Consequences of High Population

jamesvaikom

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
367
Likes
293
Total fertility rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Interesting link regarding the TFR of USA... Tell me honestly what do you see :D????
http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2010/7/11/saupload_oil_history.jpg
If you compare crude oil production with fertility rate than you will understand that their oil production was increasing when their fertility rate was high. If they didn't reduce fertility rate when their oil production started to reduce then they would have faced huge problems.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Its good to read views of economists. But don't blindly follow them. Do you know the hit ratio of calls made by economists and analysts? We should use our own brain. Only herd will follow economists and analysts blindly. They will give sell call when market reaches bottom and buy call when market reaches top. Can you tell me how many investment bankers predicted their own bankruptcy?
Exactly why we should not trust these people who claim population per se is a problem instead of blaming the resource in-efficiency, you get my point?
 

jamesvaikom

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
367
Likes
293
Exactly why we should not trust these people who claim population per se is a problem instead of blaming the resource in-efficiency, you get my point?
Inefficiency will increase if fertility rate of poor and illiterate people increase. Govt. will impose more tax on middle class to create useless jobs to help poor and illiterate people. Corrupt politicians will win elections. NGOs and terrorists will brainwash poor people. Its better to have few productive people than large number of unproductive people. Japan with one-tenth of our population had consumer base all over the world even when technology was not advanced. If we utilize our productive work force then many unproductive people will loss their jobs. Fertility rate of illiterate people are higher than literates. So claiming that high fertility rate is good is similar to claiming that illiterate people are clever than us.
 

winton

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
90
Likes
5
India is the result of high population. Its definitely the prime case study
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Seven Biggest Environmental Threats

The seven biggest environmental threats to the Earth are issues every person should understand and take action to see that these threats are eventually eliminated.

Examining the various threats to the Earth's environment must include the human impact on the planet. Catch phrases such as carbon footprint, global warming, deforestation, and other commonly used terms have become the everyday jargon for those concerned about the environment.

1. Human Population and Pollution

A growing world population might seem like an obvious threat to the environment that goes far beyond the debatable theory of global warming. The bigger threat is far more complex and directly linked not to the controversial idea of a carbon footprint, but to the unique system of supply and demand.

Consumers place more and more demands on the earth's natural resources as the population increases year after year. These demands leave pollution and waste in the wake of human daily activity. Compound this with each world government doing its own brand of commerce, many without environmental consciences, and you get the formula for environmental chaos and disaster.

A prime example of higher consumption demands can be found in the fishery industry, where the world's marine life is being harvested with few to no renewable methods in place. Consumers are also responsible via industry for hundreds of hazardous chemicals used in the production of various products. Heavy metals continue to contaminate land, water and air.

The power of a consumer can be mighty when each person in the world realizes that action can be taken and changes made by carefully choosing how each consumer dollar is spent.


2. Earth Changes

The last major climate change was an ice age and the world is in the final stages of that event. The result is a rise in temperatures and the melting of glaciers and even the polar ice cap. Many highly-respected scientists disagree that global warming is the result of human-caused pollution any more than it can cause powerful hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, and even solar flares. This school of thought views earth changes as being the result of the natural processes found in an evolving living planet and its sun. While the cause of global warming remains controversial, both sides agree that it's a very real environmental threat to the world as you know it.

3. Deforestation

When a region loses its biodiversity, it becomes more vulnerable to other environmental elements. Deforestation disrupts the natural balance of ecological systems in the area where the trees have been harvested and far beyond. Food production can be impacted due to drought and erosion directly linked to the loss of forests.

4. Ozone Deterioration

Chemicals and chlorofluorocarbons pollutants are created by industry and agriculture. They have a negative impact the ozone layer. The lack of strict enforcement of laws to prevent the use of such pollutants compounds the situation. World governments that continue to allow various pollutants into the environment impede the recovery of the ozone layer.

5. Acid Rain

Acid rain is created by excessive sulfuric and nitric acid being pumped into the atmosphere, rivers, oceans, and land. While some acid rain is the byproduct of the natural processes of decaying vegetation and volcanic activity, the current crisis comes directly from the burning of fossil fuels. Water becomes toxic when acid rain imbues the oceans or lakes with an absorption quality that cause the water to absorb soil-based aluminum and poisons the aquatic plant and marine life.

6. Dead Zones in the Ocean

Another harmful source of excessive nitrogen being dumped into the oceans can be traced back to agricultural practices of over-fertilization of crops, lawns and gardens. The end result has been the creation of over 160 dead zones throughout the world's oceans.

The oceans' eco-systems are dependent upon the natural process of organic ocean matter known as phytoplankton, which is found on ocean surfaces. This eventually breaks down and filters to the bottom of the ocean floor where it's broken down further by ocean floor bacteria. This process is called bacterial respiration.

When too much nitrogen feeds the phytoplankton, like any fertilized crop, it begins to overproduce. The bacteria are unable to break down the plankton fast enough and the chemical processes that convert carbon dioxide into oxygen can't keep up. The oxygen is used up quicker than it can be produced. The plankton chokes out the flow of water and oxygen so that marine and plant life die from the lack of oxygen.

7. Species Extinction

An alarming rate of species extinction is happening worldwide. As of 2010, the rate of loss is estimated to be more than 1,000 times the normal rate. Greater preservation tactics and strategies are needed with laws put into place to protect species. Once more, manmade pollution is the culprit along with land encroachment by developers. Both causes are created by consumer demands as people branch out into areas that were once remote habitats for various species.

An example of successful endangered species preservation is the American national symbol, the bald eagle. In the 1960s, there were fewer than 470 eagle nestlings. As of 2010, there were over 7,000 nestlings in the United States. This increase in the bald eagle population demonstrates how threatened species can be brought back from the brink of extinction. More and more animals and other forms of wildlife are being added to the endangered species list each year. It makes sense to become better land stewards, instead of encroaching on forests and wetlands.

While there are many other threats to the environment that have a significant impact, these are certainly the seven biggest environmental threats facing the world today.

Seven Biggest Environmental Threats
World faces overpopulation 'disaster' as number of people is set to rise by 75 million EACH YEAR

Global population is expected to peak at 9.5bn in 2075

Annual rise is the equivalent of entire UK population




The world is edging closer to overpopulation Armageddon as swelling cities drain the planet of its vital resources, a report warns today.

Population growth, especially in newly developing countries, is the 'defining challenge of the 21st century'.

It represents a greater potential threat than climate change, according to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

Over the next six decades the world's population is expected to explode, soaring from 6.9billion to peak at 9.5billion in 2075, the report says.



