Consequences of High Population

[hello_10]

Have to get 2 child policy strict with third one wont get any government benefit and it will placed under oc category . But conki with only vote bank and family priority wont do it

we do need to start from somewhere, its also a good idea if we may make its applicable properly, as a nation/ as a society, as a responsible part of world

 

[arnabmit]

I have a question... What happens in china if a lady gets pregnant with twins? Are the parents arrested or fined?

 

[Singh]

I have a question... What happens in china if a lady gets pregnant with twins? Are the parents arrested or fined?

Nothing happens, if they are twins.

 

[hello_10]

Nothing happens, if they are twins.

thats good to know. in fact, India may start from 2 child policy, to see how it goes...... but im supportive of One Child Policy of China :thumb:

 

[hello_10]

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 . 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

=> 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

=> 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

 

[natarajan]

vote bank politics wants population to grow like anything

 

[hello_10]

Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?????????"

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.

Pakistan: Agriculture Activities: October 2011

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


=> 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.


=> 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.

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:

 

[hello_10]

i have been running a thread, "One Child Policy of China and lessons for South Asian nations", on a Pakistani Forum in this regard as below. its "Pakistan Defence Forum". we may have some ideas from the posts of other nationals of South Asian Nations on this topic too, as below :thumb:

One Child Policy of China and lessons for South Asian nations

Pakistan Defence Forum

http://www.-----------/forums/

Source: http://www.-----------/forums/world...essons-south-asian-nations.html#ixzz2XgWZhmRa

 

[hello_10]

double post

 

[hello_10]

first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and at the same time they want to feed them for nothing too

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


this woman, Sonia, always proved to be an enemy of this country ........

 

[hello_10]

GDP per Capita of India on PPP by 2013

Considering the method which was in application till 2006, by both World Bank and IMF


We have new GDP Per Capita on PPP calculation for India considering the year 2013 also, as below:

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

first, we find GDP on PPP of India was $4.45tn in 2011 but its still manipulated by the US/UK since 2007. as, till 2006, we had a different way of measuring GDP on PPP which used to include estimated undocumented part of GDP also. and I remember, this way GDP of high population 'developing' countries was around 50% to 80% higher, and for the middle order countries like Brazil/Turkey it was around 10% to 25% higher. and for the developed nations, the difference was hardly around 1% to 3% by that "Old Method" which was in application till 2006. like as below:

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

It's official: India's a trillion-$ economy - Times Of India

means, GDP of India on PPP was already $5.16tn in 2006, higher than Japan that year, making it the 3rd Largest Economy on PPP by 2006 itself this way.

again we have India's growth rate since 2007 as below:

India GDP Annual Growth Rate


here we find, "Average Growth Rate" of India from first quarter of 2007 till the December quarter 2012, stood at around 7.7%, on 'annual' basis. hence considering GDP on PPP of India at $5.16tn in 2006 by Old Method as above, with the estimated 5.0% growth by 2013, we may calculate its value by 2013, after 7 years since early 2007, as below:

GDP on PPP of India by end 2012 = 5.16*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.077*1.05= $8.4554 trillion on PPP

but we would also get to know that PPP value consider value of goods and services in US$ term, means we would also include the factor of inflation of United States also. and if we consider average 2.0% inflation of US for these 7 year in between early 2007 to 2013, with considering an overall factor of just 1.14 this way, then GDP on PPP of India comes around = 8.4554* 1.14= $9.64tn by 2013. and it still hasn't included 'Value Added' effects........

again, we know that share of agriculture would be around 18.5% in India's GDP in 2013. therefore, we find share of agriculture in indian economy, 0.185 * 9.64= $1.80 trillions (around), on which 50% population of india is dependent. means around 600mil people based on agriculture in india have per capita income around = $3,000 on PPP by 2013 this way, which is itself similar to the better side of Lower Order Countries like Bangladesh.....

this way, 9.64 - 1.80 = $7.84tn is left for rest of 600mil people based in industry and service in India, with per capita income of around $13,000 on PPP which is higher than Middle Order Countries like Brazil, South Africa etc..........

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook//rankorder/2004rank.html


again, we have news that 25% of the population of cities are either in slum or in bit better condition only. so we would consider per capita income of 300mil living in cities in low condition at hardly $4,000 which takes a share of $1.2 trillions from its GDP. hence we are then left with around 7.84 - 1.2 = $6.64 trillions for the rest of 300 mil people living in cities, the so called Middle Class of India with per capita income around $22,133 on PPP this way.

