John P. Holdren, assistant to President Barack Obama for science and technology.

[WhipperSnapper]

Just to add some new life to this thread, how do you feel about the prospect of having 450 million Americans by 2050? In the meantime, how would a population increase in addition to much higher oil prices (Peak Oil) impact our society? Does our nation need a National Population Policy and an agency to study it? Here are links to two good websites on this subject:

NumbersUSA

Negative Popluation Growth (that's the organization's name)

Here are some ads put out by NPG complete with winning pictures from kids:

http://www.npg.org/advertising2.html#waj

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TheBDB
divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them

Oh the horror.

How about doing neither?

Because we must help those who don't want to help themselves.

OP, this guy makes very valid points about the population. It's going out of control, and nobody really knows what the "carrying capacity" of Earth is. I personally would be for voluntary sterilizations that the government paid for, while reducing the amount going into welfare and "social services" while we are at it. FWIW I don't think we should end welfare and other social services, just prevent the exploitation of them.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TheBDB
divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them

Oh the horror.

How about doing neither?

Because we must help those who don't want to help themselves.

OP, this guy makes very valid points about the population. It's going out of control, and nobody really knows what the "carrying capacity" of Earth is. I personally would be for voluntary sterilizations that the government paid for, while reducing the amount going into welfare and "social services" while we are at it. FWIW I don't think we should end welfare and other social services, just prevent the exploitation of them.

Yeah, I agree that we probably have too many people in the world. But his approach is pretty bad. Hitler would have been proud. Where do you draw the line? Who is undesireable?

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

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TheBDB
divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them

Oh the horror.

How about doing neither?

Because we must help those who don't want to help themselves.

OP, this guy makes very valid points about the population. It's going out of control, and nobody really knows what the "carrying capacity" of Earth is. I personally would be for voluntary sterilizations that the government paid for, while reducing the amount going into welfare and "social services" while we are at it. FWIW I don't think we should end welfare and other social services, just prevent the exploitation of them.

Yeah, I agree that we probably have too many people in the world. But his approach is pretty bad. Hitler would have been proud. Where do you draw the line? Who is undesireable?

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

Can we get a quote from the actual textbook which is claimed to have endorsed these measures rather than someone's interpretation of what is said? Textbooks rarely advocate so I'm curious how much this is being distorted.

Did the textbook say something like "Explosions in population may cause governments in distressed areas to seek extreme measures to combat supply shortages such as A, B, and C." To me, that's a guess at things that might happen, not a recommendation or approval.

 

[BoberFett]

Here's a page with scans from the book.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

The guy sounds pretty evil.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Here's a page with scans from the book.

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

The guy sounds pretty evil.

Thanks for the link, it's exactly as I thought above. Postulations about "what might happen" in a population explosion, not an endorsement or advocacy.

ED: apparently I was echoing his response:

When asked whether Mr. Holdren's thoughts on population control have changed over the years, his staff gave The Washington Times a statement that said, "This material is from a three-decade-old, three-author college textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been an advocate for policies of forced sterilization."
...
The White House also passed along a statement from the Ehrlichs that said, in part, "anybody who actually wants to know what we and/or Professor Holdren believe and recommend about these matters would presumably read some of the dozens of publications that we and he separately have produced in more recent times, rather than going back a third of a century to find some formulations in an encyclopedic textbook where description can be misrepresented as endorsement."

 

[BoberFett]

You don't see this:

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? "

as endorsement?

You're willfully in denial at best, and in vile agreement with him at worst. This guy is a menace.

 

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You don't see this:

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? "

as endorsement?

You're willfully in denial at best, and in vile agreement with him at worst. This guy is a menace.

Well, I see it as they postulate on what over population will bring, then they offer draconian solutions. I guess Jonks sees it as they are speaking about solutions that have been put out there, and not what they themselves believe. That's a twist to me.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You don't see this:

"In today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children? "

as endorsement?

No, it's not an endorsement because it doesn't propose anything. it's a question.

What was the next sentence? Did the question get answered? Did the book raise arguments for and against possible answers to the question?

Yeah, let's take one question, and snip it from a 1000 page co-authored book from 1977 and hang it around a guys head as a summation of the totality of his views instead of reading any of his dozens of papers published in the past couple decades to make a determination for what it is he actually does advocate, and also disregard his abject rejection that he does now or ever did advocate forced sterilization.

You are partaking in the pastime of short attention span junkies where you can't wait to zip someone into a box based on snippets of info provided by proudly and admittedly partisan sources. What you claim he openly advocates would make him a pariah in just about any community in the country, and yet he's a highly respected and admired scientist with a stellar resume.

You're willfully in denial at best, and in vile agreement with him at worst. This guy is a menace.

I'm confused how to be in agreement with a question. Your lack of comprehension does not my agreement make. If you are claiming this guy openly advoactes these positions, then it should be simple to find a statement of his that says "What needs to be done is X." Good luck.



ED: try this to understand the difference:

1: hey, say the population gets out of control to the point where we have widespread food shortages, starvation, that sortof thing. What types of things do you think would be proposed by governments and what would be legal in your view.

2: Well, if thousands or millions of people are dropping dead from food shortages a government might well explore explore various solutions which today would be considered draconian. If overpopulation is the cause, it's likely a government confronting such a situation would look at lowering birth rates possibly through sterilization or incentives for abortions, or food rationing, or changing marriage structures.

1: so you're a supporter and advocate of forced sterilization and starving poor people?

2: Christ no, what?!?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: TheBDB
divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of the world rather than exploiting them

Oh the horror.

How about doing neither?

Because we must help those who don't want to help themselves.

OP, this guy makes very valid points about the population. It's going out of control, and nobody really knows what the "carrying capacity" of Earth is. I personally would be for voluntary sterilizations that the government paid for, while reducing the amount going into welfare and "social services" while we are at it. FWIW I don't think we should end welfare and other social services, just prevent the exploitation of them.

There's a huge difference between voluntary and forced. One is done with consent, the other is done with an arm band.
Welfare and other social services should be cut for any able bodied/minded person. Screw them. IF they are to lazy to get a real job then they don't get shit. Sorry. What's the motivation for these people to do better? There is none, because they can get handouts from massah.
The only people deserving of "social services" are those that are incapable of taking care of themselves, Mentally Retarded, Autistic, Paralyzed, MS, MD, and other such dibilitating diseases and genetic disorders. Believe it or not, laziness is not a disease.

 

[Fern]

In all fairness it looks to be a rhetorical question:

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for its persuasive effect without the expectation of a reply (ex: "Why me, Lord?")

His comments preceeding the rhetorical question make his position pretty darned clear.

Fern

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
How is 'excess productivity' defined??

Generally that would be any wealth above that which the author is, at that moment, in possession of.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowskiWelfare and other social services should be cut for any able bodied/minded person. Screw them. IF they are to lazy to get a real job then they don't get shit. Sorry. What's the motivation for these people to do better? There is none, because they can get handouts from massah.
The only people deserving of "social services" are those that are incapable of taking care of themselves, Mentally Retarded, Autistic, Paralyzed, MS, MD, and other such dibilitating diseases and genetic disorders. Believe it or not, laziness is not a disease.

Uhmm...which Jeffrey Lebowski are you? Are you the Dude or the rich guy in the wheelchair?