Intelligence

The scale of the challenge is huge. We’ve got to act now

October 26, 2007

The scale of the challenge is huge. We’ve got to act now - Times Online

Land, sea, air and rivers have all deteriorated so much in the past 20 years that scientists fear humanity’s very survival is now at risk

The environmental problems faced by the world are so extensive that they must
be treated as a top priority if they are to be solved, scientists have told
the United Nations.

A team of 400 researchers involved in putting together the fourth Global
Environment Outlook: Environment for development (GEO4) said that the “scale
of the challenge is huge”.

They assessed a range of environmental factors and concluded that the
condition of the land, sea, air and rivers have all deteriorated in the past
20 years.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), said that the international community’s response to environmental
issues was at times “courageous and inspiring”, but all too often was
inadequate.

“The systematic destruction of the Earth’s natural and nature-based resources
has reached a point where the economic viability of economies is being
challenged and where the bill we hand to our children may prove impossible
to pay,” he said.

The report was critical of the lack of action by governments across the world
in protecting the environment from being degraded. The response to climate
change was described as “woefully inadequate” but it was only one of several
major problems that needed to be addressed effectively.

“We appear to be living in an era in which the severity of environmental
problems is increasing faster than our policy responses,” the report said.
“To avoid the threat of catastrophic consequences, we need new policy
approaches to change the direction and magnitude of drivers of environmental
change.”

Mike Childs, of the environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth, said:
“The steady degradation of the world’s environment threatens the wellbeing
of everybody on the planet.”

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said the report
illustrated the importance of living sustainably. He said: “It is the only
way to improve global life expectancy and income inequality, beat climate
change, reduce deforestation and protect biodiversity.”

Population

Increases in world population, which has risen almost 34 per cent from 5
billion in 1987 to 6.7 billion today, were blamed for many of the pressures
on the Earth’s resources.

Consumption, heightened by a threefold increase in trade since 1987, means
that more is now being produced than can be sustained, especially as average
incomes have increased 40 per cent per person since 1987. Each person needs
21.9 hectares of the Earth’s surface to supply his or her needs whereas, it
was calculated, the Earth’s biological capacity is 15.7 hectares per person.

Atmosphere

Developed nations were found to have made significant achievements in cleaning
up air pollution but the problem has intensified in many poorer nations.

Changes in policy and legislation coupled with improvements in technology
reduced air pollution in some cities but was negated in other places because
of increased economic activity and a growth in the use of cars.

Richer countries were, the report said, responsible in some cases for shifting
their pollution to developing countries that were producing goods for export.

Climate change was regarded by the report as “visible and unequivocal” and
likely to have enormous impacts on the environment. Combating it should be
treated as “a global priority”, it said.

Researchers, in line with warnings from the UN International Panel on Climate
Change, said drastic steps were required by policymakers to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from energy, transport and land use. “Fundamental
changes in social and economic structures, including lifestyle changes, are
crucial if rapid progress is to be achieved,” the report said.

Land

The output of an average farmer increased 40 per cent since 1987 as land use
intensified to keep up with the growth of the global economy and population.

Each person in the world was said, on average, to require a third more land to
supply individual needs than the biological capacity of the landscape.
“Unsustainable land use is causing degradation, a threat as serious as
climate change and biodiversity loss,” the scientists concluded.

“It affects human wellbeing, through pollution, soil erosion, nutrient
depletion, water scarcity, salinity and disruption of biological cycles.”

Of particular concern to the researchers was the increase in fertilisers
required to meet demands for food because of the contamination the chemicals
can cause.

Irrigation was said to be reducing the quantity and quality of water in
rivers. One in ten of the world’s main rivers now runs dry at some point
each year before it can reach the sea.

Genetically modified crops were regarded by the scientists as essential if
food demands are to be met because they can protect against disease and
pests. Insects were said to destroy 14 per cent of all crops. Rising
desertification and droughts were feared to be destroying soil quality.

Water

Overfishing was singled out as an issue that needed to be tackled as a
priority or else billions of people could face food shortages in the coming
decades.

“Marine fish catches are being maintained only by fishing ever further
offshore and at deeper levels, devastating some species very quickly, and
increasingly further down the food chain,” the authors said.

It was pointed out that 60 per cent of the world population live within 65
miles of the coast and that many are likely to be forced to move because of
sea level rises from global warming over the coming century.