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


=> again we may further calculate that this way we find share of 350million Middle class of India in its GDP comes around 20,000* 0.35 = $7,000 billions, hence leaving around $9.64 - $7.0 trillions = $2.64 trillions for the rest of 750 million people.

here we know that around 350 million people of India fall below poverty line at per capita income around $1,000 on PPP only, hence having share of around $350 billions in its GDP this way. which then leave $2.64 - 0.350 = $2.29 trillions for the rest of 400 million "Under Class" of India this way, with Per Capita Income on PPP at around 2290/0.4 = $6,000 on PPP this way, which is also similar to the Lower Middle Order countries :thumb:

 

[jamesvaikom]

FDI won't help us to reduce rupee depreciation

Foreign direct investment (FDI) in sectors like defence will help Indian companies get access to latest technologies. But we can't rely on FDI to control rupee depreciation. It will only help in short term. Foreign investors who invest money here will take profit back to their country. So its not a permanent solution.

Our main problem is high population growth. But our Govt. is not doing anything to reduce this problem. Our trade deficit is increasing because we don't have enough natural resources needed for our increasing population. Our natural resources are depreciating while our population is increasing. The rate of depreciation of natural resources is directly proportional to rate of increase in population.

Some people are claiming that rupee depreciation will help companies in sectors like IT to increase their profit. But this will not last long. Due to rupee depreciation people are facing problems like inflation, high taxation etc. Companies which make loss will face more problems. Companies which make profit will face more tax burdens.

Family Planning in India: FDI won't help us to reduce rupee depreciation

 

[Blackwater]

poverty..............

 

[hello_10]

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?????????"

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 .

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


=> 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.


=> 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.

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

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.

first there is no control on the population, as much as India can have, and at the same time they want to feed them for nothing too

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


this woman, Sonia, always proved to be an enemy of this country ........

High Population Growth Rate: A Threat to food security Initiatives in Africa.
APRIL 15, 2013

My son, had I known before, the negative effects of having many children, I would have stopped on two children. I am finding it extremely difficult to ably feed my large family comprising of two women and 16 children, using my four acres of land, which I and my family entirely depend on for survival. To make matters worse, yields from my farm, have over the years been reducing, due to declining soil fertility and as thus, we occasionally eat once in a day.

" Those were the words of Nabudere Patrick, a resident of Namanyonyi Sub County, Mbale district, located in eastern Uganda. Millions of other African small-scale farmers are facing the same scenario.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, the global population could increase by as much as two billion in the next 25 years. If this happened, world food production would have to double to provide food security for the projected population in 2025. How are African countries positioning themselves in this regard?

Across Africa, the rate at which population is increasing is so alarming. It is increasing at rate that is far higher than food production in the continent. In fact, African countries like Rwanda, Niger, Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya and Senegal are experiencing a population growth rate of between 2.8-3.4 percent per annum, which is unacceptably high and making itdifficult for these countries to feed their people.

Uganda, which is currently experiencing a high population growth rate of 3.4 per cent per annum – third highest in the world after that of Niger and Mayotte – is already feeling the negative consequences of a skyrocketing population growth. According to the country's ministry of agriculture, animal industry and fisheries report of 2009, 17.7 million people out of a total population of 33 million people are food insecure.

Though African countries have made and are making agricultural stimulation policies and programs aimed at increasing food production, the efforts are being undermined by a high population growth rate.

This is made worse by traditional inheritance systems, which are highly practiced and respected across African societies. For instance, if a father of 10 children has 5 acres of land and he dies, each of his children will inherit half an acre on which to put a homestead and practice farming. Their children will also be given share of this half an acre. What

this will lead to is some lineage family members will find themselves with nowhere to put a home and practice farming. Therefore they will be forced to move to towns and cities to make ends meet. Can a family of say five people, which in African setting is too small, really be food secure through utilizing half or a quarter of an acre of land?

Skyrocketing population is also responsible for land fragmentation in Africa, whereby family members who find themselves not inheriting enough land to accommodate their homestead and farming aspirations keep on buying small pieces of land in different areas to utilize for food production purposes. This is proving difficult for farmers to effectively utilize due to geographical distance between these small farms.

Due to this scenario, many smallscale farmers in Africa have found themselves unable to effectively curb disease and pests outbreaks as they find themselves applying different methods.

We need to stay aware that the agricultural sector in Africa is dominated by small-scale farmers.They constitute 70 percent of people engaged in the sector. As farm sizes keep on decreasing, due high population growth rate, so is food production from these small farms. In the end this is also making small scale farmers earn smaller incomes. This partly explains why 65 percentof small-scale farmers' households are still trapped in poverty cycle, surviving on less than $2 a day.

