According to one survey, 10 percent of the world’s population suffers from mental defects ranging from idiocy and raving madness to loss of mental equilibrium.
Geologists and scientists look at the causes of natural calamities and disasters on the basis of scientific knowledge and studies. They opine that when man violates the ecological order, nature limits human numbers in its own way. Religious scholars, however, have different perceptions and consider natural calamities like earthquakes and floods as punishment for the sins of the people. They, nevertheless, cannot explain why pious people are also punished along with the sinful lot, and why mosques and hospitals are also destroyed in the process. The necessity of human numbers to conform to the environment and how this may be achieved has been argued since Malthus propounded his theory. Demographic variations due to high or low birth rates or mortality are explained by demographic studies of various stages of development. Historical evidence suggests that human population numbers have been subject to cyclic variations as a result of boom, gloom and doom. The first half of the 20th century had recorded great prosperity and amelioration of living conditions but, at the same time, savage wars; thus limiting human numbers in nature’s way.
The continuing high population growth rate in Pakistan is a major national concern and strain on national resources. Experts reckon that with the present rate of about two percent increase in population, Pakistan’s population will be 220 million by 2020 and 280 million by 2030. In Pakistan, despite macro-economic stability and impressive GDP growth during 2002 to 2007, social indicators with regard to human resource development — healthcare, education, level of employment, income distribution and skill formation — lag behind when compared with other countries in the region. For Pakistan, there is a dual challenge, i.e. to alleviate poverty and improve the living standards of the existing population, and to make provisions for additions to the population. Because of the financial meltdown and, consequently, global economic downturn, Pakistan’s economy is in dire straits, and more and more people are being pushed below the poverty line. Evidence suggests that no developing country in the world has been able to solve the problem of mass poverty without containing population growth.
Though the population explosion is not the problem in developed countries, yet, according to one survey, 10 percent of the world’s population, including the US and Europe, suffers from mental defects ranging from idiocy and raving madness to loss of mental equilibrium. This incidence is more in developing countries, as medical science has revealed that if, during pregnancy, would-be mothers do not take an adequate quantity of proteins, the brains of their children will not grow to the normal size; hence low intelligence and low IQ. One may not entirely agree with Malthus when he reckoned that population increases in geometric progression whereas resources increase in arithmetical progression, but one thing is sure; that population outstripping resources could pose a serious challenge to the world. He had cautioned to limit numbers because whenever the world’s population increased to the level of outstripping the resources, there were natural calamities, chaos, tensions, conflicts and wars.
Because of the crowded conditions of life and acute shortages, signs of stress and tension become evident, and in turn lead to abnormal behaviour patterns. According to sociologists, murders, crimes and acts of terrorism are the result of inadequate resources, unemployment, poverty and an unfair and unjust economic system. There is no denying that with better management, fertility of soils can be maintained and improved, which could help match the requirements of food for some time. But there is a limit, as land is a critical factor that cannot be increased once all cultivable land is brought under the plough. In this backdrop, the necessity for human numbers to conform to the environment cannot be overemphasised. If numbers become too great, obviously there will not be enough food for them, and disposal of wastes will also pose a serious problem in the form of pollution, which could result in epidemics. The numbers then would inevitably come to be controlled by nature’s way of removing the excess.
Classical economists were somewhat hopeful that slowly and gradually the working classes might become educated enough to resort to a reasonable degree of moral restraint. In the UK, it was once felt important to abolish or modify those provisions of the poor-relief system that weakened whatever moral restraint was forthcoming. Therefore, in 1834, the system was made harsher by withdrawing relief to the poor. This was described by many as an inhuman way of persuading the population to limit its numbers. We, today, witness that the world’s population has risen alarmingly, and there is concern that food, energy and other material resources will be inadequate within the next 100 years or even earlier. Science has, indeed, made it possible to increase agricultural yields in developing countries through the use of fertilisers, pesticides and by conservation of water resources, but in the face of rising populations, these efforts will not bear fruitful results. There is indeed a positive way of controlling population, i.e. to give people the desire and incentives to limit family size by making them prosperous, because people living at the subsistence level with a short life expectancy have no incentive to limit family numbers.
This is the only humane and effective way of controlling population numbers. If this is not done, there is fear of wars for oil, water and other resources. At the same time, if the existing ‘new world order’ is not replaced by a just economic order, and if the Kashmir and Palestinian issues are not resolved in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council, flashpoints could rock the world. During the early 1950s, eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell in an essay titled ‘The future of mankind’ had written that before the end of the 20th century, unless something quite unforeseeable occurred, one of three possibilities would be realised. The first one was the end of human life or all life on the planet as a result of war and then as a consequence hunger, starvation and disease. The second was reversion to barbarism in view of the first one, and the third one was unification of the world under a single government, possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war. Since the third one is impossible because there are already a dozen states having nuclear devices and delivery systems, hence the future of mankind is bleak in case of war, as there would be no concept of victor and vanquished.
