{"id":6610,"date":"2013-11-15T19:49:17","date_gmt":"2013-11-15T19:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/?p=6610"},"modified":"2025-07-10T09:09:38","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T08:09:38","slug":"united-states-jumps-population-control-bandwagon","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/united-states-jumps-population-control-bandwagon\/","title":{"rendered":"United States Jumps on Population Control Bandwagon"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Robin Phillips<\/a><\/p>\n

Population Control Guru is ‘Science Envoy’ to Muslim Nations<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"President<\/a>
President Obama has sent population control guru, John Holdren, on missions of \u2018science diplomacy\u2019 to the rest of the world<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Obama administration has been sending population control guru, John Holdren, to Muslim nations in what it calls \u2018science diplomacy.\u2019<\/p>\n

The official purpose of \u2018science diplomacy\u2019 is to bridge the so called \u2018cultural gap\u2019 between the United States and the rest of the world.<\/p>\n

John P Holdren, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, uses these visits to meet his counterparts in foreign nations, along with his team of \u2018Science Envoys.\u2019<\/p>\n

The man Obama has chosen to represent America is on record as saying that the world has far too many people. In a testimony before the Senate in 1974, Holdren teamed up with Paul Ehrlich to argue that overpopulation was heading the world towards a no-growth economy.<\/p>\n

In an essay collaborated with Ehrlich in 1969, titled \u2018Population and Panaceas: A Technological Perspective\u2019, Holdren suggested that \u201cman\u2019s present technology is inadequate to the task of maintaining the world\u2019s burgeoning billions, even under the most optimistic assumptions.\u201d Even advancements to increase food supply, he argued, would be fruitless until \u201cthe population growth rate drastically reduced.\u201d<\/p>\n

In his 1973 book, co-authored with the Ehrlichs, calledHuman Ecology: Problems and Solutions,\u00a0<\/em>Holdren wrote that toddlers, let alone babies in the womb, are not fully human:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the book he set out a pro-abortion, pro-sterilisation Doomsday scenario which could only be averted by a sudden and rapid decrease in the population.<\/p>\n

\u201cHumanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century,\u201d he asserted. \u201cThis may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants\u2019 destiny\u201d (p. 944). The eco-catastrophe Holdren and Ehrlich predicted by the year 2000 failed to materialise<\/a>.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Myron Ebell, director of international energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has drawn attention to Holdren\u2019s history of false predictions: \u201cDr. Holdren has a record only surpassed by his longtime collaborator Paul Ehrlich for spreading misinformation and making failed predictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition, Dr. Holdren has advocated a wide array of despicable policies, such as mandatory population control, and was a willing stooge of the Soviet Union as a member for several decades of the Pugwash Conference (and of which he was chairman when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995),\u201d Ebell added. \u201cJohn Holdren is therefore the perfect \u201cscience diplomat\u201d for an administration that peddles junk science and supports policies that will make poor people, and especially poor people in poor countries, poorer.\u00a0 As President Obama\u2019s science diplomat, he can now advocate for global impoverishment on a global stage.\u201d<\/p>\n

Obama Supports China’s One-Child Policy<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Why would Obama choose a population control guru like Holdren to represent America abroad? Could it be a simple oversight? Hardly! From the day he took office, Obama has sided with the powerful population control lobby, giving tens of millions of dollars in subsidies to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which helps to fund China\u2019s population control agenda.<\/p>\n

The Obama Administration reflects a growing sympathy among Western politicians towards China\u2019s family planning policies.<\/p>\n

At the UN Climate Change Conference 2009, Chinese government\u2019s delegation argued that their country\u2019s one-child-only-policy should \u201cserve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.\u201d Zhao Baige, vice-minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China said that China\u2019s policy of forced population control \u201chas made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Chinese delegates also cited the UN\u2019s own State of World Population 2009 report, put out by UNFPA, which suggests that if the global population can be kept to 8 billion by the year 2050 (it is currently projected to increase to just over 9 billion), \u201cit might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The irony is that, despite its draconian population control measures, China leads the world in CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, this Communist nation has been praised for its contribution to the world\u2019s ecology. Sven Burmester, a representative of the UNFPA, said, \u201cChina has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favor.\u201d<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s Financial Post<\/em> also praised China for its contribution to the environment. \u201cDespite its dirty coal plants,\u201d said the Canadian equivalent of America\u2019s Wall Street Journal, \u201c[China] is the world\u2019s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.\u201d The paper calls China\u2019s solution a \u201csimple\u201d and \u201cdramatic\u201d fix that, if extended to other nations, would reduce global population by 50 percent by 2075.<\/p>\n

