Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
lord_casek

Obama's Climate Czar is Fucking Insane

Recommended Posts

Obama's Biggest Radical By: Ben Johnson

FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 27, 2009

 

When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn’t just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.

 

Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.

 

First Lab on the Left

 

All of these positions are consistent with a man who began his career as a "dissident scientist." Peter Collier remembers Holdren working by day at a national laboratory and by night writing for Ramparts, the intellectual journal of the New Left. Holdren has authored numerous books and journal articles with his mentors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the infamous doomsayers who predicted overpopulation would force most of the world's population to perish during the 1980s "great die-off." Holdren has gone on to a distinguished academic career in his own right. A longtime professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Teresa Heinz Kerry used her late husband's tax-exempt billions to endow a chair at Harvard for Ehrlich's disciple; Holdren is now the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, where his (and her) ideas influence the next generation of policymakers. Holdren himself has a background in political "philanthropy," serving for 14 years on John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Board of Trustees, steering its grants to far-Left organizations. He also pursued the intersection of science and diplomacy by joining the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an organization founded during the Cold War by former nuclear scientist and fellow traveler Joseph Rotblat. Pugwash hewed to the Communist Party line and was subsequently feted by Czechslovakian and Polish Communist leaders.

 

The Neo-Malthusians

Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).

 

Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population" Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the environment.

 

Compulsory Abortion for American Women

 

The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note, "it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." (Emphasis added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp. 837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.

 

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).

 

Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash, declaiming, "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to contingents from individual nations." As recently as last January, he told the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs "a universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in compliance." (Emphasis added.)

 

U.S. Blood and Treasure for the UN

 

The redistribution of blood and treasure were high priorities for Holdren, et. al. They advised the "de-development of overdeveloped countries...should be given top priority" (p. 926), and such nations -- e.g., the United States and the developed West -- should "divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them" (p. 931).

 

How much wealth redistribution would be sufficient? The authors favorably cited a proposal that "the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to the task of population control and development of the poor countries." They comment, "We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential." (p. 925). Reaffirming the goal in his 1995 Nobel speech, he stretched this to a program "sustained over several decades." (Emphasis added.)

 

He detailed the mechanism for global socialism just two years ago. In a February 2007 report of which he was a coordinating lead author, urges the United Nations to undertake "a global framework" that is "more comprehensive and ambitious" than the Kyoto Protocol. Holdren states the UN must mandate "A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit approach." Although he prefers a global carbon tax presided over by a United Nations-strength IRS, he is open to a stringent global cap-and-trade program. However, that program must contain: "A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita emissions" (pp. 70-72). (Emphases in original.)

 

Every Man a Duke

 

His thirst for economic redistribution (read: socialism) is not limited to foreign affairs. In a chapter of Ecoscience entitled "Changing American Institutions," Holdren and the Ehrlichs call for a "considerably more equitable distribution of wealth and income" in the United States, offering in passing, "Possibly this would be achieved by some formal mechanism" (p. 875). Might that mechanism perchance be government force? The text praises an economist's plan to limit American achievement at a $100,000 maximum annual salary, or just under $350,000 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for inflation (p. 850). Such would be the most socialistic proposal made in modern times. Even Huey Long allowed men a million dollars a year, in 1934.

 

"The Meanest of Wealthy Countries"

 

But the intervening years have not been pleasant ones for such as Holdren. In a 1995 article co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a "sustainable" world such "Underlying human frailties" as "Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness." These, he expounds, "collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo."

 

Holdren blasted his country last January before the AAAS as "the stingiest among all" wealthy nations in its development of the Third World, making us "the meanest of wealthy countries." He summed up his view of the U.S. budget by favorably quoting Robert Kates: "Too much for warfare, too little for welfare."

 

Making You Poorer For Your Own Good

 

The function of such welfare is twofold: to enrich citizens of the Global South and to impoverish Americans for their own good. In a 2006 paper, Holdren noted that reducing "GDP per person" -- that is, cutting your personal wealth -- also reduces Greenhouse Gas emissions. True, it is "not a lever that most people would want to use to reduce emissions"; "People are not getting rich as fast as they think, however, if GDP growth is being achieved at the expense of the environmental underpinnings of well-being" (pp. 15-16).

