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
    deleted
     
  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. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Over-Population Notes

    World is changing and few points everyone knows on the world platform in today's world, no need to read articles, as below:

    1st; High Population means high consumption of resources, and hence its higher prices for the people of whole world.

    2nd; high energy consumption and hence higher green house gas emission, hence increasing Climate Change threats this way

    3rd; High Subsidy to feed poor below poverty line, especially in case of India. which is possible only until its Middle Class may afford it. and we must avid that breaking point [​IMG]

    4th; and, we also encourage a "Population Tax" on every second kid taking birth in a family, which may be denoted to World Bank/ Climate Change Organizations to reduce its effects. i mean, if you can't reduce population then at least pay something to reduce its effects on the world's Climate Change. and yes, this "Population Tax" on the 'non-first' child would be same for the people of whole world. [​IMG]

    =>

    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
    :cheers:

    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
    .
     
  4. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    both have the same meaning. lack of resources as compare to the population, or, the Over Population to be supported by the limited resources :coffee:
     
  5. INDIAN NATIONALIST

    INDIAN NATIONALIST Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    BIRTH CONTROL

    Why India's family planning program is unhappy with parents


    Educators avoid the subject of sex education for fear of being criticised by parents and politicians, says the former head of the Family Planning Association of India, which turned 65 last week.
    Mridula Chari · Jul 28, 2014 · 08:30 pm

    [​IMG]
    Photo Credit: Manan Vatsyayana/AFP

    It’s not just politicians resisting sex education, but parents as well, according to Mahinder Watsa, former president of the Family Planning Association of India, which turned 65 last week.

    Watsa, perhaps better known today for his newspaper column dispensing often wry advice on sex, was also the first to push for the inclusion of sex education in the FPAI’s programmes in the late 1970s.

    “You need to have special classes for parents,” he said. “Parents should be the ones who should be involved deeply, but they pass the job on to teachers.” But teachers, he said, do not take an active part in sex education for fear of being criticised by both parents and politicians.

    This fear might partly stem from the pronouncements of political leaders. In the latest instance, last month, health minister Harsh Vardhan, a qualified doctor, advocated the Gandhian route to birth control through abstinence and yoga and said that sex education in its current form should not be taught in schools. He later clarified that he was only against graphical representation of what he termed “vulgarity".

    But his remarks have yet again underlined the political class's confused and often misguided approach to sex education.

    In contrast, over the years, the focus of the FPAI, which was founded in 1949, has expanded from issues of fertility and controlling the number of children a healthy family should have to the rights of young people in accessing information and knowledge about their sexuality.

    It also works closely with the government to promote the reproductive health of women, including helping to plan and pace their pregnancies. This is significant in a country where women are having fewer children than before but still face potentially fatal health risks before and after pregnancy.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Yet even the FPAI's founders, Dhanvanthi Rama Rau and Avabai Wadia, among other women’s welfare activists, had concerns when pondering contraception and family planning.

    “The first time I heard the words ‘birth control’ I was revolted,” Wadia wrote in her memoir, The Light is Ours. “Was it natural, was it ethical, was it moral, was it healthy, did it encourage selfishness, promiscuity, salacity?”

    She finally reasoned that if women were not allowed to decide how many children they had and at what pace, they would not be able to make healthy decisions about their lives. This, she wrote, was more pressing than ethical concerns about controlling births.

    She continued to prioritise sex education even in later life. When in the 1970s Watsa pushed for the inclusion of sex education in FPAI work, he was at first hesitant to broach the topic with Wadia.

    “He thought that because she was senior, she would have reservations,” said RP Soonawala, a gynaecologist and consultant with the FPAI, who developed a plastic intra-uterine device that is still in use today. “But the moment she understood the need for it, she was the first person to push for it.”

    The FPAI was not the first or even the only effort to introduce family planning to India. India’s first birth control clinic, run clandestinely by a mathematics professor RD Karve, opened in Bombay in 1921. Karve kept no records of his patients in order to preserve their privacy, but he was among the first to introduce diaphragms and cervical caps as contraceptive methods in India.

    Almost ten years later, the Maharajah of Mysore opened the first government-sponsored birth control clinics in the world, in Bangalore and Mysore in 1930.

