It’s that “forced sterilization” concept that made people’s hair stand on end. The presidents national “science czar” endorses eugenics policies?
Concern eventually reached the White House that the president’s science czar was perceived by the public as being nuttier than squirrel droppings. So, to alleviate fears, they issued a statement pointing out that Holdren co-authored that book with two other people and that it was written in 1977, more than 30 years ago. Hence, implying the ideas presented in this book really came from the other two authors, which only stains Holdren’s ability to discern who he publishes with, and that he no longer holds to these ideas today. Of course, if he has renounced his eugenics philosophy, one would think he would distance himself from this previous academic work, but his bio page where he once directed the Woods Hole Research Center proudly lists that book on his credentials.
Folks are right to be alarmed by such statements; however, I believe an important disconnect exists in their minds. As I noted in a previous blog, most people in our modern day are unaware of Charles Darwin’s personal racist notions he articulated in his lesser known publications. Yet, in spite of clear and undeniable documentation, his supporters react in a couple of ways. They either choose to ignore Darwin’s racist tendencies and the implications evolution had in forming eugenics policies at the turn of the 20th century, or they vehemently deny any racism inherent to Darwin and his evolutionary theory and angrily denounce those who raise it as a problem like the anonymous commenter who left insulting, profanity laced comments under that post.
As I read the original expose‘ on Holdren, I thought to myself that somewhere in that book the authors would lay out their eugenics driven “ecoscience” by appealing to Darwinian evolution, natural selection, and the “survival of the fittest.” With that in mind, I did a net search and located the table of contents from the book. A person has to be a member of the on-line library club in order to read the work in its entirety, but several sections from just the table of contents stood out to me, particularly page 122, which begins the chapter on “natural selection and evolution,” and then page 953 where there is a chapter on “cornucopians and neo-Malthusians.” Those two words were new to me. I couldn’t recall hearing about cornucopians and Malthusians before, so once again I did another net search.
What I learned was they are two opposite philosophies addressing economy, ecology, and population. “Cornucopians” basically believe the world has plenty of natural resources to sustain a thriving human population, its only a matter of developing technology to take advantage of those resources, where as the “Malthusians” believe natural resources are limited and once they are depleted, the world population will be unable to be sustained at current levels. When that happens, poverty and misery will spread across the globe in what is called a Malthusian catastrophe. One viable option to prevent such an occurrence is to restrain the ability of people to reproduce.
It was the Malthusians I was particularly interested in. The Malthusians take their name from British political economist, Thomas Malthus, who outlined his ideas in an essay on population. Basically, he argued that as our society became more advanced, the population of humanity would grow. But, a serious problem with living conditions was a reality as natural resources were unable to keep up with the exploding population. Malthus even noted this with his own British society. Where the problem was at its worst was with the conditions of the poor, lower classes, who were irresponsible with their reproduction. Not only did they have the tendency to have more children than those in the upper classes, they also lacked the ability to support them. In order to combat this problem, he suggested the family size of the lower classes should be regulated. Malthus, who was an Anglican reverend, suggested moral restraint to stem their birth rate, things like celibacy and birth control. However, later advocates of his views thought more in terms of abortion and sterilization.
Malthus had both his critics and supporters of his views. One of the most enthusiastic supporters of his day was none other than Charles Darwin. He was particularly drawn to Malthus’s concepts of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest.” Where as Malthus saw natural selection and “survival of the fittest” applying to those human population able to adapt to overpopulation and the lack of resources, Darwin adapted them to biological system being able to survive so as to pass along their positive traits which will improve the species.
However, it was later scientists, like Francis Galton, who took Darwinian-Malthusian principles of population to an extreme with the eugenics movement, the idea that a master race of humanity could be formed by selecting those best traits from various groups and breeding them like cattle. While societies should promote a positive eugenics of encouraging the best traits to be passed along, there was also the problem of those individuals who had bad traits. People who were considered feeble minded, lazy, stupid, handicapped, and a number of other maladies. Also included in that list were certain races of people, like black Africans, who were seen as being less evolved, or from a “lower” race. Because these groups reproduced faster than the higher races there was a push among the intellectuals of the late 1800s and early 1900s to propose solutions to eliminate the unfavorable lower class people, specifically forced sterilizations and abortions. Thus the eugenics movement was born.
Now, with all of that background, let’s come back around to president Barry’s science czar.
Evolution is not merely another “scientific” theory likened unto the theory of gravity, or any of the physical laws as the Darwinians claim. They want to say “evolution” is the adaption of a species to environmental changes with the strongest members surviving and passing along their best traits to the next generation. But this is not the case. In reality, evolution, as Darwinians use the term, is a philosophical commitment to materialistic atheism; a worldview developed to help explain man’s natural existence apart from their creator. The “scientific” and “intellectual” elites would have us believe we can harness evolution to our advantage to improve the human race, but it comes with some severe costs.
The zeitgeist of our current day is that climate change is drastically altering our world and man’s hopes for survival. Most of the reason for this climate change is man-made according to environmental hysterics. Thus man needs to radically alter his life style in order to ensure the hope for future generations. A big part of “radically altering life style” will be to reduce the number of children a family has. Does a family really need to have 5 children? Or so goes the argument. The individuals who value large families are generally those in the third world, because they need the helpers for the community, and the religious, especially Christians in the western world. The move then will be to promote birth control among those in the third world (as opposed to giving them the technological know-how to utilize their natural resources), but dealing with the religious is another story.
They value children because God wants them to value children. Moreover, they are not beholden to environmental apocalyptic disaster scenarios because they believe God is directing the world in a specific direction. Hence, they are a direct threat to the long term objectives these “scientific” and “intellectual” elite have for our society.
Paul Ehrlich was one of the other co-authors with Holdren. He is famous for his failed book of prophetic doom The Population Bomb that argued the world would be so over populated in the 1980s, millions of people would starve to death. Ehrlich gave a lecture in April for the Commonwealth Club of California. The lecture was part of a series of lectures commemorating the 200th birthday of Darwin and was on the subject of the evolution of the dominant animal on planet, man. If you want to see how he promotes an evolved sci-fi, futuristic world like Logan’s Run or Soylent Green, in which human populations are dealt with in drastic ways like forced sterilizations and employing a one child policy like in China, check out the question and answers. The video contents links you to the various spots. Watch it and then come back and tell me Darwinian evolution is just a neutral, scientific theory.
Keep in mind that this guy is one of the three authors with Holdren.