Population - find issues related to it and comment on them in a post here.
Examples: Immigration, Emmigration (i.e. you could look at war refugees in Iraq).
Aging populations, fertility issues (i.e. one child policy)
As Ebola continues to grow as a problem in West Africa, it also is becoming an important global issue. With over 2100 patient deaths and close to 80 health worker casualties, it's clear that more needs be done. According to the World Health Organization, efforts need to be scaled up "three-to-four fold". The issue here is the significant risk posed to anyone entering West Africa, as well as the threat created by anyone leaving the area.
Without financial and medical support, this issue only gets worse. A severe lack of hospital beds means that many infected have to return to their regular lives where they spread the disease further. The social and economic impact of the current travel bans is limiting how effective the affected area can be. The African Union is urging member states to lift these bans, which could cause obvious risks but could also assist in finding a solution. An American doctor that had been infected while working in West Africa has since been brought to America where he recovered and was able to be studied.
Overall this is obviously an issue that needs urgent attention in order to be resolved in the most effective way possible. However, the risk that comes with allowing travel in and out of these countries appears to be far outweigh the positive impact. The problem needs to be solved in a contained environment. This is the direction Sierra Leone is headed as it prepares to impose a 3-day quarantine, having all residence remain in their homes as health workers attempt to root out patients.
When the ebola epidemic was first realized as a threat I think everyone, including myself, developed a distant sense of fear of the ever hovering question, "what if?". What if there was an ebola outbreak in somewhere like Toronto, or in the heart of Brazil by someone travelling out of Africa? However, I think that the risk of a major ebola epidemic anywhere outside of Africa is highly unlikely unless the virus is to become air born (an unlikely mutation, being disgusted by virologists but discouraged by major health organization leaders). I disagree with your statement; by freeing up the travelling bans solutions to this epidemic will be easier to reach. With controlled and tested exits from the country to developed countries that have the money and the tools to handle the disease effectively. Like you said, there was a nurse (William Pooley) who contracted the disease and recovered fully by travelling back. Developed countries can handle ebola with ease, and clusters of out breaks would never reach the death tole that it has in Africa.
In 1979, China introduced its contentious one child law to combat the exponential growth of their population. According to People’s Daily, a newspaper owned by the Communist Party of China, the policy has prevented 400 million births and delayed the world population from hitting 7 billion by five years. It also claims that, without the policy, the country’s population would have exceeded 1.7 billion by 2011. While the controversial family planning policy has succeeded in slowing population growth, limiting families to one child per couple has had several negative ramifications. These consequences include a shrinking labour force and ethical issues concerning reproductive rights and forced abortions.
One of the most widely-discussed issues is the disturbingly unbalanced sex ratio in China. As a result of the traditional favouring of sons over daughters, couples use ultrasounds to determine the sex of their child, and oftentimes abort female fetuses. It is also not uncommon for families to abandon unwanted female babies; some even go as far as infanticide. This has resulted in a dangerously high boy-to-girl ratio; in 2004, 121.2 boys were born for every 100 girls. This means that there will be between 30 million and 35 million more men of marrying age than women by 2020 (to put that in perspective, the population of Canada is just over 35 million). Some associate the shortage of women with the dramatic increase in violent crime, human trafficking, and substance abuse.
China has recently relaxed the one child policy, exempting about one third of the population from the rule. The Chinese government has also made laws banning infanticide, discrimination against women who choose to keep female children, and the use of technology to determine the sex of the fetus. Although these are steps in the right direction, these laws and changes to the policy come too late to help the 35 million men who will be unable to find a female counterpart.
Due to the apparent success of the "One Child Policy" in China, do you think that other countries will consider adopting this controversial, yet potentially successful policy, or do you think that they will find alternative routes to lower their population, should they wish to?
I feel as though in the coming years, most of the world won't have to really be too concerned about the "one child policy". However, it is really something to consider for the developing countries such as India and Nigeria. It may, perhaps, be the answer to the very overpopulating countries.