Availability of fresh water was high-lighted as a rising problem. By 2025 1.8
billion people were forecast to be suffering from severe shortages.

Biodiversity

Measures to protect biodiversity, with species being forced into extinction at
a rate 100 times faster than any in fossil records, were regarded as urgent.

The rate of loss was considered so serious that it was described as the sixth
major extinction event in the Earth’s history.

“Human life and all other species depend on healthy ecosystems. But current
biodiversity changes, the fastest in human history, mean losses are
restricting future development options,” the report said.

About 60 per cent of ecosystems were described as degraded or used
unsustainably, with land-use change, habitat loss, overexploitation and
pollution all factors. Introductions of alien species were blamed for
widespread damage to habitat.

“Reducing the rate of loss and ensuring that decision-makers acknowledge
biodiversity’s full value to human wellbeing will go far towards achieving
sustainable development,” the authors said.

The researchers said agriculture depended on biodiversity but was the biggest
cause of reduced genetic diversity, species loss and habitat loss.
Scientists expressed concern for the future security of the supply of food
because of the narrow genetic base for agriculture. “Just 14 animal species
account for 90 per cent of all livestock production, and 30 crops dominate
global agriculture, providing an estimated 90 per cent of the world’s
calories,” they said.

Concern about diversity extended to human cultures. More than half the world’s
6,000 languages are under threat and some estimates put the likely loss this
century at 90 per cent.

“Increased understanding of how people relate to biodiversity and how to move
towards greater stewardship of biodiversity may be the biggest question the
world must still answer,” they said.

October 28, 2007 at 04:05 AM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

McMillan Tac-50

'Big Mac’ — McMillan’s Tac-50
Neither the Canadian government nor DND are willing to comment on CF sniping in Afghanistan but unconfirmed reports put ‘kills’ by 3PPCLI snipers at more than 20. A particularly successful CF rifle is the new 12.7mm McMillan Tac-50. One shot, in the Shah-i-kot, set a gruesome new distance record for sniping — 2,430m. The combat effectiveness of the Tac-50 and CF snipers (nominated for five US Bronze Stars) has now been proven.

April 14, 2006 at 09:10 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

The 2020 Global Landscape

NIC - Mapping the Global Future: Executive Summary

Download file

Document Cover Image: Mapping the Global Future

Report of the
National Intelligence Council's
2020 Project

Executive Summary
The 2020 Global Landscape

Relative Certainties Key Uncertainties

Globalization largely irreversible, likely to become less Westernized. Whether globalization will pull in lagging economies; degree to which Asian countries set new “rules of the game.”

World economy substantially larger. Extent of gaps between “haves” and “have-nots”; backsliding by fragile democracies; managing or containing financial crises.

Increasing number of global firms facilitate spread of new technologies. Extent to which connectivity challenges governments.

Rise of Asia and advent of possible new economic middle-weights. Whether rise of China/India occurs smoothly.

Aging populations in established powers. Ability of EU and Japan to adapt work forces, welfare systems, and integrate migrant populations; whether EU becomes a superpower.

Energy supplies “in the ground” sufficient to meet global demand. Political instability in producer countries; supply disruptions.

Growing power of nonstate actors. Willingness and ability of states and international institutions to accommodate these actors.

Political Islam remains a potent force. Impact of religiosity on unity of states and potential for conflict; growth of jihadist ideology.

Improved WMD capabilities of some states. More or fewer nuclear powers; ability of terrorists to acquire biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

Arc of instability spanning Middle East, Asia, Africa. Precipitating events leading to overthrow of regimes.

Great power conflict escalating into total war unlikely. Ability to manage flashpoints and competition for resources.

Environmental and ethical issues even more to the fore. Extent to which new technologies create or resolve ethical dilemmas.

US will remain single most powerful actor economically, technologically, militarily. Whether other countries will more openly challenge Washington; whether US loses S&T edge.