Each year the number of people in the world is due to rise by 75million - equivalent to the entire population of the UK.

Most of the growth will be in the African continent, which is following in the industrial footsteps of Asia, and in cities.

The world's urban population is likely to increase from a 2007 figure of 3.3billion to 6.4billion in 2050.

But without drastic changes there will not be sufficient resources to provide people with basic human needs such as water, food, energy and shelter, says the report, entitled Population: One Planet, Too Many People?

Climate change is likely to place even more stress on resources, resulting in as many as a billion people moving from inhospitable regions.

Water requirements are projected to rise by 30 per cent by 2030 while food resources will be stretched by a doubling of demand for agricultural produce by 2050.


Slum living, already forced on a third of the world's urban populations, will become even more widespread as cities became increasingly packed with people.

As a result billions could be at risk of hunger, thirst and appalling living conditions, creating tinderbox conditions that could ignite civil unrest and conflict.

The report, compiled with the help of more than 70 engineers around the world, sets out a series of 'engineering development goals' as a first step towards averting the looming disaster.

It calls for a global engineering initiative, modelled on the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals, to tackle the key problem areas of energy, water, food, urbanisation and finance.

Lead author Dr Tim Fox said: 'Towards the end of the century the world is going to come face to face with the challenges of the largest population explosion in human history.

'These headline figures really are staggering from a resources point of view and for the provision of the basic needs of human society.'

Engineering solutions such as reducing energy waste, improving food storage and extracting water from underground aquifers would allow the world to sustain a population of 9.5billion, said Dr Fox.

The cost would run into many trillions of pounds, but would be affordable if richer nations were willing to share financial as well as technological resources.

A key necessity is to help poorer nations 'leapfrog' the resource-hungry 'dirty' phase of industrialisation.

As population levels soar in newly emerging industrialised countries, those in developed parts of the world such as the UK and US are likely to stabilise or even fall, said the report.

The population of Europe is expected to decline by 20 per cent by 2050. However, the impact of global population growth would still be felt around an increasingly connected world where changes in one region could have an impact 'many thousands of miles away'.

World faces overpopulation 'disaster' as number of people set to rise by 75 million EACH YEAR | Mail Online
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
"As per statistics, India provides around Rs855 billion subsidy to its farmers to reduce their production cost, whereas Pakistan hardly spends Rs8 billion in this regard :india:. India's agriculture production cost was around two to three times lower than Pakistan due to these subsidies," agriculture expert and Agri Forum Pakistan chairman, Ibrahim Mughal said.

Pakistan: Agriculture Activities: October 2011
if the poor of India ask the Western nations to share the burden of subsidies then they will simply kick these shiits of India, isn't it? and if its only Indian Middle Class who is generating money and running government and also paying heavy price for the welfare/subsidies for poor, then they do have a right to ask the Indian Government, "to what extent they will have to bear this burden of tax just to feed poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future also to bear this burden on long run if the government doesn't control the population?????????" :facepalm:

like the news as below, around 50% indian population is based in agriculture only, around 600mil, while even 200mil population may produce the same agriculture output? and the same in cities of India, around 50% people just try to earn a decent salary which they can't, simply because too many mouths and limited resources. and Indian Middle Class is just paying high price to feed these around 600mil excess population, but still there is no effort to have a control on this growing population???????


here for example of Pakistan and Bangladesh, right now overly populated Pakistan is full of target killings, too many mouth and no resources to feed them. its similar to 'genocide' itself? and Bangladeshis just want to run from Bangladesh, mainly to India. its the worse to see people dying without dignity than controlling population by force :tsk:..........
sir, many economists of India advocate "food security"/ "free medicines"/ "right to get a job" etc in India which is not possible until the Indian government may control its population. they simply can't feed 1.2bil population from the limited natural resources they have :wave:. USA is 3 times bigger in area than India but population of India is 4 times to USA? and on the top of that, Indian government wants to give welfare/ heavy subsidies to its people? if India face a sudden fall like ASEAN in late 90s and South America like in 80s, all these they will have to withdraw after that so better they keep habit to live in less and get rid off the unnecessary subsidies/welfares :wave:. for example, we always find Pakistan increasing petrol and diesel prices as per market prices as they can't afford to give subsidies while the people of Pakistan are poorer than India, but Indian government always hesitate to do so? but the day India will reach level of Pakistan, just one good economic fall is required, and India will learn all by themselves. :wave:
here we have report from world bank that around 60% people of India are living with income less than $2.0 per day, as below :facepalm:

here, how is it wise to have high population if you can't give them good life? how is it advisable to have more population this way???

=> Poverty headcount ratio at $2 a day (PPP) (% of population) | Data | Table

=>
Poverty in India is widespread, with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. In 2010, World Bank stated, 32.7% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day.[1] :facepalm:

Poverty in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
in fact, now poverty of India is because of its over population. Most of the problems of India is because of its Over Population and India has to reduce its population only. otherwise India has around 350mil Upper Middle Class, more than total population in 1947, whose per capita income on PPP is similar to the Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc. one day I calculated as below:-

first, we find GDP on PPP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2007. as till 2006, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include estimated undocumented part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 50% to 80% higher, and for the middle order countries like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3% by that "Old Method" which was in application till 2006. like as below:

"There are, however, practical difficulties in deriving GDP at PPP, and we now have two different estimates of the PPP conversion factor for 2005, India's GDP at PPP is estimated at $ 5.16 trillion or $ 3.19 trillion depending on whether the old or new conversion factor is used," it said.

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - Times Of India
means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2006. again we have India's growth rate since 2007 as below:

India GDP Annual Growth Rate

here we find, "Average Growth Rate" of India from first quarter of 2007 till the December quarter 2012, stood at around 7.7%, on 'annual' basis. hence considering GDP on PPP of India at $5.16tn in 2006 by Old Method, we may calculate its value by 2012, after 6 years since early 2007, as below:

GDP on PPP of India by end 2012 = 5.16*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077= $8.053tn

but we would also get to know that PPP value consider value of goods and serivces in US$ term, means we would include the factor of inflation of United States also. and even if we consider average 2.0% inflation of US for those six year in between early 2007 to 2012, with considering an overall factor of just 1.10 this way, then GDP on PPP of India comes around = 8.053* 1.1= $8.86tn by 2012. and it still hasn't included 'Value Added' effects also........

again, we know that share of agriculture was around 17% in India's GDP in 2012. therefore, we find share of agriculture in indian economy, 0.17 * 8.86= $1.506 trillions, on which 50% population of india is dependent. means around 600mil people based on agriculture in india have per capita income around = $2,500 on PPP by 2012, which is itself similar to the lower middle order countries.

