s book — the book that inspired Obama science czar John Holdren — also infamously likened the world’s growing population to “a pulsating mass of maggots.” Don’t just believe me. Believe your own eyes:
A Time magazine profile of Brown published when his book came out in 1954 reported: “Scientist Brown is not confident that anything can be done, but he insists that population control is the first and essential measure; only by cutting their birth rates drastically can the crowded agricultural countries hope to enjoy the benefits of industrialization.”
If, as the White House claims, Holdren no longer believes that “that determining optimal population is a proper role of government,” then why does he still pay homage to one of the country’s most renowned population control advocates and plug his half-century-old tome advocating better-living-through-engineered-abortions? Don’t just take my word. Believe your own eyes:
Maybe Holdren will adopt the Sotomayor strategy and chalk this all up to a “rhetorical flourish” that “fell flat.”
And yes, this is just one more reason to feel very, very nervous about the specter of Obamacare.
***
Two scientists, two standards
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009
The New York Times recently warned its readers about a wacky scientist in the Obama administration. But the fish wrap of record let the real nut job off the hook.
Reporting last week on the president’s choice to head the National Institutes of Health, Times writer Gardiner Harris noted that praise for Dr. Francis S. Collins “was not universal or entirely enthusiastic.” The geneticist is causing “unease,” according to the Times, because of his “his very public embrace of religion.” Stomachs are apparently churning over a book Collins wrote describing his conversion to Christianity.
It’s called – gasp! – “The Language of God.” Harris intoned: “Religion and genetic research have long had a fraught relationship, and some in the field complain about what they see as Dr. Collins’s evangelism.”
And…that’s it. Yes, the mere profession of Collins’s faith is enough to warrant red flags and ominous declamations. A quarter of all Americans identify themselves as evangelical Christians and “publicly embrace their religion.” But to the Times, Collins’ open affiliation with 60 million Americans believers in Christ is headline news.
The rationality police in the newsroom have not, however, seen fit to print the rantings of a radical secular evangelist now serving as the White House “science czar.” John Holdren, Obama’s director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, co-authored the innocuously-titled “Ecoscience” in the 1970s with population control extremists Paul and Anne Ehrlich.
Earlier this year, Ben Johnson at the online publication Front Page Magazine provided quotes shedding light on Holdren’s embrace of “compulsory abortion” for American women “if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” In “Ecoscience,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs also outlined their desire for “a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources.”
Johnson outlined the book’s ugly eugenics plan and neo-Malthusian vision of enviro-crats engineering the population. Yet, there was scant mention of Holdern’s stomach-churning proposals during his confirmation hearings in February. Holdren’s defenders might have comforted themselves by claiming that the quotes were taken out of context. But last week, another online investigative journalist scanned copious pages from the book to show that his words had been unedited and accurately transcribed. The disturbing documents can be found at http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/.
There, you’ll find Holdren musing about how to infect the nation’s water supply to make women infertile for the benefit of Mother Earth:
“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…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.”
Holdren’s planetary regime would also breed out undesirables “who contribute to social deterioration” and “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.”
Single mothers who wanted to keep their children would be “obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.”
If a conservative blogger or Republican political candidate had published such lunatic claptrap, the Department of Homeland Security would have him on a watchlist. Instead, Holdren is Overlord of Science Policy. “Ecoscience” remains on his curriculum vitae. Obama is still perceived as the champion of reason. And the national media, so concerned about the dangers posed by a born-again Christian scientist, have responded to a secular extremist’s wild blueprints for forced abortions and mass sterilizations with a collective shrug. Scary.
***
David Harsanyi at the Denver Post reports:
Holdren spent the ’70s boogying down to the vibes of an imaginary population catastrophe and global cooling. He also participated in the famous wager between scientist Paul Ehrlich, the now-discredited “Population Bomb” theorist (and co-author of “Ecoscience), and economist Julian Simon, who believed human ingenuity would overcome demand.
Holdren was asked by Ehrlich to pick five natural resources that would experience shortages due to human consumption. He lost the bet on all counts, as the composite price index for the commodities he picked, like copper and chromium, fell by more than 40 percent.
Then again, it’s one thing to be a bumbling soothsayer and it’s quite another to underestimate the resourcefulness of mankind enough to ponder how “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution . . .,” as Holdren did in “Ecoscience” in 1977.
The book, in fact, is sprinkled with comparable statements that passively discuss how coercive population control methods might rescue the world from … well, humans.
When I called Holdren’s office, I was told that the czar “does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility.”
If that is so, I wondered, why is his name on a textbook that brought up such policy? Did he not write that part? Did he change his mind? Was it theoretical?
No straightforward answer was forthcoming.
