Who is John Holdren and why does he freak people out?

John Holdren presently serves as “Science Czar” (an unofficial title) under President Barack Hussein Obama.   He is the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST). He is Obama’s top adviser on science and technology, involved in the exteremely important national issues of homeland security, energy and the environment. Holdren casts all of the above as priorities.

So what has Holdren said and written that causes many, including myself, to shake our heads in stunned disbelief?

Holdren is a Global Warming fanatic, outspoken on the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also naively believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics “dangerous” members of a “denier fringe.” Holdren, John P. “Convincing the Skeptics.” The New York Times, August 4, 2008 (1)Holdren, John P. “Convincing the Skeptics.” The New York Times, August 4, 2008

The extent of unfounded skepticism about the disruption of global climate by human-produced greenhouse gases is not just regrettable, it is dangerous. It has delayed – and continues to delay – the development of the political consensus that will be needed if society is to embrace remedies commensurate with the challenge,” Holdren wrote in the New York Times. “The science of climate change is telling us that we need to get going. Those who still think this is all a mistake or a hoax need to think again.

Here is Holdren on this subject:

Hold on, gentle reader.  We’re just getting started.

In 1977, Holdren authored a book, Ecoscience, that discussed possible population-control methods such as infusing drinking water with sterilants to prevent human conception.

According to Holdren, the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

Holdren wrote, with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, that:

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.

Since then, Holdren has denied a belief in the application of such a heinous procedure.

Now, I’m really going to raise your blood pressure.

In that same book are found the following quotes:

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.

…One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. 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.

Involuntary fertility control…

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.

In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?

Doesn’t China do that?

He also wrote in the book about the development of a fictional (so far) “Planetary Regime”:

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.

Of course, now, over 40 years later, Holdren says that the book was theoretical in nature, and that he does not advocate any of those theories.

Great.  Then why did he feel compelled to publish that book in the first place?