this way, 8.86 - 1.50 = $7.36tn is left for rest of 600mil people based in industry and service in India, with per capita income of around $12,366 on PPP which is higher than Brazil..........

again, we have news that 25% of the population of cities are either in slum or in bit better condition only. so we would consider per capita income of 300mil living in cities in low condition at hardly $3,000 which takes a share of $900bil from its GDP. hence we are then left with around 7.36 - 0.90 = $6.46tn, around, for rest of 300 mil people living in cities, the so called Middle Class of India with per capita income around $21,533 on PPP this way.

but it is estimated that out of total 600mil people based in agriculture sector, it also has around 50mil Lower Middle Class with Per Capita Income around $12,000 on PPP. (as we know that agriculture has higher share of 'undocumented' part, with that, Agriculture also has higher share of non-taxable business of India.) so we find total middle class of India around 350mil with per capita income around $20,000 on PPP which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland, Saudi Arabia etc, which is more than total population of India at the time of freedom in 1947 :ranger:
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

A small portion of the world's people use up most of the earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions, writes Fred Pearce. From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.
Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people — that's about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.

Although overconsumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity's effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the "ecological footprint," which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.

The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world's largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world's major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In "super-size-me" land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.

I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity's impacts on the planet's vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?

We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today's level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.

Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let's go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.

Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala's calculations — and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today — those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.

Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world's population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.

Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.
But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.

Well, first let's be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.

And second, it won't happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

This is getting close to the "replacement fertility level" which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don't reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic "bulge" of women of child-bearing age keeps the world's population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world's population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic "intergenerational legacy" of today's children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.

Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.

In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called "lifeboat ethics". In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, "each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in." But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish – to keep the poor out.

Hardin's metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.

"¢ From Yale Environment 360, part of Guardian Environment Network

Fred Pearce: Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat | Environment | guardian.co.uk
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
NASA / NASA Reported Ground Water level going down in North India

NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration's satellite imagery submitted a Report to the scientific paper US Based said that Level of Groundwater getting down every year.

Groundwater levels in Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and Delhi are falling down one foot every year and this issue can lead to extensive socio-economic stresses for the region's 114 million residents in North India. :facepalm:

The Images took from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a pair of satellites that sense changes in Earth's gravity field and associated mass distribution, including water masses stored above or below the Earth's surface.

International journal Nature Published a report in the paper saying 109 cubic km of groundwater has been lost in just six years (2002-08) and this could be the India's largest surface reservoir Upper Wain Ganga and Doubled than the government's estimation. :tsk:

Report also says that from the August 2002 and October 2008, the region lost 109 cubic km of groundwater; almost triple the capacity of the largest man-made reservoir in the U.S, Lake Mead. This a serious issue which need to think more seriously as it could be the reason of collapse of agricultural output and severe shortages of potable water. :tsk:

NASA / NASA Reported Ground Water level going down in North India:eTI


=> India's groundwater crisis

Water security is widely recognised as one of the major challenges to India's economic and social development.1,2,3 The nation's average annual rainfall is extremely abundant by global standards, yet much of this rain falls in relatively brief deluges during the monsoon and there is great disparity across different regions. The combination of these climatic conditions with a range of man-made pressures has driven India's farmers, households, and industry to increasingly depend on groundwater rather than surface water in rivers and lakes. But this dependence is leading to a rapid and very worrying deterioration in the nation's groundwater resources, a deterioration that is underlined by current events.

The first two months of the 2012 monsoon have seen remarkably weak rainfall, but existing groundwater bores in many areas can no longer be relied on as an alternative to surface water: the lack of replenishment from the rains is exposing the simple fact that the water table has fallen too quickly due to over-extraction. Previously productive tube-wells are now dry. Extreme water shortages are currently widespread in some major cities, as they were across the country during the 2009 drought. Whilst a lack of reservoir infrastructure is also a contributing factor to current shortages, the fact that groundwater resources are unable to compensate as before indicates that what was once a problem of long-term sustainability has developed into an urgent crisis – one that is fundamental to India's broader water security today and for a long time to come.

Groundwater is a critical resource in India, accounting for over 65% of irrigation water and 85% of drinking water supplies.4 However, on current trends it is estimated that 60% of groundwater sources will be in a critical state of degradation within the next twenty years.4 In the most seriously affected north-western states, recent satellite measurements indicate an average decline of 33 cm per year from 2002 to 2008.5 Local observations of annual water table decline exceeding 4 metres are common throughout India.:facepalm:

India's declining groundwater resources are the product of a number of drivers. Utilization of groundwater facilitates irrigated agriculture in areas far from rivers; in fact, this was key to the agricultural "green revolution" that occurred from the mid 1960s. In places where surface water is available but unsafe for drinking or farming—more than 70% of India's surface water resources are polluted by human waste or toxic chemicals—groundwater has often been seen as a safe alternative. Urban water supply infrastructure is often poor and unreliable: well drilling is typically the most economical means of obtaining household water.4 In Delhi, the local government estimates that 40% of the water transmitted through the mains system is lost through leakages; for many, the only other alternative to bores are expensive supplies purchased from water-trucks.

In rural areas, electricity subsidies allowing farmers to pump groundwater cheaply have become entrenched in the political landscape.9 They are likely to become even more so as energy requirements increase to extract water from greater depths. Low cost encourages excess water withdrawal, an inefficient usage pattern commonly exacerbated by ineffective application methods and the wastage of agricultural produce between farm and market. In order to feed a growing and wealthier population, it is projected that agricultural water demand in the India of 2030 would need double to 1,200 billion m3 if these inefficient practices continued.11 The problems are only going to get worse unless urgent changes occur. :toilet:

So we have some sense of why India's groundwater is being unsustainably exploited, but why is this so important? Aside from the physical absence of the resource, the state of groundwater quality in India is a critical health issue.7 As wells are drilled deeper in pursuit of the falling water table, the water which is extracted frequently displays higher levels of arsenic, fluoride, and other harmful chemicals. The attendant health effects have been well documented throughout India12,7, particularly in poorer rural communities where there is no alternative for drinking water. Falling water tables can also induce leakage from a contaminated external source13, such as saline water in coastal areas or surface water polluted by sewage, agricultural fertilizers, and industry. Depletion of groundwater is not simply a case of drawing down a replenishable resource, but potentially one of permanent degradation.

