The more we learn about John Holdren, the more of a whack job he seems to be:
Holdren’s harebrained endorsement of the arboreal legal rights comes on the heels of learning he had previously advocated:
Laws requiring the abortion or adoption of illegitimate children; sterilizing women after having two children; legally requiring “reproductive responsibility” to those deemed by pointy-headed eugenicists to “contribute to general social deterioration”; and incredibly, putting sterilizing agents in the drinking water.
All this in the name of dealing with an impending overpopulation crisis that never materialized. When the news broke about Holdren’s troubling views, I thought it was particularly telling that despite the fact that Holdren thinks that Dr. Strangelove is a how-to manual, the New York Times ignored the revelations about Holdren’s past writings.
But as Mark Hemingway points out, at least he’s not a Christian.
This is an excellent example of one of the (many) problems with the “czar” concept: the candidates are not subject the scrutiny and approval of the Senate. Of course any President sees that as a feature to the czar role, but from the perspective of one of “the little people”, it’s a very bad thing for representative democracy.
Actually, it’s not. The Science Advisor is subject to confirmation by the Senate, and Holdren was confirmed. Either this stuff didn’t come out at the time, or no one cared.
And even if it had they likely would have appointed him anyway — look at Geithner.
The fact that Obama would appoint such an extremist is telling.
Imagine if Holdren had previously written far right wingnut garbage instead. Assuming of course that he was appointed by a Republican president, the MSM would be braying nonstop. Their silence speaks to the death of journalism.
philw1776: True, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the main villains here are Holdren and Obama. The #1 crime here is not that the media have denied the GOP talking points. The #1 crime is that Obama has delegated our nation’s science policy to a Nazi.
Rand: a serious question. Is this what all “scientists” are like these days? I’ve been considering finishing my geology degree, but if this is the company I’ll be keeping, I’d rather just save the money.
Is this what all “scientists” are like these days?
I doubt it. It’s just what the “scientists” who are likely to get nominated by this administration are like.
Rand, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle frequently praised their friend Dan Alderson as having “a big roomy mind”. I liked that phrase. When I dig into the allegations you link to here, what I see is evidence that Holdren also has a big roomy mind. As Niven and Pournelle have so amply demonstrated over the years, it is fun to explore different technological scenarios and follow them through to see their unxexpected consequences. When I read the quotes from Holdren’s Ecoscience book included in the article I’m linking to (click on my name or cut-and-paste the link below), I’m reminded of thought experiments like Niven’s organ banks. I’m pleased to see that Obama’s science advisor has the imagination and creativity of a science fiction writer, and I see no evidence that Holdren is actually in favor (from a policy point of view) of any of the half-baked technological schemes he is playing around with. Have a look at the excerpts from Holdren’s book here:
“www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/”
Sorry, Bob, but my mind isn’t “roomy” enough to contemplate government-forced population control and eugenics as serious policy options. Is there anything that this administration would do that you won’t defend?
I’ve noticed that some people can’t fathom the difference between science (speculative) fiction or science (policy) fact. Jerry, Larry, et al., are writers of fiction for the most part; Holdren was writing about real life and exploring policy options, no matter his backpedaling before the committee.
Big difference. Also, neither Jerry, Larry or their friend are seeking or serving in government “czar” jobs where their actions can destroy people’s lives.
Your response makes me think you didn’t read the link. Eugenics and forced population control are not being considered as serious policy options.
For what it is worth, when Republicans like Cheney and Gingrigh did thought experiments on various eye-brow raising technological solutions, I applauded. I’m in favor of creative thinking independent of politics — thinking about unacceptable solutions (like Niven’s organ banks) leads to thinking about acceptable solutions (like growing organs from stem cells).
Sorry, my last comment was directed at Rand. Gary, I can indeed distinguish between science fiction and science fact. Holdren was doing just what a science fiction writer does — he was playing with ideas.
There is an additional irony in your comment. I’m sure you’re familiar with Pournelle and Niven’s pride in their formative role in SDI. They are quite justifiably proponents of the philosophy that far-out science fictional thinking can lead to sensible policy choices, backed by realistic engineering. (Of course, some readers might not agree that SDI was based on realistic engineering? Ok, I admit that I’m adding an additional level of irony myself.)