 

Holdren addressed the economic costs of his massive restructuring of the economy some 32 years ago, acknowledging it "will entail considerable retraining and temporary unemployment in the workforce" (p. 853). Yet he continues to support economy-crushing energy taxation. In a 1997 press conference, he surmised that if alternative energy sources were to get a foothold, either they "would have to get a great deal cheaper, which seems unlikely, or natural gas would have to get considerably more expensive. The latter is actually a good idea." One is hardly encouraged to learn that last December, environmentalist Dr. James Hansen sent a four-page letter via Holdren to "Michelle and Barack." (Hansen wrote it as surgeons in Vienna placed a stent in his wife's chest following an unexpected heart attack.) His personal note to "John" states, "When gasoline hits $4-5/gallons again, most of that should be tax." Five months earlier, Holdren rated Hansen "one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world."

 

Anti-Military, Anti-Christian Statements

 

Dr. James Hansen may be in Holdren's good graces, but neither the military nor the Apostle Paul are. Holdren and company warn, "Civilians should realize that peace and freedom from tension are not viewed as an ideal situation by many members of the military-industrial-government complex. By and large, professional military officers, especially field grade and higher, hope for an end to international tensions about as fervently as farmers hope for drought" (p. 918).

 

And in their eyes, what soldiers are to war, Jesus is to the climate. "The Christian concept of life in this world, as voiced by Saint Paul, that 'here we have no abiding city,' for example, conceivably could help explain why some people show rather little concern for the long-term future of the global environment or for the well-being of future generations" (p. 807).

 

P.S.: He's Frequently Wrong

 

With a values system like this, it should come as little surprise that Holdren is frequently mistaken about his alleged field of specialization, environmental science -- often tremendously so. As with Ehrlich, he has been predicting global catastrophes since the 1970s, beginning with the global cooling scare. Modern critics have noted his role in Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that he believed would be more expensive in ten years' time due to scarcity, while Simon predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich's group was $1,000 poorer (a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps). Holdren advised Al Gore on An Inconvenient Truth, a film that by one scholar's count contained 10 pages of falsehoods, exaggerations, distortions, and ignored evidence.

 

And there is the little matter of his prediction a billion people will die within the next 11 years.

 

Paul Ehrlich recorded that in 1986 Holdren predicted "carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020." Holdren reiterated this view in Newsweek just two years ago. When he faced Senate questioning this February 12, only one man, Sen. David Vitter, R-LA, dared to ask him about his failed predictions. The Washington Post reported Holdren's response as a brilliant riposte, artfully parrying the query. On the contrary, the transcript shows Holdren actually reaffirmed that he still believes one billion people may die within the next 11 years from a climate-related drought:

 

Vitter: So you would stick to that statement?

Holdren: I don't think it's likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort - to reduce the likelihood further.

 

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?

Holdren: It could happen, and ...

 

Vitter: One billion by 2020?

Holdren: It could.

 

 

Vitter managed to show Holdren was wrong on yet another front: just two years ago, he wrote that current emissions levels could cause the a 13-foot rise in sea levels. Under cross-examination, Holdren admitted science's most dire estimates are now half as much as Holdren pronounced just two years ago. Yet this "expert" will have the ear of the president in setting scientific policy.

 

Criticizing Holdren = "Crimes Against Humanity"?

 

Holdren reacts to correction the way a rattlesnake reacts to sudden movement: with velocity and venom. As long ago as the early 1970s, he and Paul Ehrlich engaged in a campaign to silence fellow radical Barry Commoner, a onetime fringe presidential candidate, because the latter viewed technology as more damaging than overpopulation.More recently, he co-authored a scathing, 11-page attack against Bjorn Lomborg for having the temerity to question Green-Left orthodoxy. Yet that pales in comparison to his view of some global warming "deniers."

 

Last July 3, as an advisor to the Obama campaign, Holdren appeared on the radical program "Democracy Now!" hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman asked him about comments made by his friend Dr. James Hansen (see above). Specifically, Hansen said, "large energy companies are guilty of crimes against humanity, if they continue to dispute what is understood scientifically and to fund contrarians, and if they push us past tipping points that end up destroying many species on the planet and having a huge impact on humanity itself." Goodman asked Holdren if he agreed "the CEOs of large energy companies are guilty of, should be tried for crimes against humanity?"

