Archive for the Harrison Brown Category

$76 trillion to push GREEN agenda thru United Nations, will bring in One World Order under Agenda 21

Posted in Agenda 21, Al Gore, climate change, Ehrlich, Environment, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, New World Order, NSSM200, Population Control, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 29, 2011 by saynsumthn

Vodpod videos no longer available.

$76 trillion to push GREEN agenda thru United N…, posted with vodpod

World needs $1.9tn a year for green technology: UN

Energy Tribune has an analysis:

$76 Trillion: UN’s Cost of “Going Green” Soars
By Peter C Glover
Posted on Jul. 15, 2011

According to the UN’s report and press release (these are actually published by their Geneva Office), “humankind” needs to stump up around $76 trillion – that’s trillion – over the next 40 years. That is, if the world is to achieve the Global Bureaucracy-led “great green technological transformation”. This is perhaps the most arrogant, “we know what’s good for the world,” drivel that has ever come out of the UN. And they have done plenty. It is also the most expensive.

Just two years ago the “going green” global cost could be achieved for around $600 billion a year over the next decade. That cost appears to have more than tripled. According to the report, what the world urgently needs is a “scaling up of clean energy technologies” among other things to achieve a “technological overhaul … on the scale of the first industrial revolution”. Not one led by individual capitalistic innovation and brilliance, this one is to be led by strategic UN planning. Now I bet that’s the first time you’ve ever seen “strategic” and “UN planning” in the same sentence? There’s a good reasons for that – as a closer look at assertions in the survey clarify.

When you get to the nitty-gritty of the report, the full panoply UN-speak comes into its own. What the authors mean by “going green” is not just more investment in “clean energy”. The move will, it claims, help put an “end to poverty” (what, all of it?), world hunger, the “catastrophic impacts of climate change” (which are?) and “environmental degradation” (whatever that is). Eradicating world hunger and poverty have been rolled into the fight against climate change. We learn that “about 40 percent of humanity, or 2.7 billion people, rely on traditional biomass, such as wood, dung and charcoal, for their energy needs. And 20 percent have no electricity, mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.” The report authors demand, “much greater economic progress” in the war on climate change which, it is asserted, will cure these historic ills.

But, just as you can’t keep a good man down, neither can you keep a bad bureaucracy of social engineers from trying to spend a whole lotta someone else’s money. What the UN report does is set the agenda for the UN’s 2012 ‘jet-fest’ Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro. With the conference in mind, Rob Vos, lead author of the report, states, “Business as usual is not an option.” Vos isn’t referring to a wealth of UN and political dignitaries flying down to Rio for a spot of R ‘n R at the five star hotels, you understand. Vos means that the rest of the world – conference attendees and UN frequent mile accumulators exempt, it appears – just can’t go on jetting around emitting tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere and taking vacations, especially to long haul destinations such as…er, Rio, for instance.

Though the report demands a push towards the “green economy” it acknowledges there is no actual agreed definition as to what it is. Even so, the “green economy” is billed grandiosely as “the new paradigm” being “based on the conviction that the benefits of investing in environmental sustainability outweigh the cost of not doing so.” De-coded: there ought to be no ‘debt ceiling’ consideration here, just hand over the greenbacks and we’ll get the job done. Who’s going to pick up the tab? “One half,” says the report “would have to be realized in developing countries.” In case you forgot, that’s a mere $38 trillion in donations to go to the developing world. Even for UN bureaucrats all this is over the top. It seems that they have not heard of the Greek and now the Italian spending above the means crises let alone the debates in the United States, bound to leave a historic impact.

And, just for good measure, if emissions targets cannot be met, then “caps on energy consumption … may be necessary” which, the report admits, “may not be very appealing”. True. Especially to the millions condemned to fuel poverty and likely to die of cold as a direct result.

There is a major irony here. If eradicating world hunger and poverty were genuine UN goals, then the same coal-fired, cheap electricity generating first industrial revolution would do for “South Asia” and “sub-Saharan Africa” what it did for the rest of the world. But that would simply require a combination of cheap electricity and the free market to do for the people of Asia and Africa precisely what it did for us in the West. And it would require the UN’s unelected oligarchy to butt out, bureaucratic plans and all.

But we all know, that’s not gonna happen.

Not when the UN perceives a unique opportunity to ride the populist “clean energy” wave and collect a cool $76 trillion+ to fund its enhanced status as a one world ‘wind-assisted’ government. Something the UN’s Agenda 21 – its other less well known environment-led “strategic plan” – makes only too clear. Founded at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also in Rio, the UN Agenda 21 aims are rooted, as the 2011 report confirms, entirely in the “precautionary principle”. Decoded: it doesn’t matter what the real science on climate change is, we should spend the cash to fight it ‘just in case’.