What if China brought over just female immigrants? Would these males be lonely still? Or would it make the population worse? While it changes the percentage of males and females. Would female only immigrants increase the population in a good way or a bad way?
I highly doubt that China would even consider bringing in immigrants. I think they consider a mass deportation/ emigration of males before they would consider allowing any more people into their country.
If they did bring in only female immigrants, however; that almost seems like borderline human trafficking to me. Bringing in women for the sole purpose of evening out the gender ratio of the population. Do you think that these women would also all have to agree to an arranged marriage upon arrival? How else could you guarantee that these women would bare a child for these "lonely" men?
As population increases in concentrated areas of the world desertification is an ever increasing issue. Desertification is a type of land degradation where a relatively dry land region becomes increasingly arid, typically losing its bodies of water as well as vegetation and wildlife. There are increasing water shortages due to limited water supplies and increased pollution in over populated areas. In addition There is mass deforestation and complete loss of vegetation because an increasing number of farm land must be cleared. Extra land must also be cleared for urbanization (The process where cities grow and societies become more urban) to support more living space. These losses of vegetation destroy natural habitats for wildlife. As a result of destruction of habitat and also a higher demand for meat there is also a loss of wildlife.
There is only a small percentage of ideal land for humans to live and thrive on our earth. Desertification is destroying the small percentage that we have. The more population continues to grow the more irreparable the ecological damage will be. Current food crises will only get worse as more animals and prime land are destroyed.
This desertification has enormous ecological implications. In the long run overpopulation will destroy our environment and bring further threats to our existence as humans.
Before reading your post, I hadn't really made the connection between an increasing world population and desertification. Obviously, a larger population necessitates a larger food supply, which means that more farms need to be established. As you had mentioned in your article, however, agriculture can have devastating effects on the environment. Do you think that we can stop desertification without limiting agriculture, and by extension, food supplies? Is there any possible way for us to reverse the damage that we've already inflicted on the environment?
In recent studies done by Hans Rosling, a Swedish statistician and professor at the Karolinska Institute, poverty and over population is as much of an issue today as the ignorance surrounding it. As older generations grew up learning about "developed" versus "developing" countries, newer generations hear the terms "first world", "second world", "third world" and so on. This is caused by the gap between developed and developing countries being woven together. There is now the in between stage, the "medium/high" categories seen on the A Developing World Map from Canadian Geographic [3]. When looking at this map I urge you to select a comparison on the right side between Canada and India and see that though India's population is almost a billion more than us, their education rates are only one percent below, and their child survival rate are not far behind either. Hans Rosling is attempting to reshape the looking glass in which we see the world. He follows the theory of the Peak Child, which means that we are seeing the last major population growth before the population begins to even out due to the education of women, family planning, and high child survival rate. That is, if we can bring up the child survival rate in places such as India to match places such as Canada, we will be able to bring a lot of the world out of the "extreme poverty stage" (making less than 1.25 a day) [2] and hopefully be able to sustain the world. The only way to do this is to educate the masses. Hans Rosling created an "ignorance test" where he tested 1000 british people against chimps to see who could score better (to take a short version of the quiz, click the first link below). The british had all of their schooling, etc. The chimpanzees had answers written on bananas, which they chose on random. "If for each question I wrote each of the possible alternatives on bananas, and asked chimpanzees in the zoo to pick the right answers, and by picking the right bananas, they'd just pick bananas at random. But the Brits did even worse," says Rosling [1]. What was even more shocking was that even compared to recent or undergoing university graduates, the scores were almost the same. Which shows that even newer generations are not getting the education needed to help first world countries understand how to help third and fourth world countries develop.
Mark this one
ReplyDeleteAs Ebola continues to grow as a problem in West Africa, it also is becoming an important global issue. With over 2100 patient deaths and close to 80 health worker casualties, it's clear that more needs be done. According to the World Health Organization, efforts need to be scaled up "three-to-four fold". The issue here is the significant risk posed to anyone entering West Africa, as well as the threat created by anyone leaving the area.