 

Holdren

: "I couldn't really say. I'm not qualified to assess what the heads of oil companies, past or present, have done in this domain. My understanding is that Exxon, in particular, did fund a variety of small think tanks to generate what amounts to propaganda against understanding of what climate change was doing, the human role in causing it. Whether that sort of activity really constitutes crimes against humanity is something for people more embedded in the legal system than I to judge." He went on to say heads of oil companies now were more "enlightened" on carbon emissions, so "I guess I would find the statement that all oil company CEOs, past and present, are guilty of crimes against humanity is maybe a little bit over the top." (Emphasis added.)

 

In other words, he hedged his bets, pleaded that he was not a legal scholar, but still held out that at least some of the CEOs may well be guilty of crimes against humanity. His reply to whether American citizens should be tried for a capital offense because they exercised their First Amendment rights to disagree with him was a firm maybe.

 

DDT: A Truly Malthusian Policy

 

The lack of correction has led to a correlative lack of introspection. This author could find no retraction of his 1977 statement, "In our opinion, no biologist has made a greater contribution to humanity in this century than Rachel Carson" (p. 854). Carson's primary contribution, through banning the DDT on erroneous grounds, has been the preventable death of 50-90 million souls in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Indian subcontinent.

 

In a way, Holdren's support for Carson is a microcosm of his entire philosophy: a deadly and ill-conceived policy based on false evidence of potential harm, whose catastrophic impact has been the opposite of that intended -- never retracted, never regretted, never reconsidered. Such a reflexively self-reverential tone is unhelpful in any public servant. John Holdren's globalist, redistributionist, Malthusian views could prove more damaging for the world than those of his hero.

 

ENDNOTES:

1. Unless otherwise noted, all page citations are from Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977).

 

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198

 

 

Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. These proposals include;

- Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.

- Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.

- Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.

- Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.

- Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.

- Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.

- This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a bad decision. A man with this judgment shouldnt be the "first" science advisor. the things he says are crazy and outrageous. I remember in school this one teacher character made us watch that al gore movie and i didnt believe that shit it was too outlandish.

 

This also shows the presidents line of thinking when it comes to environment and the planets health. Green party lobbyists should have him ousted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He sounds like a nut, but he had a point when he said...

 

"The Meanest of Wealthy Countries"

 

In a 1995 article co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a "sustainable" world such "Underlying human frailties" as "Greed, selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness." These, he expounds, "collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo."

 

Holdren blasted his country last January before the AAAS as "the stingiest among all" wealthy nations in its development of the Third World, making us "the meanest of wealthy countries." He summed up his view of the U.S. budget by favorably quoting Robert Kates: "Too much for warfare, too little for welfare."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Holdren's globalist, redistributionist, Malthusian views could prove more damaging for the world than those of his hero.

 

oh you forgot eugenicist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He sounds like a nut, but he had a point when he said...

 

yeah but hes a complete fucking evil asshole. he IS a nut.

You cant go about fixing these things with mass sterilization and forced abortions. Hes insane. Its like some shit out of a science fiction book only its real.

 

In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

 

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;

• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;

• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let me qualify that....I agree with a couple of things that he has said in principle- the US has a track record of being far too greedy and consumptive of resources and oil companies have historically gotten off pretty easy when they break the law and hurt people.

 

Beyond that, he's a nut...I do think the planet is reaching its capacity but hopefully common sense will prevail and he'll never get a chance to put some of the shit he has advocated into practice.

 

edit- something else just occurred to me (again, not agreeing with anyone, just being the devil's advocate)-

 

Historically, the reason for having large families was due to high infant mortality rates (more kids=better chance of survival) and, in some cases, to help out in agrarian cultures (more kids=more help on the farm). But with modern medicine and urbanization, well...I don't know.

 

I don't watch much TV but the other day I saw a show called something like "18 Kids and Counting"...and then there's the other family that something like ten kids and now they're getting a divorce (apparently "be fruitful and multiply" and "till death do us part" seem to be mutually exclusive terms)...then you have the dingbat in LA who had octuplets (she now has what, 13 kids? And she's a single mom? Fuck outta here)...yes, these are extreme cases and I'm sure I can go on, but I would have to do some research that would probably raise my blood pressure.

 

In the interest of disclosure, I don't support sterilization or forced abortions. At the same time, I don't want to ever have kids. Never. I don't mind that other people do, but, you know...MODERATION. Just because you're biologically capable of giving birth to your own football team (along with the cheerleading squad) and endowed with the liberty and free will to do so doesn't necessarily mean that you should.

