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.”
However, from the same article:
“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.”
33 Comments
Obama and his gaggle of czars and minions should pack their bags and take their propaganda to China where it will be appreciated.
Statistics show that the best indicator of a child's performance in school is whether or not he is raised in a home with a mother and a father. Instead of focusing on population control, Holdren and others would do well to strengthen pro-gender marriage and discourage the out-of-wedlock lifestyle.
I am one of 9 children. I do believe in marriage equality.
IQ levels are another example of how we foolishly let pseudo- scientists (psychologists and sociologists) dictate to society about what is important, what defines normal and abnormal, how we should conduct our lives. No offense to those here practicing in those fields, but those areas notoriously attract the not-so-bright students, oftentimes the less-mentally-stable students.
IQ means pretty much nothing unless it is extremely low or extremely high, where it tends to dominate over other equally important aspects of life. What's important for a successful life is the "whole package." The drive to work hard and persevere is probably the most important trait of all, and today's Americans don't like that.
Intelligence and education are overvalued in our society; we've created this whole bunch of "thinkers" called academics who accomplish nothing, and we allow them to teach our children to become like them: all thought, but no ability to produce or do anything. As a result, we need to import foreigners to fill the voids in our Science, Engineering, Technology, and Mathematics fields. Fields that require hard work in which to succeed; fields which drive the progress of a nation relative to others.
Barb writes, "Obama and his gaggle of czars and minions should pack their bags and take their propaganda to China where it will be appreciated."
Clearly our country desperately needs a "Fertility Czar"
ASAP!
This idea is just ridiculous. I come from a large family and we have something beautiful. I wish everyone had what we have.
This is insulting to the vast majority of American families. The arrogance and elitism that spews from this administration is disgusting.
Randy - Thanks for your comments. They have really added to the discussion. I posted to show that people cannot be easily categorized - effectively to show that we are all individuals and that issues dealing with marriage are individual issues. I find it strange the way many people posting here use terms like, the "opposition" and "culture war". I think it is best if we can look at any issue from someone else's vantage point or if we can place ourselves in someone else's shoes.
An opinion from 1973? Did CNS ask him if he still held that view?
JR @ 8, now why would we want to do that, how will it change our thinking on the issue? It won't There is a lot we, you and I can disagree upon and compromise on, SSM and homosexuality in the public square are issues we will fight about and see who is left standing... I oppose these issue wholeheartedly, I don't hate the person but the immoral sin... I also think trying to reason with those who identify themselves or feel inflected with SSSAs is a useless debate without some form of psychological evaluation or treatment for the ability for rational thinking about who they are and what they are....
Wow! We are getting to the bottom of it. As if there was only one type of 'intelligence'. Obviously, one has to be more intelligent to judge someone else's intelligence... but that's impossible for all kinds. Some people believe arrogance is persuasive. Not.
I was once on an airplane returning from a massive professional scientific convention and one of the main speakers happened to sit down in the seat beside mine. We had a short conversation, leading to his saying that the human species was the most successful species. I replied: 'Not really, some insect species are much more successful.' We tend to think of ourselves as dominant, and most important (to ourselves). On the other hand, he also said that with World overpopulation, it's amazing some people have so many kids. I replied: Perhaps it is because not everyone can be a great scientist, and for some people their children offer the meaning of life. For some people, children is their primary joy, not a career. This was a very nice man, a genius in one area of science, yet not a good sociologist, or a good philosopher..
Professional people, who don't have much time to rear a family, generally have only one or two children, perhaps by accident. With both parents working, they scramble to tend to their children, as is, but usually not spending much time with them. It opens up the market for pre-schools (if a school, how can it come before 'school'?), after school programs, au pairs, tutoring, gymnastics, ballet, and psychiatrists, etc. They are torn between professional ties and their children. But, they won't let go. They get used to a particular standard of living (their god).
Yet, the human reproduction in the USA is now below sustainability. This ultimately leads to immigration problems. In UK, the immigration is partly Muslim. From S. America, it is socialistic.
Social classes which typically do not contribute to the population growth or sustainability, the creation of the work forces, etc. are the ones who try to demean marriages that procreate well. Couples of homosexual persuasion and their activist judges demean the importance of procreation in the definition of civil marriage, and divorce. Professional families demean the importance of a society able to sustain their population through reproduction.
Basically, the chore of engendering children and rearing children to be good citizens is not a main consideration of some social classes, leaving the responsibility to other social classes.
Just, what is a 'successful' citizen? Is it about monetary achievements? If so, then having no children is best. Or, are children also commodities?
I also believe in 'marriage equality'
So, since civil marriage cannot limit the number of children born out of wedlock and costs the government lots of funds (in Calif. look at what each agency spends, in a previous nomblog post), then contraception, abortion drugs, abortions, and killing of infants must be the only solution (who is to know)?