No big deal. Even today, many environmentalists and anti-immigration activists believe in the myth of population disaster. In this world, human spammers are a disease, not a cure.
And Holdren has never ceased peddling calamity as science.
***
Previous:
The deafening MSM silence over eco-zealot/forced abortion advocate John Holdren
The ghoulish spirit of Margaret Sanger lives
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Jaczko the Jerk: Harry Reid’s sexist crony gets the boot
May 23, 2012 05:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
29 CommentsCatholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsNY Senator: Honor Mother’s Day by supporting pro-abortion group
May 12, 2012 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
White House lied, jobs died
May 11, 2012 09:49 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsDrilling moratorium probe update: Green stonewallers caught red-handed
May 10, 2012 04:37 PM by Michelle Malkin
44 CommentsHillary Clinton convinces China to allow dissident and family to accompany her back to the US join ‘Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves’
May 5, 2012 11:17 AM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Tens of thousands to fly to Rio to discuss how to limit greenhouse gas emissions
May 3, 2012 07:03 PM by Doug Powers
51 Comments
Obama energy solutions: Chicken crap is the new algae
April 30, 2012 01:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
145 Comments
Categories: Abortion,Enviro-nitwits,John Holdren
Twitchy
» P. Diddy brags about spending millions on strippers; photographer replies: ‘pay what you owe me’AmSpecBlog
» Warren Pulls Even with Brown in New PollAmerican Thinker
» Fun & Games with Mainstream Media NumbersTwitchy
» Lil Wayne: ‘fuk Pusha T’Twitchy
» Roseanne Barr: Defending S.E. Cupp is more disgusting than Photoshopping a penis in her mouthRedstate
» Bomber Turned Left Wing Activist, Brett Kimberlin, Tries to Silence Conservative Opposition
If we’re gonna threadjack, I’d much rather talk about Gucci, Chanel or Valentino.
Or jewelry.
Please, r4l…grow UP…!!!!
If that’s true, why didn’t y’all just say so 300 comments ago. This was dizzying!
Rags:
Oh please. Let’s hear it. We all know that you are an evil supporter of evolution. How terribly un-Christian and communist of you.
Good grief, there we go again. See ya.
I hope I’ve said it before, spacey, but I love you…
GladzKravtz:
Well I said it back on #47:
and zero calls us idiots….amazing
conservativesRus:
No, no I call people that think dinosaurs and human beings coexisted idiots.
I might not agree with all the politics of Rags, John, Joy, and others, but at least they aren’t insane.
You’re never going to convince R4L to see your side. Some people are just that way. Enjoy the comments where he has something meaningful to contribute and ignore it when he doesn’t.
Read the link from my earlier post and you’ll see why the best response is:
.
lighten up.
Rags:
I do appreciate your vocabulary though. I’ll be sure and retain your services if I ever want to annoy and piss off a jury full of philistines *smile*
I do try to be fair and have a bit o’ fun, too, ZA. I’d have to agree with the point that you’re much too obsessed on something only you are arguing. It’s a virtue to be able not to take one’s self – or one’s opinion, since folks shouldn’t lock the two together – too seriously.
And ya don’t need to guess at what I “really mean” when I said what I really mean: I don’t care.
Well thank you for your un-requested diagnosis.
Let me ask – has science ever been wrong before? Are you 100% certain all science you know is right now?
Have you always been right about everything?
Once you can answer all of those, THEN and only THEN can you determine if I’m an idiot.
yeah, but the ‘moderates’ still want us to vote for them….
Heh. Good point.
Feeble complaint? Fine, but it really don’t make sense for you to ruin your own credibility in your supposed attempts to prop up the credibility of this website.
I’d rather talk about guns, or Harley-Davidson Motorcycles, or Route 66 myself.
In other words…guy jewelry….
Well, Ragspierre, I just cannot find it within me to enter into an argument over these things. I would be explaining myself all day & you know what they say about teaching a pig to sing…
At least that would be a break from talking about Edward Cullen.
As long as it doesn’t include ear or nose rings, I don’t care either way about that either!
John:
I am not trying to convince him. He is too far gone. I am trying to convince folks like you that we shouldn’t have to tolerate him at all and that the conservative movement should shun people like him. I’m looking for your link, can you repost it? It’s hard keeping up with everyone at once.
Purplepeep:
OK, so I guess we won’t be hearing from you in this thread anymore, at least not WRT dinosaurs or your amateur psych-analyses of moi.
conservativeRus:
Oh, I suppose that one day we will discover the Earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese. Makes sense.
Corkie:
If my credibility is going to suffer in anyone’s eyes because I assert that belief in dinosaur and human coexistence is incredibly stupid and impairs the credibility of this site; then I don’t care what those people think.
