The WHO, while a net positive has their goals set on the wrong areas.
Projections of an 11Billion population by 2100, so what do they do? They say open borders and replace aging populations. Not talking about the political aspects but lets dissect this.
First, this assumes people are willing to move to other countries, namely ethiopia, china and india, which they probably are, to countries like japan and members of the eu.
1)the environmental impact of moving these billions is never accounted for
2)the stress on health systems by an influx of people who not only are higher risk groups but also are likely to have more children is never accounted for
3)drops in gdp and whatnot are never projected
My solution: focuse on localised healthcare, much in the way the who is currently operating while working towards decreasing birth rates. 1) these countries with exploding birthrates will see massive increases in N.C.D's which are already the major strain on developed countries healthcare systems. Money that would be spent on immigration and relocation should instead be focused on reducing smoking and increasing health like bmi and diet.
2) instead of just living with projected population growths, focusing on preventing them makes more sense. Educate women on IUDs, and men on condoms, argue the money point if you must.
As for countries with projected population decline like japan, simply plan for it, any replacement eill only work for a single generation before falling into the same issues.
Focusing on vaccines and prevention in the 3rd eorld should still be a priority, but simply reducing the number of births will clearly reduce imr, nmr and increase gdp.
And of course it goes without saying that these services should all be 100% public.
Thoughts/ weigh ins?
Projections of an 11Billion population by 2100, so what do they do? They say open borders and replace aging populations. Not talking about the political aspects but lets dissect this.
First, this assumes people are willing to move to other countries, namely ethiopia, china and india, which they probably are, to countries like japan and members of the eu.
1)the environmental impact of moving these billions is never accounted for
2)the stress on health systems by an influx of people who not only are higher risk groups but also are likely to have more children is never accounted for
3)drops in gdp and whatnot are never projected
My solution: focuse on localised healthcare, much in the way the who is currently operating while working towards decreasing birth rates. 1) these countries with exploding birthrates will see massive increases in N.C.D's which are already the major strain on developed countries healthcare systems. Money that would be spent on immigration and relocation should instead be focused on reducing smoking and increasing health like bmi and diet.
2) instead of just living with projected population growths, focusing on preventing them makes more sense. Educate women on IUDs, and men on condoms, argue the money point if you must.
As for countries with projected population decline like japan, simply plan for it, any replacement eill only work for a single generation before falling into the same issues.
Focusing on vaccines and prevention in the 3rd eorld should still be a priority, but simply reducing the number of births will clearly reduce imr, nmr and increase gdp.
And of course it goes without saying that these services should all be 100% public.
Thoughts/ weigh ins?
