Consequences of High Population

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
its a simple case that Over Population of India is directly related to the survival of Earth. you just can't destroy this world by overpopulation, as this is what you can do, as you can't be controlled. Chinese have as much respect that they may 'enforce' One Child Policy, but they won't like their people to run from China as they can't have good life in China itself. and its a fact that Middle Class of India would be around 500 million only, rest are either poor or 'Under Class'..........

Indian Government has to think to the level, with little respect inside, that they do have to control the population, whether they do this by themselves or the rest of the world force them to do so :toilet:. there can't be a reason for the distruction of this world, and Over Population of India is one of the main reasons in this regard :toilet: :facepalm:

=> Fred Pearce: Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat | Environment | guardian.co.uk

=> overpopulation -- NOW A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

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

=> China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents – if they follow the rules | Environment | The Guardian :china:

=> Real threat to environment is increasing population - India - DNA

=> Population growth biggest threat to India's development | RTCC Climate Change News

=> Family planning- One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible? - Youth Ki Awaaz :india:

in fact, before the rest of the world start pushing India to bring its population below 700million, at least, Indian government would have little shame by its own and start working in this direction, as soon as they can. :ranger:

(population of India was hardly around 347million at the time of freedom in 1947 so keeping a 'Population Cap' at 700million is fair enough, a target to be achieved by 2050, say :india:
 
Last edited:

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

Real Threat to Environment is Increasing Population

Sunday, June 5, was World Environment Day. A day when polyester-fibre ribbons were cut and bulky books and reports using bleached fine stationery and funds from international agencies launched in CFC-using air conditioned wood-panelled halls. A day when the elites had the satisfaction of doing something for the environment and when schools encouraged children to use wax crayons and synthetic paints to paint trees and animals (which most of them have never seen except from the balcony of the resort-room in vacation or a fleeting glance of a black-buck when the family went on tiger-watching safari but failed to see one) on fine grade virgin-paper.

Some enthusiastic urban yuppies parked themselves for a few extra hours in front of the PC to shoot a thousand mails to countless like-minded about their wish to switch off power for an hour on a particular day to 'Save Environment'. This will be followed by couple of parties and boozing sessions to finalise the plans, which are then communicated through more emails, phone calls, bike rallies, SMS and so on.

India's problem with the environment is best illustrated and manifested at the safari parks. Moneyed and fat, gutkha-chewing and power-wielding urban families land in the finest forest resorts in subsidised diesel-burning expensive SUVs with the most expensive cameras and gadgetry to watch tigers and (lions if the place is Gir forest). Early in the morning, hundreds of them turn out, ready to shell out Rs3,000-Rs4,000 for an entry permit, entry ticket, guide charges, vehicle fees etc, outside the forest department offices.

A caravan of 50 SUVs, each loaded with about eight to 10 people, all searching for a tiger. Soon the guides create excitement over a wireless message about a tiger spotting some distance away.

They wear an earnest air to convince you. When you return frustrated, they congratulate every one. "Boss, do you see that? You are damn lucky! The tiger passed just 5-minutes back"¦. See that fresh tiger-potty"¦. It wasn't there 15 minutes earlier. Its still watery"¦.". I will spare you the banal details of what all the guides hard sell.

The cubs, the children and adults then go back with souvenirs of Save the Tiger T-shirts and caps. Can any one in a sane state of mind actually believe that the tiger or even a wild sparrow wait at a corner under a thicket when a circus of a dozen diesel-guzzling and noise-belching vehicles pass by? Do 500 people who have spent about Rs10,000 per head for a jungle vacation really believe that a tiger will be waiting to give them a 'darshan' amid high-pitched-cacophony in all the spoken languages of India?

These people maybe silly, like most of us are, but they are not ill-meaning. They just don't know what to do about the environment: so they decide to spend their hard-earned money to at least see it. Someone needs to tell them what they can do to not ruin it; there is no need to make a patronising statement to save it.

The whole circus of environment protection in India is heading towards becoming a farcical industry. They are far from talking about the real problem. Under the disguise of development and growth, the spineless politicians and money-multiplying industries will want to avoid talking about it. The economists have re-packaged the weakness as strength. The real problem lies in the ever-increasing population of India. With 1/5 of the world's population, we have only 1/20 of the world's land. We also have the world's highest population growth rate on such a scale of population. For a simple comparison, we don't even have one-third the land resources that China has. :facepalm:

How is a fragile eco-system of a river or even a sea, if some 5 billion people use a flush daily? How can rain forests exist if the country consumes several lakh tons of tea every morning? Like the disappearing Aravalli Hills, most of the hills near urban sprawls will soon be history as they will be consumed for mammoth construction projects as raw material. This nation needs an immediate re-look at the population policy and consumption of resources for industries if we don't want to end up killing each other for a glass of fresh water or for a breath of fresh air. Will any economist, environmentalist please stand up on this occasion to tell the truth — where will we head with the exponential multiplication of our population?

Real threat to environment is increasing population - India - DNA
 
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


Western 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

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.

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. :thumb: 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
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,212
Country flag
The real problem in our country is severe over population. There are just way too many freeloaders.

80% of the country depends on the high quality work of 20% people in the country. Industries that produce and generate high end products are minimal and therefore there is limited generation of income which continuously gets distributed to the ever-growing population at an alarming rate.

The day the culture of 'free subsidies' starts dying out, incomes are raised and ONLY THE WORTHY are chosen to work and produce output rather everyone and anyone living on governmental freebies, will be the day when our economy actually puts up.

The Freeloader V/S Revenue Generator ratio is very poor in India which further comes from discriminatory and biased political vested interests, more so with unlimited number of parties sprouting here and there.

First of all, anything below state level election should be banned. Politicization of everything right from national to district levels is another reason that power hungry politicians weaken the structure and therefore create an effect that snowballs into a labouring economy.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,212
Country flag
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.

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. :thumb: 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
Tell that to the folks from 'Religion of Peace' where polygamy, having a soccer team of kids and further encouragement to have a larger family is the underlying theme of life.
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
We will see high population (and young at that) countries get rich to a certain extent and then slowly "colonize" the erstwhile super power and colonial powers. It with very old population. We are already seeing that. Say a country like Britain will be completely dominated by Indians a few decades from now. What happened 400 years ago will be reversed.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! :rolleyes:
What we need is a healthy balance. Any policy may backfire. Various situations of backfire:
Tell that to the folks from 'Religion of Peace' where polygamy, having a soccer team of kids and further encouragement to have a larger family is the underlying theme of life.

Real Threat to Environment is Increasing Population

Sunday, June 5, was World Environment Day. A day when polyester-fibre ribbons were cut and bulky books and reports using bleached fine stationery and funds from international agencies launched in CFC-using air conditioned wood-panelled halls. A day when the elites had the satisfaction of doing something for the environment and when schools encouraged children to use wax crayons and synthetic paints to paint trees and animals (which most of them have never seen except from the balcony of the resort-room in vacation or a fleeting glance of a black-buck when the family went on tiger-watching safari but failed to see one) on fine grade virgin-paper.

Some enthusiastic urban yuppies parked themselves for a few extra hours in front of the PC to shoot a thousand mails to countless like-minded about their wish to switch off power for an hour on a particular day to 'Save Environment'. This will be followed by couple of parties and boozing sessions to finalise the plans, which are then communicated through more emails, phone calls, bike rallies, SMS and so on.

India's problem with the environment is best illustrated and manifested at the safari parks. Moneyed and fat, gutkha-chewing and power-wielding urban families land in the finest forest resorts in subsidised diesel-burning expensive SUVs with the most expensive cameras and gadgetry to watch tigers and (lions if the place is Gir forest). Early in the morning, hundreds of them turn out, ready to shell out Rs3,000-Rs4,000 for an entry permit, entry ticket, guide charges, vehicle fees etc, outside the forest department offices.

A caravan of 50 SUVs, each loaded with about eight to 10 people, all searching for a tiger. Soon the guides create excitement over a wireless message about a tiger spotting some distance away.

They wear an earnest air to convince you. When you return frustrated, they congratulate every one. "Boss, do you see that? You are damn lucky! The tiger passed just 5-minutes back"¦. See that fresh tiger-potty"¦. It wasn't there 15 minutes earlier. Its still watery"¦.". I will spare you the banal details of what all the guides hard sell.

The cubs, the children and adults then go back with souvenirs of Save the Tiger T-shirts and caps. Can any one in a sane state of mind actually believe that the tiger or even a wild sparrow wait at a corner under a thicket when a circus of a dozen diesel-guzzling and noise-belching vehicles pass by? Do 500 people who have spent about Rs10,000 per head for a jungle vacation really believe that a tiger will be waiting to give them a 'darshan' amid high-pitched-cacophony in all the spoken languages of India?

These people maybe silly, like most of us are, but they are not ill-meaning. They just don't know what to do about the environment: so they decide to spend their hard-earned money to at least see it. Someone needs to tell them what they can do to not ruin it; there is no need to make a patronising statement to save it.

The whole circus of environment protection in India is heading towards becoming a farcical industry. They are far from talking about the real problem. Under the disguise of development and growth, the spineless politicians and money-multiplying industries will want to avoid talking about it. The economists have re-packaged the weakness as strength. The real problem lies in the ever-increasing population of India. With 1/5 of the world's population, we have only 1/20 of the world's land. We also have the world's highest population growth rate on such a scale of population. For a simple comparison, we don't even have one-third the land resources that China has. :facepalm:

How is a fragile eco-system of a river or even a sea, if some 5 billion people use a flush daily? How can rain forests exist if the country consumes several lakh tons of tea every morning? Like the disappearing Aravalli Hills, most of the hills near urban sprawls will soon be history as they will be consumed for mammoth construction projects as raw material. This nation needs an immediate re-look at the population policy and consumption of resources for industries if we don't want to end up killing each other for a glass of fresh water or for a breath of fresh air. Will any economist, environmentalist please stand up on this occasion to tell the truth — where will we head with the exponential multiplication of our population?

Real threat to environment is increasing population - India - DNA

One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?

Rising population has been much of a concern for our nation in past few decades. To counter the drastic increase we have till now resorted to steps like providing free Family Health Planning facilities for married couples (you know the common ones I am talking about) and launching less-given-heed-to campaigns of Hum Do Hamare Do which lately has become Hum do Hamara Ek, thinking that the country which is having the largest illiterate population in the world would give heed to such campaigns. The situation demands stricter government interference to combat the exploding population.

A One Child Norm, similar to what Chinese have done, is one of the possible solutions at hand. Implementing such a policy in a country like ours is not so easy. With likely protests from political parties, ethnic groups, religious bodies and other idle social organizations getting yet another issue to raise their voices against, implementing this would not be an easy task.

Let's go deep into the problem of rising population and the 'One Child Norm' solution.


Why is One Child Norm (OCN) important?

â–  â– Bursting population of our nation. Increasing poverty, unemployment, social, economic, and environmental problems day by day.

â– With a definite check on population growth, such a norm will help us in providing quality health care facilities and increasing our literacy rate as population has a cascading effect on these issues.

â– Limited availability of resources. 40% of the people live below poverty line and cannot easily afford meal two times a day.

â– Such a norm may promote adoption of orphans thereby reducing number of orphans in India which currently tops the list.

â– Indian Medical Association (IMA) has been reiterating its suggestion to implement OCN based on their survey. :truestory:


Associated Hurdles and Drawbacks of Norm

â–  â– ONC or TCN? Should it be a One Child Norm or Two Child Norm? If we go for two child norm, should there be a birth spacing as it is there in Chinese one child norm policy? (In China, a second child is allowed with 3-4 years spacing between the birth of two children but only if the first child is a female) :thumb:

â– Rural and Urban Factor: If implemented, should it be both in rural and urban areas or either of them? India has around 70% of rural population and rest urban or semi-urban. China too has majority of rural population but it has implemented policy only for families living in urban areas.

â– Increased Abortions: This norm may lead to increase in female foeticide (few
states already have sex ratio below 900 females/1000 males).

â– Political hurdles: Unanimous decision on this issue is tough to be made amongst the parties and the bill implementing this norm may not be passed easily.

â– Effect on population and economic growth: Considering the fact that India is a labour intensive nation, known for cheap labour, such a restriction in the long run may result in a shortage of labour and can affect economic growth of nation.

â– Improved Family Health Planning: To practically bring such a norm into existence, more awareness for contraceptives would need to be created when India is already struggling to do it.

â– Controversial nature of policy: The government may have to come up with separate norms for minorities who are more likely to protest such a norm.

â– Fine and depriving individuals of other Govt. benefits: The fine to be imposed on breaking such a norm is again a big issue. Where per capita income of Indians is approximately Rs 48000, the fine for bringing a new life into existence is tough to decide. It can be similar to our tax slab depending on the financial condition of an individual.

â– Sudden Decline in Population: India already has a declining population growth rate since 1980s (1.34% in 2008[1]) and also a lower life expectancy (around 69 years [avg. of male and female]). Given this fact, our Health Ministry through Population Foundation of India will need to justify that OCN will be a success and it will not lead to sudden decrease in population in coming years.

â– The danger of extinction of family name in case of premature deaths of the only child in families following OCN.

â– Other Complications: Policy for NRIs would be an issue.


Solution to the problem

â–  â– A National Survey amongst all adults is required to be done in a transparent manner since it concerns all citizens and would help in a consensus on this issue.

â– Initially a one child norm to bring a sooner decrease and when population is stabilised we can switch to two child norm.

â– Policy to be revised (if required) in each Five Year Plan and should not be a permanent one. If we face any adverse problems it can be withdrawn, but giving it a start is very important and a need of the hour.

â– Implement it only in urban areas for first few five year plans and judge its demographic effect.

â– Relaxation in the norm (as in China): If there are no siblings of a married couple then the couple can have two children.

To conclude, we can say that One Child Norm seems to be a necessity but its implementation in India requires careful juxtaposition of facts and figures in hand.

Family planning- One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
its a simple case that Over Population of India is directly related to the survival of Earth. you just can't destroy this world by overpopulation, as this is what you can do, as you can't be controlled. Chinese have as much respect that they may 'enforce' One Child Policy, but they won't like their people to run from China as they can't have good life in China itself. and its a fact that Middle Class of India would be around 500 million only, rest are either poor or 'Under Class' :toilet:

Indian Government has to think to the level, with little respect inside, that they do have to control the population, whether they do this by themselves or the rest of the world force them to do so :toilet: . there musn't be any reason for the distruction of this world, and Over Population of India is one of the main reasons in this regard
:facepalm:


=> Fred Pearce: Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat | Environment | guardian.co.uk

=> overpopulation -- NOW A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

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

=> China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents – if they follow the rules | Environment :china:

=> Real threat to environment is increasing population - India - DNA
We need "Population Tax" on evey 'additional' child of India :india:

to be paid to India and rest of the world, both


with the above suggestion of OCP or TCP, i favor 'Population Tax' on every child after the first one. say, $100,000 for the second one, $500,000 for the 3rd child, and $2.0million/ $5.0million each for the next ones.....

I mean, if soneone want to put any burden on the country, on the world as whole/ on the environment, then he/she would first pay for it :thumb:

I even favor, 50% of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the world bank, to handle the global environmental issue due to India's 'additional' population. i mean, if any person wants more than one child, then half of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the Indian government to handle the related consequences on India, the nation, and helf of the Population Tax to be given to World Bank to handle the environmental issues due to India's "additional" population :truestory:

(and hence, the same we may demand from the rest of high population countries too, pay "Population Tax" to World Bank to handle the related environmental issues :ranger:.)
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
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???????

"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'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. - See more at: MFN status to ruin agriculture, industry alike | Agriculture Corner

MFN status to ruin agriculture, industry alike | Agriculture Corner

here for example of Pakistan and Bangladesh, right now overly populated Pakistan is full of target killings, simply because too many mouth and no resources to feed them. its also 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:


=> 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 . 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 . 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

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



=> Population of India was hardly around 341 million at the time of freedom, in 1947, and we can't have more than 700 million people, and we need a national consensus on it. :india:

and as Overpopulation of India is directly related to consumption of natural resources of the world, high pollution and hence Climate Change due to high consumption of energy. reduced water level has also been caused in India due to the same high population and hence high demand reasons, hence India is directly answerable to the rest of the world about the measures it is adopting to reduce its population to 700 million, say by 2050 :thumb:

we can't let India become one of the reason for the destruction of this world, as the Earth belongs to every person of the world, regardless any nationality :ranger:

first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and on the top of that, they want to feed them for nothing too :rofl:

=> At Rs 1,25,000 cr, Food Security Bill largest in world, says Morgan Stanley - Economic Times
 
Last edited:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
@hello_10 there's sort of "social burden fee" (literrally) charged in China for extra birth but varying fm place to place, usually at the amount of annual income of the household. it sounds a good idea to formalize it as "population tax" to ensure the revenue be collected centrally and properly. however it may cause some problems in implementation - 1) it limits imdividual freedom as to decide how many children one may hv like China has always bn accused of human rights abuses 2) it sounds unethical or politically incorrect to admit the richer u r the more kids u r allowed. what if one fails to put up the money ? denying their access to medicare or education? or ?years of imprisonment?

BTW 500mil mid class as u estimate in India - what're the parameters for a mid class, such as an income/property of ?crores, or owning an Ambassador sedan?

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
@hello_10 there's sort of "social burden fee" (literrally) charged in China for extra birth but varying fm place to place, usually at the amount of annual income of the household. it sounds a good idea to formalize it as "population tax" to ensure the revenue be collected centrally and properly. however it may cause some problems in implementation - 1) it limits imdividual freedom as to decide how many children one may hv like China has always bn accused of human rights abuses 2) it sounds unethical or politically incorrect to admit the richer u r the more kids u r allowed. what if one fails to put up the money ? denying their access to medicare or education? or ?years of imprisonment?

BTW 500mil mid class as u estimate in India - what're the parameters for a mid class, such as an income/property of ?crores, or owning an Ambassador sedan?

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2

i discussed it in my post#91, it adopted the PPP conversion method which was in application till 2007, check.....

here i calculated around 350million Middle Class in India only, but we are now habituated to say it closed to 500million, which is little overly estimated, true :ranger:

India is now the country where difference is too much, check posts#95. and also #99, #100, its the same Mumbai where 50% population live in slum or in little better condition :facepalm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@hello_10 there's sort of "social burden fee" (literrally) charged in China for extra birth but varying fm place to place, usually at the amount of annual income of the household. it sounds a good idea to formalize it as "population tax" to ensure the revenue be collected centrally and properly. however it may cause some problems in implementation - 1) it limits imdividual freedom as to decide how many children one may hv like China has always bn accused of human rights abuses 2) it sounds unethical or politically incorrect to admit the richer u r the more kids u r allowed. what if one fails to put up the money ? denying their access to medicare or education? or ?years of imprisonment?

BTW 500mil mid class as u estimate in India - what're the parameters for a mid class, such as an income/property of ?crores, or owning an Ambassador sedan?

Sent from my 5910 using Tapatalk 2
Why should some one like me, who can afford to bring up even four children better than any poor man have no more than one child, when the same one child is being raised by the poor man, though he would bring them up in a lower condition?

Having Children is my birth FCKING RIGHT as a LIVING person. Thats is the precise reason we are in this world for- reproduction. Who the hell is the government to tell me how many I should have. This is the reason I hate Communists and Socialists. those fkcing retards think they are intellectuals and go about tell others how they should live their lives.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

amoy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
5,982
Likes
1,849
Why should some one like me, who can afford to bring up even four children better than any poor man have no more than one child, when the same one child is being raised by the poor man, though he would bring them up in a lower condition?

Having Children is my birth FCKING RIGHT as a LIVING person. Thats is the precise reason we are in this world for- reproduction. Who the hell is the government to tell me how many I should have. This is the reason I hate Communists and Socialists. those fkcing retards think they are intellectuals and go about tell others how they should live their lives.
So u agree to hello_10's idea to impact individual choice of reproduction by means of taxation, even though the rich is supposed to pay more tax if wanting to have more kids?

It has little to do with ideology, but more with Lebensraum.The same commie USSR actually encouraged birth contrary to China.

Good luck for u folks - more Indians than Chinese on the earth hopefully in one decade. :namaste:
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
So u agree to hello_10's idea to impact individual choice of reproduction by means of taxation, even though the rich is supposed to pay more tax if wanting to have more kids?
look, we need money to reduce high population effects on the Environment, on the climate change, and hence, those who want more than one child gotto pay for the expanses, thats it :truestory:


Having Children is my birth FCKING RIGHT as a LIVING person:toilet:. Thats is the precise reason we are in this world for- reproduction. Who the hell is the government to tell me how many I should have.:facepalm: This is the reason I hate Communists and Socialists. those fkcing retards think they are intellectuals and go about tell others how they should live their lives.
look, you can't have rights to fcuk others, you get the point?:scared1: this is what being discussed here in this thread, that those who have more than one child, those who may fcuk the country and the whole climate this way, we want them to pay for that first, thats it :ranger:

look, India is not a communist country like china, who may straight fcuk those like you who want to fcuk the nation, china, by having more than one child. but my this effort is to unite the whole world against those like you, who not only fcuk here and there, but they in fact fcuk whole climate this way, by having more than one child :thumb: :tsk:
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
We need "Population Tax" on evey 'additional' child of India :india:

to be paid to India and rest of the world, both


with the above suggestion of OCP or TCP, i favor 'Population Tax' on every child after the first one. say, $100,000 for the second one, $500,000 for the 3rd child, and $2.0million/ $5.0million each for the next ones.....

I mean, if soneone want to put any burden on the country, on the world as whole/ on the environment, then he/she would first pay for it :thumb:

I even favor, 50% of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the world bank, to handle the global environmental issue due to India's 'additional' population. i mean, if any person wants more than one child, then half of the "Population Tax" to be paid to the Indian government to handle the related consequences on India, the nation, and helf of the Population Tax to be given to World Bank to handle the environmental issues due to India's "additional" population.......

(and hence, the same we may demand from the rest of high population countries too, pay "Population Tax" to World Bank to handle the related environmental issues........)

it is being discussed that no need to think about any big amount but we may start from even "$1000" Population Tax on every child taking birth in India, which is not the first one. and this $1000 would be paid directly to the World Bank to help the concerned organization for their measures to reduce Climaye Change, which is mainly due to the high consumptions of resources by high populations, hence consumuing more energy this way to produce more pollution/ Greenhouse gases/carbon, which has brought this world on the verge of serious threats due Population Effected Environment Change....

around 30million kids taking birth in India every year, and at least 15million would not be the first child of any pair :nono:. hence even by $1000 Population Tax each on these second+ childs, we expect India to pay around at least $15billion+ every year to World Bank, the minimum, which may help the organizations who are working to reduce Climate Change effects :truestory:

we want a start in this direction, and "$1000" Population Tax on every non-first Child is on table right now :thumb:

:india: :usa:

 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
So u agree to hello_10's idea to impact individual choice of reproduction by means of taxation, even though the rich is supposed to pay more tax if wanting to have more kids?
I dont agree with the very idea that population is dangerous. Let the people have the kids they want and make them responsible for their choices instead of making it a state's responsibility

It has little to do with ideology, but more with Lebensraum.The same commie USSR actually encouraged birth contrary to China.
And if population was evil, why did USSR encourage it?

Nope, it has everything to do with the mindset of the people who are socialists or communists and not with Socialism or Communism per se. Its usually the Socialists and communists who think they have some god given right to dictate on what other people should do with their lives, like for instance, "dictate" the no. of children they "should" have.

Good luck for u folks - more Indians than Chinese on the earth hopefully in one decade. :namaste:
And there is nothing wrong with that . Do you know that the present arable lands of the world, with right technology can feed upto say 90Billion people?

Do you know that India is a net exporter of Food(means it has food sufficiency) , when it actually has a lower per hectare yield in crops than China? India can afford to host higher population.

But the problem as I see with population is of course the way it can become a liability if the economy is inefficient thanks to bad government policies
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
it is being discussed that no need to think about any big amount but we may start from even "$1000" Population Tax on every child taking birth in India, which is not the first one. and this $1000 would be paid directly to the World Bank to help the concerned organization for their measures to reduce Climaye Change, which is mainly due to the high consumptions of resources by high populations, hence consumuing more energy this way to produce more pollution/ Greenhouse gases/carbon, which has brought this world on the verge of serious threats due Population Effected Environment Change....

around 30million kids taking birth in India every year, and at least 15million would not be the first child of any pair :nono:. hence even by $1000 Population Tax each on these second+ childs, we expect India to pay around at least $15billion+ every year to World Bank, the minimum, which may help the organizations who are working to reduce Climate Change effects :truestory:

we want a start in this direction, and "$1000" Population Tax on every non-first Child is on table right now :thumb:

:india: :usa:
Is this non first child tax applicable to BPL people:rolleyes:?
 

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
Is this non first child tax applicable to BPL people:rolleyes:?

there can't be two laws in world, there can't be two types of people :nono:. even by a harldy $100 Population Tax "at start", but it will be equal for all the people of the world :thumb:. and this tax would be paid by every family of the world, of any country, for the every "non-first child", to help the concerned organization reduce its effects on the climate change. :truestory:
 
Last edited:

hello_10

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
1,880
Likes
680
@hello_10BTW 500mil mid class as u estimate in India - what're the parameters for a mid class, such as an income/property of ?crores, or owning an Ambassador sedan?

further to my last for you, while discussing the property prices of Mumbai, as in post#99. today we again discussed that Mumbai is the city, where one of the highest number of people live in slum, and it is the same city where the most expansive house of the world is located too, as below :ranger:

and its all about a need of a fit equation between population and consumption, how many people can have good life in a country by the limited resources it has. and here indians and rest of the world need to learn from china :thumb: :china:

india is the country of many "classes", not just the upper/ middle and lower classes :nono:. along with indian UHNWIs at around 8,200, as discussed in my post#95 . and with that, even middle class have "upper middle class" "general middle class" and the "lower middle class", and hence we generally say its number closed to 500million :ranger:

The Most Expensive Billionaire Homes In The World

The Most Expensive Billionaire Homes In The World - Forbes

Antilia, Mumbai, India

Value: upward of $1 billion

The twenty-seven story, 400,000-square foot skyscraper residence, named after a mythical island in the Atlantic, has six underground levels of parking, three helicopter pads, a 'health' level, and reportedly requires about 600 staff to run it. It is the world's most expensive home far and away with construction costs topping $1 billion.
The Most Expensive Billionaire Homes In The World - Forbes
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top