Unsustainable groundwater depletion is a very serious issue. And it is a very difficult problem to address.14 Groundwater is a classic example of a 'public good' – a resource where it is difficult to exclude potential users and it is not in the self-interest of the individual to use the resource in a collectively beneficial manner: if one user reduces the volume of water they withdraw the overall impact will be minimal. The likely result? All users compete with each other to extract as much water as they can while the resource still exists and everyone is worse off than if they cooperated and each reduced consumption. Of course, it does not have to be that way: we easily could envisage a situation where neighbouring farmers in a single community are able to cooperate effectively. But what are the prospects of voluntary cooperation between a large number of different communities using the same aquifer? Or how about millions of households across a major city?

Environmental public goods typically require some form of government regulation to change the incentives of users and produce socially optimal outcomes. In India, however, it would seem almost impossible for the national government to manage the estimated 25 million groundwater extraction structures already in existence9; this is particularly the case given that India's government institutions require significant strengthening and responsibility for groundwater management is fragmented throughout different official departments4. What's more, India's state governments have primary jurisdiction over groundwater usage and, in many cases, state agencies are even more poorly equipped. Both underground aquifers and above-ground rivers traverse the borders of Indian states; competition over water use is already a major source of inter-state conflict2, as well as between users at a local level.4 To date, the difficulties of regulation and collective management of India's groundwater resources have been overwhelming, and are a fundamental cause of the state of crisis.2,4

The link from water to food security and health in India compels urgent solutions to the unsustainable levels of demand for its dwindling groundwater supplies. But, given the multiple levels of the problem outlined above, this is no simple task. A comprehensive World Bank study concluded that high-level policy reform in the shape of regulatory measures, economic instruments, or tradable groundwater extraction rights is simply not a credible way forward.4 Instead, this report proposed that "bottom-up" community management may be the only hope. Other studies have supported this proposal9, with particular focus on community level groundwater recharge and the use of communally managed alternatives to groundwater, such as small dams. Notably, the International Water Management Institute administered a successful trial targeting farming villages in Gujarat state, the results of which are now being incorporated into national policy.

Asking whether India's groundwater crisis will eventually be addressed might actually be the wrong question: solutions will simply have to be found. What these solutions are, how long they take to find, and how serious the consequences become are the more relevant issues.


India's groundwater crisis | Global Water Forum
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
^^^^
Water table rising in Guj due to measures taken by state govt.
 

natarajan

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
2,592
Likes
762
Our government wont take measures and some people are doing this to increase their percentage.I always say after 2nd child cut off all government facilities including reservation
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
"Science Summit" on World Population:

A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below.

The New Delhi meeting was convened by a group of 15 academies "to explore in greater detail the complex and interrelated issues of population growth, resource consumption, socioeconomic development, and environmental protection.'' One of the convening organizations, the Nairobi-based African Academy of Sciences, declined to sign the joint statement, issuing, instead, one of its own. The text of this statement is reproduced below as the second Documents item appearing in this issue. Other academies that did not participate in the New Delhi meeting, or did not choose to sign the joint statement (whether for substantive or procedural reasons), included academies of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and Spain, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Notwithstanding the African Academy dissent, representatives of six African national academies, among them four from countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda) were among the fifty-eight signatories.


The growing world population

The world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers. It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion in 1993.

This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death rates (particularly infant and child mortality rates), combined with sustained high birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.

Over the last 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios* for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people before leveling off at the end of the 21st century.

Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the 21st century and decline slowly thereafter.

Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

The actual outcome will have enormous implications for the human condition and for the natural environment on which all life depends.


Key determinants of population growth

High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged rural populations in less developed countries who benefit least from the process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also, access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic security influence their reproductive decisions.


Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment

Throughout history and especially during the twentieth century, environmental degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person. Resource use, waste production and environmental degradation are accelerated by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits, certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization and resource management.

As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.

While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest part of mineral and fossil-fuel consumption, resulting in significant environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization, which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive environmental remediation efforts.

The relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore, poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging exploitation of marginal resources.

Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in reorienting their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development. If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less developed and transitional countries.


The earth is finite

The growth of population over the last half century was for a time matched by similar world-wide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the last decade food production from both land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.



Quality of life and the environment

Our common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic, and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights; and allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment. We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful practices, and protecting the natural environment.

But time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons, inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.


Human reproductive health

The timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health of the mother, her children, and her family. Most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life.

Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married women of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the director-general of UNICEF put it, ''Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient numbers, through a variety of channels and distribution, sensitively adapted to local needs.

But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry. Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible, and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include the following:

Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social, and economic life.

Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options. irrespective of an individual's ability to pay.

Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination of unsafe and coercive practices.

Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation, broad primary health care measures and education; and that foster empowerment of the poor and women.

"The adoption of a smaller family norm, with consequent decline in total fertility, should not be viewed only in demographic terms. It means that people, and particularly women, are empowered and are taking control of their fertility and the planning of their lives; it means that children are born by choice, not by chance, and that births are better planned; and it means that families are able to invest relatively more in a smaller number of beloved children, trying to prepare them for a better future."*


Sustainability of the natural world as everyone's responsibility

In addressing environmental problems, all countries face hard choices. This is particularly so when it is perceived that there are short-term tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental protection, and where there are limited financial resources. But the downside risks to the earth—our environmental life support system—over the next generation and beyond are too great to ignore. Current trends in environmental degradation from human activities combined with the unavoidable increase in global population will take us into unknown territory.

Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken, environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become more efficient in both resource use and environmental protection, and to encourage an ethic that eschews wasteful consumption. If prices, taxes, and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing "technology for environment" should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable development.

For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting; and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions, communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways. Tradeoffs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions, as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity, and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental protection.

What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect

As scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and poverty.

The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing new understanding so that governments and other institutions can act more effectively, and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals should study and provide advice on:

Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational, and political factors that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.

Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result from economic inefficiencies: social inequalities; and ethnic, class, or gender biases.

Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity, soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics), and policies to mitigate its effects.

Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource development, with special attention to women.

Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes, and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal and child health care.

Transitions to economies that provide increased human welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.

Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries, including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary assessments of societal issues.

Technologies and strategies for sustainable development (agriculture, energy, resource use, pollution control, materials recycling, environmental management and protection).

Networks, treaties, and conventions that protect the global commons.

Strengthened world-wide exchanges of scientists in education, training, and research.


Action is needed now

Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues of population, environment, and development. Scientists today have the opportunity and responsibility to mount a concerted effort to confront our human predicament. But science and technology can only provide tools and blueprints for action and social change. It is the governments and international decision-makers, including those meeting in Cairo next September at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, who hold the key to our future. We urge them to take incisive action now and to adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.