At no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux. The end of the Cold War shifted the tectonic plates, but the repercussions from these momentous events are still unfolding. Emerging powers in Asia, retrenchment in Eurasia, a roiling Middle East, and transatlantic divisions are among the issues that have only come to a head in recent years. The very magnitude and speed of change resulting from a globalizing world—apart from its precise character—will be a defining feature of the world out to 2020. Other significant characteristics include: the rise of new powers, new challenges to governance, and a more pervasive sense of insecurity, including terrorism. As we map the future, the prospects for increasing global prosperity and the limited likelihood of great power conflict provide an overall favorable environment for coping with what are otherwise daunting challenges. The role of the United States will be an important variable in how the world is shaped, influencing the path that states and nonstate actors choose to follow.

Relative Certainties Key Uncertainties

Globalization largely irreversible, likely to become less Westernized. Whether globalization will pull in lagging economies; degree to which Asian countries set new “rules of the game.”

World economy substantially larger. Extent of gaps between “haves” and “have-nots”; backsliding by fragile democracies; managing or containing financial crises.

Increasing number of global firms facilitate spread of new technologies. Extent to which connectivity challenges governments.

Rise of Asia and advent of possible new economic middle-weights. Whether rise of China/India occurs smoothly.

Aging populations in established powers. Ability of EU and Japan to adapt work forces, welfare systems, and integrate migrant populations; whether EU becomes a superpower.

Energy supplies “in the ground” sufficient to meet global demand. Political instability in producer countries; supply disruptions.

Growing power of nonstate actors. Willingness and ability of states and international institutions to accommodate these actors.

Political Islam remains a potent force. Impact of religiosity on unity of states and potential for conflict; growth of jihadist ideology.

Improved WMD capabilities of some states. More or fewer nuclear powers; ability of terrorists to acquire biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear weapons.

Arc of instability spanning Middle East, Asia, Africa. Precipitating events leading to overthrow of regimes.

Great power conflict escalating into total war unlikely. Ability to manage flashpoints and competition for resources.

Environmental and ethical issues even more to the fore. Extent to which new technologies create or resolve ethical dilemmas.

US will remain single most powerful actor economically, technologically, militarily. Whether other countries will more openly challenge Washington; whether US loses S&T edge.

New Global Players

The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as new major global players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two centuries. In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American Century,” the 21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India, comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

* Most forecasts indicate that by 2020 China’s gross national product (GNP) will exceed that of individual Western economic powers except for the United States. India’s GNP will have overtaken or be on the threshold of overtaking European economies.

* Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations—projected by the US Census Bureau to be 1.4 billion and almost 1.3 billion respectively by 2020—their standard of living need not approach Western levels for these countries to become important economic powers.

Barring an abrupt reversal of the process of globalization or any major upheavals in these countries, the rise of these new powers is a virtual certainty. Yet how China and India exercise their growing power and whether they relate cooperatively or competitively to other powers in the international system are key uncertainties. The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020; Indonesia’s economy could also approach the economies of individual European countries by 2020.

By most measures—market size, single currency, highly skilled work force, stable democratic governments, and unified trade bloc—an enlarged Europe will be able to increase its weight on the international scene. Europe’s strength could be in providing a model of global and regional governance to the rising powers. But aging populations and shrinking work forces in most countries will have an important impact on the continent. Either European countries adapt their work forces, reform their social welfare, education, and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations (chiefly from Muslim countries), or they face a period of protracted economic stasis.

Japan faces a similar aging crisis that could crimp its longer run economic recovery, but it also will be challenged to evaluate its regional status and role. Tokyo may have to choose between “balancing” against or “bandwagoning” with China. Meanwhile, the crisis over North Korea is likely to come to a head sometime over the next 15 years. Asians’ lingering resentments and concerns over Korean unification and cross-Taiwan Strait tensions point to a complicated process for achieving regional equilibrium.

Russia has the potential to enhance its international role with others due to its position as a major oil and gas exporter. However, Russia faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care, and a potentially explosive AIDS situation. To the south, it borders an unstable region in the Caucasus and Central Asia, the effects of which—Muslim extremism, terrorism, and endemic conflict—are likely to continue spilling over into Russia. While these social and political factors limit the extent to which Russia can be a major global player, Moscow is likely to be an important partner both for the established powers, the United States and Europe, and for the rising powers of China and India.

With these and other new global actors, how we mentally map the world in 2020 will change radically. The “arriviste” powers—China, India, and perhaps others such as Brazil and Indonesia—have the potential to render obsolete the old categories of East and West, North and South, aligned and nonaligned, developed and developing. Traditional geographic groupings will increasingly lose salience in international relations. A state-bound world and a world of mega-cities, linked by flows of telecommunications, trade and finance, will co-exist. Competition for allegiances will be more open, less fixed than in the past.