    By the time Independence came, Rama Rau and Wadia managed to convince Jawaharlal Nehru to include family planning in the first five-year plan.

    Apart from a few brief years in the 1970s when the government aggressively pursued family planning and male sterilisation under Sanjay Gandhi’s direction, female-oriented contraception remains the more preferred form. Today, more women actively pursue contraception than men.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    But knowledge about contraception does not always lead to using it. In the 2004-05 National Family Health Survey, of which there have only been three since 1992, almost 100% of respondents said they knew about some form of birth control, whether traditional, such as the controlled withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation and synchronising sex with periods of low fertility in the menstrual cycle or modern intra-uterine devices, condoms and birth control pills. This is not, however, matched in usage patterns.

    “If people had sex education, they would have better information about abortion,” said Usha Krishna, another former FPAI president. “If they knew more about how, when and where to get abortions, we could theoretically bring abortion deaths to nil.”

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    scroll.in/article/671976/Why-India's-family-planning-program-is-unhappy-with-parents
     
  6. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Indian Young Population Higher than China, an Advantage

    Japanese Growing Old Age Population and its Effects on Society, China on the same path

    Today we discussed, Indian young age population is very high because of high population growth, a good sign. while China soon going to suffer problems due to old aged people, which will be similar to how Japan facing this issue at present. and here i remembered a discussing with Russians friends once, the country which has been suffering reduction in population, "what will Indians do when these young age people will get older after 30-40 years? will you have twice population than today to support them?" :facepalm:
    :tsk:

    and then we discussed, "even if a Japanese or Chinese family has one kid, he/she is well educated, well established and can support his/her parents. and if on average 5 to 8 kids taking birth in common families of Bangladesh, over 85% population of Bangladesh suffering from Malnutrition, and 90% of them "generally" keep favoring Islamic fanaticism on different platform, the purpose of their sperms being used, which can't be thrown to Bay of Bengal itself.........

    and the people on the world platform ask very first question, "oil prices have risen from $30/barrel in 2003 to $100+/barrel to date because of high demands from high population countries, but why would we pay its high price while sitting in Australia, for example, which is twice big to India in size and has as much population, 23million, as the number of kids taking birth in India every year?"
    and its very true about other resources like Iron ore, natural gas, coal etc whose prices are now very high for whole world, just because of high demands from high population countries :tsk:

    again here, why would the world gets finally 'finished' one day due to higher Green House Emission by high population countries, just because we can't put a nail over these highly populated countries?????? why would the people in other countries pay high price for reduced carbon emission, just because others may keep increasing it due to high population growth, as this is what they can do, as no one can stop them, no matter what?

    (for example, population of India was 341 million in 1947, at the time of freedom, while its well closed to 1.3billion. Population of Pakistan was 34million while its well closed to 200million at present, while population of Bangladesh was around 36million in 1947 and its well over 160million to date....... at the same time minorities are almost finished in Pakistan, with news of Shia-Sunni-Ahmadi Sectarian Wars within Muslims itself there. population of Hindus in India reduced from 88% in 1947 to below 80% to date, while Muslims in India rose from 8% to 16%+ of total population of India during this period. while the condition of Buddhist and Hindu minorities in Bangladesh is being discussed in the thread as below :facepalm:)
    Illegal immigration from Bangladesh has turned Assam explosive | Indian Defence Forum

    and also, how long exactly the Indian Middle Class itself may bear Subsidy burden of Indian poor, and whether they will remain capable enough in future too? 50%+ population of India, 650million, is based in Agriculture only, contributing hardly 16% in Indian GDP, while the same output can be well achieved by less than 100million people? even half of the the 600million people living in cities just struggle to have a decent life......

    we do need to understand the meaning of "Population Based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation", either today or tomorrow :tup:
    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2014
  7. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    deleted
     
  8. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    Why “Resource Sufficiency Evaluation” is Crucial: Sustainable World Initiatives

    > Sustainable Development is Not the Same as Sustainability:

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

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

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

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

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

    > The Challenge is Getting Larger, Not Smaller:

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

    > “Greening” the Economy is Necessary, but Not Sufficient:

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

    > Resource Exploitation has Propelled Human Progress:

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

    > Our Very Future Depends on Resource Sufficiency:

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

    > Sustainability Requires Resource Sufficiency Evaluation:

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

    > Methodologies Already Exist for Doing Resource Sufficiency Evaluations:

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

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

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

    Sustainable World Initiative

    .
     