It is important for us to note that the negative implications of population growth on food production and food security pose major threats to human health, the economy, the environment and wildlife, as more and more forests, national parks, wetlands and other ecological lands, are increasingly being cleared by the increasing population in search of more land for cultivation for food production purposes.

In my extensive travels and work engagements with grassroots farmers in rural Africa, I have observed that women are the dominant workers in the agricultural sector. They also produce on average seven children. In addition to feeding the babies, they are also burdened with domestic chores like looking for firewood, cooking, and fetching water, which all drastically reduce on their time in agricultural sector. Consequently it contributes to food insecurity in their homes.

In sum, African countries should do whatever is possible, like designing and implementing population control programs, complemented by small-scale farming agricultural stimulating strategies, geared towards make small-scale farming productive and profitable. It is the only way if we are to attain food security and sustainable economic transformation powered by agricultural sector.

High Population Growth Rate: A Threat to food security Initiatives in Africa.

 

[hello_10]

poverty..............

its all about having a level of population which may be fed by the limited resources this country has, otherwise we may face a much harder time when people will start eating each others :thumb:


;

Consumption dwarfs population as main environmental threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as in above post#91, with the estimated 350million Indian Middle Class, whose Per Capita Income on PPP at around $20,000, which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Saudi Arabia, Poland, Argentina etc, we also have an estimate of Upper Class of India as below: :thumb:

(here, 350million Middle Class of India is more than total population at the time of freedom in 1947, when it was at around 347million. the year 1947 when India had only around 5% Upper class and rest poor )


in the report as below, mention around 115 Billionaires in India, as compare to hardly around 60 by Forbes. its because Forbes estimate only Share values, while the report as below includes, "shares in public and private companies, residential and investment properties, art collections, planes, cash and other assets, according to Wealth-X...". :ranger:
World's Billionaire Club Grows; Ultra Millionaires Lose Money - WORLD PROPERTY CHANNEL Global News Center

and here is the main report, as below :thumb:
Wealth-X World Ultra Wealth Report 2011-2012 | Wealth-X

also, we may have an overall look on the UHNW of the whole world by this report as below:

=> further to the above talks, BRIC economies as whole have their UHNWI estimate, with India's at around 8,200, is given in the article as below:

BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion

The future of wealth will be built with BRICs.

According to new data from Wealth-X, the wealth research and consulting firm, Brazil, Russia, India and China now have a combined 25,600 people with $30 million or more in net worth (which includes shares in publicly traded and closely held companies, residential and investment real estate, art, planes, cash and other investible assets).

That is about half the number of ultra-high-net individuals in the U.S., according to Wealth-X.

The BRIC ultrarich have a combined net worth of $4.125 trillion, compared to $6.4 trillion for the U.S.

What is most interesting about the BRIC data is the concentration of wealth at the very top of the wealth pyramid. In Russia, the nation's 80 billionaires account for 7% of the total population of people with a net worth of $30 million or more, but they own 84% of that group's $640 billion in wealth.

In Brazil, the nation's 50 billionaires account for less than 1% of the ultrarich population but a third of the group's $890 billion in wealth. India's 115 billionaires represent 1.4% of the total ultrarich population and 20% of the group's wealth of $945 billion.

China's billionaires account for 1% of the ultrarich and about a third of their wealth of $1.65 trillion.

The U.S., of course, isn't exactly a model of equity when it comes to billionaires and the ultra-rich. Its 450 billionaires account for less than one percent of the ultra-rich population but control 25% of the group's $6.4 trillion wealth.

But the fastest global growth in billionaires and their lesser ultra-rich aspirants will likely be from the BRICS rather than the U.S. or Europe.

"In Russia, as in other emerging markets"¦.billionaires and near-billionaires, followed in aggregate by the mass of ultra-high-net-worth will dominate wealth," according to Wealth-X.

Which country would you want to live in if you had a net worth of $30 million or more?

BRIC Country Super-Rich Worth $4 Trillion - The Wealth Report - WSJ

 

[Armand2REP]

You are really arguing over who has the most billionaires? That is a topic of shame, not to be proud of.

 

[hello_10]

You are really arguing over who has the most billionaires? That is a topic of shame, not to be proud of.

