T Nation

Obama Science Czar Advocates 'De-development'?

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Anyone heard about this? The dude is talking about de-development and redistribution of wealth not only within the US but around the world.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

“De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Resources must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote. “This effort must be largely political, especially with regard to our overexploitation of world resources, but the campaign should be strongly supplemented by legal and boycott action against polluters and others whose activities damage the environment. The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided for every human being.”

Anyone heard about this? The dude is talking about de-development and redistribution of wealth not only within the US but around the world. [/quote]

What a trip down memory lane! Back in the 70’s there was a book called, if memory serves, “The Green Revolution” which posited that by the 1980’s famines would become so common in the First World that only extremely drastic economic steps could avert the impending catastrophe. Again, this was an economic agenda (Marxism) masquerading as pseudo-science. The only famines, I tartly add, were in places like Ethiopia that went socialist and tried to have forced collectivization. ahem

These guys are still running around. One of my colleagues at the University who is a flaming Green simply thinks that we should have designated underground cities, and people should only be allowed to live in those. We can then reclaim the Earth. Those people who refuse relocation will just show themselves to be the enemy of Nature and will be forcibly moved. When I pointed out that this was yer basic totalitarian nightmare he just shrugged it off assuringly that he and his friends are just too good for that to happen. They have the best of intentions, after all.

As I have said repeatedly, the most recent innovation in saving the world seems to be that it is so much easier if you don’t have to save the people too.

– jj

Crazy people. And the saddest thing is, HE’S NOT ALONE.

In their white papers, they talk about re-ruralizing the states - I can show u this one chart of all the areas that want to make Uninhabitated, forrest again, and its HUGE. With scores of large communities being destroyed thanks to the DESIGNED,engineer housing crisis, they are well on their way.

Holdren also wrote that they want to reduce the earth’s population by 80%!
HE recommends doing so through the use of FORCED abortions, and sterilizing humans, by poisoning the water supply.
These people are NUT JOBS. (read his book “ECOSCIENCE”)

And then people look at what this guy wrote, and really have to wonder “WHYYY”, there is flouride (a waste industrial substance, PROOOVEN to be toxic, over and over again) being bought and PUT into the water supply of scores of states.

Uhm! “sterilization” perhaps??
Thats what numerous studies have shown flouride to accomplish!

All that about relocating resources to the “underdeveloped” countries is PROPOGANDA. Time has shown that the powers that be, do the exact opposite.

my face when people still call his advisors czars

[quote]thefederalist wrote:

my face when people still call his advisors czars [/quote]

hah. Figured you comment on something stupid like that. The advisers have been called czars a long time. I find it interesting that because that term is now sullied to the general public, you deem it politically expedient to change the name and mock those who don’t.

And the trip down crazy lane gets faster yet…

Distribution of wealth = bad
Concentration of wealth = good

Got it.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Distribution of wealth = bad
Concentration of wealth = good

Got it.[/quote]

I’m not sure what you meant, but RE-distribution of wealth and “distribution” of wealth are 2 different things.

What we are discussing here is the RE-distribution of wealth. Which means it must first be taken from someone before it can be given to someone else. Government cannot simply distribute without first taking.

And yes, redistribution of wealth (for social reasons) = bad and immoral

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
And the trip down crazy lane gets faster yet…[/quote]

Question, exactly which do you see as crazy?
The fact that the head scientist of the US GOV has openly said they he (and by extension, the body of people has influence on, advocates the things spoken of above?

OR,

The fact that some individuals think this is a matter of concern?

The fact that the USA keeps meddling with the business of other countries where it doesn’t concern us. If a third world country is flooded, hit by an earthquake, hurricane, starving, plagued, etc, guess what? That is NOT the responsibility of our government. It is retarded to help out that country at the cost of our own country, and it isn’t what our founding fathers intended the government to do. If INDIVIDUALS or companies within the USA want to donate or otherwise provide aid to foreign countries, that is fine, it’s THEIR money to do what they please with. But the government’s money is NOT free to spend on whatever politicians think is a noble cause, it is to be spent ONLY on things that DIRECTLY benefit its citizens…protecting them from crime, invasion, and that’s about it.

The government progressively invading our lives to a greater and greater extent constantly will bring down this country sooner or later, depending on how fast the beast grows. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s impossible to have a powerful and great dictator without a powerful government. Therefore, you don’t run the risk of tyranny, because the person will be opposed and overthrown swiftly, for nobody fears him much. Concentration of power or wealth in government hands is the dumbest thing you can do for a country’s well-being. It happens because people with agendas know it is the best way to push deplorable wishful thinking into action, trampling anybody that resists. If no one person int he government has too much power, none of them can trample the others. That’s the whole point of checks and balances, so things like the president overriding the constitution and the judicial branch legislating should never be tolerated. Things like that happen when we get complacent, and it only gets worse.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Distribution of wealth = bad
Concentration of wealth = good

Got it.[/quote]

There is no “distribution of wealth”

Wealth does not fall from the sky.

You can however take someones money away after he made it.

[quote]orion wrote:

Wealth does not fall from the sky. [/quote]

Really? I thought trickle down had everyone balllllllin.