Without financial and medical support, this issue only gets worse. A severe lack of hospital beds means that many infected have to return to their regular lives where they spread the disease further. The social and economic impact of the current travel bans is limiting how effective the affected area can be. The African Union is urging member states to lift these bans, which could cause obvious risks but could also assist in finding a solution. An American doctor that had been infected while working in West Africa has since been brought to America where he recovered and was able to be studied.
Overall this is obviously an issue that needs urgent attention in order to be resolved in the most effective way possible. However, the risk that comes with allowing travel in and out of these countries appears to be far outweigh the positive impact. The problem needs to be solved in a contained environment. This is the direction Sierra Leone is headed as it prepares to impose a 3-day quarantine, having all residence remain in their homes as health workers attempt to root out patients.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-29115298
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/latest-american-ebola-patient-headed-nebraska-hospital-treatment/story?id=25252017
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/world/africa/sierra-leone-to-impose-widespread-ebola-quarantine.html?_r=0
When the ebola epidemic was first realized as a threat I think everyone, including myself, developed a distant sense of fear of the ever hovering question, "what if?". What if there was an ebola outbreak in somewhere like Toronto, or in the heart of Brazil by someone travelling out of Africa? However, I think that the risk of a major ebola epidemic anywhere outside of Africa is highly unlikely unless the virus is to become air born (an unlikely mutation, being disgusted by virologists but discouraged by major health organization leaders).
DeleteI disagree with your statement; by freeing up the travelling bans solutions to this epidemic will be easier to reach. With controlled and tested exits from the country to developed countries that have the money and the tools to handle the disease effectively. Like you said, there was a nurse (William Pooley) who contracted the disease and recovered fully by travelling back. Developed countries can handle ebola with ease, and clusters of out breaks would never reach the death tole that it has in Africa.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-29168905
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2014/09/03/can-ebola-go-airborne/
Mark this one, please :)
ReplyDeleteIn 1979, China introduced its contentious one child law to combat the exponential growth of their population. According to People’s Daily, a newspaper owned by the Communist Party of China, the policy has prevented 400 million births and delayed the world population from hitting 7 billion by five years. It also claims that, without the policy, the country’s population would have exceeded 1.7 billion by 2011. While the controversial family planning policy has succeeded in slowing population growth, limiting families to one child per couple has had several negative ramifications. These consequences include a shrinking labour force and ethical issues concerning reproductive rights and forced abortions.
One of the most widely-discussed issues is the disturbingly unbalanced sex ratio in China. As a result of the traditional favouring of sons over daughters, couples use ultrasounds to determine the sex of their child, and oftentimes abort female fetuses. It is also not uncommon for families to abandon unwanted female babies; some even go as far as infanticide. This has resulted in a dangerously high boy-to-girl ratio; in 2004, 121.2 boys were born for every 100 girls. This means that there will be between 30 million and 35 million more men of marrying age than women by 2020 (to put that in perspective, the population of Canada is just over 35 million). Some associate the shortage of women with the dramatic increase in violent crime, human trafficking, and substance abuse.
China has recently relaxed the one child policy, exempting about one third of the population from the rule. The Chinese government has also made laws banning infanticide, discrimination against women who choose to keep female children, and the use of technology to determine the sex of the fetus. Although these are steps in the right direction, these laws and changes to the policy come too late to help the 35 million men who will be unable to find a female counterpart.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7629166.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/china-challenges-one-child-brooks/
http://qz.com/59398/chinas-ratio-of-boys-to-girls-is-still-dangerously-high-and-its-the-chinese-governments-fault/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/medical/infanticide_1.shtml
Due to the apparent success of the "One Child Policy" in China, do you think that other countries will consider adopting this controversial, yet potentially successful policy, or do you think that they will find alternative routes to lower their population, should they wish to?
DeleteI feel as though in the coming years, most of the world won't have to really be too concerned about the "one child policy". However, it is really something to consider for the developing countries such as India and Nigeria. It may, perhaps, be the answer to the very overpopulating countries.