Geologists and scientists look at the causes of natural calamities and disasters on the basis of scientific knowledge and studies. They opine that when man violates the ecological order, nature limits human numbers in its own way. Religious scholars, however, have different perceptions and consider natural calamities like earthquakes and floods as punishment for the sins of the people. They, nevertheless, cannot explain why pious people are also punished along with the sinful lot, and why mosques and hospitals are also destroyed in the process. The necessity of human numbers to conform to the environment and how this may be achieved has been argued since Malthus propounded his theory. Demographic variations due to high or low birth rates or mortality are explained by demographic studies of various stages of development. Historical evidence suggests that human population numbers have been subject to cyclic variations as a result of boom, gloom and doom. The first half of the 20th century had recorded great prosperity and amelioration of living conditions but, at the same time, savage wars; thus limiting human numbers in nature’s way.
The continuing high population growth rate in Pakistan is a major national concern and strain on national resources. Experts reckon that with the present rate of about two percent increase in population, Pakistan’s population will be 220 million by 2020 and 280 million by 2030. In Pakistan, despite macro-economic stability and impressive GDP growth during 2002 to 2007, social indicators with regard to human resource development — healthcare, education, level of employment, income distribution and skill formation — lag behind when compared with other countries in the region. For Pakistan, there is a dual challenge, i.e. to alleviate poverty and improve the living standards of the existing population, and to make provisions for additions to the population. Because of the financial meltdown and, consequently, global economic downturn, Pakistan’s economy is in dire straits, and more and more people are being pushed below the poverty line. Evidence suggests that no developing country in the world has been able to solve the problem of mass poverty without containing population growth.
Though the population explosion is not the problem in developed countries, yet, according to one survey, 10 percent of the world’s population, including the US and Europe, suffers from mental defects ranging from idiocy and raving madness to loss of mental equilibrium. This incidence is more in developing countries, as medical science has revealed that if, during pregnancy, would-be mothers do not take an adequate quantity of proteins, the brains of their children will not grow to the normal size; hence low intelligence and low IQ. One may not entirely agree with Malthus when he reckoned that population increases in geometric progression whereas resources increase in arithmetical progression, but one thing is sure; that population outstripping resources could pose a serious challenge to the world. He had cautioned to limit numbers because whenever the world’s population increased to the level of outstripping the resources, there were natural calamities, chaos, tensions, conflicts and wars.
Because of the crowded conditions of life and acute shortages, signs of stress and tension become evident, and in turn lead to abnormal behaviour patterns. According to sociologists, murders, crimes and acts of terrorism are the result of inadequate resources, unemployment, poverty and an unfair and unjust economic system. There is no denying that with better management, fertility of soils can be maintained and improved, which could help match the requirements of food for some time. But there is a limit, as land is a critical factor that cannot be increased once all cultivable land is brought under the plough. In this backdrop, the necessity for human numbers to conform to the environment cannot be overemphasised. If numbers become too great, obviously there will not be enough food for them, and disposal of wastes will also pose a serious problem in the form of pollution, which could result in epidemics. The numbers then would inevitably come to be controlled by nature’s way of removing the excess.
Classical economists were somewhat hopeful that slowly and gradually the working classes might become educated enough to resort to a reasonable degree of moral restraint. In the UK, it was once felt important to abolish or modify those provisions of the poor-relief system that weakened whatever moral restraint was forthcoming. Therefore, in 1834, the system was made harsher by withdrawing relief to the poor. This was described by many as an inhuman way of persuading the population to limit its numbers. We, today, witness that the world’s population has risen alarmingly, and there is concern that food, energy and other material resources will be inadequate within the next 100 years or even earlier. Science has, indeed, made it possible to increase agricultural yields in developing countries through the use of fertilisers, pesticides and by conservation of water resources, but in the face of rising populations, these efforts will not bear fruitful results. There is indeed a positive way of controlling population, i.e. to give people the desire and incentives to limit family size by making them prosperous, because people living at the subsistence level with a short life expectancy have no incentive to limit family numbers.
This is the only humane and effective way of controlling population numbers. If this is not done, there is fear of wars for oil, water and other resources. At the same time, if the existing ‘new world order’ is not replaced by a just economic order, and if the Kashmir and Palestinian issues are not resolved in accordance with the resolutions of the UN Security Council, flashpoints could rock the world. During the early 1950s, eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell in an essay titled ‘The future of mankind’ had written that before the end of the 20th century, unless something quite unforeseeable occurred, one of three possibilities would be realised. The first one was the end of human life or all life on the planet as a result of war and then as a consequence hunger, starvation and disease. The second was reversion to barbarism in view of the first one, and the third one was unification of the world under a single government, possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war. Since the third one is impossible because there are already a dozen states having nuclear devices and delivery systems, hence the future of mankind is bleak in case of war, as there would be no concept of victor and vanquished.
Comments
Post a Comment