Among Holdren’s bright ideas as of 1977:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

You might point out that this was a long time ago. Fine, but should anybody who held such violent ideas, and who was so spectacularly wrong about “overpopulation” be in charge of evaluating the science on, say, anthropogenic global warming?

Of course, he’d get along fine with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently said:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Why do I get the feeling that I might be one of those populations?