DeleteWhat if China brought over just female immigrants? Would these males be lonely still? Or would it make the population worse? While it changes the percentage of males and females. Would female only immigrants increase the population in a good way or a bad way?
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt that China would even consider bringing in immigrants. I think they consider a mass deportation/ emigration of males before they would consider allowing any more people into their country.
DeleteIf they did bring in only female immigrants, however; that almost seems like borderline human trafficking to me. Bringing in women for the sole purpose of evening out the gender ratio of the population. Do you think that these women would also all have to agree to an arranged marriage upon arrival? How else could you guarantee that these women would bare a child for these "lonely" men?
Mark this.
ReplyDeleteAs population increases in concentrated areas of the world desertification is an ever increasing issue. Desertification is a type of land degradation where a relatively dry land region becomes increasingly arid, typically losing its bodies of water as well as vegetation and wildlife. There are increasing water shortages due to limited water supplies and increased pollution in over populated areas. In addition There is mass deforestation and complete loss of vegetation because an increasing number of farm land must be cleared. Extra land must also be cleared for urbanization (The process where cities grow and societies become more urban) to support more living space. These losses of vegetation destroy natural habitats for wildlife. As a result of destruction of habitat and also a higher demand for meat there is also a loss of wildlife.
There is only a small percentage of ideal land for humans to live and thrive on our earth. Desertification is destroying the small percentage that we have. The more population continues to grow the more irreparable the ecological damage will be. Current food crises will only get worse as more animals and prime land are destroyed.
This desertification has enormous ecological implications. In the long run overpopulation will destroy our environment and bring further threats to our existence as humans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-tal/overpopulation-is-still-t_b_3990646.html
http://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/desertification-and-overpopulation.aspx#axzz3D3L2Sn4v
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBefore reading your post, I hadn't really made the connection between an increasing world population and desertification. Obviously, a larger population necessitates a larger food supply, which means that more farms need to be established. As you had mentioned in your article, however, agriculture can have devastating effects on the environment. Do you think that we can stop desertification without limiting agriculture, and by extension, food supplies? Is there any possible way for us to reverse the damage that we've already inflicted on the environment?
DeleteIn recent studies done by Hans Rosling, a Swedish statistician and professor at the Karolinska Institute, poverty and over population is as much of an issue today as the ignorance surrounding it. As older generations grew up learning about "developed" versus "developing" countries, newer generations hear the terms "first world", "second world", "third world" and so on. This is caused by the gap between developed and developing countries being woven together. There is now the in between stage, the "medium/high" categories seen on the A Developing World Map from Canadian Geographic [3]. When looking at this map I urge you to select a comparison on the right side between Canada and India and see that though India's population is almost a billion more than us, their education rates are only one percent below, and their child survival rate are not far behind either.
ReplyDeleteHans Rosling is attempting to reshape the looking glass in which we see the world. He follows the theory of the Peak Child, which means that we are seeing the last major population growth before the population begins to even out due to the education of women, family planning, and high child survival rate. That is, if we can bring up the child survival rate in places such as India to match places such as Canada, we will be able to bring a lot of the world out of the "extreme poverty stage" (making less than 1.25 a day) [2] and hopefully be able to sustain the world.
The only way to do this is to educate the masses. Hans Rosling created an "ignorance test" where he tested 1000 british people against chimps to see who could score better (to take a short version of the quiz, click the first link below). The british had all of their schooling, etc. The chimpanzees had answers written on bananas, which they chose on random. "If for each question I wrote each of the possible alternatives on bananas, and asked chimpanzees in the zoo to pick the right answers, and by picking the right bananas, they'd just pick bananas at random. But the Brits did even worse," says Rosling [1]. What was even more shocking was that even compared to recent or undergoing university graduates, the scores were almost the same. Which shows that even newer generations are not getting the education needed to help first world countries understand how to help third and fourth world countries develop.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24836917 [1]
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24835822 [2]
http://worldmap.canadiangeographic.ca/ [3]
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth [4]