Impact of Globalization

We see globalization—growing interconnectedness reflected in the expanded flows of information, technology, capital, goods, services, and people throughout the world—as an overarching “mega-trend,” a force so ubiquitous that it will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020. But the future of globalization is not fixed; states and nonstate actors—including both private companies and NGOs—will struggle to shape its contours. Some aspects of globalization—such as the growing global interconnectedness stemming from the information technology (IT) revolution—almost certainly will be irreversible. Yet it is also possible, although unlikely, that the process of globalization could be slowed or even stopped, just as the era of globalization in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was reversed by catastrophic war and global depression.

Barring such a turn of events, the world economy is likely to continue growing impressively: by 2020, it is projected to be about 80 percent larger than it was in 2000, and average per capita income will be roughly 50 percent higher. Of course, there will be cyclical ups and downs and periodic financial or other crises, but this basic growth trajectory has powerful momentum behind it. Most countries around the world, both developed and developing, will benefit from gains in the world economy. By having the fastest-growing consumer markets, more firms becoming world-class multinationals, and greater S&T stature, Asia looks set to displace Western countries as the focus for international economic dynamism—provided Asia’s rapid economic growth continues.

Yet the benefits of globalization won’t be global. Rising powers will see exploiting the opportunities afforded by the emerging global marketplace as the best way to assert their great power status on the world stage. In contrast, some now in the “First World” may see the closing gap with China, India, and others as evidence of a relative decline, even though the older powers are likely to remain global leaders out to 2020. The United States, too, will see its relative power position eroded, though it will remain in 2020 the most important single country across all the dimensions of power. Those left behind in the developing world may resent China and India’s rise, especially if they feel squeezed by their growing dominance in key sectors of the global marketplace. And large pockets of poverty will persist even in “winner” countries.

The greatest benefits of globalization will accrue to countries and groups that can access and adopt new technologies. Indeed, a nation’s level of technological achievement generally will be defined in terms of its investment in integrating and applying the new, globally available technologies—whether the technologies are acquired through a country’s own basic research or from technology leaders. The growing two-way flow of high-tech brain power between the developing world and the West, the increasing size of the information computer-literate work force in some developing countries, and efforts by global corporations to diversify their high-tech operations will foster the spread of new technologies. High-tech breakthroughs—such as in genetically modified organisms and increased food production—could provide a safety net eliminating the threat of starvation and ameliorating basic quality of life issues for poor countries. But the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” will widen unless the “have-not” countries pursue policies that support application of new technologies—such as good governance, universal education, and market reforms.

Those countries that pursue such policies could leapfrog stages of development, skipping over phases that other high-tech leaders such as the United States and Europe had to traverse in order to advance. China and India are well positioned to become technology leaders, and even the poorest countries will be able to leverage prolific, cheap technologies to fuel—although at a slower rate—their own development.

* The expected next revolution in high technology involving the convergence of nano-, bio-, information and materials technology could further bolster China and India’s prospects. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders in a number of key fields. Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies. The United States is still in a position to retain its overall lead, although it must increasingly compete with Asia to retain its edge and may lose significant ground in some sectors.

More firms will become global, and those operating in the global arena will be more diverse, both in size and origin, more Asian and less Western in orientation. Such corporations, encompassing the current, large multinationals, will be increasingly outside the control of any one state and will be key agents of change in dispersing technology widely, further integrating the world economy, and promoting economic progress in the developing world. Their ranks will include a growing number based in such countries as China, India, or Brazil. While North America, Japan, and Europe might collectively continue to dominate international political and financial institutions, globalization will take on an increasingly non-Western character. By 2020, globalization could be equated in the popular mind with a rising Asia, replacing its current association with Americanization.

An expanding global economy will increase demand for many raw materials, such as oil. Total energy consumed probably will rise by about 50 percent in the next two decades compared to a 34 percent expansion from 1980-2000, with a greater share provided by petroleum. Most experts assess that with substantial investment in new capacity, overall energy supplies will be sufficient to meet global demands. But on the supply side, many of the areas—the Caspian Sea, Venezuela, and West Africa—that are being counted on to provide increased output involve substantial political or economic risk. Traditional suppliers in the Middle East are also increasingly unstable. Thus sharper demand-driven competition for resources, perhaps accompanied by a major disruption of oil supplies, is among the key uncertainties.

