Posted on 02/22/2012 5:33:47 PM PST by Nachum
(CNSNews.com) - John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in a book he co-authored with population control advocates Paul and Anne Ehrlich that children from larger families have lower IQs.
The book"Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions"argued that the United States government had a responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.
It surely is no accident that so many of the most successful individuals are first or only children, wrote Holdren and the Ehrlichs, nor that children of large families (particularly with more than four children), whatever their economic status, on the average perform less well in school and show lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families.
Holdren and the Ehrlichs published "Human Ecology" with W.H. Freeman and Company in 1973. In June 2000, a study published in American Pyschologist debunked the notion that children in larger families have lower I.Q.s. But when Holdren appeared in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in 2009 for a confirmation hearing on his appointment to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he continued to argue for the benefits of smaller families on other bases.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
John Holdren: Obama’s “Science Czar”.
(other Czars of note, Michael Taylor-was Vice Pres. of Monsanto: Obama’s “Food Safety Czar”!!!! (tee hee!)
Hungary and France are trying to get Monsanto the hell outta their countries!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iOxZOfuX4KSkstZty08AzzUJhXEQ?docId=CNG.d5e48e910f1bc7e45824855c44596f20.131
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/13/monsanto-guilty-chemical-poisoning-france
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Hungary_Destroys_All_Monsanto_GMO_Corn_Fields/17875/0/0/0/Y/M.html
Kevin Jennings: was Obama’s “Safe School Czar”!!! -his group promoted “fisting” to school children!!!! (Yikes!)
well, the list goes on of Obama’s Czars and how inappropriate they are for Americans, but then, Obama’s not really a proud America....ooops!
1. Require everyone to buy health insurance.
2. Force insurance to provide birth control.
3. Force everyone to use birth control?
The persistence of the idea of “overpopulation” in a world where birth rates are definitely known to be declining leads me to believe that it and other pernicious unscientific concepts (Global Warming most notably) will be nearly impossible to eradicate.
Marxism and its “scientific” criticisms of history and markets were annihilated by the events of the last several decades; Marx’s predictions were proven utterly wrong so completely that virtually no one, not even people like Bill Ayers, identifies himself as a Marxist anymore.
The problem is, basic human feelings like envy, greed, and the need to control others still required a scientific basis. The constituency of hating your neighbor for his possessions was still enormous. Envy still required an ideology with a “scientific” foundation, and things like Global Warming and population control serve that function.
“. . .argued that the United States government had a responsibility to halt the growth of the American population.
Apparently these jerkweeds don’t have enough advanced degrees - if they’d looked into our demographics in any depth, they’d see that the only thing keeping us from negative population growth has been immigration. And I haven’t noticed them doing anything to discourage immigration, at least not the illegal “undocumented” variety.
Not that negative population growth would be a good thing - Europe is contraceiving and aborting its population into a shell of itself, a shell soon to be filled by Mohammedens. It won’t take long for us to see how that all works out.
Like the Kennedys? :)
Statistics also show that families that live closer to the boarder with Canada do better in school.
“Benjamin Franklin was the 15th child born to his father.
This falsifies that ridiculous claim”
Which of these would you say that your statement falls under?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Next these sick bastards will be measuring crania with calipers.
“Like the Kennedys? :)”
I might attribute that to the inbreeding of old-money New England types. The next generation might not make it to their early teens.
John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to Barack Obama,
Trofim Lysenko, the top science adviser to Josef Stalin,
The perfect argument against abortion and sociology. (I’ll have to look up Thomas Aquinas’ and Theresa of Avila’s sibling-count.)
It’s ex post facto data - not possible to come to any causal conclusions. Plus the effect is very small.
The Kennedys???!!! Cheats and plagiarists shouldn’t count.
Try the Buckleys.
Geez, Domestic Church, given your screen name you probably believe in God, you're on a conservative website and you are the sixth of six, all the intellectually superior studies by liberals regarding IQ indicate you should barely be able to spell the word cat.
The anti-people, anti-population wing of the liberal mindset are truly diseased people that will make any bald-faced lie to further their anti-human agenda.
Though virtually EVERYTHING his dire, cataclysmic forecasts predicted has FAILED to come to pass, Paul R. Ehrlich has refused to admit either that his reasoning or totalitarian schemes were in any way wrong.
And it should be noted that he is still adored by the MMGW crowd as the "visionary" whose schemes blazed the trail for their own con game.
This is pure propaganda. Remember that studies show "conservatives have lower IQ's?"
Anything of value is automatically degraded by the left.
It appears to be true that a high percentage of successful people are first children. However, that's not the same as saying that a high percentage of first children are successful people. It may be that on average, first children are no more successful than their younger siblings. That is, there may be a lot of average and even unsuccessful first children out there. I've never seen any figures on that, just on the converse, that successful people tend to be first children.
With regard to average IQ of large families, the larger the sample, the more likely the sample average is close to the population average. Thus one would expect that the average IQ of a large family is closer to population average IQ than would be the case for smaller families. Nothing at work here except mathematics.
The people who financed and had constructed the Georgia Guidestones only want humanity at 500 million which is a bit higher than an 80% reduction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
I remember reading studies from my undergrad days that said just the opposite was true
Lies, damn lies, and statistics being used by eugenists
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.