Overpopulation in China and India

Overpopulation is a major problem to some countries in the World today.

The term is defined as a condition where an organism’s numbers exceed the carry

ing capacity of its habitat. Overpopulation leads to crowded living spaces, a finite amount of jobs, and hunger problems. The mass amount of people creates many problems for the governments who undergo this problem. Examples of two countries who go through this are China and India. China is home too nearly 1.25 billion people today. Every year, China’s numbers

increase by 12-13 million people. The annual population exceeds that of Ohio, Illinois, or Pennsylvania. India’s inhabitants are up to as much as 1.15 billion following closely behind China. Reasons for these overwhelming numbers have to do with their rural lands, great agriculture, religious reasons, and ancestral reasons. But are these problems being handled with to their full extent? Are China and India’s governments really doing all they can to stop this crisis?

In China, the problem started around 1949. From then on the population of China has grown substantially throughout the years. From 1953 to 1964, China’s population growth added nearly 112,000,000 people while the death rates were falling and the birth rates were remaining high. But from 1958-1961, the country went through an agricultural downfall, which resulted in a shortage of food. This unfortunately led to 20,000,000 deaths. The reason there was no real panic is because they were handling the rise in human population well for the outrageous numbers coming in. But it did raise thought and questioning that soon led to a drastic solution for the Chinese government. The 1970’s brought attention upon the increases in population to the “po

pulation planners” and politicians to try and reduce the birth rate and family sizes. The solution that they felt strongly with in the end is known as the One-Child Policy. This policy is “the population control policy of the People’s Republic of China. And the People’s Republic of China is commonly known as China. The One-child policy “restricts the number of children married couples can have to one, although it allows exemptions for several cases, including couples, ethnic minorities, and parents without any siblings.” Statistically this policy worked very well, but the severity of how they handled with the excess births was horrible. One of its most extreme times was in the early 1980’s when the policy was encouraging forced abortions, infanticide, and strict penalties. The policy focuses entirely on males. If your baby were expected to be a female, you would usually have to go through an abortion or can setup for adoption b

y other family members if you can. The families who do consist of female children are ones where the family pays the government extra and for some rural families. Having any additional children results in large fines and their workplaces are less beneficial when it comes to bonuses. To an extent of when it comes down to numbers, this policy is great. But if this is the best China can come up with, then they really need to take priorities into hand.

Now in India, the overpopulation problem is affecting the government by overwhelming it with too much too handle. India’s solution to this problem is to either lower the birth rate or increase death rate. But of course the chosen solution was to lower the birth rate. It has been recorded that

India has decreased its birth rate from 2.2 in the 1980’s to 1.47 in 2003. Though it is still above the world average of 1.33, which is India’s goal. India’s National Population Commission has set this goal for 2045, but some believe that will still not be enough to decrease the population enough. They expect for actual results only if they can accomplish this by 2015. The penalties for having multiple children in India are also male dominant like China. Female children, if there are cultural pressures to produce boys, are to an extent, deprived of food, education, and health services. And even to the extreme cases of abortions and female infanticide. Families who have female children usually lose benefits from the government.

With these extreme cases happening in the world, some wonder why there is not more aid to help these countries in ways such as homing many citizens who are part of the overpopulation factor. Because the actions of killing infants and children due to the fact there is simply just not enough room or supplies, is pretty outrageous. While there are other serious problems in the world besides the facts of some country’s population problems, there should really be more things being done in order to solve the problem. 567

Soviet Hydrogen Bomb

Nuclear Weaponry has been involving since the 1930s. The power of nuclear weapons is beyond imagine. Wiping out miles of land and destroying everything in its path, nuclear weapons are a threat to Earth’s ecosystem. The atomic bombs produced from he advances in nuclear studies pushed it to be more for pride than actual military use. Around the 1940s, these massive bombs were made for boasting reasons rather than attacks on different regions. It was not until October 30, 1961 where the Soviet Union tested the largest, most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated. The bomb was made to show off the fact that the Soviet Union was no one to mess with. But was it really worth it, to create such a massive explosion for the purpose of showing off? Was it necessary to destroy all that land in order to show dominance?

Tsar Bomba, Big Ivan, King of Bombs were all names given to this record breaking explosion. Designed to be a 100-megaton bomb, but later reduced to 50 Mt in order to reduce nuclear fallout. The end product was “the cleanest weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions.” The pre-product would have been detrimental to the world’s atmosphere and would have “increased the world’s total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb.” Which means that the radiation from the nuclear explosion would lead to major global problems.

But on the other hand, these massive weapons also have the power to stop a war from actually occurring. Sure the power involved is arguably far too strong for a country to possess. That all it takes is a confirmation and detonations to practically defy “God,” these nuclear weapons still create opportunities for “neutral wars.” Meaning that in the matter of seconds a war can start but it is unlikely due to the power countries possess because they can end that war in the same time it started.

The safety of these world killing devices are not very high, one expecting to live from a nuclear explosion should really realize there is only the slimmest of the slim possibility of survival. Unless you perform the procedure of “Duck and Dive” of course. But from my experiences of nuclear weaponry, I believe most countries are in good control of their weapons. I am not saying they are going to know what to do with them at the right time nor place.