* China, India, and other developing countries’ growing energy needs suggest a growing preoccupation with energy, shaping their foreign policies.

* For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships—such as with Russia or North Africa—given the interdependence of pipeline delivery.

February 28, 2006 at 11:46 AM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Hurricane exercise predicted storm's wrath in eerie way

But simulation saw 61,290 dead Said water would

surge over levees

RON FOURNIER AND TED BRIDIS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON—As Hurricane Katrina roared into the Gulf of Mexico, emergency planners pored over maps and charts of a hurricane simulation that projected 61,290 dead and 384,257 injured or sick in a catastrophic flood that would leave swaths of southeast Louisiana uninhabitable for more than a year.

These planners were not involved in the frantic preparations for Katrina. By coincidence, they were working on a year-long project to prepare federal and state officials for a Category 3 hurricane striking New Orleans.

Their fictitious storm eerily foreshadowed the havoc wrought by Category 4 Katrina a few days later, raising questions about whether government leaders did everything possible — as early as possible — to protect New Orleans from a well-documented threat.

"Hurricane Pam" planners predicted a death toll of 61,290, six times what New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has warned people to expect.

"I pray to God we don't see those numbers," Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. "My gut is ... we don't. But we just don't know.''

The known Katrina death toll was less than 400 yesterday, but officials expected it to skyrocket once emergency teams combed through 233,000 square kilometres of Gulf Coast debris.

The death toll is just one of the many chilling details in a 412-page report obtained by AP from a government official involved in the Hurricane Pam project. Written in ominous language, the report predicts that:

#
Flood waters would surge over levees, creating "a catastrophic mass casualty/mass evacuation" and leaving drainage pumps crippled for up to six months. "It (would) take over one year to re-enter areas most heavily impacted," the report estimated.

#
More than 600,000 houses and 6,000 businesses would be affected, more than two-thirds of them destroyed. Nearly a quarter-million children would be out of school. "All 40 medical facilities in the impacted area (would be) isolated and useless," it says.

#
Local officials would be quickly overwhelmed with the five-digit death toll, 187,862 people injured and 196,395 falling ill. A half million people would be homeless.

The report calls evacuees "refugees" and says they could be housed at college campuses, military barracks, hotels, travel trailers, recreational vehicles, private homes, cottages, churches, Boy Scout camps and cruise ships.

"Federal support must be provided in a timely manner to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate severe damage," the report says. "This may require mobilizing and deploying assets before they are requested via normal (National Response Plan) protocols."

Under FEMA's direction, federal and state officials began working on the $1 million (U.S.) Hurricane Pam project in July 2004, when 270 experts gathered in Baton Rouge, La., for an eight-day simulation. The exercise used a mock hurricane that produced more than 50 centimetres of rain and 14 tornadoes — slamming directly into New Orleans.

The experts completed their first draft report in December, 2004. A follow-up workshop on potential medical needs took place in Carville, La., Aug. 23-24.

The team produced an update on dealing with the dead and injured, and submitted it to FEMA's headquarters in Washington on Sept. 3. By then, Katrina had hit and the Bush administration, state and city officials were under heavy criticism for a sluggish response.

September 10, 2005 at 06:34 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Is your mind changing? Scientists think so

By CAROLYN ABRAHAM

Friday, September 9, 2005 Page A1

MEDICAL REPORTER
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050909/BRAIN09/TPHealth/?query=DNA

Humans may be the brightest species on Earth, but provocative new research has concluded our brain has not yet reached its final form.

Scientists at the University of Chicago have found that two human genes involved in brain size and development are still evolving -- and, they suspect, mutating to make people smarter.

The team is so sure of its hunch that it has patented the genes with plans to develop tests to identify those who carry these potentially brain-boosting traits -- which appear to be more prevalent in some populations than others.

"We're envisioning what societies will want," said human geneticist Bruce Lahn, predicting that prospective parents, for example, might find such information invaluable.