 

So, yes, he's crazy...but is the rest of the world any less crazy?

IMG_6062.jpg.4c832258207cd6f654ed4b5fd4d498c3.jpg

eck2.jpg.28eec1462f4f11d1900432f6ecdcae7d.jpg

slotpedup.jpg.91e3ef798678ffe9b001a8217b09ba49.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States has the best capitolist economy. We waste energy but that does not mean abort more babies and lie about global warming/cooling. Personally i would like to see our budget go more towards welfare than to war, which was one of the things thing he said. He also made the interesting comment that it is not in the best interest of military contractors and such to promote peace. What should this good republic do in that situation. our protests and voting in and out of public officials barely ever affects military interests due to our first interest which is the military industrial complex.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waiting on mams to come in and tell us this guy is sane and ok.

 

I can't/won't cosign everything he said but I can see where he's coming from on a couple of points and I do agree with a couple others. Otherwise, yeah...he's out to lunch. Is he evil? If he uses his official capacity to try and push through some of his more outlandish proposals, then that would be the overt act that would make me say "yes.". But if he leverages oil companies into being better neighbors, then that would be a good thing.

 

Then again, what exactly does a "climate czar" do? Does he move the rain clouds away from the beach and towards the crops? Does he make it snow on Christmas? Who the hell comes up with this shit? Oh right...the same people that brought you the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror". Now we have the "War on Global Warming" or "The Battle to Make Everyone and Everything Green". Let's see how that one turns out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't/won't cosign everything he said but I can see where he's coming from on a couple of points and I do agree with a couple others. Otherwise, yeah...he's out to lunch. Is he evil? If he uses his official capacity to try and push through some of his more outlandish proposals, then that would be the overt act that would make me say "yes.". But if he leverages oil companies into being better neighbors, then that would be a good thing.

 

Then again, what exactly does a "climate czar" do? Does he move the rain clouds away from the beach and towards the crops? Does he make it snow on Christmas? Who the hell comes up with this shit? Oh right...the same people that brought you the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror". Now we have the "War on Global Warming" or "The Battle to Make Everyone and Everything Green". Let's see how that one turns out.

 

I have to agree with what you've said so far, Shai. I still don't think we should have anyone in any position of "power" that thinks like this. The guy is obviously out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ i have...the people "in charge" are really getting on my last damn nerve. ..tho i would like to be sponsered to become a free mason, maybe get down with the bilderbergs. Shits gotta change and the only way it will is from the inside out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ i have...the people "in charge" are really getting on my last damn nerve. ..tho i would like to be sponsered to become a free mason, maybe get down with the bilderbergs. Shits gotta change and the only way it will is from the inside out.

 

 

The masons at the lower levels are pretty nice people who do a lot of nice things.

You don't need to be sponsored, but you do need to act a certain way.

 

Go into your local lodge and talk to them. You won't find Jahbulon worshiping

satanists.

 

 

You have to be in a very high position to get to the evil.

 

 

The real way to change is from a local perspective. Run for office, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<--felon. no running for office here......currently atleast

 

from my understanding to become a mason you have to "put on" by another mason. my girls uncle was a 13th degree mason, not the highest but high for a lodge mason. he was a G. rip. the masons at lower levels, hate to say it, but are tools for the higher ranking masons. they are lied to within the group and used as pawns by higher ranking masons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<--felon. no running for office here......currently atleast

 

from my understanding to become a mason you have to "put on" by another mason. my girls uncle was a 13th degree mason, not the highest but high for a lodge mason. he was a G. rip. the masons at lower levels, hate to say it, but are tools for the higher ranking masons. they are lied to within the group and used as pawns by higher ranking masons.

 

 

I don't talk about this much, but when I was younger I had cataracts. If it weren't for the masons, my family could've never afforded the surgery (which was highly specialized back then).

 

Some are tools, most masons are just in it for the social aspects. They get together and do charitable events, etc. Not so evil.