How arrogant and how insidious from people purporting to work for the public good.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Eugenics and Population Control are a favorite of the Environmentalist and Climate Change crowd along with the UN….

Case in point, Climate Change Guru, Al Gore, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth. (h/t Daily Caller) (YOUTUBE REMOVED THE VID)
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Gore promoting fewer children to curb pollution, posted with vodpod

then I found it again here:

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

This is another attempt by the ELITES to PUSH POPULATION CONTROL And EUGENICS in the name of Climate Change and Global Warming:

How will they do this? through a newly formed GREEN ARMY…. UK’s Guardian is reporting (July 2011) That in a special meeting of the United Nations security council is due to consider whether to expand its mission to keep the peace in an era of climate change. There has been talk, meanwhile, of a new environmental peacekeeping force – green helmets – which could step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources…The Pentagon and other military establishments have long recognized climate change as a “threat multiplier” with the potential to escalate existing conflicts, and create new disputes as food, water, and arable land become increasingly scarce. “Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal – but would dealing with the consequences of climate change – say in precarious regions – be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?” Germany’s ambassador to the UN, Peter Wittig, wrote in the Huffington .

Here is what the PREFACE to the “World Economic And Social Survey” by the UN states, “The world faces important decisions on how we generate energy and manage our natural
assets—choices with implications that will reverberate for generations to come. Against a backdrop of a rising global population and unceasing pressure on the natural environment, this 2011 edition of the World Economic and Social Survey can guide our collective efforts to achieve a much-needed technological transformation to a greener, cleaner global economy.The past two decades have seen considerable economic growth, particularly in the emerging economies. Hundreds of millions of people have risen from poverty—in Asia, Latin America and, increasingly, in Africa. But with global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050,we need to accelerate the pace of productive economic expansion. At the same time, this growth must be balanced with respect for the human and natural capital that is its foundation, lest we risk profound and potentially irreversible changes in the planet’s ability to sustain progress…”
Later in the report, “Reducing the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with growing and increasingly urban populations will require drastic changes in consumption patterns, transportation systems, residential and building infrastructure, and water and sanitation systems”…and…”developing countries still face much higher birth rates relative to mortality rates, coupled with the slower income growth and, as a result, see much faster population growth (figure I.4).4 This lopsided distribution of income and
population has aggravated the environmental crisis in many ways…”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “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.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, 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).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

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 a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

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.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Al Gore: Population Control- (Eugenics) answer to Global Warming !

Posted in Al Gore, climate change, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Global Warming, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Population Control, Ruth Bader Ginsburg with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

6-22-2011
( Al Gore: H/T Daily Caller)

In an appearance Monday in New York City, former Vice President Al Gore, prominently known for his climate change activism, took on the subject of population size and the role of society in controlling it to reduce pollution.

He offered some ideas about what might be done for females in the name of stabilizing population growth. (h/t Daily Caller) (YOUTUBE REMOVED THE VID)
Vodpod videos no longer available.

Gore promoting fewer children to curb pollution, posted with vodpod

then I found it again here:

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women,” Gore said. “You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children have, the spacing of the children.

“You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important — you have to educate girls and empower women,” he said. “And that’s the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.”

This is another attempt by the ELITES to PUSH POPULATION CONTROL And EUGENICS in the name of Climate Change and Global Warming:

In 1969, Alan Guttmacher as then President of Planned Parenthood-World Population, said this: “ I would like to give our voluntary means of population control full opportunity in the next 10 to 12 years. Then , if these don’t succeed, we may have to go into some kind of coercion, not worldwide, but possibly in such places as India, Pakistan, and Indonesia, where pressures are the greatest…There is no question that birth rates can be reduced all over the world if legal abortion is introduced…” ( SOURCE: Family Planning: The needa and the Methods, by: Alan F. Guttmacher; The American Journal of Nursing, Vol. 69, No. 6. (June, 1969) PP. 1229-1234)

And in February of 1970 Alan Guttmacher was interviewed by the Baltimore Magazine and said this
Our birth rate has come down since we last talked.. I think we’ve hit a plateau- the figure’s not likely to drop much more unless there is more legal abortion. , or abortion on request as we call it…My own feeling is that we’ve got to pull out all the stops and involve the United Nations…If you’re going to curb population, it’s extremely important not to have it done by the dammed Yankees, but by the UN. Because the thing is, then it’s not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the Black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproduction rate, we’re immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominant in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you’ve got much better leverage.”