The CNSNews article states:
"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."
This is bad science: 'lower I.Q. scores than their peers from small families'. I.Q. can be related to a host of factors, not only number of siblings. For instance, the age difference between siblings. Where the siblings or single child is educated. Whether welfare affects the drive to work hard.
What a bunch of hogwash. My sister had seven children and there are bright, well educated and are now contributing to the country.
What study was used to make the hypothesis? Usually scientists use data to form conclusions(unlike politicians).
I'm interested to see the data.
As far as population control goes...isn't trying to ban abortion a good example of that? That makes the current republican administration the most direct threat to a familys freedom to choose how big it wants to be.
What does this article have to do with marriage equality?
NOM's intent seems to be to paint the Obama administration as anti-family. By doing so, this post (and others like it) expose NOM as a partisan, anti-Obama organization rather than a "rainbow coalition" of people from all walks of life.
Oh wait...good housekeeping 1981? Yeah, that's not outdated or anything. Lol
The scientist must be right. Let's remember that all our technology jobs are being outsourced to India, a country known for population control.
@FabulousAna
You may not be aware that pregnancy is not an accidental thing and can actually be prevented. Don't feel bad; most liberals aren't aware of it either. As it turns out, if you don't want children, there are these things called "contraceptions", and you don't have to terminate a human life instead.
no, aabortion does no have a thing to do with decdiding family size...it just kills irresponsible peoples children... the ones who can't keep it zipped....
...or it be that we are a Nation preoccupied with sex, and who to have it with...?
FA @ 15
As far as population control goes...isn't trying to ban abortion a good example of that? That makes the current republican administration the most direct threat to a familys freedom to choose how big it wants to be.
First of all Obama is a Democrat and so is his administration and they're not trying to ban abortion;second Republicans philosophy-women with access to abortion and other preventive methods to from having babies or getting pregnant, will produce just the opposite effect and objective. So why make them available. All those preventive things carry risk and may cause harm to a woman's fetus when she decides to have a baby in the future... conservatives believe the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy is for women to not engage in casual sex, and be married when they are ready to have a baby.
This guy has espoused some pretty extreme ideas in the past.
Just remember everyone. This is the same guy who advocates modifying our drinking water to sterilize people. If this man had his way we'd be looking at an American version of the Great Leap Forward.
here is another reason why Obama should be voted out of office....
by Ben Johnson
LifeSIteNews.com
*
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA, February 24, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The nation’s number one talk show host drew attention to Barack Obama’s history of supporting infanticide on Friday’s show.
Discussing this week’s CNN debate in Mesa, Arizona, Rush Limbaugh told his listeners said the president’s vote against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001, 2002, and 2003 amounted to “the most shocking and underreported significant story I can ever remember.”
Rush Limbaugh
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raised the issue of Obama’s support for infanticide after CNN debate moderator John King asked the presidential hopefuls a question about birth control.
The question met with loud audience disapproval, as it was widely interpreted as intended to embarrass Rick Santorum.
Gingrich, who replied first, objected that in 2008, “not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide.”
“If we’re going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion,” Gingrich said. “It is not the Republicans.”
(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )
As a state senator, Barack Obama voted against a bill that would require abortionists to provide care to an infant who is born alive during the course of a failed abortion. The legislation was brought forward after Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, exposed abortionists’ practice of abandoning babies born alive after failed abortions, leaving them to die in a hospital utility room.
President George W. Bush signed the federal version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002. The federal bill passed the U.S. House in an overwhelming 380-15 vote, with a majority of outspokenly pro-abortion representatives supporting the legislation. Even after NARAL withdrew its opposition to the federal version of the bill, Obama had continued to oppose the state version.
“We talked about it during the 2008 campaign,” Limbaugh told an audience of millions. “Nobody wanted to hear it. The hopey-change thing was just too big of a theme.”
Newt “had the courage to use the word ‘infanticide,’” he said. “It’s exactly what was being defended. And unbelievable as this may sound to those of you who never heard about this, every word of it is true.”
All four Republican candidates voiced their opposition to the HHS mandate, as well.
Wow zack, that's a good thing to know. I'd love to read evidence proving that. Where is that information at?
@FabulousAna
Just incase you missed the news back in 2009:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
And well I found another source saying the same thing incase you find Fox to be insufficent:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
@FabulousAna
Just incase you missed the news back in 2009:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/
And here is another article basically saying the same thing for those of you who find fox to be insufficient:
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Different source
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Wow, I wonder how 7 of 8 of my paternal grandparents kids ever managed to teach school?
daggone it! freaking website....I posted millions of copies of one post by accident.
Holdren can join Charles Murray in the hack propagandists' Hall of Shame.