Reprinted from Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, no. 1 (March 1994):233-238

overpopulation -- NOW A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

The Future Threat of Overpopulation: Eco-Fascism and Culling the Herd of Humanity

I must admit, I see overpopulation as a pressing future threat to us all. I am aware that many will disagree. Religious Fundamentalists, especially, seem to take special umbrage to the idea that we, as human beings, might not be doing ourselves any favors by behaving as though our species has a free pass to do as we please.

Whenever I talk about the dangers of overpopulation and resource depletion, I am deluged with emails full of Bible quotes, arguing -- basically -- that God created the world for us to do with as we see fit and putting a lot of emphasis on the whole "go forth and multiply" directive. In my opinion, however, we are meant to be the shepherds of this world, and denying the debilitating effects brought on as a result of overpopulation is, quite simply, willful ignorance.

You don't need to be an Al Gore disciple to be able to see that the problem is real; Anthropomorphic (man-made) Climate Change is part of it, but -- even if you throw all that out the window -- there's still a strong case for why overpopulation is a big problem. Overpopulation is why our freshwater aquifers are being depleted at alarming rates by increased agriculture as we struggle to feed a world grown heavy with too many people. Overpopulation is having a direct effect on the increasing rate at which we are using-up the world's richest, easiest-to-produce oil; and the oil question is the most ironic one of all, because cheap energy inputs from oil is why the population explosion of the past century occurred in the first place (cheap energy = more food = higher overall fertility and infant survival rates and healthier, longer lives = a higher population).

The danger is that, if this untenable situation goes on for too long, then you outstrip the carrying-capacity of the land. In a nutshell, sustainable farming involves allowing some fields to lay fallow each season on a rotating basis. When you have so many people that you must farm all of your arable land every season, then you eventually strip the land of all of it's nutrients, turning once-rich areas into little better than desert. This is, basically, what caused the fall of the Mayan civilization, and similar concerns played a big part in the decline of the Greeks: deforestation, and over-grazing of livestock caused the viable soil to run off, rendering once-arable land to no longer be arable. That's exactly where we're headed, if something doesn't change.

All of that said, the reverse is also true. As oil becomes more difficult to produce, the price goes up, which, in turn, makes all goods (including food) more expensive. More expensive food = fewer calories = less fertility, higher infant mortality, and a less robust physical constitution; which means more illness and shorter life-spans. Period.

What I'm saying (and being purposefully dispassionate about) is that the problem of overpopulation is a self-correcting problem, given enough time and assuming we don't do too much damage before it corrects itself. I know that may sound a bit heartless, but I'm just laying it out there as clearly as possible.

If you wanted to pack every human being on Earth into a mega-city with a population density comparable to that of New York City, you could do so -- it would be the size of the state of Texas. This would leave the rest of the planet as a pristine wilderness, but, what people who argue for such insanity seem to be unable to grasp is, we would still be consuming resources at mostly the same levels. You could curtail oil usage by outlawing cars (or just making them inconvenient to own due to parking, etc.) and have everybody use mass-transit, but we're still going to have to grow enough food for everyone, which means we'd still be depleting our freshwater aquifers. Not to mention, could you imagine the smog and the crime rate in a city of 7 billion people, packed together like sardines? It would be like living in Hell.

The more pressing problem I foresee has the potential to be a far more sinister one as well. More and more, there is a growing consensus of people who seem to think we, as a species, ought to be taking a more active hand in limiting population growth. And, terrifyingly, you don't have to try very hard to see that, under the surface, some of them even seem to favor a drastic lowering of the existing population.

Ted Turner, founder of CNN, was once very famously quoted as saying, "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." One might argue that he doesn't necessarily belong in this discussion, since he concentrates mostly on advocacy of a voluntary one-child policy, but that fact is that you do not achieve a 95% decline in so short a time by simply limiting births -- you only hit those kinds of numbers by killing people. Some scientists are even being published in medical ethics journals, arguing in favor of murdering newborn babies (or, as they call it, "after-birth abortion"). Jokers like that ought to be run out of town on a rail, not actively being published in serious scientific journals, where their twisted work can now be cited by others.

And Ted Turner is far from alone in his kind of thinking. Some seem to believe that we should be instituting strict policies, like those in China, where expectant mothers who lack government permits are hunted down by special police units and forced to undergo abortions against their will. Even in India, which is typically not thought of as being a repressive government at all, instituted strict population control measures during the 1970s that were absolutely Fascist in nature: people were made to undergo sterilizations as a condition of receiving public aid and they even went as far as to simply have police round-up large groups of the poor and haul them off to be forcibly sterilized.

Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

In fact, I would even go so far as to say that advocates of population control are even (at least subconsciously) racists and classists. Again and again, talk of population control points toward a "them," whose fertility must be managed. Margaret Sanger, who founded Planned Parenthood and is an idol of Hillary Clinton, was a rampant racist who believed in eugenics (a pseudoscience that formed part of the twisted Nazi ideology). In more recent times, Hillary Clinton herself has spoken to the idea that population control is a big part of U.S. foreign policy; and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been quoted as saying "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." (emphasis in bold mine)

The truth is that I am one of the very ones who believes that overpopulation is a big part of our problems; but I also believe that human beings were meant to live free and, if losing liberty is the cost of continuing to live, then I say that cost is too high. It wasn't that long ago that James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia hypothesis, openly stated in an interview that "democracy must be put on hold" and "a few people with authority" be permitted to rule over the entire planet in order to win the battle against global warming. Yeah. Don't think for an instant that all Greenies are harmless hippies; some of them are outright Eco-Fascists who see nothing wrong with the idea of culling the herd of humanity and turning those of us who survive into serfs, if it helps to serve their radical and maniacal agenda.

BACKWOODS SURVIVAL BLOG: The Future Threat of Overpopulation: Eco-Fascism and Culling the Herd of Humanity
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
"Science Summit" on World Population:

A Joint Statement by 58 of the World's Scientific Academies

In a follow-up to several recent initiatives by assemblies of scientists and scientific academies, most notably one taken by the Royal Society of London and the US National Academy of Sciences that resulted in a joint statement, "Population Growth, Resource Consumption, and a Sustainable World, '' issued in February 1992 (see Documents, PDR, June 1992), representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, 24-27 October 1993, at a ''Science Summit'' on World Population. The participants issued a statement, signed by representatives of 58 academies. The statement offers a wide-ranging if ex cathedra-style discussion of population issues related to development, notably on the determinants of fertility and concerning the effect of demographic growth on the environment and the quality of life. It also sets forth policy propositions, with emphasis on contributions that ''scientists, engineers, and health professionals'' can make to the solution of population problems. The statement finds that ''continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity, '' and proposes a demographic goal, albeit with a rather elusive specification of a time frame: "In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children. '' The text of the academies ' statement is reproduced below.

