The White House Science Czar
"Czar" being a particularly apt word.
From I Hate The Media, citing World Net Daily about the college textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, co-authored by Science Czar John Holdren:
The authors argued that involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by “climate change.”Read more HERE at Zombie Time, which has scanned pages from the aforementioned textbook.
They recommended the creation of a “planetary regime” created to act as an “international superagency for population, resources, and environment.”
“Such a Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist,” they argued.
“Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans.”
According to THIS at Science Progress [July 15, 2009], all the eugenics and other measures were not actually proposals:
Paul and Anne Ehrlich have also refuted the charges—they sent out an email observing that “We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described—but not recommended—in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.” In his Senate confirmation hearing...Holdren also rejected the idea that he supports government-mandated efforts at population control.At what point during the three decades since the book was first published did the denials as to book's intent begin? When Obama made known his choice of John Holdren for the position as "science czar"?
...The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either.
Note the following parsing, also from Science Progress:
...[T]o describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they supported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions....They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today.In other words: Nothing to see here, move right along.
But don't the words "better choice" still leave the eugenics option on the table and tell us a lot about the ethics system of John Holdren?