Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Population based on “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Crucial

Discussion in 'World Economy' started by santosh, Mar 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India

    One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?

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

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

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


    Why is One Child Norm (OCN) important?

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

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

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

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

    ■Indian Medical Association (IMA) has been reiterating its suggestion to implement OCN based on their survey.


    Associated Hurdles and Drawbacks of Norm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ■Other Complications: Policy for NRIs would be an issue.


    Solution to the problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Family planning- One Child Norm in India: Is it Possible?
     
    Zeus_@21 likes this.
  2. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Overpopulation 'is main threat to planet'

    Climate change and global pollution cannot be adequately tackled without addressing the neglected issue of the world's booming population, according to two leading scientists.

    Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.

    The scientists said dealing with the burgeoning human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world.

    "It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about" Professor Guillebaud said. "Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation."

    Professor Guillebaud said he decided to study the field of human reproduction more than 40 years ago specifically because of the problems he envisaged through overpopulation.

    His concerns were echoed by Professor Rapley, an expert on the effects of climate change on the Antarctic, who pointed out that this year an extra 76 million people would be added to the 6.5 billion already living on Earth, which is twice as many as in 1960.

    By the middle of the century, the United Nations estimates that the world population is likely to increase to more than nine billion, which is equivalent to an extra 200,000 people each day. Professor Rapley said the extra resources needed to sustain this growth in population would put immense strains on the planet's life-support system even if pollution emissions per head could be dramatically reduced.

    "Although reducing human emissions to the atmosphere is undoubtedly of critical importance, as are any and all measures to reduce the human environmental 'footprint', the truth is that the contribution of each individual cannot be reduced to zero. Only the lack of the individual can bring it down to nothing," Professor Rapley says in an article for the BBC website.

    "So if we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem - and there is much evidence for this - then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed."

    Professor Rapley says the explosive growth in the human population and the concomitant effects on the environment have been largely ignored by many of those concerned with climate change. "It is a bombshell of a topic, with profound and emotive issues of ethics, morality, equity and practicability," he says.

    "So controversial is the subject that it has become the Cinderella of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even in private.

    "In interdisciplinary meetings addressing how the planet functions as an integrated whole, demographers and population specialists are usually notable by their absence.''

    Professor Guillebaud, who co-chairs the Optimum Population Trust, said it became politically incorrect about 25 years ago to bring up family planning in discussing the environmental problems of the developing world. The world population needed to be reduced by nearly two-thirds if climate change was to be prevented and everyone on the planet was to enjoy a lifestyle similar to that of Europeans, Professor Guillebaud said.

    An environmental assessment by the conservation charity WWF and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington found that humans were now exploiting about 20 per cent more renewable resources than can be replaced each year.

    Professor Guillebaud said this meant it would require the natural resources equivalent to four more Planet Earths to sustain the projected 2050 population of nine billion people.

    "The figures demonstrate the folly of concentrating exclusively on lifestyles and technology and ignoring human numbers in our attempts to combat global warming," he said. "We need to think about climate changers - human beings and their numbers - as well as climate change."

    Some environmentalists have argued that is not human numbers that are important, but the relative use of natural resources and production of waste such as carbon dioxide emissions. They have suggested that the planet can sustain a population of nine billion people or even more provided that everyone adopts a less energy-intensive lifestyle based on renewable sources of energy rather than fossil fuels.

    But Professor Guillebaud said: "We urgently need to stabilise and reduce human numbers. There is no way that a population of nine billion - the UN's medium forecast for 2050 - can meet its energy needs without unacceptable damage to the planet and a great deal of human misery."

    Crowded Earth

    * The human population stands at 6.5 billion and is projected to rise to more than 9 billion by 2050.

    * In less than 50 years the human population has more than doubled from its 1960 level of 3 billion.

    * China is the most populous country with more than 1.3 billion people. India is second with more than 1.1 billion.

    * By about 2030 India is expected to exceed China with nearly 1.5 billion people.

    * About one in every three people alive today is under the age of 20, which means that the population will continue to grow as more children reach sexual maturity.

    * Britain's population of 60 million is forecast to grow by 7 million over the next 25 years and by at least 10 million over the next 60 years, mainly through immigration.

