Obama Adviser Argued: Kids from Big Families Have Lower IQs

 ( – John P. Holdren, the top science adviser to President BarackObama,  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.

In “Human Ecology,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs concluded: “Population  control is absolutely essential if the problems now facing mankind are  to be solved.”

“Political pressure must be applied immediately to induce the United  States government to assume its responsibility to halt the growth of the  American population,” they wrote.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs also called in “Human Ecology” for  redistributing wealth on a global basis. “Redistribution of wealth both  within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to  be provided for every human being,” they wrote in their conclusions.

In a section of the book entitled, “Solutions,” in a chapter  entitled, “Population Limitation,” the future Obama White House  science adviser joined with the Ehrlichs in writing: “Any set of  programs that is to be successful in alleviating the set of problems  described in the foregoing chapters must include measures to control the  growth of the human population.”

The authors then questioned the values of parents who have large families.

“Certain values conflict directly with numbers, although numbers may  also be considered a value by some people, such as businessmen (who see  bigger markets), politicians (who see more political power), and parents  of large families,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote.

“Those who promote numbers of people as a value in itself, however,  may be overlooking the cheapness such abundance often brings,” they said.

“One form of conflict between values and numbers arises in the choice  between having many deprived children or having fewer who can be raised  with the best care, education, and opportunity for successful  adulthood,” they said on pages 228-229. “This dilemma is equally acute whether it is  posed to a family or a society. It surely is no accident that so many of  the most successful individuals are first or only children; 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.”

In a footnote to this passage, Holdren and the Ehrlichs cite a  “[r]eport of a National Academy of Sciences Study Panel” that “includes  several articles on the advantages to children of being first-born or in  small families.”

In the June 2000 issue of American Pyschologist, a team of authors joined to debunk the notion that smaller families  somehow produced higher “quality” or more intelligent children. The team included Joseph Lee Rodgers of the Department of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma, Harrington Cleveland of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina, David C. Rowe from the Division of Family Studies at the University of Arizona, and Edwin van den Oord of the Department of Psychology at the University of Utrecht.

The study these scholars did was based on an analysis of data from actual siblings collected by the federally sponsored National Longitudinal Study of Youth.

“A large amount of publicity has circulated over the past two decades  suggesting to parents that they should limit their family size in the  interest of, in Blake’s (1981) words, ‘child quality,’” Rodgers and his  co-authors wrote. “Zajonc (1975) published a popular article entitled  ‘Dumber by the Dozen’ that certainly must have led some parents to  believe they should limit their childbearing lest they place their  children into the diluted intellectual environment predicted for later  birth orders, close spacing, and larger families.

“The columnist Dr. Joyce Brothers answered a question sent into Good Housekeeping (February, 1981) by a mother of four asking if she should consider  having another baby as follows: ‘Studies have shown that children reared  in small families are brighter, more creative, and more vigorous than  those from large families,’” the authors noted.

“However,” they said, “the belief that, for a particular set of  parents in a modem country like the United   States, a larger family  will lead to children with lower IQs appears to be, simply, wrong. The  belief that birth order effects on intelligence act directly to decrease  the intelligence of children born later in a given family also appears  to be, simply, wrong.”

“Do large U.S. families make low-IQ children? No,” said the authors.  “Are birth order and intelligence related to one another within U.S.  families? No.”

In a chapter of a book (“U.S Policy and the Global Environment”) published in November 2000, Holdren called for national  and international policies aimed at reducing family size as a means of  forestalling “global climate disruption.”

“That the impacts of global climate disruption may not become the  dominant sources of environmental harm to humans for yet a few more  decades cannot be a great consolation, given that the time needed to  change the energy system enough to avoid this outcome is also on the  order of a few decades,” wrote Holdren. “It is going to be a very tight  race. The challenge can be met, but only by employing a strategy that  embodies all six of the following components: … increased national and  international support for measures that address the motivations and the  means for reducing family size.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing in 2009, Holdren said he no longer  believed determining optimal population was the proper role of  government. However, he did say that appropriate government policies  would have the result of decreasing family sizes.

“I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the  policies with respect to economy, environment, security that will ensure  the well-being of the citizens we have,” Holdren testified. “I also  believe that many of those policies will have the effect, and have had  the effect in the past, of lowering birth rates because when you provide  health care for women, opportunities for women, education, people tend  to have smaller families on average and it ends up being easier to solve  some of our other problems when that occurs.”

The Obama administration has issued a regulation, set to take  effect on Aug. 1, that will require all health-care plans in the United    States to cover sterilizations, artificial contraceptives and  abortifacients without any fees or co-pay. Many American religious leaders, including all of the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, have  denounced the regulation as an attack on religious liberty because it  will force many Americans to act against their consciences and the teachings of their  faith.


One response to “Blindfold…

  1. Pingback: (“Barack Obama is now achieving a vision that environmentalist ideologues could only dream about in the 1970s”) Obama’s Driving Americans Out of Cars « ~ BLOGGER.GUNNY.G.1984+. ~ (BLOG & EMAIL)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s