Nuclear Weapons today are incredibly strong. The “Tsar Bomba” being the largest one detonated was over 50 years ago. That bomb was reduced half of it’s original megatons of TNT. The 420-kilometer blast would not stand a chance to one double its size. And with the advancements the world has been going though, I am sure other countries have caught up or even outdone that of the Soviet Union. In conclusion, nuclear weapons have arguably been the key component to ending wars in the matters it has done. Killing 200,000 civilians but possibly stopping the death of millions of lives. These nuclear weapons do have a place on this planet, as long as they are in the right hand. 506

The Atlantic Charter was an agreement between the United States and Britain that was signed on August 14, 1941. The meeting, itself took place on the two ships, Augusta and The Prince of Wales. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill agreed to discuss this affair in Placentia Bay in New Foundland. Their vision was for a more peaceful post-World War II world. One of the most interesting things about this ordeal was that the United States was not even involved in the war at the time. Roosevelt sought out that this agreement was necessary for a better world. Both men had many hopes for this what some would call an alliance. Churchill went in hoping that the United States would aid Britain in the military effort to block Axis threat in North Africa, the Atlantic islands, and Southeast Asia. While Roosevelt aimed for “peace aims” to compensate for the isolationism back in the U.S. Roosevelt also wanted to “get on record Britain’s commitment to such traditional American goals as open agreements, self-determination, and multilateral trade. The charter was centered among eight comm-

on principals. The majority being of self-independence and that the U.S. or Britain would gain no territory as a result of World War II. Both men almost achieved what they came for. Although Churchill did not receive immediate response of the United States plans on military help, he was happy with what happened and decided to be patient with the matter. The reactions of many were different for both sides. Britain applauded their primeminister’s actions and the support they gained from the Americans. While the Americans who felt that they should stay out of the war entirely, were at ease with the compromise. Other allied nations were also very pleased with the comfort of the U.S. at their side. Within a month, the USSR and 14 other anti-Axis countries commended the Atlantic Charter.

But what this really the best move for the United States at this time. Even though the American and Britain population was satisfied, many other nation’s leaders were not. Hitler was displeased with the Charter and issued that this was propaganda and wanted all sources of it to be banished from the German public or of occupied Europe. The charter also could have been why the U.S. even entered the war. The United States finally initiated in the war when a German U-boat fired on a U.S. destroyer on September 4. The United was now in a naval war with Hitler. But they would soon find out that it was not a German boat that fired on the U.S., it was of Japanese heritage. The Charter did not directly cause this attack to happen, but it might have shown that the U.S. needed to be taken out soon so that Britain and other allied nations did not become too powerful.

But to this day, The Atlantic Charter has been a huge stepping-stone for the development of the United Nations. Its policies are still strongly upheld by the U.S. and seemed to be very beneficial in ways. But it still raises questions on whether or not, without the Atlantic Charter, that the United would have ever even entered the war. Or even that Germany could of possibly won without our efforts. 525

Sacco and Vanzetti: Condemned for murder or because of racist prosecutors. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, two Italian born Anarchists of whom became the news of the century. Sacco and Vanzetti both left their homeland for the United States during early adulthood. Sacco’s workmanship involved shoe edge trimming and supporting his American family. While Vanzetti on the other hand was a bachelor that jumped from various odd jobs throughout the cities. The United States is where Nicola and Bartolomeo first met. Interested in the same anarchists view, they both fled to Mexico once the U.S. entered World War I. Soon after Sacco returned to his family, while Vanzetti traveled around Midwestern America for a year. Both these men were reunited in New England questionably by fate to spread the anarchist way.

Little did they know, the actions that occurred on April 15^th, 1920 affected their lives forever. He to men were seen going to a garage to pick up their automobile, which was believed to be seen at where the crime occurred, when they were arrested. Due to the post-war economic troubles, street fights were common and most people armed themselves with weapons. The two were both carrying firearms but pleaded guilty to the murder earlier. Though Vanzetti already had somewhat of a criminal record. He was charged for an earlier holdup that previous December. His alibi argued innocence but due to the lack of poor translation from his fellow Italians, the American jury sentenced him for 10-15 years. Though for no one actually being hurt and solid evidence the time allotted exceeded that of normal time. A worried justice system or a prejudice jury?

The trial of the 1920 murder battled back and forth. Even though they had clean criminal records previously they were recognized as anarchist militants who had been extensively involved in labor strikes, political agitation, and antiwar propaganda and who had several confrontations with the law. And to make matters worst their crimes coincided with the dramatic political repression in American history, the “Red Scare” from 1919 to 1920. Though these men had also added to their problems through perjury, which only made the problem worst. Their believed crimes were almost finalized as guilty. But these men were doing great things by lying believing to conceal the secrets of their comrades and fellow anarchist followers. Sacco and Vanzetti were granted a new lawyer after a certain time named Fred H. Moore. He realized that he had to change the nature of the legal strategy. Mr. Moore tried to fight their case not by what murders they may have done, but solely by their anarchism. That the real reason these men were prosecuted was from their radical activities. He tried to prove that the government was trying to suppress the Italian anarchist movement for desires to aid the federal and military authorities. The case now went on as a political fight between patriotism and radicalism. Moore fought hard and even ended up bringing the Italian government into play, which turned this murder case into an international dispute. Despite Moore’s actions, Sacco and Vanzetti were still found guilty on July 14, 1921. The final decision however extended until 1927, during which time the defense made many separate motions, appeals, and petitions to both state and federal courts in an attempt to gain a new trial.

The two men were prosecuted from evidence of perjury by prosecution witnesses, of illegal activities by the police and the federal authorities, a confession to the Braintree crimes, and strong evidence that acknowledged the gang in the Braintree affair as the notorious Morelli gang. The Judge who ruled the motion was the same as the one who prosecuted Vanzetti in the earlier holdup offense. The Judge, would even rule on a motion accusing himself of judicial prejudice. On April 9. 1927, Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were sentenced to death. Their trial was one that led many to question the government they lived in, to be fair or one of many problems. 676