    * This is equivalent to an extra 57 towns the size of Luton (pop 184,000)

    * By the time you have finished reading this column, an estimated 100 babies have been born in the world.

    Overpopulation 'is main threat to planet' - Environment - The Independent
     
    Zeus_@21 likes this.
  3. forjeet

    forjeet Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    529
    Likes Received:
    303
    OCN................ 1400 mn people 700 mn kids ,take Avg age is 70 yrs after 70 yrs 700 mn(die) produce 350mn KIDS means after 140 yrs by OCN ur population reached 350mn

    some thing is TERRIBLE WRONG here, HUMANS are humans don't calculate them as commodities it sounds like f***** s***
     
    santosh likes this.
  4. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Real Threat to Environment is Increasing Population

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Real threat to environment is increasing population - India - DNA
     
    Zeus_@21 likes this.
  5. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    double post
     
  6. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE

    The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet. :coffee:

    Portland, Oregon, for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential energy and car driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population grew by 8 percent.

    A 2009 study of the relationship between population growth and global warming determined that the “carbon legacy” of just one child can produce 20 times more greenhouse gas than a person will save by driving a high-mileage car, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, etc. Each child born in the United States will add about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent. The study concludes, “Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle.” :facepalm:

    One of the study’s authors, Paul Murtaugh, warned that: “In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime. Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources. . . . Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."
    @rocky.idf
    The size of the carbon legacy is closely tied to consumption patterns. Under current conditions, a child born in the United States will be responsible for almost seven times the carbon emissions of a child born in China and 168 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.

    The globalization of the world economy, moreover, can mask the true carbon footprint of individual nations. China, for example, recently surpassed the United States to become the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter. But a large portion of those gases is emitted in the production of consumer goods for the United States and Europe. Thus a large share of “China’s” greenhouse gas footprint is actually the displaced footprint of high-consumption western nations.

    [​IMG]

    The United States has the largest population in the developed world, and is the only developed nation experiencing significant population growth: Its population may double before the end of the century. Its 300 million inhabitants produce greenhouse gases at a per-capita rate that is more than double that of Europe, five times the global average, and more than 10 times the average of developing nations. The U.S. greenhouse gas contribution is driven by a disastrous combination of high population, significant growth, and massive (and rising) consumption levels, and thus far, lack of political will to end our fossil-fuel addiction.

    More than half of the U.S. population now lives in car-dependent suburbs. Cumulatively, we drive 3 trillion miles each year. The average miles traveled per capita is increasing rapidly, and the transportation sector now accounts for one-third of all U.S. carbon emissions.

    Another one-fifth of U.S. carbon emissions comes from the residential sector. Average home sizes have increased dramatically in recent decades, as has the accompanying footprint of each home. Suburban sprawl contributes significantly to deforestation, reducing the capacity of the planet to absorb the increased CO2 we emit. Due to a dramatic decrease in household size, from 3.1 persons per home in 1970 to 2.6 in 2000, homebuilding is outpacing the population growth that is driving it. More Americans are driving farther to reach bigger homes with higher heating and cooling demands and fewer people per household than ever before. All of these trends exacerbate the carbon footprint inherent in the basic energy needs of a burgeoning U.S. population. :coffee:

    Globally, recent research indicates that assumptions regarding declining fertility rates used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop future emissions scenarios may be overly optimistic. While fertility rates have generally declined over the past few decades, progress has slowed in recent years, especially in developing nations, largely due to cutbacks in family planning assistance and political interference from the United States. And even if fertility rates are reduced to below replacement levels, population levels will continue to climb steeply for some time as people live longer and billions of young people mature and proceed through their reproductive years. Per-capita greenhouse gas emissions may drop, but the population bulge will continue to contribute to a dangerous increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Time is short, but it not too late to stop runaway global warming. Economy-wide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to a level that brings atmospheric CO2 back from 386 parts per million to 350 or less, scaling back first-world consumption patterns, and long-term population reduction to ecologically sustainable levels will solve the global warming crisis and move us to toward a healthier, more stable, post-fossil fuel, post-growth addicted society.