“a brooding poster of Robert Pattinson who plays Edward, a 108 year-old vampire with the physical appearance of a seventeen year-old, who falls in love with his beautiful new classmate Bella, played by Kristen Stewart.”
Egads!
Ah…so you’re familiar with the conclusions in my Master’s thesis from Texas A&M…
ah yes the atheists, the most tolerant among us…
the reason zero is so worked up about this issue, is it threatens the faith of evolution…thats why darwiniacs have to sue, silence, and harass all who disagree…
It’s not what you assert. It’s HOW you assert.
It’s like getting attacked in a bar. Nobody faults you for defending yourself – but everyone will think you’re a jerk if you beat the guy to a bloody pulp.
Relax, R4L merely spilled your drink, even if it was on purpose.
this is just more a concerted effort from elements of the republican party to get rid of social/christian conservatives who are an embarressment to our sophisticated secular betters in the republican party
its the same kind of thing megan mccain would say or kathleen parker…
Nope, ZA, suggesting that ya might wanna lighten up a bit isn’t quite a leap into the territory of a deep probing of the psyche. It’s a “just sayin”.
You sport earrings or a nosering? Now that would be “patently absurd”, IMO. If you were a girl I’d give you a pass on the earrings, but not the nosering.
If anyone hasn’t noticed I stopped responding to R4L’s taunts some 100 posts ago. I’ve been responding to the rest of you only.
It’s not the fact that he is a raging, bigoted moron so much that bothers me. It’s the fact that few of you seem the least bit bothered by his particular brand of bigotry and stupidity and are willing to just let it slide, or worse, chastise me for defending atheists against his slander.
Rags–indeed. Or, for that matter, any master’s or PhD presentation.
corkie:
Oh well. At least I won.
purplepeep:
Neither. Sorry.
Well, Champ. Sometimes when you win, you lose.
See bar fight metaphor.
tre & Rags–I also like those things (internal combustion engine & firearms). It’s all right.
corkie / purplepeep:
I get it. I should lighten up on the resident lunatic. OK then. Have a nice day!
Hence the advice: Never get into a fight with someone uglier than you.
taunts?? oh you mean questions…you punked out and couldn’t answer as usual!!
because it would take independent thinking to answer..and you cannot get beyond talking points…ever…
Here you go. That whole thread is a riot.
I had a Great^30 Grand Uncle (on my Dad’s side) that, as a raptor jockey rode Primordial Soop to 7th place in the Jurassic Derby. Unfortunately, the clipping was destroyed in a house fire a while back.
There’s an old saying we had in the oil field…
Something about winning a pissing-match with a skunk…
yeah it is…shows how obsessed some people are over me…
Zero – You would do well to shun the one you think should be shunned… you do it like this:
If I were the sandbox monitor, he would have been banned ages ago. But alas, I’m not. So instead I simply scroll on by…
OT – ha, like it could get more ot… how’s baby Zero and Mrs. Zero?
.
So you accept the existence of Fred Flintstone, but deny that Dino ever existed?
Why that just pure unadultered Communism and a blantant attack on the integrity of Hanna-Barberra.
John D:
Hah. Oh right, I remember now, I never did read that whole thing. I stand by what I said in that thread and I am sorry if I can’t stand R4L, but he isn’t the only one that espouses this nonsense regarding dinosaurs on this website.
Joy:
OK, point taken. Mrs. Zero and junior are great BTW, that said I have to leave. I need to go check out a daycare place we are thinking of enrolling him in when my wife starts work. I might be back later.
I can’t promise that I won’t get a hair up my behind (notice I didn’t say a__) concerning this topic in the future but I will TRY. I would appreciate some backup on occasion though. It would be really nice if comments to the effect of “Hey! Not all atheists are like that at all!” were more common. I do catch them from time to time, and they don’t go unnoticed. Take care all.
At one level it’s way off topic – but at another level it’s spot on. WHAT IS THE FOUNDATION of any belief system?
If eugenics is wrong – why? Why do conservatives vs. liberals see the world through very different eyes?
I’d posit that the major basis for the difference is one side puts man at the center of everything and the other side relegates man to some much lower status.
the hatred is very telling…I don’t hate people like you or joy(less) and I could really care less about what people like you say or think….
Your reasonable and civil request is duly noted.
HEY EVERYBODY!
What did I miss?!?
but I never said ‘all atheists’ are like that…I said the ideas of darwinism, which is behind eugenics…and socialism (communism) are both atheistic theories..
no one has been able to dispute this…the lies and hysteria in this thread are very telling…and amusing…some people claim to be ‘conservative’ but sound more like wackos libs…
I was wondering where you were.
Buying baby presents of all things.
