Population policies, programmes and the environment

Human consumption is depleting the Earth's natural resources and impairing the capacity of life-supporting ecosystems. Humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively over the past 50 years than during any other period, primarily to meet increasing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel. Such consumption, together with world population increasing from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion in 2009, are major contributors to environmental damage. Strengthening family-planning services is crucial to slowing population growth, now 78 million annually, and limiting population size to 9.2 billion by 2050. Otherwise, birth rates could remain unchanged, and world population would grow to 11 billion. Of particular concern are the 80 million annual pregnancies (38% of all pregnancies) that are unintended. More than 200 million women in developing countries prefer to delay their pregnancy, or stop bearing children altogether, but rely on traditional, less-effective methods of contraception or use no method because they lack access or face other barriers to using contraception. Family-planning programmes have a successful track record of reducing unintended pregnancies, thereby slowing population growth. An estimated $15 billion per year is needed for family-planning programmes in developing countries and donors should provide at least$5 billion of the total, however, current donor assistance is less than a quarter of this funding target

Environment change, economy change and reducing conflict at source

At a time when fossil fuel burning, nationalism, ethnic and religious intolerance, and other retrograde steps are being promoted, the prospects for world peace and environmental systems stability may appear dim. Yet now is it the more important to continue to examine the sources of conflict. A major obstacle to general progress is the currently dominant economic practice and theory, which is here called the economy-as-usual, or economics-as-usual, as appropriate. A special obstacle to constructive change is the language in which economic matters are usually discussed. This language is narrow, conservative, technical and often obscure. The rapid changes in the environment (physical and living) are largely kept in a separate compartment. If, however, the partition is removed, economics -as-usual, with its dependence on growth and its widening inequality, is seen to be unsustainable. Radical economic change, for better or worse, is to be expected. Such change is here called economy change. The change could be for the better if it involved an expansion of the concept of economics itself, along the lines of oikonomia, a modern revival of a classical Greek term for management or household. In such an expanded view, not everything of economic value can be measured. It is argued that economics-as-usual is the source of much strife. Some features are indicated of a less conflictual economy - more just, cooperative and peaceful. These features include a dignified life available to all people as of right, the word 'wealth' being reconnected with weal, well and well-being, and 'work' being understood as including all useful activity

State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?

In \u27State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible?\u27, experts define clear sustainability metrics and examine various policies and perspectives, including geoengineering, corporate transformation, and changes in agricultural policy, that could put us on the path to prosperity without diminishing the well-being of future generations. If these approaches fall short, the final chapters explore ways to prepare for drastic environmental change and resource depletion, such as strengthening democracy and societal resilience, protecting cultural heritage, and dealing with increased conflict and migration flows --Provided by publisher.https://scholar.dominican.edu/cynthia-stokes-brown-books-big-history/1073/thumbnail.jp

Engaging in progressive entrepreneurship

Shareholder value maximization and competitiveness are at the core of today’s business and economic policy. Companies seek to improve their productivity and try to gain competitive advantage. But these efforts often produce negative effects on various stakeholders at home and abroad. Competitiveness in most cases produces monetary results for the shareholders at the expense of other stakeholders. Based on the arguments developed by the the Group of Lisbon, the late Sumantra Ghoshal of London Business School, and Canadian management guru Henry Mintzberg, we criticize the one-dimensional pursuit of profit and the competitiveness of contemporary business. We contend that the exclusive focus on monetary results (especially short-term shareholder value) could produce negative results for nature, society, and future generations, and finally be self-defeating for business itself. We argue for a collaborative approach, one which goes beyond the current constraints of the business-as-usual perspective and provides a more reliable framework for broad values-creation processes