Tuesday, July 14, 2009 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Obama's science czar's plans for mass genocide

The man in charge of the U.S. science policy is John Holdren. I knew that they wrote a lot of nonsensical predictions e.g. about hundreds of millions of Americans dying of hunger before 2000 with another megacrackpot, Paul Ehrlich.

But what I didn't know - and what Marc Morano had to tell us - was that they have also had very explicit plans to deal with the world's soaring population, a system of policies that would bring holocaust to a brand new, larger, universal, mainstream level. In the book "Ecoscience" co-authored by Holdren and two Ehrlichs, eugenics is subtly combined with some far-left ideas. They proposed that

  • 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.
See e.g. this page (Google cache) for specific quotations - and scanned pages of their book as a proof. See also Google News.
Related: listen to a Howie Carr radio interview with Prof Richard Lindzen (MIT). He nicely says that it's inaccurate to call him a skeptic because he's not really skeptical. Instead, there's overwhelming evidence that the dangerous global warming hypothesis can't survive a scrutiny. So there's no real "agnosticism" here and he's really a denier, and so am I.

There's a good mood in the studio when they analyze why people believe this stuff and why the effects are negligible. But I recommend you to skip the first two minutes - a kind of chaos before Lindzen sits down. Lindzen says that the climate is usually changing without visible reasons: I completely agree with it. Also, educated people (especially Nobel prize winners) are easier to be fooled by this nonsense because they care what others say about them.

Hat tip: Orson Olson
Instead of giving these guys a life in prison, one of them was made the main science advisor to the White House and encouraged to continue in his "deep reasoning", with the population crisis remarketed as global warming (another analogous, completely non-existent problem), but used as a justification of similar global policies in the same way as previously. As recently as yesterday, Al Gore dreamed about the global governance that a climate bill could help to bring.

God bless America.

I think that these prospective mass killers should be eliminated from the surface of the Earth before it's too late. A legal way to terminate their lives - at least in the streets and public offices - should be found before they make it legal to terminate ours. As far as I remember, I have met Holdren during a dinner in the Society of Fellows. A fellow Fellow has introduced him as a person I could have had fun with! ;-)

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (2) :

reader Barton Paul Levenson said...

Population growth at a substantial, fixed positive rate cannot, of course, go on forever. Let us assume that A) growth continues at the present world population growth rate of about 1.2% per year. B) All that is necessary to move around the universe is the will to do so. C) Any matter, even dark matter, can be turned into food and consumed. D) Humans can survive unprotected in the vacuum of space.

How long before the entire visible universe is turned into food and eaten?

Let's assume 1 billion galaxies exist within the visible horizon and that each has a mass (including dark matter) of 1 trillion solar masses. With the Sun's mass at 1.9891 x 10^30 kg, the total mass is then 1.9891 x 10^48 kg.

Take the current human population as 6.7 billion and assume the mean mass of a human being is 50 kg. Total human mass is then 3.35 x 10^11 kg.

Human mass at a given time is:

M = Mo (1 + r)^N

where Mo is the initial value, r the growth rate as a decimal (1.2% = 0.012), and N the elapsed time in years. Solving for N, this becomes

N = log(M / Mo) / log(1 + r)

For M = 1.9891 x 10^48, Mo = 3.35 x 10^11, and r = 0.012, N is 7,098. In approximately 7,000 years, we run completely out of universe and the next year, everybody starves to death.

More realistically, we can assume we are merely colonizing planets and that we are constrained by the speed of light limit. At a 1.2% growth rate, the volume growth rate is 1.012^(1/3) or about 1.004% per year, and frontier expansion passes the speed of light when the radius exceeds about 100 light-years. This is a sphere with a volume of about 4.2 million cubic light-years, and with stars at about one per ten cubic light-years in the Orion Arm, 420,000 stars will be available. About a fourth of these will be of the sort to support habitable planets, but due to the possible problems with correct age of the star, location of a planet at the right range for comfortable temperatures, orbital and axial tilt stability for climate purposes, sufficient mass to hold down a reasonable atmosphere and permit plate tectonics but not enough for gravity to be overwhelming, etc., etc., probably no more than 1% of these stars will actually have habitable planets, or about 4,200 such planets will exist. At your proposed maximum of 20 billion people per planet, this amounts to 84 trillion people, or M = 4.2 x 10^15 kg. At 1.2% growth, we reach this level in 791 years.

Other problems might arise sooner, from the physical difficulty of moving billions of people from planet to planet to the political problems involved with doing so.

Actually, we already passed peak per capita grain production, so the time to stabilize population just might be now.

reader Sue said...

I agree with Barton. Isnt completely obvious that the human population cant keep on growing forever.

Plus I would argue that the planetary intelligence of Gaia (yes the earth altogether is an integrated system in which everything is one way or another inter-connected) will inevitably, in one way or another, drastically reduce the our numbers for us--and it wont be pretty.