“Every government is interested in what is going to happen to their population in the next couple of decades, for pragmatic economic reasons and planning needs,” says Tomáš Sobotka, a population researcher at the Vienna Institute of Demography. That adds up to a growing research and policy interest in the planet’s human resources. And the pandemic has complicated things by delaying some censuses and potentially changing predictions for life expectancy and birth rates, at least in the short term. This is crucial, not only to provide a solid baseline from which to project into the distant future, but also to develop policies for today, such as allocating COVID vaccinations and providing adequate numbers of school places. No matter which model is used, the most important data are precise numbers of who lives in each country today - and researchers are developing ways to improve these tallies. The fraction of the global population at risk of floods is growing The difference poses a conundrum for governments, companies and others trying to plan for everything from investment in infrastructure and future tax income, to setting goals for international development and greenhouse-gas reductions.
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/FEM4OVV6G5GEVMUJ367ETSJJUA.jpg "live natin wont sign me out")
The other groups forecast earlier and smaller peaks, with global population reaching 9.7 billion by 2070 and then declining. The UN says world population will plateau at 10.9 billion by the end of the century. But in the past few years, rival groups have developed their own techniques and produced their own results - which vary considerably and have generated bitter disputes in the field. And many of these policies are based on computer simulations of how future population numbers will rise and fall.įor decades, the most influential of these projections was produced by a small group of population modellers at the United Nations. Across the world, to secure a stable financial future, governments are desperate to keep national population numbers in a Goldilocks zone: not too many, not too few. Singapore is a dramatic example, but far from unique. Under the awkward slogan “Have Three or More (if you can afford it)”, the scales tipped abruptly towards those with larger families, who were now given priority for schools and housing. In March 1987, officials performed a demographic U-turn. It increased hospital fees for the delivery of third babies and withdrew maternity pay.
LIVE NATIN WONT SIGN ME OUT SERIES
The government initially told them to “Stop-at-Two” and backed up the policy with a series of measures to deter couples from having three or more children. The 1980s were a puzzling time for would-be parents in Singapore.
0 kommentar(er)