Just kidding, I’ll go bring my buckets inside now that you’ve ruined my hopes of catching mine.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
The fact that the USA keeps meddling with the business of other countries where it doesn’t concern us. If a third world country is flooded, hit by an earthquake, hurricane, starving, plagued, etc, guess what? That is NOT the responsibility of our government. It is retarded to help out that country at the cost of our own country, and it isn’t what our founding fathers intended the government to do. If INDIVIDUALS or companies within the USA want to donate or otherwise provide aid to foreign countries, that is fine, it’s THEIR money to do what they please with. But the government’s money is NOT free to spend on whatever politicians think is a noble cause, it is to be spent ONLY on things that DIRECTLY benefit its citizens…protecting them from crime, invasion, and that’s about it.

The government progressively invading our lives to a greater and greater extent constantly will bring down this country sooner or later, depending on how fast the beast grows. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s impossible to have a powerful and great dictator without a powerful government. Therefore, you don’t run the risk of tyranny, because the person will be opposed and overthrown swiftly, for nobody fears him much. Concentration of power or wealth in government hands is the dumbest thing you can do for a country’s well-being. It happens because people with agendas know it is the best way to push deplorable wishful thinking into action, trampling anybody that resists. If no one person int he government has too much power, none of them can trample the others. That’s the whole point of checks and balances, so things like the president overriding the constitution and the judicial branch legislating should never be tolerated. Things like that happen when we get complacent, and it only gets worse. [/quote]

My biggest wish would be for more people to realize this ^

If we did redistribute money it would work for a while. Eventually, idiots will lose their money while bright individuals will increase their net worth. However, I do believe people as a whole are smarter and know more and wealth these days. It could work, but isn’t fair to those who have worked their ass off just to have it taken away. On the flip side, their are plenty of people who have made loads of cash at the expense of others. Their money should be taken if anyone’s is.

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Wealth does not fall from the sky. [/quote]

Really? I thought trickle down had everyone balllllllin.

Just kidding, I’ll go bring my buckets inside now that you’ve ruined my hopes of catching mine.[/quote]

trickle down implies rewarding the weathy. we have never done this. we have always collected not only more money from the wealthy, but even a higher percentage. we have always done this while rewarding the poorer people with social programs.

so we have always taken more from people who move up and given more to people who move down.

in what sense have we ever had “trickle down”?

its also important to note that the trickle down you are implying is equivalant to not using force to make things occur. in other words, you are simply mocking liberty and freedom. you are mocking willing participation in favor of threat of force and the taking of private property.

Trickle down theory is helping the extremely wealthy (like cutting taxes on big business) and hoping the people further down the totem pole also get rewarded (that business now has more money for better wages or more workers).

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
trickle down implies rewarding the weathy. we have never done this. we have always collected not only more money from the wealthy, but even a higher percentage. we have always done this while rewarding the poorer people with social programs.

so we have always taken more from people who move up and given more to people who move down.

in what sense have we ever had “trickle up”.

its also important to note that the trickle up you are implying is equivalant to not using force to make things occur. in other words, you are simply mocking liberty and freedom. you are mocking willing participation in favor of threat of force and the taking of private property.[/quote]

How naive. We’ve never rewarded the wealthy? Ever heard of tariffs, subsidies, corporate personhood, regulations, bailouts, etc? On the contrary, many things that the government does, in some sense redistributes from the bottom to the top.

“Trickle down” is just a slur used by people who don’t understand the free market to indict it for never actually being allowed to function.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
The fact that the USA keeps meddling with the business of other countries where it doesn’t concern us. If a third world country is flooded, hit by an earthquake, hurricane, starving, plagued, etc, guess what? That is NOT the responsibility of our government. It is retarded to help out that country at the cost of our own country, and it isn’t what our founding fathers intended the government to do. If INDIVIDUALS or companies within the USA want to donate or otherwise provide aid to foreign countries, that is fine, it’s THEIR money to do what they please with. But the government’s money is NOT free to spend on whatever politicians think is a noble cause, it is to be spent ONLY on things that DIRECTLY benefit its citizens…protecting them from crime, invasion, and that’s about it.

The government progressively invading our lives to a greater and greater extent constantly will bring down this country sooner or later, depending on how fast the beast grows. In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s impossible to have a powerful and great dictator without a powerful government. Therefore, you don’t run the risk of tyranny, because the person will be opposed and overthrown swiftly, for nobody fears him much. Concentration of power or wealth in government hands is the dumbest thing you can do for a country’s well-being. It happens because people with agendas know it is the best way to push deplorable wishful thinking into action, trampling anybody that resists. If no one person int he government has too much power, none of them can trample the others. That’s the whole point of checks and balances, so things like the president overriding the constitution and the judicial branch legislating should never be tolerated. Things like that happen when we get complacent, and it only gets worse. [/quote]

Well Said. Agree 100 %

[quote]Dabba wrote:
How naive. We’ve never rewarded the wealthy? Ever heard of tariffs, subsidies, corporate personhood, regulations, bailouts, etc? On the contrary, many things that the government does, in some sense redistributes from the bottom to the top.

“Trickle down” is just a slur used by people who don’t understand the free market to indict it for never actually being allowed to function.[/quote]

Well said. Agree 100%.

Also, there was a time before America had a progressive income tax. During this time, The federal government did not take more and more of a percentage from the rich.

The primary vehicles for the re-distribution of wealth in a democratic society are taxes and tariffs.
Today, in the US 10% of the population pays 70% or so of all income taxes.
The top 1% pays close to 40% (while earning 20% of the income).

[quote]Otep wrote:

Also, there was a time before America had a progressive income tax. During this time, The federal government did not take more and more of a percentage from the rich.[/quote]

We also went though something called the industrial revolution during this time and everyone got a lot richer… isn’t history crazy!