I recall a Rotary Rocket event in which Pournelle and Niven were present, so maybe you know them personally. I’d be very interested in any personal knowledge you might have.(A quick google search reveals this link:
“jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/rotary.html” Wow, that brings back memories. By the way, words can’t express how excited I was about your project and how inspiring it was for me. Although this is a weird context for it, I’d really like to say thank you.
It’s just what the “scientists” who are likely to get nominated by this administration are like.
According to Pew (click my name) 55% of scientists surveyed identify as Democrats and 52% identify as liberal. By contrast, 6% describe themselves as Republicans, and 9% describe themselves as conservatives.
This administration does not have to work very hard to find scientists who agree with its political goals.
Rand, just out of curiosity, are you against putting fluoride in public drinking water? I’m NOT saying that putting birth control agents in the water would be equivalent. But the subject made me think about this coercive method of delivering medicine (and related substances), and that leads me to ask whether you think flouridation programs are an example of government going too far.
Jim,
Social Scientists aren’t real Scientists.
Rand, just out of curiosity, are you against putting fluoride in public drinking water?
I don’t have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but as you say, it’s not comparable. As long as people are aware of it, they can filter it or choose other water sources.
These days you’re more likely to find that view on the left than the right, Bob-1.
Eh. I wonder what you mean by “social science”? Anthropology, archaeology, demography, human geography, linguistics, and research psychology are all fields considered “social science” and are demonstrably “real science”. Economics and history are considered “social science”, and can be practiced using various scientific methods* and often are, but often are not. Communication studies, cultural studies, media studies, political science, and social work are sometimes considered “social science” as well. No doubt they can be practiced using scientific methods, but as far as I know, they usually are not, and I’m guessing that’s what motivated your comment. But it is unfair to lump all the fields listed above together.
*(there is no one “scientific method” if you look hard at how physics and chemists actually do their work)
Social Scientists aren’t real Scientists.
Do you have any evidence that “real” scientists have different ideological or political views than the AAAS membership polled by Pew?
Hard scientists tend to be Democrat, but much less reliably than social “scientists.”
Marx was a ‘Social’ Scientist.
If he was any good, he would have tried his ideas out on lab rats first.
Speaking as a member of the Hard side of the equation, I am referring to the warm and fuzzy ones whos fields did not even exist 50 years ago.
The ones who offer courses in Bullshtz studies so they can bilk unsuspecting parents out of college tuition then their kid that never could make it through a real course of study can get a college degree, any college degree.
Anyone that writes about forced abortion and contraception in drinking water should not be allowed access to government policy. You can spin that he didn’t mean it or doesn’t believe it now all you want. Don’t forget his decades long admiration of Harrison Brown
He wrote, he owns it.
Wiki had this:
In the middle of the 1970’s he supported arguments for giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law, claiming that it would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment.[20]
Whack job is being kind
“In the middle of the 1970’s he supported arguments for giving “natural objects” — like trees — standing to sue in a court of law, claiming that it would have a “most salubrious” effect on the environment.[20]”
Lets get the Objectivist take on Tree rights and where it leads…. Here is the opinion of the Randian, Canadian rock group Rush, the rock group space geeks most listen too.
There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunligh
And the oaks ignore their pleas
The trouble with the maples
(and theyre quite convinced theyre right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks cant help their feelings
If they like the way theyre made
And they wonder why the maples
Cant be happy in their shade?
There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream `oppression!`
And the oaks, just shake their heads
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
the oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light
Now theres no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Axe,
And saw …
Well, Bob-1, thanks for your thanks. I do know Larry and Jerry and in fact participated in those SDI-related meetings in the 1980s with a number of other s-f writers and aerospace engineers. But here’s an interesting tidbit from those meetings: Jerry invited the s-f writers not to come up with ideas (that was the job of the engineers attending) but to put the usually stilted engineers descriptions into words that the public and more importantly the politicians that had asked for our report would read.
I am actually all in favor of public servants who can think like speculative fiction writers. It may help them avoid “unintended consequences.” But my concern about Holdren was he was writing a textbook, not labeled as s-f.