2Brave2Bscared on July 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I’m pointing out the flaw in his logic, not questioning whether he’s power-hungry.

These days, Holdren’s focus is on global warming (or climate change, or whichever euphemism they’ve come up with this week). Which seems odd: If you’re worried about overpopulation, wouldn’t you want to encourage global warming? A nice flood would sure clear out all those undesirables.

That’s not odd at all; indeed, it’s incredibly consistent. “Global warming” is in part about population control. If humans are destroying the planet, then they need to be controlled through forced abortions, eugenics and sterilization — the very same things John Holdren advocates.

The liberals, at least the ones in charge, know that global warming is a lie, or at the very least overhyped. They’re using it to achieve their own political and social engineering ends.

When they come after that full force, beware, then all their sick plans will follow.

The parallel to Europe 1930-1939 and the world today (esp. America) from 1997-2009 is quite interesting.

Aren’t the women Holdren are describing his mother, and aren’t the “undesirables” who contribute to social deterioration his father?

MikeA on July 12, 2009 at 8:19 PM

I think (and this is just my thinking on the topic) that the most important aspects relating to your question are cultural mating habits rather than social programs. Each person deciding what characteristics they find attractive, and decide worthy of mating with, adds up to a much more powerful force than anything else – at least by my reckoning – since those considerations serve to shape personalities and determine how people spend the bulk of their time and energy, in addition to the strong genetic facet. Almost all people still work very hard to compete for the “best mates”, and whatever constitutes the “best mates” in most people’s minds will do more to determine the shape of future generations than anything, so far as I see. I’m really not sure what the effect of social programs are on this, since mating considerations apply to society at large. Popular culture is much more impactful, in the respect, I would think. Though, the effect of government progams on eroding the family and other cultural foundations certainly does much harm in this area.

chemman on July 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Social and economic mobility (both upwards and downwards) is true freedom, and no nation has ever offered the sort of mobility that America has. But liberals think that, instead of mobility, absolute guarantees backed by the government are preferable, and even the job of government.

Thomas Sowell pointed out in an article once that of all the people who lived at or below the poverty level in 1975 95% had moved up by 1990

So it looks like the welfare state was working great even before Clinton’s reforms.

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

I have no doubt that you are correct in your evaluation of the system, but my questioning is pointed in another direction. All of your criteria would tend to explain why people who could do better don’t, since with the government assured floor you speak of, some people just decide that is good enough for them and is much easier than achieving more. I see that and I know examples I know. I’m sure this explains the large number of underachievers that do not do better today.

But I am wondering, maybe am convinced, that there are many people who really do not have the ability to do better, and that the number of those people is growing as a direct result of the system as it has existed for the past 50 years or so has caused ability challenged people to reproduce at a higher rate than they might have if they had less resources available for their use. If so this may be actually altering gene pools in some areas in a similar way that breeding dogs or other animals for characteristics creates distinct breeds. Again, I’m not talking about race, as this could occur in any race, or any mixture of races. If we have taken steps to genetically favor reproduction of the least fit, we might be creating a breed of refined genetic inability.

Black Adam on July 12, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Ok, I found interesting Holdren pointing out lack of technology then for his population control…so…enter Monsanto. I recommend ‘Monsanto Patent For A Pig”. This should get ya a little farther down that rabbit hole…and it’s a deep one. My above mentioned is good too but this is the one to see.

progressoverpeace on July 12, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Excellent points. Thomas Sowell pointed out in an article once that of all the people who lived at or below the poverty level in 1975 95% had moved up by 1990. I know, I was one of those 95%. If we make it to easy people have no incentive to change.