The New Delhi meeting was convened by a group of 15 academies "to explore in greater detail the complex and interrelated issues of population growth, resource consumption, socioeconomic development, and environmental protection.'' One of the convening organizations, the Nairobi-based African Academy of Sciences, declined to sign the joint statement, issuing, instead, one of its own. The text of this statement is reproduced below as the second Documents item appearing in this issue. Other academies that did not participate in the New Delhi meeting, or did not choose to sign the joint statement (whether for substantive or procedural reasons), included academies of Ireland, Italy, Japan, Singapore, and Spain, and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Notwithstanding the African Academy dissent, representatives of six African national academies, among them four from countries of sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda) were among the fifty-eight signatories.


The growing world population

The world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers. It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion in 1993.

This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death rates (particularly infant and child mortality rates), combined with sustained high birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.

Over the last 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. These successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the "demographic transition."

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses worldwide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios* for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people before leveling off at the end of the 21st century.

Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the 21st century and decline slowly thereafter.

Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

The actual outcome will have enormous implications for the human condition and for the natural environment on which all life depends.


Key determinants of population growth

High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, high childhood mortality rates, low status and educational levels of women, deficiencies in reproductive health services, and inadequate availability and acceptance of contraceptives. Falling fertility rates and the demographic transition are generally associated with improved standards of living, such as increased per capita incomes, increased life expectancy, lowered infant mortality, increased adult literacy, and higher rates of female education and employment.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged rural populations in less developed countries who benefit least from the process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also, access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic security influence their reproductive decisions.


Population growth, resource consumption, and the environment

Throughout history and especially during the twentieth century, environmental degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person. Resource use, waste production and environmental degradation are accelerated by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits, certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization and resource management.

As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel-wood in many parts of the world.

While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest part of mineral and fossil-fuel consumption, resulting in significant environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization, which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive environmental remediation efforts.

The relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore, poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging exploitation of marginal resources.

Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in reorienting their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development. If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less developed and transitional countries.


The earth is finite

The growth of population over the last half century was for a time matched by similar world-wide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the last decade food production from both land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.



Quality of life and the environment

Our common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic, and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights; and allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment. We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful practices, and protecting the natural environment.

But time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons, inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.


Human reproductive health

The timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health of the mother, her children, and her family. Most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life.

Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married women of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the director-general of UNICEF put it, ''Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient numbers, through a variety of channels and distribution, sensitively adapted to local needs.

But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry. Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible, and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include the following:

Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social, and economic life.

Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options. irrespective of an individual's ability to pay.

Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination of unsafe and coercive practices.

Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation, broad primary health care measures and education; and that foster empowerment of the poor and women.

"The adoption of a smaller family norm, with consequent decline in total fertility, should not be viewed only in demographic terms. It means that people, and particularly women, are empowered and are taking control of their fertility and the planning of their lives; it means that children are born by choice, not by chance, and that births are better planned; and it means that families are able to invest relatively more in a smaller number of beloved children, trying to prepare them for a better future."*


Sustainability of the natural world as everyone's responsibility

In addressing environmental problems, all countries face hard choices. This is particularly so when it is perceived that there are short-term tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental protection, and where there are limited financial resources. But the downside risks to the earth—our environmental life support system—over the next generation and beyond are too great to ignore. Current trends in environmental degradation from human activities combined with the unavoidable increase in global population will take us into unknown territory.

Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken, environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become more efficient in both resource use and environmental protection, and to encourage an ethic that eschews wasteful consumption. If prices, taxes, and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing "technology for environment" should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable development.

For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting; and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions, communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways. Tradeoffs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions, as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity, and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental protection.

What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect

As scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and poverty.

The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing new understanding so that governments and other institutions can act more effectively, and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals should study and provide advice on:

Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational, and political factors that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.

Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result from economic inefficiencies: social inequalities; and ethnic, class, or gender biases.

Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity, soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics), and policies to mitigate its effects.

Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource development, with special attention to women.

Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes, and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal and child health care.

Transitions to economies that provide increased human welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.

Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries, including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary assessments of societal issues.

Technologies and strategies for sustainable development (agriculture, energy, resource use, pollution control, materials recycling, environmental management and protection).

Networks, treaties, and conventions that protect the global commons.

Strengthened world-wide exchanges of scientists in education, training, and research.


Action is needed now

Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues of population, environment, and development. Scientists today have the opportunity and responsibility to mount a concerted effort to confront our human predicament. But science and technology can only provide tools and blueprints for action and social change. It is the governments and international decision-makers, including those meeting in Cairo next September at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development, who hold the key to our future. We urge them to take incisive action now and to adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. With each year's delay the problems become more acute. Let 1994 be remembered as the year when the people of the world decided to act together for the benefit of future generations.

Reprinted from Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, no. 1 (March 1994):233-238

overpopulation -- NOW A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

Bull shit. Population is the boon that India has had. It was a boon in the past and its a boon today. The mumbo jumbo about high Population is bad is western propaganda directed at India and China. Now China is running short of Kids, they are soon going to loose everything that they have achieved in the past 20 years.

Without the Indian population, Hindus would have been exterminated from earth due to the actions of Mughals and British.

Even in the times of Herodotus, Indian population was dense.

Start thinking without the western glasses. The huge Indian population is a big boon.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Why "Resource Sufficiency Evaluation" is Crucial: Sustainable World Initiatives

> Sustainable Development is Not the Same as Sustainability:

Sustainability, from a natural resource perspective, means that we don't take things from
nature faster than nature can replace them. For an ecosystem like a forest, it means that
we don't harvest trees faster than the forest can regrow them. Otherwise we will eventually
destroy the forest. For an underground aquifer system, it means that we don't pump water
out faster than it is naturally replenished. Making development more efficient, and thus more
sustainable, is important, but merely making economic activity more sustainable does not
guarantee that we are living within nature's means.