In 1967 president, Lyndon B. Johnson made this statement LBJ Faces up a Crisis: Johnson also stated, “Nations with food deficits must put more of their resources into voluntary family planning programs.” ( SOURCE: Lewiston Evening Journal – Feb 2, 1967 , from Johnson’s 1967 State of the Union Address )

On December 10, 1974, the United States National Security Council promulgated National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report. This document explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the United States would aggressively promote population control in developing nations in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.

In order to protect U.S. commercial interests, NSSM-200 cited a number of factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from lesser-developed countries, LDCs as it called them, to the United States, including a large population of anti-imperialist youth, who must, according to NSSM-200, be limited by population control. The document identified 13 nations by name that would be primary targets of U.S.-funded population control efforts.

According to NSSM-200, elements of the implementation of population control programs could include: a) the legalization of abortion; b) financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates; c) indoctrination of children; and d) mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms, such as withholding disaster and food aid unless an LDC implements population control programs.

John Holdron – Obama’s Science Czar told us this Global Warming Strategy would be used:

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “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.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, 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).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

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 a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

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.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States of America

Posted in Czar, Ehrlich, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , on September 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

9/16/2010

In a CNS News video interview this week, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told CNSNews.com that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecaster a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “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.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, 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).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

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 a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

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.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In 2009, US Supreme Court Justice , Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “at the time Roe was decided I thought it was to get rid of populations we don’t want to have too many of”

Just who are these Populations to be De-Devloped Watch this documentary on eugenics : Maafa21 and find out:

READ Full CNS News story here
____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Overpopulation and Darwinian eugenics motivated Discovery gunman who called human babies “Parasites”

Posted in Darwin, Environment, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer, Planned Parenthood, Sterilization, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman’s death
September 2, 2010

James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network’s promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland.

Silver Spring, Md.: Police shot and killed a gunman after he took three people hostage Wednesday afternoon at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters here, officials said.

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing said authorities had identified James J. Lee as the likely suspect.

Lee, 43, who was upset with the channel over its programming, entered the building about 1 p.m., wielding a gun and wearing “explosive devices,” and took a security guard and two other employees hostage, police said. The rest of the company’s nearly 1,900 employees were evacuated from the building.

After several hours of telephone negotiations, Lee pulled out his gun and pointed it at one of the hostages, police said. Tactical officers then took aim at Lee, killing him. It was unclear whether Lee had been able to fire his gun, but all three hostages were able to escape safely, according to officials.

“I know that he had some history with folks at Discovery Channel,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said at a news conference after the shooting.

According to electronic court records, Lee was charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 and served 46 days in jail for a protest he staged in front of the channel’s headquarters. He said he was protesting that Discovery’s programming had little to do with saving the planet.

“He didn’t think we were environmentally sound,” said David Leavy, a spokesman for Discovery Communications, adding, “there had not been any communication from him in the last couple of years.”

A lengthy posting that could be seen Wednesday on a website registered to Lee expressed anger against the Discovery Channel and said it promoted overpopulation, according to a report from the Associated Press.

He said the network and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, he said, it should air “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

“NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis,” he wrote.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so,” he wrote. “I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.”

Discovery Health and TLC, both owned by Discovery Communications, spearheaded America’s fascination with prodigious families.

TLC is perhaps the most recognizable in the large-family genre of reality television with its one-time flagship series “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” which at its peak garnered 10 million viewers. Its spin-off, “Kate Plus 8,” premiered with 3.4 million viewers in June.

TLC’s other bountiful brood includes The Duggar family in “19 Kids and Counting.” The network has also aired “Table for 12,” and “Kids by the Dozen,” which featured a number of families with 13 to 16 children each.

Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com, but his re-purposing of the web page he’d owned since 2008 was only the latest step in Lee’s on-and offline crusade to draw attention to his cause and gain notice from the Discovery Channel. Posts with his email address and name can be found online dating back to 2006.

Lee’s original website was worldguardianvoices.com. An archived version of the page shows he was in San Diego in early December, 2006. Using the contact email “misterfifteen@hotmail.com,” Lee posted a notice dated December 11 that year stating he would be “meeting at Border’s Bookstore Downtown San Diego Gaslamp area” with “prospective people who want to do something.” He described “World Guardian Voices” as “a movement designed to educate the masses on the impending cultural collapse from overpopulation, global warming, animal extinction, pollution, and exploitation.” As with his manifesto discovered today, Lee made it clear in 2006 that his efforts were inspired by the works of Daniel Quinn, an author popular among environmentalists and anarchists. There was no mention of Discovery or any of its historically affiliated networks on Lee’s old site. Lee made no mention of the science-themed cable network 11 days later, when he made a pair of mysterious posts in a group forum on Myspace.com. Lee wrote:

I believe that it is totally possible to save the world. Not because I am a delusional maniac high on something, but because I had a practical idea on how to do it. A vision you might say, a solid idea that was very possible. The idea is not so unusual that it could not fail. I believe that there is a possibility that it could fail, like anything else.

