Thursday, March 26, 2009
Russia's Population Plan
Russia has an artificial mechanism to deliberate population growth.The nation's economy has suffered through twenty years of decreasing human capital, and yielded a seven percent decline in this year's first quarter. Two years ago the government instated a reward of 250,000 rubles (about $9,200) for having a second child. But attempting to manipulate human capital through coerced childbirth overlooks the global security risks of population growth. The United Nations estimates that world population will increase by 40 percent between now and 2050.
The looming result of population growth is the peril of the earth’s resources. President Vladmir Putin dismissed the environmental risk of overpopulation in May 2006 when he said that procreation incentive programs are necessary to ameliorate Russia’s population crisis, which he called Russia's most serious problem. For now, the nation boasts profits from natural resources, but it only has one-third of the per capita income of developed nations. The detrimental health status and low-life expectancy contributes to Russia’s long-term economic risks: reductions in savings rates, fewer education investments, less productive workers, and the reluctance of foreign investment.
Demographic projections estimate that Russia’s shrinking labor force will reduce innovative efforts and result in economic and social deterioration. Younger generations are already beginning to bare responsibilities for the multiplicity of unemployed, older generations. In May 2008, The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) reported that Russia suffers from “population implosion” due to low birthrates and deteriorating life expectancy and health. CSIS predicts that the elderly population may double by 2050, and the median age will rise from 37 to 49. Demographers also project that similar to Japan, Sweden and Germany, Russia’s population will resemble an upside down pyramid by 2050, with the majority of citizens at the top in the elderly bracket, and fewer, migrating younger generations toward the bottom.
But these dangers do not substantiate deliberate population increases. And Russians are apprehensive about the additional child payment program because the total costs of child rearing, like baby equipment, health services, social activities, and education, exceed the government’s subsidy. Conservationists are also skeptical about the benefits of paying families to have more children.
Environmental concerns are generating more green businesses, green governmental policies, and green manufacturing that drive individual and societal behavior change. Although people can mitigate their carbon footprints by adopting green lifestyles, families can make a more immediate impact on sustaining the earth’s resources by practical family planning. Population declines cause a smaller number of carbon footprints, depending on the majority’s willingness to restrict their consumption habits, such as fossil fuels and non-recyclable waste.
Optimum Population Trust (OPT) analyzes the risks of population growth, teaches about sustainable environmental habits and advocates reproductive health and family planning services such as condoms and sex education.
“With smaller populations, living in greater harmony with nature, our horizons may stretch far into the future,” wrote OPT in March 2009. “If the world's parents had smaller families, would their children not have a better future?”
More recently, Russia has tried alternative, less globally threatening means for increasing its labor force. As The New York Times pointed out on March 22, 2009, President Vladmir Putin began a repatriation program that gives cash, social benefits, passports, and employment opportunities to former natural born citizens, upon their return to Russia. Russia’s child payment program will not solve the outward migration pattern because many Russians leave for more specialized opportunities abroad.
Repatriation might help boost Russia’s economy, but its reward program endangers the global population. Population growth makes resources scare, plaguing the world’s food supply while poor nations struggle to feed themselves; the wealthier try to both find cost-effective remedies for keeping low food prices for the masses and to create sustainable living mechanisms in developing nations.
An alternative option for Russia to increase its labor force is by creating a more immigrant friendly environment offering social services and employment opportunities that foster assimilation and integration within Russian society. In order to retain native Russians, the government could explore the causes of emigration and revise gaps in sectors like education, jobs, and social reform, which have been key indicators of previous exoduses.
The looming result of population growth is the peril of the earth’s resources. President Vladmir Putin dismissed the environmental risk of overpopulation in May 2006 when he said that procreation incentive programs are necessary to ameliorate Russia’s population crisis, which he called Russia's most serious problem. For now, the nation boasts profits from natural resources, but it only has one-third of the per capita income of developed nations. The detrimental health status and low-life expectancy contributes to Russia’s long-term economic risks: reductions in savings rates, fewer education investments, less productive workers, and the reluctance of foreign investment.
Demographic projections estimate that Russia’s shrinking labor force will reduce innovative efforts and result in economic and social deterioration. Younger generations are already beginning to bare responsibilities for the multiplicity of unemployed, older generations. In May 2008, The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) reported that Russia suffers from “population implosion” due to low birthrates and deteriorating life expectancy and health. CSIS predicts that the elderly population may double by 2050, and the median age will rise from 37 to 49. Demographers also project that similar to Japan, Sweden and Germany, Russia’s population will resemble an upside down pyramid by 2050, with the majority of citizens at the top in the elderly bracket, and fewer, migrating younger generations toward the bottom.
But these dangers do not substantiate deliberate population increases. And Russians are apprehensive about the additional child payment program because the total costs of child rearing, like baby equipment, health services, social activities, and education, exceed the government’s subsidy. Conservationists are also skeptical about the benefits of paying families to have more children.
Environmental concerns are generating more green businesses, green governmental policies, and green manufacturing that drive individual and societal behavior change. Although people can mitigate their carbon footprints by adopting green lifestyles, families can make a more immediate impact on sustaining the earth’s resources by practical family planning. Population declines cause a smaller number of carbon footprints, depending on the majority’s willingness to restrict their consumption habits, such as fossil fuels and non-recyclable waste.
Optimum Population Trust (OPT) analyzes the risks of population growth, teaches about sustainable environmental habits and advocates reproductive health and family planning services such as condoms and sex education.
“With smaller populations, living in greater harmony with nature, our horizons may stretch far into the future,” wrote OPT in March 2009. “If the world's parents had smaller families, would their children not have a better future?”
More recently, Russia has tried alternative, less globally threatening means for increasing its labor force. As The New York Times pointed out on March 22, 2009, President Vladmir Putin began a repatriation program that gives cash, social benefits, passports, and employment opportunities to former natural born citizens, upon their return to Russia. Russia’s child payment program will not solve the outward migration pattern because many Russians leave for more specialized opportunities abroad.
Repatriation might help boost Russia’s economy, but its reward program endangers the global population. Population growth makes resources scare, plaguing the world’s food supply while poor nations struggle to feed themselves; the wealthier try to both find cost-effective remedies for keeping low food prices for the masses and to create sustainable living mechanisms in developing nations.
An alternative option for Russia to increase its labor force is by creating a more immigrant friendly environment offering social services and employment opportunities that foster assimilation and integration within Russian society. In order to retain native Russians, the government could explore the causes of emigration and revise gaps in sectors like education, jobs, and social reform, which have been key indicators of previous exoduses.
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