> We're Already Consuming Resources at an Unsustainable Rate:

With 7 billion people on the planet and rising levels of affluence, we are already exceeding
nature's limits. Every two years, the Global Footprint Network and the World Wildlife Fund
publish a "Living Planet" report that looks at humanity's ecological footprint. The latest
report, issued in 2010, indicates that humankind is already overusing the renewable resource
capacity of Earth's biosphere by 50%. Climate change, peak oil, water scarcity, biodiversity
loss, and recurring food crises are all signs that humanity is overusing global resources.
Leading scientists warn that we are in biological and general resource overshoot.

> We're Already in Danger of Breaking Planetary Boundaries:

Thirty leading scientists assembled by the Stockholm Resilience Centre have identified nine
"planetary boundaries," which, if crossed, could cause irreparable harm to the planet and
the prospects for future human well-being. According to these scientists, we have already
exceeded three of these important boundaries: climate change, nitrogen loadings, and the
rate of biodiversity loss. The other six boundaries—ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone,
aerosol loadings, freshwater use, land use changes, and chemical pollution—to varying
degrees are also approaching a scale "where abrupt global environmental change can no
longer be excluded."

> The Challenge is Getting Larger, Not Smaller:

The demands that we are placing upon the planet are growing exponentially. According to
U.N. projections, world population—currently 7 billion—is likely to grow to 9 billion by 2042
and to over 10 billion by 2085. At the same time, the world's economic output continues to
rise at 3-4 percent a year, putting enormous pressures on a fragile ecology and a dwindling
resource base.

> "Greening" the Economy is Necessary, but Not Sufficient:

With the world economy on track to quadruple in size over the next half century, any gains
we make in producing renewable energy or in conserving resources will not, in all likelihood,
be enough to achieve a sustainable world. Indeed, historical data show that technological
advances can accelerate the rate at which natural resources are consumed and the
environment is impacted. Green technologies may help to de-link resource extraction from
economic growth, but—by themselves—they will not ensure progress toward sustainability.

> Resource Exploitation has Propelled Human Progress:

In the past 100 years we have made major strides in improving the human condition. Average
life spans have more than doubled. Food production has more than quadrupled. Living
standards in many countries have increased by a factor of at least ten. Our progress has been
propelled by the extraction of fossil fuels and the exploitation of natural resources, but it has
taken a terrible toll on the environment, and our resource base is steadily shrinking.

> Our Very Future Depends on Resource Sufficiency:

We cannot maintain the progress we have made in eliminating poverty and eradicating
hunger, unless we maintain an adequate resource base. Continued advances in human
welfare will require sufficient land, water, minerals, and metals. We will also need healthy
ecosystems capable of sustaining a wide range of biological diversity, including human life.

> Sustainability Requires Resource Sufficiency Evaluation:

We will never know if we have enough resources to maintain human development unless
we actually evaluate our resource demands and compare them to what is available. No one
would think of driving a car or flying a plane without a fuel gauge. By the same token, we
cannot plan for our future without knowing whether we have enough resources to meet our
projected needs. Every nation, whether its economy is developed or developing, should
undertake a resource sufficiency evaluation, and the international community should provide
technical support. At the same time, world leaders must undertake an international resource
sufficiency evaluation to gauge global progress towards a sustainable world.

> Methodologies Already Exist for Doing Resource Sufficiency Evaluations:

Scientifically-based accounting methodologies, such as the ecological footprint, are already
available to conduct resource sufficiency evaluations. These methodologies, and the biophysical
'balance sheets' that are generated, will give policymakers and the public a clearer
understanding of sustainability and what is needed to achieve it. Our future depends on it.
Resource Sufficiency Evaluation is our Road Map to a Sustainable Future.

Resource Sufficiency Evaluation is our Road Map to a Sustainable Future.

http://www.populationinstitute.org/external/files/Fact_Sheets/SWI_2_Pager.pdf

Sustainable World Initiative
Listen Mate,

Indians are not as exploitative like the rest are. I am not talking of today. Because we have had pretty much everything in plenty, we never needed to invade any country.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Bull shit. Population is the boon that India has had. It was a boon in the past and its a boon today. The mumbo jumbo about high Population is bad is western propaganda directed at India and China. Now China is running short of Kids, they are soon going to loose everything that they have achieved in the past 20 years.

Without the Indian population, Hindus would have been exterminated from earth due to the actions of Mughals and British.

Even in the times of Herodotus, Indian population was dense.

Start thinking without the western glasses. The huge Indian population is a big boon.
population of India was only 341million in 1947, at the time of freedom, and right now India has 350million Upper Middle Class with per capita income on PPP at around $20,000 which is very similar to very high HDI countries like Saudi Arabia, Poland, Argentina etc. :india:

now India is a poor country then its because you have 400million poor and 400 million 'Under Class'. hence I would say that Ideal population of India would be around 750million :thumb:
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
You got to educate yourself with what Indian authors have written, not what the west has written about us. Many pseudo seculars on this forum will call this attitude as Hindutvavadi. I have a word for them - Macaulay Putra - those who have difference anxiety from below and are ashamed of everything Indian about them. Sad state of affairs. We wont be taught the truth in schools, because the edifice on which the western control of Indian media is based crumbles. And do you know what happens when the cookie crumbles?
 

Attachments

Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Scientists: 'One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustained


Scientists say at least 2 billion dead bodies will be burned and converted into fossil fuels.

WASHINGTON—Saying there's no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet's resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species. :facepalm:

Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying. :toilet:

And soon, the scientists confirmed.

"I'm just going to level with you—the earth's carrying capacity will no longer be able to keep up with population growth, and civilization will end unless large swaths of human beings are killed, so the question is: How do we want to do this?" Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin Peters said. "Do we want to give everyone a number and implement a death lottery system? Incinerate the nation's children? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun and let them sort it out themselves?" :facepalm:

"Completely up to you," he added, explaining he and his colleagues were "open to whatever." "Unfortunately, we are well past the point of controlling overpopulation through education, birth control, and the empowerment of women. In fact, we should probably kill 300 million women right off the bat."

Because the world's population may double by the end of the century, an outcome that would lead to a considerable decrease in the availability of food, land, and water, researchers said that, bottom line, it would be helpful if a lot of people chose to die willingly, the advantage being that these volunteers could decide for themselves whether they wished to die slowly, quickly, painfully, or peacefully.

Additionally, the scientists noted that in order to stop the destruction of global environmental systems in heavily populated regions, there's no avoiding the reality that half the world's progeny will have to be sterilized.

"The longer we wait, the higher the number of people who will have to die, so we might as well just get it over with," said Dr. Chelsea Klepper, head of agricultural studies at Purdue Univer**sity, and the leading proponent of a worldwide death day in which 2.3 billion people would kill themselves en masse at the exact same time. "At this point, it's merely a question of coordination. If we can get the populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Beijing, India, Europe, and Latin America to voluntarily off themselves at 6 p.m. EST on June 1, we can kill the people that need to be killed and the planet can finally start renewing its resources."