BUT, I believe it so strongly in this idea that I am willing to put all my retirement money on it and risk ending up living on the streets like a hobo begging for handouts.

I can’t tell anyone all the specifics about my idea, because we are in competition with other environmental groups that mean well, but serve the needs of the River. If I tell you exactly what it is, the idea could be lost forever and I’ll just go off into retirement while I watch the world consume itself, so don’t ask me to be too specific about my idea.

Lee later wrote what appears to have been a response to a question since deleted from the thread. His second post was guarded, ending with, “If the idea matures to a successful execution I will call you and tell you the complete idea, because at that point you will need to know. At that point you can refuse. You can refuse at any point and quit at any time. You are under no obligation to continue even once you have started. It will roll on it’s own after that.” He then added his his “misterfifteen” hotmail address.

His Manifesto is loaded with demands to the Discovery Channel, it is Lee writes:
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s
“My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done,
by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
A game show format contest would be in order.
Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human
overpopulation.
Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS
and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s you resposibility because you reach so many minds!

0. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. ..

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease! It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices.

Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!

Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.


Now where have we heard that before???? Babies as Parasites??? No more humans – how about the abortion/population control crowd, starting with Darwin and moving to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Peter Singer to name just a few.

For some interesting history about Darwin, Eugenics and how that mentality is being used for population control today- watch Maafa21 (clip below)

Darwin:

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, author of the Bible on population control the Population Bomb” and known as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses South African philosopher David Benatar who said we should have humans sterilized . Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:

Where do people like Lee get their “Humans as Parasites” ideas???? Perhaps it is from Planned Parenthood’s founder- Margaret Sanger:

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had boards members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Maybe from videos like this on YouTube:

University of Texas Biologist Eric Pianka -Population Control: Professor “HIV would be too slow!”

Population Control Obama Science Czar John P Holdren on the the maldistribution of prosperity and the redistribution of people

Posted in Abortion, Czar, Ehrlich, Eugenics, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Harrison Brown, Holdren, NSSM200, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2010 by saynsumthn

After researching eugenics and I reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be divesting. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecasted had a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

___________________________________________________________


MALDISTRIBUTION OF PROSPERITY AND REDISTRIBUTING PEOPLE:

John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future recommended was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?
__________________________________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:

According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “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.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, 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).
___________________________________________________________

The RICH/POOR Gap

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 a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

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.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.

__________________________________________________________________________

FAST TRACK POPULATION CONTROL

Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.

TAXING CHILDREN TO SLOW POPULATION GROWTH???

John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.

____________________________________________________________________

COMPULSORY BIRTH CONTROL AND STERILIZATION:

In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

The video below gives you some insight to his writings:

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

____________________________________________________________

MENTOR: HARRISON BROWN

Paul Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

INFANTICIDE:

Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.

__________________________________________________________________

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

____________________________________________________________

Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Infanticide, Peter Singer with tags , , , on August 16, 2010 by saynsumthn

Taking Life: Humans
BY: Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that – as we saw in Chapter 4 – collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.
‘Euthanasia’ means, according to the dictionary, ‘a gentle and easy death’, but it is now used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress. This is the main topic of this chapter. I shall also consider, however, some cases in which, though killing is not contrary to the wishes of the human who is killed, it is also not carried out specifically for the sake of that being. As we shall see, some cases involving newborn infants fall into this category. Such cases may not be ‘euthanasia’ within the strict meaning of the term, but they can usefully be included within the same general discussion, as long as we are clear about the relevant differences.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Are these the people we want in charge of our health care?

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

READ MORE HERE: Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Harrison Brown on eugenics, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die”

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Maafa21, Peter Singer, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, Robert Reich, Walter Cronkite with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 1, 2010 by saynsumthn

Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite)

http://www.paleofuture.com

Today, we have a clip of the retort by Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” as Bonner insists. Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Harrison Brown received an award from Planned Parenthood inn 1958

Harrison Brown PP Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Nov 20, 1958

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Are these the people we want in charge of our health care?

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

In the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

READ MORE HERE: Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?