From Eugenics to Environmentalism<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Population control has an impressive pedigree among the sages of the West. In fact, until the early twentieth century, it was politically fashionable for liberals to talk about finding ways to reduce the \u201csurplus population.\u201d Twentieth-century advocates of population control often drew on the social theories of men like Thomas Malthus and Charles Darwin\u2019s cousin Sir Francis Galton, who, a century earlier, had argued that the poor were draining the world\u2019s recourses. (One of Malthus\u2019s solutions for reducing the \u201csurplus population\u201d was to introduce policies specifically designed to bring death to large numbers of peasants. For example, he encouraged poor people to move near swamps, so they would catch diseases and begin dying off.)<\/p>\n

In the early twentieth century, Malthusian ideas on population control were linked to theories of eugenics and social Darwinism. It was not until Hitler tried to move these ideas out of the anthropology class and into the gas chamber that population control stopped being a politically correct topic\u2014for a while.<\/p>\n

But it didn\u2019t take long for the spectre of Hitler to wear off. Following the huge birth explosion that occurred in the decades after World War II, the issue of population control gradually returned to the national limelight. But this time, instead of being explicitly linked to theories like eugenics and social Darwinism, it was propelled by the emerging ideology of environmentalism.<\/p>\n

While it was no longer politically correct to appeal specifically to social planners like Galton and Malthus, the basic concern of these men\u2014namely, that because the resources on earth remain limited, there will be a demographic Armageddon if the human population continues to expand\u2014was revived but packaged as ecological responsibility. Thus, it became politically correct once again to advocate population control. The American Eugenics Society (founded in 1922, as social Darwinism was laying the foundations for the Nazi experiment) jumped on this bandwagon but attempted to garner more respectability in 1972 by changing its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology.<\/p>\n

As the twentieth century wore on, however, something happened to change the tide once again. The key factor this time was not that the world\u2019s population had stopped growing, but that it had stopped growing in the West. (Many factors contributed to this. It became fashionable for women to marry late, while books like The Feminine Mystique<\/em> helped make women feel guilty if their greatest ambition was to be a wife and mother. These things, together with the rise in abortion and homosexuality, meant that the birthrate in the West began to decline steadily.)<\/p>\n

This fact alone would not have been sufficient to change the direction of the population debate, since population continued to grow worldwide (though at a significantly lower rate). However, by this time the specter of racism loomed large in the background of almost every debate. It did not take long before people began realizing that if Western populations were decreasing while non-Western ones were growing, and if the former are primarily white and the latter primarily brown, then calling for a lower international birthrate was equivalent to calling for fewer brown babies. And that left one open to charges of racism.<\/p>\n

Thus did population control become politically incorrect once again. English journalist Anthony Browne lamented this shift in his 2006 book The Retreat of Reason<\/em>: \u201cNow that the population of the West has stopped growing, concern about overpopulation has become very unfashionable because, as Tony Benn put it, it means wanting fewer brown babies. The combination of Western guilt and fear of racism has all but killed off public concern about overpopulation in the last few decades.\u201d<\/p>\n

But even as Browne was writing, the wheels of one more paradigm shift slowly began to turn. Thanks to the increased hysteria about global warming, talk about overpopulation has become politically correct once again. As Garry Egger of the New South Wales Centre for Health Promotion and Research insists, \u201cThe debate [about population control] needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution\u201d The UNFPA has framed the issue like this on its website: \u201cGreenhouse gases would not be accumulating so hazardously had the number of earth\u2019s inhabitants not increased so rapidly, but remained at 300 million people, the world population of 1,000 years ago, compared with 6.8 billion today.\u201d<\/p>\n

The connection between global warming and a renewed interest in population control was evident in a report commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust in August 2009. Titled \u201cFewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost,\u201d the report argued that the best way to combat global warming would be to reduce the population through contraception and abortion. The utilitarian logic was simple: Fewer people = fewer polluters.<\/p>\n