In two papers published today in the journal Science, Dr. Lahn and his colleagues report that the specific gene mutations they have found appear to have swept across certain areas of the globe so quickly that they are practically the norm. With prevalence rates higher than 70 per cent in Europe, for example, the researchers argue that chance alone cannot explain the changes, which first sprung up at the same time that modern humans developed culture and language.

"The rise is so rapid, I was literally flabbergasted," Dr. Lahn said. Natural selection appears to favour the new form of these genes, he believes, because they must offer some advantage.

"I would bet my money that it has something to do with cognition," he said. "It is a reasonable hypothesis -- we are getting smarter."

The discovery sounds like hopeful news for the human species, but it has prickly social implications: Researchers found the mutations are more prevalent among some ethnic groups than others.

Testing 1,184 DNA samples from around the world, the researchers found, for example, that the frequency in West and sub-Saharan Africa is less than 10 per cent.

"My concern is that this is going to become justification for prejudices against certain groups," Dr. Lahn said, even as he stressed that the work is in its early stages and that the full role these genes play in brain development is little understood.

However, the Chicago group is preparing data on the relationship between these mutations and IQ scores.

Geneticist Steve Scherer, a senior scientist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, agreed on the need for a "very conservative and cautious" interpretation of the data. But, he said, the papers from the Chicago group offer convincing evidence that these genes have evolved rapidly in modern humans.

The two genes in question, microcephalin and ASPM, are known to be involved in brain development because when they fail to function, they produce tiny brains and mental retardation.

In earlier studies, Dr. Lahn, a noted expert in genetics and evolution, also identified them as two of 17 genes that mutated millions of years ago and helped to triple the human brain in size, boost its sophistication and separate us from our closest relative, the chimpanzee.

All mutations begin as random events during conception. But they become more prevalent in a population if they offer a survival advantage, and if the people who carry them have more children than others.

As a result, Dr. Lahn and his team decided to study whether these genes are still evolving. They began by decoding the chemical sequence of the two genes in an ethnically diverse sample of 90 people. It was then that they first found startling evidence of the prevalence of these mutations in the genes. They verified their findings by sequencing DNA samples that had been previously collected, including an international sampling of indigenous people.

They found that a particular series of mutations in the microcephalin gene appears to have been passed on and is now, surprisingly, carried by large numbers of people from different ethnic backgrounds. They estimate this series first emerged about 37,000 years ago, around the time modern humans settled Europe and began producing art.

The changes they found in the ASPM gene are far more recent, springing up about 5,800 years ago, coinciding with the rise of cities and the first record of written language.

The studies do not answer where the mutations first arose, which may explain why these new genetic traits are not seen equally around the globe.

For one, the mutations may have arisen in Africa, but were then carried out by the early humans who left the continent to populate the rest of the planet. Alternately, Dr. Lahn said, they may have arisen in Europe or the Middle East.

(The study did not test widely in North America, which the researchers assumed to be largely populated by a wide variety of ethnic lineages.)

Dr. Lahn feels it's unlikely the mutations will lead to ever-larger human brains, since giving birth to babies with larger heads could itself threaten the species. But he does suspect the human brain's structure could be dramatically different a few thousand years from now.

"A lot of people, including biologists, think we are at the pinnacle of evolution . . . that the human form may be at the best form ever. They think that in the last 200,000 years [since the modern human emerged] there has just been a cultural evolution, and we're saying no, there is also genetic evolution."

September 10, 2005 at 06:30 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

Income distribution - Poorest 10%

Definition: Share of income or consumption (%). The distribution of income is typically more unequal than the distribution of consumption.

Coutesy of:
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/eco_inc_dis_poo_10&int=-1

Country Description Amount
1. Belarus 5.1% (consumption)
2. Slovakia 5.1% (income)
3. Japan 4.8% (income)
4. Bulgaria 4.5% (income)
5. Egypt 4.4% (consumption)
6. Czech Republic 4.3% (income)
7. Finland 4.2% (income)
8. Rwanda 4.2% (consumption)
9. Pakistan 4.1% (consumption)
10. Norway 4.1% (income)
11. Hungary 4.1% (consumption)
12. Indonesia 4.0% (consumption)
13. Luxembourg 4.0% (income)
14. Slovenia 3.9% (income)
15. Bangladesh 3.9% (consumption)
16. Croatia 3.7% (income)
17. Sweden 3.7% (income)
18. Ukraine 3.6% (consumption)
19. Vietnam 3.6% (consumption)
20. Denmark 3.6% (income)
21. Sri Lanka 3.5% (consumption)
22. India 3.5% (consumption)
23. Italy 3.5% (income)
24. Jordan 3.3% (consumption)
25. Germany 3.3% (income)
5.1 2.6 0.5
Regions
# Africa
# Asia
# Europe
# Middle East
# North America
# Oceania
# South America
# CA & Carribean
# Southeast Asia
# European Union


