

The quote above is from the book Ecoscience published in 1977.  In this book is detailed a plan for a "planetary regime" that would regulate the global population.  According to the authors, this regime would be empowered to create specific "compulsory population-control laws" in order to accomplish this aim.


1. Compel 'inferior' mothers to either give up their children or have abortions.

2. Sterilize the population through putting "sterilants" into their water and food supply.  (According the authors of Ecoscience this would be okay as long as "pets" or "livestock" are not harmed.)

3. Forcibly implant a long-term sterilizing capsule which would only be removed with "official permission."

It is clear that the above methods will be successful at curtailing the population if implemented.  There is just one problem: How will they convince the people to go along with the program?  Their solution is to demonize people that have too many children as having irresponsible "resource-consumption patterns."  They, therefore, need to be compelled to behave more responsibly in order to save the planet and to spread the earth’s finite resources more equitably.  An additional rationale is that since government already regulates marriage, why not family size?

Despite these rationales for population control, it is clear that many people are not likely to be convinced.  Therefore, how will such unpopular measures be enforced?  In the end, the only way the authors foresee fulfilling their dream will be through the creation of a "planetary regime" and international "police force."

I don't know about you, but these proposals are beginning to sound to me like the sick vision of some early twentieth century eugenicist.  Who could come up with such a heinous plan?  In fact, one has to look no further than one of the co-authors of Ecoscience, namely, President Obama's top science and technology advisor, John Holdren.  John Holdren and his two co-author’s totalitarian vision for our future is frightening enough, but now he holds the keys to our future through his advisory position with President Obama.  If President Obama or the international community wanted to implement some sort of population control measure they have a blueprint in hand.  And, unfortunately, I believe the implementation is already underway.

How, you ask?  Let us just take a second and examine the ideas and methods that have been used since the book's publication and by the Obama administration.

It was not long ago that the idea of man-made climate change was not taken seriously.  We Americans made a mockery of the "kooky" Europeans who had deluded themselves into a global warming hysteria.  But, not long after, here we sit on the verge of subjecting ourselves to the very same global cap and trade system that we had previously derided.  And guess what?  The very same method for tackling the current global warming crisis is the one that had been outlined by Holdren 30 years ago to tackle the "population crisis."  The only way a proposed cap and trade system will be successful is by, you guessed it, restricting the American people's "resource-consumption patterns."  Not surprisingly, Holdren maintains that his ancient blueprint was inconsequential and has had nothing to do with the Obama Administration’s current resource restriction model for dealing with climate change.

In addition, despite the fact that the government has yet to make the leap from regulating marriage to directly regulating the number of resource-consuming children, the climate change legislation will accomplish this goal indirectly.  Indeed, as climate taxes reverberate through the economy and so-called gas guzzling SUVs are made impossibly expensive, housing heating bills rise, inflation propagates, and the general cost of living skyrockets, so will come the demise of population-sustaining families.  This trend will be further exacerbated by President Obama’s support for the Federal Reserve’s monetary expansionist policies, which will lead to massive inflation and devaluation of the dollar.  More and more people will find it more difficult to pay for ever-expanding bills with ever-shrinking valueless dollars.  This will lead to more couples having reservations about the cost of starting and providing for large families.  Indeed, generous family sizes will become ever-increasingly a thing of the past and with it, the so-called infestation of the earth with children.

Finally, as part of the health care debate, President Obama has made repeated claims that his plan will not include rationing.  As usual, the truth is quite the opposite.  Once again "resource-consumption patterns" will have to be restricted in order for the government to stay within its health care budgetary restraints.  Those with the highest consumption patterns will become the targeted group, namely, the elderly.  In a recent article in the UK Times Online is described the familiar story of Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, who fortunately is still alive despite being placed on the "Liverpool care pathway plan." [2] According to the Times, the plan once reserved for "patients who do have only days to live" is now being used "more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying."  Indeed, this death program denies medical care, nutrition, and even water to patients that are not dying; and in the case of Hazel, are still alive nine months later.  This example is by no means unique.  I have personally witnessed in the U.S. an increased pressure being injected into the medical establishment to push elderly patients into DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) status and even hospice.  The rationale for such a trend has been that we physicians should be aware that medical resources are finite and therefore should be distributed to those that will see the most benefit.  This doesn't always include the elderly.  Sound like a "resource-consumption" model to you?  Once physicians have fully embraced this rationale we will not be far off from the very same UK death plan here in the U.S.



1. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, John P. Holdren; W. H. Freeman, 1977. 1052 pgs. Pertinent Pages: 837, 786-8, 838, 917, 942-3.

2. "Daughter saves mother, 80, left by doctors to starve." Times Online. October 11, 2009


Copyright © 2009 by Adam Murdock.  Adam Murdock, M.D., is founder and editor of The Freemen Institute, a website dedicated to preserving the foundations of liberty.  This article was reprinted with permission, and first appeared at campaignforliberty.com.

Health Wyze Dental Cleanser


heidi sousse
# Childbirth is not a human right heidi sousse 2011-08-10 22:40
As someone who was born to a family that should never be allowed to have children and ended up in foster care, I agree, we humans are over populated and I also agree that people should be temporarily fixed and get a license and an education before having children. I saw way too many people having children that shouldn't have been allowed. No one has the right to give birth to someone and then screw up their life. If you disagree with me then you can tell that to the 2 year old girl whose parents put in a frying pan and cooked her in oil. Or you can tell Brucy Taylor whose father sodomized him and burned his eyes with a blow torch. We can't afford the problems these people create and these kids didn't deserve the treatment they got. I don't agree with the current methods for population control if we just spayed and neutered people until they were old enough and had the financial and emotional resources to properly care for a child that should be enough. Quality of life would improve there would be no teen pregnancy, less poverty, more jobs, less crime, better health, the world would be better off. You humans seem to overlook the big long term picture and instead of doing what is sensible and respectful for everyone involved you base your conclusions on outdated morals. How can you say you're pro-life or go with God's will when you don't even consider the quality of life you say you value? It's abusive forcing someone to live in a situation that does nothing but strip the life from someone leaving them a vessel in which to exist. It also increases healthcare costs and social costs and reduces quality of life for everyone who pays taxes. If only people fit to have children were allowed to have kids then society would benefit. Why do you allow pedophiles, drug addicts and alcoholics to have children? Don't you see all the ways in which it costs us, not just in money but in suffering and how that cycle just continues? How can that be God's will...he gave humans a brain so why don't you use it?
Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher)
# re: Childbirth is not a human right Sarah C. Corriher (H.W. Researcher) 2011-08-11 05:47
Taking the rights of birth away from regular human beings, including teens, the poor, and the jobless, and placing these rights into the hands of governments would be akin to placing the decisions of life into the hands of the groups which have been responsible for more death and human suffering than all the parents in history. You cannot possibly justify such a policy. The categories of people you mentioned aren't usually responsible for abuse towards children. Rather, it is the "respectable", financially-sound, aged 30-50 generation which is most likely to abuse.

The "outdated morals" that you referenced are the building blocks of any healthy society that attempts to provide a good quality of life for all. Those morals, from which our civilized laws were codified from, are meant to protect the weak from the strong, and the abused from abuse. Whenever Christian values are stripped from a society, the quality of life quickly deteriorates as people inevitably turn against each other to satisfy selfish agendas. Then society itself implodes. This unwavering pattern has been shown time and time again in other countries throughout recorded history. Such nations always truly become hells-on-earth. State ownership of human lives in these places is called communism or socialism, but it is more appropriately called Hell. The United States, because of its Christian (individualistic / free will) roots, is still the last greatest hope for any person to enjoy freedom, and with it, happiness.

You should not equate the existence of parental rights with what you may consider to be allowing undesirable lives to exist. The freedom to procreate provides an opportunity to people who would otherwise be prevented from even existing, which is the most precious gift of all. This right was given to us by God, and there is no Biblical question on what his will is, and his will is most certainly not to eradicate the creation of children.

Your message shows that you are a very lost person, and that you are angry at God for his decisions, or apparent lack of. There are lots of people who have felt exactly as you do, but the path that you are on will lead to self-destruction, and bring you no peace. Beginning life poorly does not mean that you are out of opportunities, or that you cannot make life worth living for yourself. You should ask for God's help in doing so. It's never too late to humble yourself before him, and to be given a new beginning. Much of your suffering could have been avoided if you had only done that.
Richard Story
# Richard Story 2014-04-03 19:23
The good news is that Obama will not be on Mt Rushmore as there is not enough room for two more faces. Seriously though, he is the foremost psychiatric mouthpiece of any president in American history. His only product is destruction and in my view, presidents generally are puppets to their political masters, but this man is worse than that and thinks he is on a mission from God to bring psychiatry, which is the mouthpiece of the genetic theory of evolution - the Nazi philosophy, to the American people. Adolf must be proud of him.

You must log in or register to post comments.