More on “Ecoscience”

I wasn’t sure whether or not to post this as an update to my earlier post on John Holdren, but I thought it was interesting enough to warrant its own posting.

I’ve read some of the scanned pages of Ecoscience, the 1977 book co-authored by Holdren that calls for horrifying coercive measures for population control. Interestingly, Holdren & Co. felt the need to address pro-life arguments in their book. Their moral reasoning only proves, yet again, how dangerous (not to mention illogical) some ‘scientists’ can become when they venture into moral philosophy. This provides us an opportunity to take a tour through the inhuman humanism condemned by Pope Benedict in Caritas in Veritate.

In one particular section of the book, the authors are attempting to justify their arguments within the framework of the US Constitution (I invite all readers to go to zombietime’s website and read these scanned pages). They believe, simply put, that the Constitution does not actually prohibit limits on population size and measures that would be needed in order to sustain those limits. For instance, they argue on page 838:

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? The legal argument has been made that the First Amendment provision for the separation of church and state prevents the United States government from regulating family size. The notion is that family size is God’s affair and no business of the state [how quaint! — J.H.]. But the same argument has been made against the taxation of church property, prohibition on polygamy, compulsory education and medical treatment for children, and many similar measures that have been enacted.

Unfortunately, the answer to the question makes no sense if you don’t believe that life has any inherent value to begin with. Why shouldn’t the law be able to regulate children? Because that ultimately means compulsory abortion, the deliberate destruction of an innocent human being and a grave violation of the rights of both mother and father. From the premise that life is not valuable or sacred, it makes perfect sense to resort to coercion to regulate family size.

This is from page 839:

Those who argue that a fetus has a right to life usually proceed from the assumption that life begins at or soon after conception [‘soon after’? Who argues this? — J.H.]. As stated elsewhere, the question When does life begin? is misleading. Life does not begin; it began . (emphasis added by me)

Like other more sophisticated advocates of abortion, Holdren & Co. do not believe that the question of life itself is in dispute at all. They go on to argue:

The real question from a legal, as well as from religious, moral, and ethical points of view, is as follows: in what forms, at what stages, and for what purposes should society protect human life? Obviously overweight people regard their fat cells different from their brain cells. A wandering sperm cell is not the same thing as a fertilized egg; nor is a fetus a child. Yet a fat cell, a sperm cell, a fetus, an adult, and even a group of people are all human life.

How could someone make the drastic – and in my view, manifestly absurd – leap from a ‘fat cell’ to a fetus? Anyone who has seen a picture of an unborn child that is actually developed enough to be surgically aborted in the first place can tell you the difference between that being, and an individual cell.

An individual fat cell – or even a whole group of fat cells – is not a human being. A sperm is alive, yes – but it is not a human being. How desperate to make the case for abortion must one be to fail to understand the distinction between fat cells or genetic material on the one hand, and a unique human being on the other?

The materialists have no conception of what it means to exist, to “be”. They do not see a “human being”, they see a more complicated arrangement of cells that eventually acquires the ability to think and speak, but nothing greater than the sum of its mechanical parts. It is therefore not surprising that they can so easily advocate a totalitarian regime of population control. If all we are is matter, then only pleasure and pain can possibly serve as the parameters on what is just or unjust. A more pleasurable world for the enlightened few who have the privilege of belonging to the upper classes and the protection of the state is only made possible by eliminating the vast majority of undesirables, who from their point of view, are nothing but extra consumers of resources.

It is hard to understand when or where or if ever a human being actually comes into existence in the materialist worldview. The authors do go on to acknowledge that infanticide is illegal in the US and do not attempt to argue for it – but why not? There is no logical reason for them to reject infanticide. It would serve the exact same purpose they want to attain – population control. It would be done to a living organism not much more developed than a fetus. Peter Singer had no trouble seeing this, but then, he wasn’t trying to dance with the US Constitution either.

In the end the problem is that the authors, and all those who share their views, have no answer to their own question. I’ll present it again:

“The real question from a legal, as well as from religious, moral, and ethical points of view, is as follows: in what forms, at what stages, and for what purposes should society protect human life?”

They don’t know. They don’t answer it. They go on to state what they think the Constitution has to say about it. “The common law and the drafters of the U.S. Constitution”, they argue, “did not consider a fetus a human being”. This is not quite accurate – prior to “quickening”, the first stirrings of the unborn child in the womb, they did not consider whatever was in there to even be alive. They did not have the same understanding of pre-natal development that we have today. Their views cannot be considered authoritative in that case.

But why should it matter? If we look back again on page 838, the authors argue that if there is a “compelling, subordinating interest” the government can do whatever it damned well pleases. So why not extermination camps for adults – you know, those highly complex arrangements of cells without an inherent nature differentiating them from fat or sperm – who refuse to comply too?

I believe there is a reason why Hitler dubbed his plan for eliminating the Jews of Europe, “The Final Solution”. It is “final” because it is the final implication of a belief that a certain group poses a threat to the existence of humanity. You can begin, as Hitler did, with laws preventing intermarriage. You can move on to compulsory sterilization, as the Third Reich did. You can proceed to place the dangerous people in ghettos to quarantine them from the rest of the population.