The reality is that most CO2 emissions are not the result of man-made technology at all, but occur naturally, as in the water vapor released by the oceans and through the consumption of vegetation by animals and microbes. But this \u201cinconvenient truth\u201d doesn\u2019t fit the environmentalists\u2019 story line, so they routinely ignore it. To them, the earth has a surplus population of polluters, and those polluters are the human population.<\/p>\n

This \u201cfact\u201d is considered so obvious to them that only \u201cdeniers,\u201d who are \u201cmotivated by religious-right attitudes,\u201d could possibly think otherwise. Or so said population control advocate Morris Sullivan in a 1999 article for impactpress.com, titled \u201cPopulation Control: How Many Are Too Many?\u201d Claiming that problems such as global warming are \u201cat least partially due to growing world population,\u201d Sullivan wrote that \u201cit\u2019s hard to imagine anyone opposing restraints on population controls.\u201d While acknowledging that \u201csuch people exist,\u201d he asserted that the best of them \u201care well-meaning optimists blinded by their denial,\u201d while the others \u201chave more pernicious motivations\u2014like greed and religious fanaticism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Paul Watson, a co-founder of Greenpeace, was even more severe. In a 2007 article for seashepherd.org, he wrote that we humans act \u201cin the same manner as an invasive virus\u201d and that we are \u201ckilling our host the planet Earth.\u201d This requires, he continued, a \u201cradical and invasive\u201d cure. How invasive? \u201cWe need to radically and intelligently reduce human populations to fewer than one billion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Contracept for Credit<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Even with the fate of planet Earth supposedly hanging in the balance, Western nations are a long way off from advocating the forced abortion policies of China. Nevertheless, global warming is continually put forward as a reason for increasing the availability of contraception, abortion, \u201ccomprehensive\u201d sex education, and family planning services. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, put out a Population and Global Warming Fact Sheet (http:\/\/cf.nwf.org\/globalwarming\/pdfs\/climatefactsheet.pdf) calling for better \u201cfamily planning and related health care and education.\u201d \u201cProviding these services,\u201d claims the federation, \u201cwill not only reduce poverty and improve the lives of many, it will reduce the danger of climate change and other environmental stressors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dr. Barry Walters, a professor of obstetrics at the University of Western Australia, argued a few years ago that those who refuse to use contraception should be levied with a climate-change tax. In a 2007 article in the Medical Journal of Australia, Dr. Walters proposed that such a tax be assessed on all couples having more than two children. He suggested an initial fine of $5,000 for each \u201cextra\u201d child when born, with another $800 assessed every year thereafter. However, parents could redeem themselves by using contraceptives or undergoing sterilization procedures, for which they would receive carbon credits.<\/p>\n

Those who propose these schemes are unconcerned by the obvious fact that a sparse population is, in general, a poorer population. Consider that the more people there are, the greater division of labor there can be, the more capital there will be, the more hands there will be to tend gardens, and, as a result, the more fruitful the earth and human society can become. The industrial revolution would never have been possible if Europe\u2019s population had remained at the levels it was at during the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n

These facts are conveniently ignored by the gurus of population control, such as John Holdren, as he and his \u2018Science Envoys\u2019 go around representing America.<\/p>\n

‘Involuntary Fertility Control’<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"This<\/a>
This 1977 book floats the idea of \u2018involuntary fertility control\u2019 as a possible solution to over-population.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Thankfully, public calls for compulsory sterilization are no longer mainstream as they were in the early twentieth century. Nevertheless, the Mr Holdren\u2019s high profile position suggests that the tide may be turning.<\/p>\n

In 1977 Holdren helped to co-author the controversial textbook, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment<\/em>. The book discussed drastic measures that could be implemented if population continued to increase. Plans discussed in the book include \u201ccoercive,\u201d \u201cinvoluntary fertility control,\u201d including \u201ca program of sterilizing women after their second or third child.\u201d<\/p>\n

They also suggest forcing single women to abort their babies, implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty and spiking public reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would lead to sterility. To help achieve those goals, the authors suggest it might be necessary to formulate a \u201cworld government scheme\u201d with an \u201carmed international organization, a global analogue of a police force\u201d to enforce population control measures.<\/p>\n

Holdren\u2019s controversial 1977 book declares: \u201cIndeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately,\u201d they add, \u201csuch a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

The word \u2018unfortunately\u2019 is significant, since it suggests that Holdren & co. would be quite happy to see these type of draconian measures implemented if they got the chance.<\/p>\n