    Human Population Growth and Climate Change
     
  7. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Muslims, comprise 14.6% of the Indian population and growing much faster then the Hindu population. Because the Muslims population is poorer and Muslims are allowed up to four wives this trend is going to continue or even increase.

    Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.
    Population density 20%-50% (Europe, India 2020?). After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
    Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.
    Population density > 50%.

    When you add the above problem and the Maoist groups, known as Naxalites India is facing chaos and its veryvsurvival is going to be a problem.

    Demographic danger! Why Muslim population growth is alarming | India News Analysis and Op-Ed Commentary | Politics | Governance | Economic Freedom | National Interest
    4 Stages of Islamic Conquest: | Civilus Defendus
    Islam, Page 5 — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami
    Try not to whine, if you disagree just point out your reasons.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2014
  8. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    @rocky.idf

    hmmmm, if i have to favor then i would favor to shift excess population of India to ocean only :wave:

    you have to reduce population of india, either this or that way. total middle class of india is well closed to 500million at present, while population of india was hardly around 341mil at the time of freedom, 1947. and this extra 750million population are just "Subsidy Burden" :tsk:

    no one wants shiits, and why would the other parts of world invites shiits from India? :tsk:

    we strongly favor Population Tax on every second kid taking birth in any part of world, to be donated to World Bank to reduce its effects on Climate Change/ high prices of resources due to high population too, as discussed in post#14 and #15 as below :tup:

     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  9. rocky.idf

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    We must see through the overpopulation game played by the White Races. The Whites are dwindling in numbers. They are frightened at the prospects of being overtaken by the Non-Whites.
     
  10. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,379
    Country Flag:
    United States
    n
    That boats already sailed, nonwhites outnumber the whites in the USA at the present time.

    One of the things I notice when I travel South America, Europe, everyone looks a like, there is no where you see the diversity of races, cultures, religious that you see in the USA.
     
    santosh likes this.
  11. Zeus_@21

    Zeus_@21 Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,885
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    No man!!!..... If we don't control the population blast, it will lead to ultimate chaos. We don't have enough resources to feed them & give them a healthy life. See the widespread poverty in the Indian subcontinent as a whole. Just count the no of people sleeping on roads with an empty belly. You will realize. Why population control is needed?

    Specially, our muslim population breed too much. We have a muslim colony living alongside my locality and each familiy has 5-8 kids. And they are piss poor because of this. No need of education, no need of health care ......only unlimited hands to feed on. When authorities ask them to have some control over their family count or adhere to family planning activities. They say it is un-islamic and turn them away. So, poverty will cling on to them till eternity. Plus, It will add burden on the local economy.



    I hope same is the case in Bangladesh too. But don't worry, our Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal(thanks to Mamta and CPIM) are at the same level.

    Best thing would be to follow China . Implement a birth control plan. A 2 child policy for India and a must 1 child policy for BD(population explosion has already occured).
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
    INDIAN NATIONALIST likes this.
  12. Zeus_@21

    Zeus_@21 Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,885
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    If we adhere to population control measures for atleast 40-50 years (specially on the poor/uneducated families). Things will change and we don't need any kinda fukin migration.

    But our pathetic ,sloth, lackluster, corrupt, a$$hole leaders always turn a dead ear to the problem. Even after knowing the fact that his/her country's population growth is going out of control. And this applies to Mr. Modi also. I have written so many times but no reply on stage i.e. in parliament.
     
  13. rocky.idf

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    Aren't you talkin Sanjay Gandhi? Every man - rich or poor, Hindu or Muslim knows how many kids is good for him. Nogood for the govt/state to interfere in this. Major portions of the earth's land surface and resources are being enjoed by the minority WCC. This must be changed. Equality and economic justice should be practiced on all.
     
  14. Zeus_@21

    Zeus_@21 Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,885
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    The point is if you want a developed economy? Your population should have enough land and resources at their disposal. Some people try to negate it. It includes both hindu, muslim, christian and many religious morons.

    I'm not saying to force it down like Sanjay Gandhi but follow your master China. See where they are and where we are. Yes, we, includes both India and Bangladesh.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2014
  15. rocky.idf

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    Hold it there pal.China isn't our master, and I hope America isn't yours.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page