But all of that, in the end, is not going to be enough. They might get out. They might find ways to get around sterilization. The only way to be sure they no longer pose a threat is to get rid of them once and for all. If the problem is bad enough, if the crisis is severe enough, why not?

Whether or not Holdren and his colleauges are conscious of that eventuality and are simply coddling us with Constitutional considerations, or whether they sincerely and stupidly believe it can be avoided, is besides the point. Moreover, I would oppose all of the measures they propose whether they lead to a “final solution” or not, because they are inherently disordered. Even so, this gives us all the more reason to do what we must to oppose the decayed, inhuman philosophy of materialism and its partner, hedonism.

As a closer, let me present what I believe to be the real question, one which no materialist can ever provide a satisfactory answer to:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

11 Responses to More on “Ecoscience”

  1. Rick Lugari says:

    Good post, Joe. No doubt this guy, like his buddy Ehrlich, is bad news. Apparently, and not surprising, he’s connected to Al Gore too. Given Obama’s track record we shouldn’t be surprised that he chose him for the post. Not good…

  2. Dale Price says:

    One huge argument against “silent recanting”: He still lists the book in his CV:

  3. bearing says:

    Those who argue that a fetus has a right to life usually proceed from the assumption that life begins at or soon after conception [‘soon after’? Who argues this? — J.H.].

    Just to answer your question about ‘soon after’ — I don’t know who exactly, but I am familiar with at least one argument that the life of the individual human person begins soon after conception. It has to do with the zygote advancing past the point after which twinning can occur.

    The phenomenon of twinning does raise interesting questions about the meaning and timing of ensoulment or the origin of the human person, and I can see how some people are troubled by the idea of an “individual” from the moment of conception who then apparently splits into two. It still seems pretty obvious to me that the safest course of action is to assume that a human soul is present from the moment of conception, and that if the zygote splits, then two human souls are present from the moment of the split. I don’t see much point in worrying about the details of what happened to the “original” soul.

  4. Joe Hargrave says:

    “He still lists the book in his CV”

    Disturbing. Also, on the Infowars page, there is a picture of Holdren in what I assume is his office with a prominently displayed copy of Ecoscience on the shelf.

  5. Foxfier says:

    Hey, if anyone wants to read the book, I found it here:

    They have a free trial with the following terms of use:
    $0/72 Hours then $19.95/Month*
    * Free 72-hour trial, followed by monthly subscription that renews each month until you cancel.

    As we type, my “lump of tissue” is twitching like a happy cat in a sunbeam. Golly, what could cause such odd movement in a lifeless thing? /sarc

  6. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “Like a happy cat in a sunbeam.” What a lovely phrase Foxfier. My wife used to refer to “hummingbird wings” when she was carrying our twins.

  7. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. Donna V. says:

    I didn’t know you were pregnant, foxfier! Congrats! It sounds like the baby’s doing just fine, I hope mom is feeling good too.

    The gradual mainstreaming of eugenics as represented by Holdren is very alarming. I remember when high resolution ultrasounds were introduced. At that point, it became rather ridiculous to claim an unborn child with clearly defined features and expressions was not a child, so now the frightening argument we hear boils down to “yes, and so what if it is?”

  9. Foxfier says:

    Thank you. ^.^

    Oddly enough, today was the first ultrasound for us– tech laughed because the kid keeps putting his hands in front of his face and rolling to get away from the people poking at my belly. ^.^
    (“Him” because I can’t bring myself to call my child “it” or “them.”)

    It’s really sad to see, but some folks just *can’t* let themselves believe some things. I don’t get it.

  10. socialcritic says:

    Oh dear. This is downright nightmarish. You have to have a permit to assemble, protest and hand out flyers — even though the First Amendment should be your rightful permit and only hoop to jump through — yet President Obama’s science advisor can publish insanity that only Hitler would be proud of.

    Every time I want to believe that Alex Jones is filled with one exaggeration after another, I go looking into the matter and find out that the truth is, in fact, stranger than fiction. President Obama’s duplicitous aims — or at least an apparent lack of good judgment — first came into undeniable focus for me when he appointed a key member of the Federal Reserve to guard over the US taxpayer bailouts and propose regulations for the very industries from whence these financiers come and to whence they these Fed. Reserve members are free to return with large singing bonuses to gain in exchange for all the favors they perform in Washington DC over the next few years. With the appointment of Obama’s science advisor, the picture only grows bleaker.

    If this micromanaging Ecoscience philosophy were advocated or penned by the likes of us, do you know how fast the mental health community — let alone our coworkers, friends and neighbors — would slap a deranged label on us? Yet here we see that Mr. Holdren has done nothing but be rewarded for his criminal insanity, not only securing himself a publisher, but landing in the Obama administration decades later! Are all the people who ever came to know or work with this quack narcissistic enough to actually believe that dear Mr. Holdren wouldn’t apply his sick “solutions” to THEM and THEIR children? For that matter, where have we heard this before? When Hitler penned “Mein Kampf” and nobody believed he would proceed to fulfill his evil plan?

