Obama's "Science" Czar Pushed "De-Development" of US in Seventies, to Reduce Economic Activity and Bring Us in Harmony With Nature

Harmony with nature. Only a guy who's never gotten lost in the woods with nothing to eat and growing worries about exposure and frostbite could be so sanguine about being "in harmony with nature," also known "at the mercy of nature."

Nature is a many things, including beautiful. But it's a terrible beauty. Nothing at all like the benevolent ersatz god of hippies and hemp they imagine it to be.

But our "science" czar proposed de-industrializing and reducing our consumption in order to live lives closer to the way nature intended, to wit, nasty, brutish, and short.

Oh -- and, of course. While he was vigorously campaigning for the elimination of most of the Western World's wealth, he was simultaneously urging that what was left of it (by the Planetary Regime which would enforce such laws) be redistributed to those more deserving of nature's frugal bounty.

Hail Science. Our Science, Who Art in Heaven...

"A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States," Holdren wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. "De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation."

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."

But you know, we can't question him, because somehow advocating armed "Planetary Regimes" coercing a public into forced sterilizations and lives of misery and poverty is "science," rather than what it used to be called, "Marxist political philosophy."

(Which, if I'm not mistaken, was heralded as "scientific" too, I think.)

I am personally pro-environment. What I am not is anti-human, which these bloody-minded humanity-crushing lunatics really are.