 

High level is a different story but that involves lucifer, Pike, etc. and it's looked at as silly when you talk about it publicly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that article certainly didn't pull any stops in being utterly biased against this guy, so it's a little hard for me to base my judgment of his character or scientific expertise on this alone. That said, he does sound a bit like an overzealous scientist who's read Brave New World a few too many times. However, it's unclear how much of this is in fact (as the article not so subtly suggests) Holdren's personal philosophical belief or more a matter of scientific speculation. Many of the things he's 'advocating' seem to be placed in a fairly unspecified future; they sound sort of like sci-fi latter-21st century possibilities. Is he in fact pushing these programs at the moment or are these just ideas? This is a very important distinction that seems to have been glossed over. I need more information from different sources, all this article really sounds like to me is a thinly-veiled bit of defamation aimed at making him (and, by association, Obama) look like a socialist wackjob. I could be wrong.

 

Oh yeah, and Stephen Hawking said somewhat recently that humanity needs to take to the stars as soon as possible or we're all doomed...is he a nutjob too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proof? Ok.

 

fcu03o.jpg

 

hrwsqr.jpg

 

dbgvas.jpg

 

I'll be glad to post more. The article didn't have to go too far to make the guy out as a nutjob. He does a fine job by himself.

 

Also, Hawking is advocating space travel, not forced sterilization, forced abortion, poisoning of our water, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well after reading that he sounds much more sane. I see no overt support of any of those 'crazy' policies, he is merely discussing them as possibilities (many of which appear to be existing ideas) for confronting drastic overpopulation issues. He sounds like a scientist, though perhaps a tiny bit naive about the way some of these ideas could be received (although he does recognize moral objections). Some of it actually seems fairly prescient; it's an uncomfortable fact that measures like these may become necessary for the survival of the human race if population and resource usage keeps on accelerating past the reach of technology. Yes, I'm a scientist.

 

Those excerpts actually support my hunch that the article you posted is biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, well after reading that he sounds much more sane. I see no overt support of any of those 'crazy' policies, he is merely discussing them as possibilities (many of which appear to be existing ideas) for confronting drastic overpopulation issues. He sounds like a scientist, though perhaps a tiny bit naive about the way some of these ideas could be received (although he does recognize moral objections). Some of it actually seems fairly prescient; it's an uncomfortable fact that measures like these may become necessary for the survival of the human race if population and resource usage keeps on accelerating past the reach of technology. Yes, I'm a scientist.

 

Those excerpts actually support my hunch that the article you posted is biased.

 

 

You're a damn fruitcake. We're not overpopulated, we don't need forced anything. Especially

the poisoning of our water, food, etc.

 

Fucking eugenicists and malthusts.

 

 

I hope one of you or one of your family members become one of these sick fucks first customers. Then we can see how much of an apologist you are for these psychopaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody said we were overpopulated right now. India sure is. Parts of Southeast Asia sure are. And global population keeps rising. All this guy seemed to be advocating in that excerpt you posted were possible solutions to possible (even probable) future situations. If he was advocating anything it sounded more like case-by-case application of solutions based on country-specific need. Doesn't sound like "global socialism Lenin's ghost is going to kill us all!" to me. Oh, and I'm not a 'eugenicist,' and name-calling doesn't prove your point. I'm not supporting these theories, I'm trying to contextualize them so we don't all start a witch-hunt in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, and thanks for all the nega-props. I'm pretty sure you're the only person who's given me nega-props, other people have propped me for calling you out but for some reason their props aren't as powerful as yours. I don't really care. Funny to see how you react to people who don't agree with you though. But for everyone else - I think it's pretty clear who the biggest nutjob in this thread is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody said we were overpopulated right now. India sure is. Parts of Southeast Asia sure are. And global population keeps rising. All this guy seemed to be advocating in that excerpt you posted were possible solutions to possible (even probable) future situations. If he was advocating anything it sounded more like case-by-case application of solutions based on country-specific need. Doesn't sound like "global socialism Lenin's ghost is going to kill us all!" to me. Oh, and I'm not a 'eugenicist,' and name-calling doesn't prove your point. I'm not supporting these theories, I'm trying to contextualize them so we don't all start a witch-hunt in here.

 

 

Calling you a Eugenicist isn't like calling you an asshole.

 

Even case by case, this is still pretty sick. If world government, mass sterilization, poisonings, etc. don't throw up red flags all over the place, you may need to brush up on being human.

 

Too many of these fucked up college professors are on this Malthusian tip.

 

Dr. Pianka

http://www.biosci.utexas.edu/IB/faculty/PIANKA.HTM

 

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×