John Holdren on Climate Change

Barack Obama once said “Judge me by the people that surround me.”  I have looked at Van Jones, the Irreverend Wright, and now John Holdren.

Look at what John Holdren one of the key members of the Global Warming Movement, now Science Advisor to Barak Obama said in one of his books discussing population. 

“(…) the alternatives may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an increasing number of people in the 1970s, we may well find them demanding such control. A far better choice, in our view, 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.”

Let’s look particularly at the lines, “If effective action is taken promptly perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”  He has already made the decision that population control is NECESSARY and that MANDATORY POPULATION CONTROL is more than likely going to be implemented.  For those who do not know that the words MANDATORY POPULATION CONTROL MEANS, let me give you a short lesson.

1)     Enforced Sterilization

2)     Enforced Abortion

3)     Euthanasia

Sterilization is the process of removing ones ability to have children.  It involves procedures such as vasectomy, tubal ligation, castration and hysterectomy.  I have no problem with these when done VOLUNTARILY.  I would not sanction them on an involuntary basis without a court ruling and I am not sure I can define any parameters that would have me as a juror vote to have this done.  They are generally permanent, life changing and irrevocable, the very arguments that the left will use against the death penalty. 

Holdren also writes in the book:

“The fetus given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.” 

Look at the last portion of this statement. “will ultimately develop into a human being.”   The pro-abortion movement would have us believe that a unborn child is not a human being and it’s life can be taken at the whim of the mother.  Here Holdren takes a slightly different but more extreme view.  A child AFTER birth is not a human being.  I question just where the dividing line is for him.  He does not state it but is it when the child starts to walk, talk, or is it when that child becomes productive, I.e. is contributing taxes to the state?  One could then ask the question on the other side of the coin.  When is that person no longer a human being, when the heart stops beating or is it when that person becomes a ward of the state, taking more resources than they produce?   Would it then be incumbent on the state to begin removing those worthless mouths from the ecosystem?  We begin all kinds of playing God here.  Should a child who is very unlikely to be productive be terminated at three years old when it is determined that they have some condition that will prevent productivity?  What about at ninety, eighty or maybe seventy when they are in retirement?  Maybe there should be no retirement as such – because those who have retired are using more resources without contributing.  What about long term welfare?  These use resources, they contribute nothing.  And they further load the ecosystem with more mouths to feed that are very likely to be more load on the ecosystem without being productive.