July 24, 2009

Roll over the rotting log...

Michelle Malkin, investigating what it might mean when administration officials say, "We'll just let the science decide."

....Well, I did indeed read one of [Obama Administration "science czar"] Holdren's recent works that reveals his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He's just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its website.

In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his "preoccupation" with apocalyptic matters such as "the rates at which people breed" was a lifelong obsession spurred by scientist Harrison Brown's work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown's half-century-old book, "The Challenge to Man's Future," then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change.

Who is Holdren's intellectual mentor, Harrison Brown? He was a "distinguished member" of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about — you guessed it — world population and fertility. Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in Ecoscience. In "The Challenge to Man's Future," Brown envisioned a regime in which the "number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous."

Brown exhorted readers to accept that "we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artifical means must be applied to limit birth rates." If we don't, Brown warned, we faced a planet "with a writhing mass of human beings." He likened the global population to a "pulsating mass of maggots."...

One of the promises of the "Enlightenment" was that if people threw off the shackles of "superstition," the result would be happiness and progress. This assumed that the "real person" inside us was born good, and any badness we manifest was learned. But various peculiar things happened when those hoary old superstitions were discraded. One of them was the rise of a considerable number of people who think that "happiness and progress" depend not on enlightening people, but in simply eliminating them!

Guys like Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot worked in round numbers of tens of millions. Today's "scientists" consider them pikers trying to nickle-and-dime it. Now we get the "big vision," expressing the numbers of people to be eliminated in nice tidy "billions!"

That's the "real us" that emerges without the "shackles" of traditional "superstition." The "real me" for that matter; I can easily look at the maggot-like masses swarming the city and think, "How much better things would be if the bottom 20% we eliminated." How much happier. How much cleaner!

Posted by John Weidner at July 24, 2009 09:01 AM
Comments

Of course you and I look at the sort of people who inhabit our respective cities and say to ourselves, "How much better things would be if the bottom 20% were eliminated. How much happier. How much cleaner!"

This is news? [arches eyebrow]

The reason we don't act on that sort of impulse (and are hesitant to even give it voice) is because we're adults, properly brought up.

As for the subject of superstition: Are the Church's teachings about human nature truly superstition, John, when the truth about human nature is plain for anyone with eyes to see with and a brain to think with? Even an determined atheist (for example, Steven C. Den Beste, of "USS Clueless" fame) can come to many of the same conclusions as the Church does about human nature, without having to concede the existence of a Supreme Being.

Rather, it is people like Holdren and his mentor, Brown, who are slaves to superstition. They are ignorant of human nature, of the laws of physics, and of economics, and so can imagine human populations as a "pulsating mass of maggots".

Holdren and his fellow travelers aren't the children of the Enlightenment. They're the very sort of people the Enlightenment was supposed to rid us of.

Posted by: Hale Adams at July 24, 2009 10:20 PM

"because we're adults, properly brought up..." But where does that "properly" come from? Do people get there by reason? It's possible to do so, I'm sure. (Though I suspect the same process of reasoning, if followed honestly, would imply the existence of God.)

But I don't think the admirable Mr den Beste did that. I think he absorbed the basics of Western culture through his pores, which is to say, he absorbed Catholic truths. And then one day he really looked at them, and said, "Ah! How reasonable. How clever I was to figure this out."

I should also clarify that I don't think that "eliminating the bottom 20%" thing would work. Even under ideal circumstances, say pushing a magic button and they just vanish. Logically it should work, but I don't think so. One of the intellectual irritants that led me towards where I am now is Solzhenitsyn's comment on just this problem. He said it wouldn't work. (And I think that was also the place where he said that the borderline between good and evil runs through every human heart.)

Posted by: John Weidner at July 25, 2009 08:41 AM

And I think Holdren and brown are on the main line of where the Enlightenment was heading. It was about men being like God, which implies power, power to change things to fit your god-like vision.

Of course they never admitted this, possibly not even to themselves. Sort of like how Obama says government health care is merely about helping people...

Posted by: John Weidner at July 25, 2009 08:58 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Weblog by John Weidner