Obama's Science Czar calls for 'de-development of the USA'

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
DE-DEVELOPMENT of America???



White House Science Advisor Advocated De-development of The United States


In the vision expressed by Holdren and his co-authors, the Ehrlichs, the need for “de-development” of the United States demanded a redistribtuion of wealth.

“The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge,” they wrote. “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 to every human being.”

Holdren, who is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, made these comments in the 1973 book “Human Ecology,” which he co-authored with the Ehrlichs, long-time advocates of curtailing population growth.


Human Population and the Global Environment

Random House College Dictionary -

Development -

1 - The act or process of developing; progress.
Syn - Expansion, elaboration, growth, evolution; unfolding, maturing, maturation, maturity.

Now check out the antonyms -deterioration, disintegration.

Redistribution of wealth among nations.
That means 'screw the American tax payer and make him a slave to the world gov't'.

De-development - that means Obama's Science Czar calls for disintegration of the USA.


immediate edit to fix bold type



[edit on 8/13/2009 by FlyersFan]




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
good find.

who in their right mind wants to DE-Develop ((what kind of stupid word usage is this anyways) DESTROY is the better word) america???

what is wrong with these idiots?

"ugghhh yea... so... in order to uhm.. make it where everyone has the same living situations... and theres no envy amongst us... guess what??!!

EVERYWHERE WILL BE GHETTO NOW!! Isnt that a terrific idea guys???"

change we can believe in.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
after actually reading the article, i noticed a few things.

one. this was written in the 70s. yes he is the czar now, but still... maybe he changed his mind.

two. he says that in order to make everyones living the same, we would have to cut out excess, by cutting back on some of the major infrastructure which makes it impossible to be simple.

i kind of agree with that in a way. the main problem here is:

who ever said that all people are reallly equal? i mean yea. we are all people. and yea we deserve to be treated with respect no matter if you are a fortune 5 ceo or a hobo. if you need help, then you should get it.

but the fact that everyone is truely equal... thats a stretch. otherwise everyone would be broke jokers, or kings.

why is natural selection such a bad thing? they agree theres too many of us already right? why did natural selection go out of style?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I've been pushing for de-development for most of my life.

Not in some mandated wealth redistributing way though.

I would like a voluntary return to agri-based society following the end of all taxation. Some sort of vehicle or option for an individual, neighborhood, town or county to essentially "opt out" of the national or global economy and live contained within their local means.

Like Amish without the goofy religious crap or the taxes. Simply farmers farming for themselves without the extortion of taxation.

To allow this as an option is good. To mandate it or scam it through with policy is evil. The most evil part is that after they've "de-developed" the nation they would continue to impose taxation and property confiscation as well as levee their legislation on the people making them 3rd world sharecroppers rather than the 1st world sharecroppers we currently are.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
one. this was written in the 70s. yes he is the czar now, but still... maybe he changed his mind.


One thing that drives me bonkers about this site is that people will dig up quotations from people decades prior, and try to make it sound scary. Am I the ONLY person who changes their fundamental stance on issues, as I gain more information?

1974? That's more than half a lifetime ago, for Holdren.

I was ready to be genuinely worried...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


But who is to say he doesnt still believe this to be true. If he has changed his mind, then he should publicly state that he no longer believes in this ideology.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 


When it comes to politicians, never believe a word they say about new viewpoints past the age of 30ish.


They'll change their words to be more modern, but nothing inside has changed. Children change from 8 to 28. Adults, and especially politicians, rarely do.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
cant teach an old dog new tricks.

people never change.

there is no reason to believe this guy does not still believe this.

there is also no reason to believe he does either.

he needs to come out and tell us whats up, or im going to think the worst.

getting sick of these people coming out of the woodwork from obamas admin.

i mean when will it come out that one of them literally kicks babies for fun? will we do anything about that either?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahtoosacks
this was written in the 70s. yes he is the czar now, but still... maybe he changed his mind.

He stated it. He was VERY sure of his statement. He never retracted it.


why is natural selection such a bad thing?

It's not. And no one should dumb-down those who excel just to make those who should be given the darwin-award last longer then they should.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Yea equality of opportunity does not mean equality of ability! Yes humanity has tried to place itself above the rest of creation. We no longer allow natural selection to remove those who could not survive unassisted. Before people jump on me for that statement let me ask a question! Why do we keep the barely functioning children alive? For them? Or is it for the parents who don't see the whole picture? That when these parents die who takes care of these poor kid? Who will love them and take care of their needs like their parents? I'm not trying to be cruel but I think that the people who subject a child to a life that they may be barely aware of are more cruel.

Redistribute wealth to less developed nations? How arrogant that the people to implement such a idea of course would not be affected! When everyone else is "equal" no one else can challenge the top of the heap!





top topics
 
5

log in

join