Billionaires don't have money in pockets, but they are billionaires in terms of the industries they run, and hence provide jobs, generate taxes this way. along with measuring number of Middle Class, at 350 million which is more than total population at the time of freedom.

its true that the high population factor is behind poverty or India, but we do have these billionaires too who are building the nation

 

[hello_10]

@sunny_10 - What do you think of Amartya Sen's recent piece? Personally while I support his welfare measures of free basic amenities, his overemphasis on education seems lopsided. Here is the article

Amartya Sen: Why India Trails China - China Digital Times (CDT)

Of course as usual China does its welfare 'Great Wall style' aka on a planetary scale. US social security handouts look like cheap candies in comparison.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/w...g-250-million-into-cities.html?pagewanted=all

Mr Amartya Sen would retire now, as things have already changed to an extent and also changing . we now have China exporting more high tech products than US+EU, hence you may now need to learn Mandarin for future jobs with Chinese companies, and the same China has as much foreign reserve that it may establize this would be World Currency, Yuan, while the US dollar is no more reliable, it keep fluctuating on time to time......

=> High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table

we now have "African Tigers" like Nigeria etc whose growth rate very high and high population can't be fed by the limited resources Africa have, as discussed in this page of this thread too. we do need to take proper steps before our people start 'eating' each others. you just can't have as much population as you wish, and feed them for nothing, as per this proposed food bill


but yes Mr A.Sen's concerns over the education of India is fair, and we have done something good on this side to date as below too, and we hope to reach Youth Literacy Rate at 95% within the next 5-6 years, as expected :thumb:

After the 2011 census, literacy rate India 2011 was found to be 74.04%. Compared to the adult literacy rate, here the youth literacy rate is about 9% higher.

Literacy Rate for India Population Census 2011

 

[hello_10]

poverty..............

You are really arguing over who has the most billionaires? That is a topic of shame, not to be proud of.

with estimated 350million Middle Class of India, who per capita income on PPP is close to $20,000 which is similar to Very High HDI countries like Argentina, Poland etc, along with the Industrialists/ Billionaires who are building the nation by developing technologies, providing employment by their businesses and generating taxes for the government, posts# 91 & 95, we also have some more stating the story of rising India as below :thumb:

Most Expansive Places to Live
15-10-2012

5th Moscow $17,566 per sq.m.

7th Singapore $16,350 per sq.m.

10th Mumbai $11,306 per sq.m.

12th Sydney $8,774 per sq.m.

20th Shanghai $6,932 per sq.m.

29th Istanbul $4,569 per sq.m.

47th Dubai $3,393 per sq.m.

54th Bangkok $2,996

68th Kuala Lumpur $2,182 per sq.m.

73rd Jakarta $,2099

World's most expensive cities

Mumbai, Delhi office rentals top Shanghai, New York
Jul 25, 2012

MUMBAI: Office rentals in Mumbai and Delhi continue to be among the highest in the world, beating the likes of New York, Washington or Shanghai despite a depreciating rupee. Renting office space in Mumbai and Delhi costs over $65 and nearly $73 per square meter a month, while the same costs $63 in New York $48 in Washington and $41 in Shanghai, property consultancy firm DTZ said in a report.

Mumbai, Delhi office rentals top Shanghai, New York - Economic Times

 

[hello_10]

Mr Amartya Sen would retire now, as things have already changed to an extent and also changing . we now have China exporting more high tech products than US+EU, hence you may now need to learn Mandarin for future jobs with Chinese companies, and the same China has as much foreign reserve that it may establize this would be World Currency, Yuan, while the US dollar is no more reliable, it keep fluctuating on time to time......

=> High-technology exports (current US$) | Data | Table

we now have "African Tigers" like Nigeria etc whose growth rate very high and high population can't be fed by the limited resources Africa have, as discussed in this page of this thread too. we do need to take proper steps before our people start 'eating' each others. you just can't have as much population as you wish, and feed them for nothing, as per this proposed food bill


but yes Mr A.Sen's concerns over the education of India is fair, and we have done something good on this side to date as below too, and we hope to reach Youth Literacy Rate at 95% within the next 5-6 years, as expected :thumb:

and something more to add in this thread, India had 2% rich and 98% poor in 1947, at the time of freedom, while now India has 350million Middle Class which is more than total population at 1947, as discussed in this thread, and now only Over Population is the reason why India is a poor country. and at the same time, literacy rate of India was around 12% only in 1947 while its well close to 80% right now, with Youth Literacy Rate closed to 90% too, as expected by 2013 :thumb:

When the British rule ended in India in the year 1947 the literacy rate was just 12%. Over the years, India has changed socially, economically, and globally. After the 2011 census, literacy rate India 2011 was found to be 74.04%. Compared to the adult literacy rate here the youth literacy rate is about 9% higher.

Literacy Rate for India Population Census 2011