26. Belgium 3.2% (income)
27. Kyrgyzstan 3.2% (consumption)
28. Poland 3.2% (consumption)
29. Laos 3.2% (consumption)
30. Tajikistan 3.2% (consumption)
31. Nepal 3.2% (consumption)
32. Romania 3.2% (consumption)
33. Lithuania 3.1% (consumption)
34. Portugal 3.1% (income)
35. Yemen 3.0% (consumption)
36. Estonia 3.0% (income)
37. Ethiopia 3.0% (consumption)
38. Greece 3.0% (income)
39. Cote d'Ivoire 3.0% (consumption)
40. Uganda 3.0% (consumption)
41. Mongolia 2.9% (consumption)
42. Latvia 2.9% (income)
43. Cambodia 2.9% (consumption)
44. Korea, South 2.9% (consumption)
45. Netherlands 2.8% (income)
46. Thailand 2.8% (consumption)
47. France 2.8% (income)
48. Canada 2.8% (income)
49. Azerbaijan 2.8% (income)
50. Algeria 2.8% (consumption)

Categories
# Agriculture
# Background
# Crime
# Currency
# Democracy
# Disasters
# Economy
# Education
# Energy
# Environment
# Food
# Geography
# Government
# Health
# Identification
# Immigration
# Industry
# Internet
# Labor
# Language
# Lifestyle
# Media
# Military
# Mortality
# People
# Religion
# Sports
# Taxation
# Transportation


51. Spain 2.8% (income)
52. Kazakhstan 2.7% (consumption)
53. Jamaica 2.7% (consumption)
54. Switzerland 2.6% (income)
55. Guinea 2.6% (consumption)
56. Madagascar 2.6% (consumption)
57. Turkmenistan 2.6% (consumption)
58. Morocco 2.6% (consumption)
59. Senegal 2.6% (consumption)
60. Mauritania 2.5% (consumption)
61. Austria 2.5% (income)
62. Ireland 2.5% (income)
63. Mozambique 2.5% (consumption)
64. Guyana 2.4% (consumption)
65. China 2.4% (income)
66. Israel 2.4% (income)
67. Kenya 2.4% (consumption)
68. Armenia 2.3% (consumption)
69. Turkey 2.3% (consumption)
70. Philippines 2.3% (consumption)
71. Tunisia 2.3% (consumption)
72. Georgia 2.3% (income)
73. Ghana 2.2% (consumption)
74. United Kingdom 2.2% (income)
75. Ecuador 2.2% (consumption)

Hint
Click on the "Country" link on the graphs to sort alphabetically by country.
Regions
# Africa
# Asia
# Europe
# Middle East
# North America
# Oceania
# South America
# CA & Carribean
# Southeast Asia
# European Union


76. Trinidad and Tobago 2.1% (income)
77. Uruguay 2.1% (income)
78. Dominican Republic 2.1% (income)
79. Australia 2.0% (income)
80. Zimbabwe 2.0% (consumption)
81. Burkina Faso 2.0% (consumption)
82. Saint Lucia 2.0% (income)
83. Cameroon 1.9% (consumption)
84. United States 1.8% (income)
85. Burundi 1.8% (consumption)
86. Mali 1.8% (consumption)
87. Papua New Guinea 1.7% (consumption)
88. Costa Rica 1.7% (income)
89. Malaysia 1.7% (income)
90. Russia 1.7% (consumption)
91. Peru 1.6% (income)
92. Guatemala 1.6% (income)
93. Nigeria 1.6% (consumption)
94. Gambia, The 1.6% (consumption)
95. Bolivia 1.3% (consumption)
96. Chile 1.3% (income)
97. Mexico 1.3% (income)
98. Panama 1.2% (consumption)
99. El Salvador 1.2% (income)
100. Uzbekistan 1.2% (consumption)
101. Zambia 1.1% (consumption)
102. Colombia 1.1% (income)
103. South Africa 1.1% (consumption)
104. Swaziland 1.0% (income)
105. Lesotho 0.9% (consumption)
106. Venezuela 0.8% (income)
107. Niger 0.8% (consumption)
108. Central African Republic 0.7% (consumption)
109. Brazil 0.7% (income)
110. Nicaragua 0.7% (consumption)
111. Honduras 0.6% (income)
112. Guinea-Bissau 0.5% (consumption)
113. Sierra Leone 0.5% (consumption)
114. Paraguay 0.5% (income)
Weighted Average 2.76 %