    Psychopaths can be very charming. Anyone else committing to paper the same extremist Orwellian plans would have been morally, intellectually and academically disgraced — and these days labeled a Homeland Security threat! From the looks of things, too many people in high places have been holding Mr. Holdren’s dirty intellectual and moral laundry for far too long, and that makes anyone who knows and continues to remain silent within the sphere of this nut’s influence culpable.

    This situation also begs a second question: Why in the world does the mainstream media ignore these topics/connections/realities and leave it to the so-called conspirators? Why should the Internet and the “citizen journalism” movement be our last best hope for convincing people that the official line can’t be taken at face value? I have a theory about some of this…

    There’s always a story behind the story, yet the mentally unbalanced powers that be seemingly count on the fact that the details, once they are more fully appreciated by the few who seek to connect all the dots, will sound like a far-fetched conspiracy to those who are too lazy or fearful to step out of the lines and think for themselves. How convenient! Mainstream Americans, who are lucky to have the free time to read a newspaper let alone patronize alternative news sources, will chalk any and all “beyond all rational belief” information they receive up to the lunatic fringe, never considering that the true psychopaths among us are not always serial killers but intelligent, if not morally deficient individuals, who advance to high places where they can influence supposedly “sane”, educated people! Ah, but isn’t that the goal — to hide in plain sight? Was it not Hitler who convinced sociologists and historians alike that the ability to deceive people may rest on simply repeating an outrageously big lie often enough for people to presume it holds truth?

    Here’s the problem that we have to push through if we’re going to mobilize more people to wake up: change the way people “consume” news in this country, and specifically the attitude that news is just a disposable resource instead of an indispensable tool by which an educated and informed public defends a democratic republic in the voting booth and through the freedom of assembly, speech and religion.

    At present, evidence to the denial most people prefer to truth exists all over the ‘net. On any given day or any given media site there are those who post comments forcefully and openly condemning controversial coverage of all stripes. The intellectually dishonest fallback is to make allegations of “yellow journalism” and “sensationalism” and very often it works beautifully to get journalists and their editors to turn a blind eye toward anything that might truly shake their viewers’ and readers’ perceptions of the world in the future. Witness the reaction to the NYT story on the “fringe birthers'” on August 4. Most who posted responses agreed that the mere acknowledgment of a problem constituted a stamp of approval even though the article was hardly favorable toward birthers’ claims. In this way the status quo loving public hears no evil, sees no evil. Between the unimaginative public and the skittish media sponsors, journalists and their editors are under tight reign and increasingly few dare upset the apple cart as a result. This is how we can explain the Wall Street Journal, among other news organizations, admitting a year or two before President Bush left office that they “dropped the ball” about pre-war links between 911 and Iraq or between WMDs and the supposed intelligence supporting their existence.

    All of these tied hands within the corporate media has one result: A relatively bland, repetitive news format, where investigative reporting is the exception rather than the rule, and ordinary crime and mayhem substitutes for any real attempt to perform a public service. Sooner or later readers and listeners attention spans began to drift because the news cycle is far too predictable. Readership and ratings begin to lag and media companies, as they are today, struggle to remain in business — all of this, tracing its roots, to the desire to appease patrons and sponsors who refuse to have their comfort zones and sacred political cows challenged.

    The public wants it both ways — tame stories of moderate interest, replete with the prerogative to complain over the “fluff”. (As if most news consumers would bother with anything more mentally demanding — to the extent media is a business like any other, they’re selling us what we are willing to buy, ultimately.) Then, on the other side of the coin, the public recoils from hard hitting truth and even the mere attempt to get to the bottom of a complex subject is too often perceived as an endorsement by mainstream media rather than the responsible public service investigative journalists were once expected to perform. Therefore we who bother to read and watch witness a dumbing down of the media — a lazy, quasi form of “press release reporting” with some intermittent token attempts to provide “in depth coverage” tossed in for good measure. Make no mistake: All of this is evidence of media outlets try to walk an impossibly thin line between giving the public a product they want vs. driving off ad revenues because the American people can’t or won’t stomach anything more substantial.

    To put it into a more spiritual perspective, this Day in Age has been on the way for a long, long while. New Testament Scripture says people in the last days will seek out teachings that “tickle their ears”, holding to an outward form of truth while denying its inward power. What do we have here if not evidence of the greatest nation, the freest country, the most educated, creative population in modern history, if not all of human history, willfully putting our heads in the sand, preferring our iPods and the unreality of rampant fiction and escapist fantasy — Harry Potter, Second Life, World of Warcraft, etc. — to the realization that we’re being corralled, and not by accident!

    Sorry for the rant. This just really gets under my skin. And well it should. Any person with a brain or a heart should care and especially those with children or grandchildren or plans or expectations for them. And while we’re at it, the few of us who are really making a sincere attempt to be “in the know” shouldn’t be the least bit shy about what we learn, either. It’s time the blinders came off the public at large, but there’s little chance of that happening if we who are making the attempt to do our homework fail to share the knowledge we have gained.

    Go out and spread the word. And keep up the Good Fight.

%d bloggers like this: