John Holdren wrote a book called:
Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment.
Wether he feels that these ideas should be implemented, I find it frightining
that someone thinks about things like this.
Here's a few excerpts:
"The third approach to population limitation is that of involuntary fertility
control. Several coercive proposals deserve discussion, mainly because some
countries may ultimately have to resort to them unless current trends in birth
rates are rapidly reversed by other means. ...
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems
to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control.
Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social
questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists
today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a
substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be
uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and
despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must
be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on
members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. ...
"Most of the population control measures beyond family planning discussed above
have never been tried. Some are as yet technically impossible and others are and
probably will remain unacceptable to most societies (although, of course, the
potential effectiveness of those least acceptable measures may be great).
"Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives
may be much more horrifying. As those alternatives become clearer to an
increasing number of people in the 1980s, they may begin demanding such control.
A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of
influencing family size preferences, while redoubling efforts to ensure that the
means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to
every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective
action is taken promptly against population growth, perhaps the need for the
more extreme involuntary or repressive measures can be averted in most
countries."
“To date, there has been no serious attempt in Western countries to use laws to
control excessive population growth, although there exists ample authority under
which population growth could be regulated. For example, under the United States
Constitution, effective population-control programs could be enacted under the
clauses that empower Congress to appropriate funds to provide for the general
welfare and to regulate commerce, or under the equal-protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Such laws constitutionally could be very broad. Indeed, it
has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws
requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing
Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the
society. Few today consider the situation in the United States serious enough to
justify compulsion, however."