White House Science Adviser Advocated 'De-Development' of the United States
-
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation." In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth. "The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^] Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: Indeed, 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. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. John P. Holdren reminds me of that sicko scum Conrad Graus.
-
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation." In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth. "The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^] Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: Indeed, 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. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. John P. Holdren reminds me of that sicko scum Conrad Graus.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
John P. Holdren reminds me of that sicko scum Conrad Graus.
You mean the guy who always proves you wrong and your beliefs to have no basis in fact ? What's your opinion on sex education in schools ? What do you think causes homosexuality ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation." In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth. "The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^] Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: Indeed, 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. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. John P. Holdren reminds me of that sicko scum Conrad Graus.
-
Hell no.
-
Hell no.
How about confirmation or denial that man-on-man love is the thing you crave?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
-
"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation." In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for "de-development" of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth. "The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge," they wrote. "They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^] Among other things, Holdren and Ehrlich wrote in Ecosystems: Indeed, 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. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. John P. Holdren reminds me of that sicko scum Conrad Graus.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^]
Sure sounds evil to me. I've been living with redistribution of wealth since 1994. It's the non-distribution of wealth, i.e., the ivory tower control of the nation's wealth by a select few in ivory towers that you are actually against, not this. Make up your mind - your are even seeing threats in concepts that actually agree with you.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being." [^]
Sure sounds evil to me. I've been living with redistribution of wealth since 1994. It's the non-distribution of wealth, i.e., the ivory tower control of the nation's wealth by a select few in ivory towers that you are actually against, not this. Make up your mind - your are even seeing threats in concepts that actually agree with you.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
I am in no way for welfare of any kind.
-
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
-
I am in no way for welfare of any kind.
Then how do you eat ? I mean, you don't DO anything.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I am in no way for welfare of any kind.
When the fuck did welfare crash this party? Redistribution of wealth is, in this context, a means to the stability required for enough long term economic growth to minimise the need for welfare. As long as wealth is a concentrated as it is, the financial crises and upheavals will only prolong the division of rich and poor, and thus prolong the need for welfare.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
-
When the fuck did welfare crash this party? Redistribution of wealth is, in this context, a means to the stability required for enough long term economic growth to minimise the need for welfare. As long as wealth is a concentrated as it is, the financial crises and upheavals will only prolong the division of rich and poor, and thus prolong the need for welfare.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
-
Depends how it is done[1]. None of the SA redistribution involves taking wealth away from people[2], but rather creating an environment that favours more distribution than concentration of wealth. [1] Real, criminal theft in SA is satirically known as 'redistribution of wealth'. Just like it is also called 'affirmative shopping'. :laugh: [2] Land reform appropriations are a sore point. Some white people have been forced to sell their property at government prices, for it to be given to black people, who supposedly have an ancestral claim to the land. Whether or not this claim is valid is another story, but the claim of any white man in africa to land is tenuous in any case.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
-
Depends how it is done[1]. None of the SA redistribution involves taking wealth away from people[2], but rather creating an environment that favours more distribution than concentration of wealth. [1] Real, criminal theft in SA is satirically known as 'redistribution of wealth'. Just like it is also called 'affirmative shopping'. :laugh: [2] Land reform appropriations are a sore point. Some white people have been forced to sell their property at government prices, for it to be given to black people, who supposedly have an ancestral claim to the land. Whether or not this claim is valid is another story, but the claim of any white man in africa to land is tenuous in any case.
[](http://www.thehashtable.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=129&message=1>The Hash Table</a> </div></xml>)
A better system would be, you keep what you earn and only pay for vital infrastructure and services such as law enforcement.
-
A better system would be, you keep what you earn and only pay for vital infrastructure and services such as law enforcement.
how would you work that out ? You send everyone a bill every month ? You think that a police force, let alone an army, could function in that way ? If a foreign prime minister visits, does he get to visit the white house ? Who pays for the cleaning of the white house, or the pens and paper ? Who pays for the voting stations ? Who pays for schools ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.