Thus far, humanity has been presented with a great variety of death options, among them, poisoning the world's water supply with cadmium, picking one person per household to be killed in the privacy of his or her home, mass beheadings, and gathering 2.3 billion people all in one place and obliterating them with a single hydrogen bomb. :fencing:

Sources confirmed that if a death solution is not in place by Mar. 31, the U.N., in the interest of preserving the human race, will mobilize its peacekeeping forces and gun down as many people as necessary.

"I don't care how it happens, but a ton of Africans have to go, because by 2025, there's no way that continent will be able to feed itself," :toilet: said Dr. Henry Craig of the Population Research Institute. "And by my estimation, three babies have to die for every septuagenarian, because their longer life expectancy means babies have the potential to release far more greenhouse gases going forward."

While the majority of the world's populace reportedly understands this is the only option left to save civilization, not all members of the human race are eager to die.

"I personally would rather live, but taking the long view, I can see how ensuring the survival of humanity is best," said Norwich, CT resident and father of three Jason Atkins. "I guess if we were to do it over again, it would make sense to do a better job conserving the earth's finite resources."

"Hopefully, the people who remain on the planet will use the mass slaughter of their friends and loved ones as an incentive to be more responsible going forward," he added.

Scientists: 'Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Impact of Population Growth

India is the best country to study the consequences of over population. Geometric growth in population has pushed our country into population explosion leading to number of serious consequences. Some of them are:

"¢Decreased availability of food and clothing.

"¢Decreased per capita food availability despite phenomenal increase in their production.

"¢Decreased per capita GMP and reduced standard of living due to ever increasing population.

"¢Increased pressure on resources like land, water, natural forests, animals etc. leading to many far reaching effects like:

a) Fragmentation of land below the economic level.

b) Acute shortage of drinking and irrigation water.

c) Denudation of forest (Deforestation) to increase the area under agriculture.

d) Pollution of water, land, food materials etc.

"¢Urbanistaion beyond a healthy developmental limit as more rural people shift to towns / cities in search of better work / earning. Urbanization has led to may problems such as

a) Increased housing problems in cities / towns.

b) Very high vehicular movement in cities / towns leading to accidents, pollution, etc.

c) Serious problem connected to vast urban waste generation and its disposal.

d) Serious drinking water shortages.

e) Unending demands for civic amenities like roads, transport, markets, etc.

"¢Unemployment problems of serious dimension both in urban and rural areas leading to reduced per capita earning, poverty, etc.

"¢Hunger deaths - because of reduced per capita food availability and poor distribution of food.

"¢Acute shortage of medical facilities including qualified doctors, medicines, dispensaries, modern health care facilities etc - due to high population.

"¢Shortage of education facilities including schools, colleges, qualified teachers.

"¢Serious shortage of power and problems connected with its distribution.

"¢Increased inflation.

"¢Increased borrowings from international organisations.

"¢Reduced care of young ones leading to increased child health problems as well as vulnerability of children to many diseases.

"¢Reduced health care to mothers.

"¢Difficulties encountered in implementation of all national and state developmental programmes.

"¢Increased government expenditure.

"¢Increased density of population.


In India, the over population has engulfed almost all our achievements in industrial growth, agricultural production, supporting services like medical care, housing, transport, education, banking etc. It has put serious pressures on every sector of our economy and every section of society. Almost all our national problems can be traced back to have their roots in overgrowing population.

At global level, China and India are facing overpopulation issues of highest magnitude. But rate of growth of population has reduced in China substantially in recent years.

Consequences of over Population/impact of Population Growth | Tutorvista.com

Population growth is threat to other species
Mar 04, 2013

Nearly two-thirds of American voters believe that human population growth is driving other animal species to extinction and that if the situation gets worse, society has a "moral responsibility to address the problem," according to new national public opinion poll. :thumb:

A slightly lower percentage of those polled - 59 percent - believes that population growth is an important environmental issue and 54 percent believe that stabilizing the population will help protect the environment.

The survey was conducted on behalf of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, which unlike other environmental groups has targeted population growth as part of its campaign to save wildlife species from extinction. :thumb:

The center has handed out more than half a million condoms at music concerts, farmers markets, churches and college campuses with labels featuring drawings of endangered species and playful, even humorous, messages such as, "Wrap with care, save the polar bear."

The organization hired a polling companyto show other environmental groups that their fears about alienating the public by bringing up population matters are overblown, said Kieran Suckling, the center's executive director. When the center broke the near-silence on population growth with its condom campaign, other environmental leaders "reacted with a mix of worry and horror that we were going to experience a huge backlash and drag them into it," he said.

Instead, Suckling said the campaign has swelled its membership - now about 500,000 - and donations and energized 5,000 volunteers who pass out prophylactics. He said a common response is, "Thank God, someone is talking about this critical issue."

The poll results, he said, show such views are mainstream.

In the survey, the pollsters explained that the world population hit 7 billion last year and is projected to reach 10 billion by the end of the century. Given those facts, 50 percemt of people reached by telephone said they think the world population is growing too fast, while 38 percent said population growth was on the right pace and 4 percent thought it was growing too slowly. About 8 percent were not sure.

Sixty-one percent of respondents expressed concerned about disappearing wildlife. Depending how the question was phrased, 57 percent to 64 percent of respondents said population growth was having an adverse effect. If widespread wildlife extinctions were unavoidable without slowing human population growth, 60 percent agreed that society has a moral responsibility to address the problem.

Respondents didn't make as clear a connection between population and climate change, reflecting the decades-old debate over population growth versus consumption. Although 57 percent of respondents agreed that population growth is making climate change worse, only 46 percent said they think having more people will make it harder to solve, and 34 percent said the number of people will make no difference.

Asked about natural resources, 48 percent said they think the average American consumes too much. The view split sharply along party lines, with 62 percent of Democrats saying the average American consumes too much, compared with 29 percent of Republicans. Independents fell in the middle at 49 percent.
The survey of 657 registered voters was conducted Feb. 22-24 by Public Policy Polling, a Raleigh, N.C., company that takes the pulse of voters for Democratic candidates and Democratic-leaning clients. It has a margin of error of 3.9 percent.

Population growth is threat to other species, poll respondents say
 

natarajan

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
2,592
Likes
762
Have to get 2 child policy strict with third one wont get any government benefit and it will placed under oc category . But conki with only vote bank and family priority wont do it
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top