  9. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    deleted
     
  10. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,924
    Likes Received:
    426
    Country Flag:
    India
    World faces overpopulation 'disaster' as number of people is set to rise by 75 million EACH YEAR

    Global population is expected to peak at 9.5bn in 2075

    Annual rise is the equivalent of entire UK population


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

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

    We First Need to Legally Bind High Population Countries on Population Control

    here, as in he above article, its clear that High Population Density countries cant be allowed to emit greenhouse emission in match with the developed countries until they are agreed to reduce population to an acceptable level. and about India, i would say it to reduce its population to 700millon by 2050, and 341mil by 2100, same as its population at the time of freedom, in 1947.....

    and yes, the same we may demand from our neighbors like Pakistan, Bangladesh too, to reduce population to 34mil and 36mil respectively by 2100, a target, same as in 1947.... and the similar target we may demand from rest of the world too......

    you cant maintain living standard in match with the developed nations until you deserved for that, culturally/socially/politically etc. too, and before demanding similarity with the OECD nations, we demand some commitments from the developing countries in regard of population control :coffee:

    as per topic of this thread :tup:
     
  12. Zeus_@21

    Zeus_@21 Major SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2013
    Messages:
    2,885
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    We need to strike a balance or else we will run out of resources. And this needs participation of all communities.
     
    santosh likes this.
  13. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

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

    look, it can't happen that Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Sikh communities are reducing population, and Muslims on the die hard struggle to increase population to outnumber rest of the communities, as this is what they can do. there is no meaning of democratic election, if few communities are increasing population just for the purpose to take over others, as this is what the Democracy finally means for... :tsk:

    and thats why i said in my last post, whether a part of the world deserves to emit greenhouse gas, because of their 'culture'/'social'/'political' etc background. are you "civilized enough" to discuss "equality" with rest of world, the Developing countries must answer this first, before they demand for "Equality" with the current OECD economies.

    the equality in terms of using resources, whose higher price is applicable on the whole world if its consumption is higher due to high demands from high population countries. the Equality in terms of Carbon emission, whose effect on the whole climate is same for the whole world. and then we find Middle Class of India, China type developing countries paying high tax for the subsidy burden of poor, just because this excess population couldn't be controlled in India, while China did get some success to an extent. and then we also demand "Population Tax" for every 'non-first' kid taking birth in every family of world, to be paid to Climate Change organization/world bank, which must be same for the whole world. its simple means, if you want to have good life, you first need to pay for it, for the climate you taking birth :tup:

    here, i think my post as below may also have a place here too. and we must avoid this type of wrong approach to 'out-number' other communities by conversion etc :tup:

    =>


    India Moving Towards Number Game in Religious Equation

    sir, im also running a thread for "Population based on Resource Sufficiency Evaluation", but we need to be more realistic, than idealism. and its a bottom line fact that we are moving towards the Number Game, and the winner, on the ground and in 'Democratic Election' both, will be based on the "number", who has how many????? India is not a communist country like CHina, its harder to impose One Child Policy type things forcefully, not very hard but its hard..... true

    Congress has no right to destroy Hindu Community, if they know that the number game will finally put a question on the existence on the Hindu Society as whole :facepalm:

    RSS is more realistic in this ongoing Religious Number game, regardless which party comes in power......

    and as i have favored before also, we now need to promote the "Gandhian Caste", as the superior caste than any caste of India, the caste of Father of Nation. even Second PM of India, Mr LB Shastri adopted it as a follower of father of nation, joining the pride of nation as whole :india:

    and yes, as per my above post too, Brahman/Pandit would mean for only those who deserve for it, regardless in which family you took birth. and here again, i would strongly favor RSS to help the Brilliant Schedule Caste people getting top priest position in at least half of the Temples of India :truestory:
     
  14. santosh

    santosh Major SENIOR MEMBER

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

    rocky.idf BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    1,829
    Likes Received:
    478
    Country Flag:
    Bangladesh
    The crucial factor is landholding per population.Solveit fairly with the global population as one family. Open the borders for people to relocate to convenient destinations. Why should the White Man have exclusivity over the new continents of the Americas and Australia?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page