Source: World Bank. 2002. World Development Indicators 2002. CD-ROM. Washington, DC

September 10, 2005 at 01:17 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home

% of world poor in each country

Definition: The percentage of the world's total poor who live in each nation. 'Poor' here is defined as lving below the global poverty line of US$1 per day.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pov_sha_of_all_poo_peo

Country Description Amount
1. India 41.01%
2. China 22.12%
3. Nigeria 8.03%
4. Pakistan 3.86%
5. Bangladesh 3.49%
6. Ethiopia 1.82%
7. Brazil 1.82%
8. Indonesia 1.49%
9. Mexico 1.43%
10. Russia 0.99%
11. Ghana 0.78%
12. Nepal 0.78%
13. Colombia 0.76%
14. Kenya 0.72%
15. Mali 0.71%
16. Madagascar 0.68%
17. Burkina Faso 0.62%
18. Tanzania 0.61%
19. Mozambique 0.61%
20. Niger 0.59%
21. Zambia 0.58%
22. Venezuela 0.51%
23. Cameroon 0.45%
24. South Africa 0.45%
25. Zimbabwe 0.41%
26. Peru 0.36%
27. Rwanda 0.27%
28. Sierra Leone 0.26%
29. Yemen 0.25%
30. Central African Republic 0.23%
31. Ecuador 0.23%
32. Senegal 0.22%
33. Egypt 0.18%
34. Ukraine 0.14%
35. Turkey 0.14%
36. Honduras 0.14%
37. Laos 0.13%
38. Sri Lanka 0.12%
39. El Salvador 0.12%
40. Bolivia 0.11%
41. Thailand 0.11%
42. Paraguay 0.10%
43. Guatemala 0.10%
44. Korea, South 0.09%
45. Lesotho 0.08%
46. Uzbekistan 0.08%
47. Mauritania 0.07%
48. Poland 0.07%
49. Gambia, The 0.07%
50. Namibia 0.06%

Categories
# Agriculture
# Background
# Crime
# Currency
# Democracy
# Disasters
# Economy
# Education
# Energy
# Environment
# Food
# Geography
# Government
# Health
# Identification
# Immigration
# Industry
# Internet
# Labor
# Language
# Lifestyle
# Media
# Military
# Mortality
# People
# Religion
# Sports
# Taxation
# Transportation


51. Romania 0.06%
52. Algeria 0.06%
53. Botswana 0.05%
54. Moldova 0.05%
55. Morocco 0.05%
56. Panama 0.04%
57. Kazakhstan 0.04%
58. Costa Rica 0.04%
59. Mongolia 0.03%
60. Armenia 0.03%
61. Chile 0.03%
62. Trinidad and Tobago 0.02%
63. Hungary 0.02%
64. Dominican Republic 0.02%
65. Bulgaria 0.02%
66. Belarus 0.02%
67. Tunisia 0.02%
68. Czech Republic 0.02%
69. Portugal 0.02%
70. Jordan 0.01%
71. Croatia 0.01%
72. Uruguay 0.01%
73. Jamaica 0.01%
74. Lithuania 0.01%
75. Azerbaijan 0.01%

Hint
Click on the "Country" link on the graphs to sort alphabetically by country.
Regions
# Africa
# Asia
# Europe
# Middle East
# North America
# Oceania
# South America
# CA & Carribean
# Southeast Asia
# European Union


76. Slovakia 0.01%
77. Georgia 0.01%
78. Latvia 0.00%
79. Estonia 0.00%
80. Slovenia 0.00%
Weighted Average 16.29 % of world's poor

September 10, 2005 at 01:13 PM in World affairs | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home