Mens News Daily
Monday, September 14, 2009
By Carey Roberts
Progressives exist in a state of constant angst, agonizing over snail
darters, incandescent light bulbs, and of course global warming. But the issue
that drives liberals to a state of tongue-wagging, eyeball-popping hysteria is
population growth — what doomsayer Paul Erlich once termed the “Population
Bomb.”
And history shows liberals are willing to take almost any measure to keep
the population in check – just so long as the program can be cloaked in
mesmerizing happy-talk.
Want to stop the beating hearts of 46 million unborn children each year?
Then just call it “promoting choice and empowering women” – doesn’t that sound
wonderful!
Desire to kill off 30 million African children from the
ravages of malaria?
Then ban DDT in the name of saving the bird shells!
Yearn to see the deadly AIDS epidemic
continue to rage out of control? Then push the “safe sex” campaigns that tell
teenagers to indulge in carefree
sex, just so long as you use a condom.
And when all else fails, try forced sterilization. I’ve previously described
how progressive-inspired racial purification schemes led to the sterilization
of 400,000 undesirables in Nazi Germany: www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090827 .
Sterilization is not merely a hush-hush liberal policy of a by-gone era.
Sterilization continues to be topic of debate to the present day. And I’m not
just talking about repressive societies like Communist China.
(As First Lady, Hillary Clinton decried
And now there’s a whole new chapter to the eugenics saga.
In 1977 Paul and Anne Erlich wrote Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. The book is so replete with Chicken-Little
scenarios and mad-scientist nostrums that if I paraphrase, you’ll accuse me of
making this up. So allow me to recite a few lines as you hum along to the tune
of Three Blind Mice.
Paul and Anne Erlich begin by declaring, “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.”
That’s what’s called a living, breathing
Constitution.
But compulsory abortion alone will not suffice: “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,” they urge.
For reasons unknown, these benevolent people say they prefer to target
women.
How to bring this about? “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.”
Ever heard of Norplant?
If that fails, the Erlichs propose a back-up plan: “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple
foods.” To meet stringent FDA standards, the sterilant “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.”
At least Fido and Fufu will be safe!
Admitting there are “very difficult political, legal and social questions,
to say nothing of the technical problems,” the Erlichs still express hope their
idea will one day bear fruition.
Oh, I forgot to mention one important detail.
Ecoscience was also co-authored by John P. Holdren, recently named as
President Obama’s chief science advisor. Considered an expert on global climate
change, Holdren has a wide-ranging mandate to advise the president how science
and technology impact domestic and international affairs.
To this day, Holdren has yet to repudiate any of the frightening proposals
outlined in his book. So until the Sterilant-in-Chief departs from the Obama
administration, my advice to you is this: Keep a close eye on the drinking-water.