Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Saturday, 3 October 2009

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but....

... something odd struck me in reading a jeremiad aimed at one of President Obama's appointees.
Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review.

WND has obtained a copy of "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," published in 1977 and co-authored by Holdren with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich and Ehrlich's wife, Ann. As WND reported, the authors argued involuntary birth-control measures, including forced sterilization, may be necessary and morally acceptable under extreme conditions, such as widespread famine brought about by "climate change."

To prevent ecological disasters, including "global warming," Holdren argued the U.S. Constitution would permit involuntary abortions, government-imposed sterilizations and laws limiting the number of children as steps justified under the banner of "sustainable well-being."
(What's a "science czar", anyway? Does he get to wear one of those cool Russain crowns with the fur around them? How many Faberge eggs as perks?)

Now without taking a stance on the morality or validity of this man's positions, (after all, it would be possible to argue that something one knows is heinous is allowed under current law and that this is a loophole that must be closed!), or even whether he still hold opinions he once held, (I believe in redemption, not to mention growing up,) let us stipulate that whether Holdren is one of them or not, there are indeed people and states who believe that over-population is damaging Planet Earth, that this is a problem, and that the private murder of the unborn, even without the consent of the proprietor of the womb occupied by that unborn child, is an acceptable way of dealing with the problem.

This is of major concern to anyone who holds to the sanctity and dignty of human life.

Now, a television show I had followed and enjoyed was abruptly canceled. (Bear with me.)

Not the sort of thing I usually watch, SFX heavy sci-fi, lots of CGI dinosaurs and other creatures.
But snappy dialogue, interesting characters, and time travel, (not a plus with me, but catnip to Himself, and it's always easier to stay involved with a series if ones intimates are as well.)
It was called Primeval.
So far as I had read, its ratings were excellent, its critical reception laudatory, its creators keen to ride it out.

And then poof! gone.

None just gone, but gone on a cliff hanger, canceled with its protagonists stranded and separated in the Jurassic age, or something, (once I recovered from my 1st grade intention to be a paleontologist, and yes, that was the word I used, I ceased to pay attention to that sort of detail, and am woefully ignorant of such matters.)

No warning, just gone. Extinct, if you will.

Now, here's the conspiracy part -- its primary antagonist was utterly un-PC.

A real, practically mustache-twirling, (though it was a woman,) villain.

Why so Politically Errant? What would be most upsetting to the Politically Correct in fictional villainy? Who would be to most upsetting to the sensibilities of most media types? a member of an oppressed minority? a fundamentalist muslim? a LBGT dwarf of color?

No, this absolute monster of a brilliant mad scientist had taken the "Save the Planet By Destroying Surplus Human Beings" dodge to its logical extreme: she was going back in time to kill the first hominid ancestors to prevent humanity from ever having existed. So rather than positing the wimpy, half-hearted:
To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people
Helen the sinister and sexy scientist concludes:

Planet Earth Would Be So Much Better Off Without Mankind

The ultimate Malthusian, no? Or just the big picture equivalent of your crazy aunt with the plastic slipcovers who never lets ANYONE set foot or tuckus in the salon with the absurd misnomer of "living" room.
And since she is clearly presented as evil, and um... wrong -- and well, we can't have such ideas being held up for what they are, evil, and um... wrong, can we? something must be done.

Okay, I'm crazy, never mind....

However, if and when it is brought back, especially if its American -- betcha the new villain espouses evil notions we have all agreed to vilify.

Like, eating saturated fats.

No comments: