Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Crucial

Discussion in 'Economy & Infrastructure' started by sunny_10, Mar 6, 2014.

  1. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    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. :ranger: 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. :toilet:

    > We’re Already in Danger of Breaking Planetary Boundaries: :facepalm:

    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
     
  2.  
  3. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    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. :ranger:

    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.:facepalm: 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. :toilet: 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 over-consumption 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
     
  4. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    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. :facepalm:

    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
     
  5. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    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. :meeting:

    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, man-made 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. :facepalm:


    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
     
  6. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    :facepalm:



    :toilet:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    duplicate post
     
  8. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    Consequences of High Population

    The growth in human population around the world affects all people through its impacts on the economy, social and environment sectors. Rapid human population growth has a variety of consequences which in this essay it would be separated becoming micro and macro levels consequences. The micro level consequences in this context are referred to individual and family things while the macro level consequences are referred to regional, national and global things instead. :ranger:

    At the micro level, rapid population growth has delivered to unmet need which significantly threat child and maternal health and family welfare (United Nations Population Information Network / POPIN website). If the number of family member increases while the family income still in low rate (poor family) and can not cover the family needs, so then children may be affected by micronutrient deficiencies and easily attacked by diseases which also have a detrimental effect on growth and development. Furthermore, 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 (World Population Balance website). On the other hand, lower fertility levels resulting in smaller families were thought to benefit both parents and their children directly, at least the wife has more chance as an employment to support family welfare (United Nations Population Information Network / POPIN website).

    At the macro level, rapid population growth has delivered a number of consequences such as environmental threats, poverty, scarcities of food and fresh water and international security threat. :facepalm:

    Environmental Threats

    Rapid population growth will emerge the expansion of human activity. The expansion of human activity will cause the destruction of forest and the loss of biological diversity which may lead to instability of ecological systems and reducing ability of the ecosystem to combat global warming. As reality, the population growth is following by increasing of water pollution, erosion of hillsides and silting of rivers, increasing of greenhouse gases, rising sea levels, growing weather severity, disruption of agriculture, and increase the energy and resources consumption (Population Media Center website). :toilet:

    Poverty

    Rapid population growth aggravates poverty in developing countries by producing a high ratio of dependent children for each working adult. This leads to a relatively high percentage of income being spent on immediate survival needs of food, housing, and clothing, leaving little money for purchase of elective goods or for investment in the economy, education, government services, or infrastructure. Lack of available capital continues to frustrate the attempts of many developing countries to expand their economies and reduce poverty. :tsk: Only about 20 percent of the current world’s population has a generally adequate standard of living. :toilet:The other 80 percent live in conditions ranging from mild deprivation to severe deficiency. This imbalance is likely to get worse, as more than 90 percent of future population growth is projected for the less developed countries ( Population Media Center website)(see Figure 1)

    [​IMG]

    Scarcities of Food and Fresh Water

    Productive agricultural systems have contributed to economic progress in many countries, both developed and less developed. The Green Revolution of the 1970s enabled some developing countries to become net exporters of food. Yet, global population growth during and since the Green Revolution is continuing to consume more and more of the expanding food base, leading to a decline in per capita availability of cereal grains on a global basis over the last 15 years. :facepalm:

    The world’s agricultural systems rely substantially on increasing use of fertilizers. But now, the world’s farmers are witnessing signs of a declining response curve, where the use of additional fertilizer yields little additional food product. At the same time, fertilizers and intensive cropping lower the quality of soil. These factors will more and more limit the possibilities of raising food production substantially and will, at a minimum, boost relative food prices and resulting hunger for many. So will the mounting resistance of pests to insecticides, which are used increasingly by the world’s farmers. On a global basis, 37 percent of food and fiber crops are now lost to pests. At the same time, nitrogen-based fertilizers are yielding nitrous oxide, which adds to the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide humans produce.

    At the same time, shortages of water are at a crisis point in many countries. At least 400 million people live in regions with severe water shortages. By the year 2050, it is projected to be approximately two billion. Water tables on every continent are falling, as water is pumped out at far greater rates than rainwater can replenish in order to provide irrigation for agriculture. "India, for example, is pumping out its underground aquifers at twice the rate of natural replenishment." Humans are already using half of the globe’s products of photosynthesis and over half of all accessible fresh water. Long before human demand doubles again, the limits of the ecosystem’s ability to support people will become dramatically evident (Population Media Center website).

    Threats to International SecurityAs mentioned earlier, population growth is a major contributor to economic stagnation through its depressing effect on capital formation. With growing numbers of young people attempting to enter the labor force, many developing countries have extraordinarily high levels of unemployment. Often high rates of unemployment give rise to severe political instability, which ultimately threatens national and international security. Moreover, the combination of poverty and violence is adding rapidly to the number of refugees seeking to move into more stable and prosperous areas. Growth of refugee and migrant populations are contributing to political instability and economic dislocation in many countries. Intelligence agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere have long recognized the implications of population growth for international security ( Population Media Center website) (see Figure 2)

    [​IMG]

    Consequences of Rapid Population Growth « Indonesians Resonance
     
  9. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents

    Li Tianhao has just given birth to a baby boy blessed with his mother's nose, his father's mouth and an impressive ability to sleep through even the loudest disturbance.

    It is a skill the newborn will be fortunate to maintain as he has been born in Henan, the most crowded province in the world's most populous nation as the human family edged closer to the 7 billion mark.

    Yet he will probably grow up alone. Although Henan last year became the first province in China to register its 100 millionth resident – giving it a population bigger than any country in Europe – it also claims some of the greatest successes in taming demographic growth through its family planning policies.

    This has not happened by accident. Henan is one of the most environmentally stressed areas of China with a quarter of the water and a fifth of the land per capita compared to the already low national average.

    Senior family planners say this justifies rigid restrictions. "The large number of people has put very big pressure on all resources, especially water," said Liu Shaojie vice director of the Population Commission in Henan. "Over 30 years of effort, we have put in place a systematic procedure for controlling the population. That has eased the impact on the environment. We are doing glorious work."

    Many environmentalists agree that population control is essential if humanity is to move on to a more sustainable track, but how can this be done? China has gone further than any nation in trying to answer this question over the past 30 years. But both the means and the ends remain the subject of fierce controversy.

    When the one-child policy started in the 1970s, Liu says, women in Henan gave birth to an average of 5.8 children in their lifetimes. Their counterparts today have less than 1.7. The change, he said, means 30 million fewer births – equivalent to preventing one every 30 seconds for three decades. And that is just in Henan. Across all of China, the government claims there would be more than 300 million more children without the family planning policy.

    This policy was initiated primarily for economic and education reasons, but it is increasingly cited as an environmental blessing. According to Liu, the population controls have kept sulphur dioxide emissions down by 17.6% and the main source of water pollution by 30.8%. Without it, he says, the average person in Henan would have a third less land and a quarter less forest. It has also, he claims, prevented between 137m and 200m tonnes of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. :china:

    Such extrapolations are questionable. The current measures were not put in place to save the global environment, but to redress one of the biggest errors made by Mao Zedong. The founder of the People's Republic was advised in the 1950s that China's population was growing dangerously fast, but he urged women to have more babies because, as he put it, they were like aircraft carriers launching fighter planes. Today, Chinese officials and scholars privately describe this as Mao's greatest mistake. If he had put in place a two-child policy in the fifties, today's one-child policy would not be necessary.

    The description of the system as a "one-child policy" is misleading. Most married women in China have the chance to bear two offspring, but the entitlement to breed beyond a solitary child is determined by a complex set of rules that vary from province to province and are often applied differently from village to village.

    Broadly speaking, urban couples are allowed one child, rural families can try for a second if the first is a girl and women from ethnic minorities are permitted to give birth two or three times in their lifetime. But there are close to a dozen exceptions, including if a baby has disabilities or if the mother and father are both single children. Communist cadres and government officials can be fired for procreational transgressions because they are supposed to set an example. By contrast, Tibetans have the fewest restrictions.

    Money is another key factor. The rich in Shanghai and Beijing can easily afford the penalties for a second or third child. The poor in Gansu and Yunnan, by contrast are at risk of having their meagre property confiscated if they fail to remain within birthing quotas.

    For family planners like Liu, these injustices and disturbances are seen not as failures, but as aberrations that call for policy tweaks. Countless adjustments over the past 30 years have created a mind-bogglingly complex system that touches on everything from contraception and sterilisation to pensions and tax incentives. In Henan alone, Liu says the family planning policy employs 17,000 administrators and 22,000 nursing and technical staff. In addition, support organisations claim a combined membership of 9,600,000 volunteers, who engage in work as diverse as spreading propaganda to monitoring menstruation cycles- something that is still common in villages though rare in cities.

    The state has gone to remarkable lengths to try to fill the gaps left by the missing children. Rule-abiding parents can get a monthly stipend, extra pension benefits when they are older, preferential hospital treatment, first choice for government jobs, extra land allowances and, in some case, free homes and a tonne of free water a month. Their children are even given bonus points in middle school entrance exams.

    The system is incredibly expensive. The provincial government sets aside 40 yuan per person for the policy, which adds up to 4bn yuan (£400m) or about four percent of its budget, but this is just a small fraction of the total amount paid by central and village authorities.

    Enforcement requires a huge and powerful bureaucracy. "Henan has much to teach the world in family planning, but it is a hard lesson to learn. Officials from Africa and India come to study what we are doing in China, but I'm not sure that they can apply it the same way," said Liu. "That's because they don't have a Communist party so it is difficult for them to take such strong steps."

    In theory, the only penalties are hefty fines - in Henan's case, three times the annual net income of the couple who have violated the rules. But the system still relies on a high degree of intrusiveness and communal pressure to achieve targets.

    Others argue that the impact of family planning is overblown and simply accelerated what would have happened anyway as a result of improvements in infant mortality, greater participation by women in the workforce and greater availability of contraception.

    As China becomes richer and better educated, women in rich cities like Shanghai and Beijing are opting for few children just like their counterparts in wealthy nations. And with the nation's population is forecast to peak around 2030 many say the family planning policy had outlived its usefulness.

    "Everybody agrees change is necessary. But the debate is about how to start and when", said Zheng Zhenzhen, a population specialist at the Chinese Academy of Social Science.

    "We debate the relationship between the size of the population and resource consumption. But it is not a fixed formula. It depends on how you utilise your resource. We waste and pollute. I think those problems – behaviour – are more important than the size of the population."

    In Henan, however, the message that you can consume more if you breed less appears to be more persuasive than threats and penalties.

    At the Hui hospital, the new father Li Yongli says he would rather have a first car than a second child. The shift towards fewer legs and more wheels in his family is part of a carefully worked out plan. The final goal is to ensure a better life and education for his son, who was of course, born exactly to schedule.

    "It's all part of the program," said the beaming father.

    • Additional reporting by Cecily Huang

    China's one-child policy means many benefits for parents
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
  10. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    .
    Few Key Points I always mention on this Topic as below:

    these are my own ideas so it does require criticism by other members to make the topic interesting :tup:

    1st; 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????

    2nd; 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........

    3rd; 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:

    4th; 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??? :facepalm:

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

    5th; 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
    :truestory:

    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 :nono:

    6th; and here, 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: Implementation a challenge, says Morgan Stanley - Economic Times
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2014
  11. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    duplicate post
     
  12. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    .
    High population density is greatest risk factor for water-linked diseases

    COLUMBUS, Ohio – Water-associated infectious disease outbreaks are more likely to occur in areas where a region’s population density is growing, according to a new global analysis of economic and environmental conditions that influence the risk for these outbreaks. :ranger:

    Ohio State University scientists constructed a massive database containing information about 1,428 water-associated disease outbreaks that were reported between 1991 and 2008 around the world. By combining outbreak records with data on a variety of socio-environmental factors known about the affected regions, the researchers developed a model that can be used to predict risks for water-associated disease outbreaks anywhere in the world. :facepalm:

    The research appears in PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, a journal published by the Public Library of Science.

    There are five different categories of water-associated diseases, depending on the role water plays in the disease transmission process. Population density was a risk factor for all types of these diseases. Prolonged and excessive heat was shown to be a driver of water-related diseases that are transmitted to people by insect bites.

    The study shows that clusters of reported outbreaks tended to occur in Western Europe, Central Africa, Northern India and Southeast Asia. These regions, as well as Latin America and eastern Brazil, were targeted as potential “hot spots” at highest risk for future water-associated disease outbreaks ranging from E. coli-related diarrhea to dengue fever.

    World health experts conservatively estimate that 4 percent of deaths – almost 2 million annually – and 5.7 percent of illnesses around the world are caused by infectious diseases related to unsafe water and sanitation and hygiene problems. Getting a better handle on the socio-environmental factors that affect the risks for water-associated disease outbreaks is a first step toward guiding policymakers as they prioritize the distribution of health resources around the world, the researchers say.

    “We know water is essential to life, but we also know that water is a vehicle that can carry hazards. If we understand the risk factors of disease better, we can inform policy decisions because resources are limited. Second, we can provide an early warning to certain places that are undergoing global environmental change because our model shows how those changes affect outbreak risks,” said Song Liang, senior author of the study and an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Ohio State.

    “We’re not going to address all of the questions in one study, but we hope to set the stage for studies that can move toward that goal.”

    Most information on water-associated pathogens and infectious diseases in the Ohio State database came from the Global Infectious Disease and Epidemiology Network (GIDEON), a web-based database containing details on outbreaks for 337 recognized infectious diseases in 231 countries and regions. Liang and colleagues also collected extensive data from journal articles and health organization publications to supplement the GIDEON information.

    Among the information included in the Ohio State database were disease-causing agents, such as bacteria or viruses, and their biological characteristics; water’s role in disease transmission; disease transmission routes; and details about whether the recorded outbreak represented an emergence or re-emergence of a water-associated disease for a given region. These details were crossed with a socio-environmental database that contained data on population density, global average accumulated temperature, surface area of water bodies, average annual rainfall and per-capita gross domestic product.

    Each disease tracked in the database was classified into one of five categories:

    • water-borne (such as typhoid and cholera), caused by microorganisms that enter water through fecal contamination and cause infection when humans consume contaminated water. A subset of these, called “water-carried” diseases, result from accidental ingestion of contaminated water in a recreational setting;

    • water-based (such as schistosomiasis), caused by parasites that spend part of their life in water;

    • water-related (such as malaria and trypanosomiasis), which need water for breeding of insects that act as vectors in transmitting disease to humans;

    • water-washed, caused by poor personal or domestic hygiene because no clean water is available; and

    • water-dispersed (such as Legionella), caused by infectious agents that thrive in water and enter the body through the respiratory tract.

    Among the reported outbreaks, 70.9 percent were water-borne diseases, 2.9 percent water-based, 12.2 percent water-related, 6.8 percent water-washed, and 7.3 percent water-dispersed. Almost half were caused by bacteria, with nearly 40 percent caused by viruses and the rest by parasites.

    The analysis also showed that fewer water-washed diseases occurred in places with larger bodies of surface water, and that areas with higher average annual rainfall had fewer outbreaks of water-borne and water-related diseases.

    “No single factor can explain this distribution,” Liang said. “And for different categories of diseases, the impact of those factors varies. This is the first time we’ve had large-scale proof of that."

    “At this point, we’ve identified all of the reported outbreaks, but not every socio-environmental factor that influenced them.”

    The model predicts that Western Europe, Central Africa and Northern India are at higher risk for water-borne diseases, :tsk: especially E. coli diarrhea, and that the risk in Europe is primarily driven by water-carried diseases that tend to occur in recreational areas. Western Europe, North Africa and Latin America tend to be at higher risk for water-washed diseases, particularly viral conjunctivitis. Risks associated with water-based diseases, especially schistosomiasis, were highest in east Brazil, Northwest and Central Africa and southeast of China.

    Even with all of the data available, the researchers suggest that their database and map represent just a fraction of the actual outbreaks that have occurred because the under-reporting of these diseases is a common problem, especially in the developing world.

    They also were surprised to find that economic status did not appear to influence risk for water-associated disease outbreaks, at least on a global scale. “When we look specifically at an area on a smaller scale, we might find something different,” Liang said.

    Liang and colleagues already have begun to take a closer look at two regions, Africa and Asia, to examine environmental and economic issues that are most likely to influence risks for water-associated infectious disease outbreaks on those continents.

    This work is supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and by two Ohio State University programs: Public Health Preparedness for Infectious Diseases and Climate, Water and Carbon.

    Co-authors, all from Ohio State, include first author Kun Yang and Bo Lu of the College of Public Health (Yang is now with the Jiangsu Institute of Parasitic Diseases in China); Jeffrey LeJeune of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center and the College of Veterinary Medicine; and Doug Alsdorf and C.K. Shum of the School of Earth Sciences.

    High population density is greatest risk factor for water-linked diseases | College of Public Health
     
  13. sunny_10

    sunny_10 Tihar Jail Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    23
    Location:
    delhi
    Re: Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Cruci

    duplicate post
     

Share This Page