For zeroangle?
chap…I read ‘buying’ and got excited.
then I realized it was of all things…baby presents…
Also, cat food. Don’t know if that sexes it up for ya.
I certainly hope not.
Um, no.
Not that kind of ‘excited’.
Hey, how come there isn’t a thread for Return to the Planet of the SCOTUS Nominee, Part 3? Is nothing interesting being said?
On July 15th, 2009 at 4:50 pm, right4life said:
I’m sure you have a better argument against Darwinism, eugenics, and socialism than the fact that they are atheistic theories – even if true.
However, if you’re merely using Darwinism, eugenics, and socialism in order to debate atheism, then you might want to consider doing that on a religious blog.
Also, AP, provokes plenty such debates on Hot Air. You probably shouldn’t start trouble on here just because Hot Air has been boring you lately.
I’m starting to think that ZeroAngel is Charles Johnson’s sockpuppet. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the two of them together…coincidence? Or something MORE!?
Dang! And here I went and bought you some to-die-for drop earrings with pear-shaped and octagonal aquamarines at Tiffany’s for your birthday! I’m so lousy at knowing what to get for people!!
Not really. I m a bit surprised how hard Specter is questioning her, though.
Naw, I don’t think ZA would ever jump to CAIRs defense ala Chuck.
That’s crazy. I was just going to tell spaceycakes that I was leaving the office to buy these drop earrings.
In yellow gold or platinum? If gold, 18k or higher? How many carats in the Aquamarine? Brazilian or South African Aquamarine?
aw, corkie. Nice. They would match my Paloma Picasso handbag in cream leather ($900.00).
Rats. The thread is getting jack to earings, rather than the ‘earings.
No Aquamarine. Only the finest cubic zirconia for you
I had no clue you were cockney.
Here are the earrings purplepeep wanted to buy zeroangle.
2.3 total carat weight.
I’m not. I’m a big fan of Marty Feldman, though.
I was married for a while to a Brit, though. Black Country, near Wolves.
Nice, Corkie, but nothing like the ones I picked up for ZA and described above.
Gotta check their return policy now….
Hahaha! You beat me to it, just going by my description!
I found them on my own.
chap, chap, chap.
I already have an Aquamarine. I own no cubic zirconia. Nice try.
By the way…I don’t like diamonds. Did you know that all blue topaz is irradiated to make it blue?
props to all the dawgs fer goin’ to Tiffany’s website tho’!
I can never think of Tiffany’s without the iconic scene of Audrey Hepburn gazing into it’s windows whilst muching a danish and sipping coffee coming to mind.
Did you knw that “Tiffany Blue” is a registered trademark color? (True)
yes, the colour of their little boxes.
Isn’t this the same thing?
Yup. So you should live in fear that the Tiffany Color Cops can kick down your door if you’re making knock-offs!
Glad I didn’t have a mouth full o’ coffee for that one!
Based on this thread being hijacked, I am wondering when did LGM get more than one persona?
The tone of the comments sounds like his Folsum Street Fair rainbowish sort of drivel.
GSP
“This is Sparta!”
Look at all the fake Burberry plaid out there! Look at all the Louis Vuitton knock offs! Hey–did you know that even the ‘real’ Coach handbags are made in China?
This thread has degenerated into Earring Chat with Spacey.
What’s next? Are we going to talk about our relationship, cuz I feel the need for a beer comng on.
What about our relationship with beer?
LOL GSP
no WAY. I hate that kind of talk (relationships). I’d rather you guys talk about what you really talk about when you’re having a beer….
as long as it’s not people riding dinosaurs.
Or Hitler.
“…grabs your glocks when you see 2pac
call the cops when you see 2pac…”
You mean relationships then?
I love you guys!
*goes to fridge for next beer.*
Phhtt! Gonna have to avoid drinking coffee altogether while here tonight. My screen’s dirty enuf the way it is.
Be careful what you wish for.
Unless its Aloha.
Glocks suck! Colt 1911′s are better!
Actually, my favorite pistol is my S&W .357 revolver.
riiiiight, chap. So where does your beloved Scarlett fit into that?
They forgot to mention a perfect body.
Why do Glocks suck? I was considering a Springfield XD. Should I go with 9mm or .45?
I do talk about Tiffany’s whilst I’m drinking. Well, not obsesseively, just when the topic comes up and it drifts to the movie. And I prefer an adult beverage that doesn’t have me excusing myself, off to the head every 15 minutes.
I’m enjoying a brief but very sensual relationship with a rum & coke and a Cusano 18 Paired Madero Churchill.
I hope that would make Dr. Holdren’s head spin around like an owl.
I like gin. My preference is Beefeater’s.
When it comes to alochol, I admit I am pretty much a whore. Sometimes I’ll even have multiple partners.