Wednesday, August 3

Future of india

India 2050 uncertain future
India is playing an increasingly important role in the global economy and, correspondingly, in resource use and emissions. Yet, the modelling tools for exploring the opportunities and threats for India, and for other parts of the world as a consequence of this development, suffer from conceptual limitations. This report explores options for improvement, especially given the large heterogeneity of India that is difficult to capture in aggregate average data. Model-based simulations indicate that India's population by 2050 will be over 1.5 billion, displaying a large population momentum that is one of the drivers of economic growth. Forward calculations with the demographic model, PHOENIX, and the IFs Economy model show that such developments of population and income are possible, provided that sufficient and timely investments in health care and education take place. Additional model simulations, including those using the TIMER energy model, indicate that ecological and socio-economic constraints might bar these positive developments. Only rigorous government policy initiatives striving for sustainable management of India's resources (land, water, energy) and appropriate investments in education and health can lead to a real increase in well-being for a large part of the population.


Future China vs. India
forsee a war between China and India in the future. A former head of the World Bank (or it might have been the IMF) recently said that China and India would, before 2050, overtake the G7 in terms of GDP. And many can see that China and India will be the next world superpowers. These countries are developing and growing at a fantastic rate. There are basic, fundamental differences between India and China, in terms of Government (Democracy vs. Socialist), Ideology, and Economy (China is gearing itself towards industry, whereas India is going more toward the service sector). Both China and India are heavily armed, and updating their militaries. Both are nucleur armed nations. Both are increasing their spending on the armed forces. China has the largest military in the world, and India has the 4th largest. These issues would cause another cold war, like what was experienced between the USA and the USSR. HOWEVER, unlike the US and USSR, there is no ocean seperating China and India. They share a border! The USA and the USSR had different spheres of influence during the Cold War. The US had South America and Western Europe, and the USSR had Asia and Eastern Europe. They STILL came very, very close to war. India and China do NOT have seperate spheres of influence. They are right next to each other. They are competing for essentially the same markets. Furthermore, they have a hisory of conflict. For these reasons, I predict a war between India and China.



India and Pakistan Future
India and Pakistan have been locked in a bitter rivalry with decades-old roots that have almost erupted into outright war several times. In a contentious post-9/11 world, the threat is even greater as the conflict has, on multiple occasions, threatened to escalate into nuclear war.

However, as a year full of international tension and military maneuvering between India and Pakistan came to a close, there was a glimmer of hope. The two countries signed a landmark accord agreeing to cooperate on military matters. Although made between two non-official organizations, it was the first time the adversaries had worked together in such a manner. The accord outlined a plan to share limited military and security information between India’s Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis and Pakistan’s Institute for Strategic Studies.

Why such deep-seated animosity between these nuclear rivals? What does the future hold for them? Will the recently signed security pact be the first step toward lasting peace in the region.
On Dec. 13, 2001, a small group of heavily-armed Pakistani militants stormed India’s parliamentary compound, attempting to assassinate key government leaders. The plot, which left eight Indian citizens and all five terrorists dead, could have been far worse. India demanded that Pakistan take immediate and decisive action against the groups responsible. To show their seriousness, New Delhi deployed half a million Indian soldiers to the border; Pakistani forces responded in kind.

The crisis was soon averted when Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president at the time, promised a government crackdown on radical groups within its borders. Nevertheless, many Indians felt as if Mr. Musharraf was only cracking down on certain groups while tacitly allowing others to continue operation.

Any hope of easing further tensions was shattered just months later, in May 2002, when militants attacked an Indian military base in Jammu, killing the wives and children of servicemen. Seen as an attack on India itself, the incident resurrected Hindu-Muslim animosity.

The international community watched as hundreds of thousands of Indian and Pakistani troops once again stared at each other across the border, this time with heightened intensity. Growing uncertainty threatened, like no other time, to “go nuclear.”

After months of hair-trigger readiness, tensions slowly eased when the Indian army was redeployed away from the border. However, decades of past bitterness remained unresolved.

Today, both countries have partial dominion over a region that each believes is rightfully theirs. Further, there remains an underlying feeling by many Indians that Pakistan has gone unpunished. In turn, Pakistan feels increasingly threatened by the presence of Indian troops amassed at the border.



Future India Information
India has a promising future, given the unprecedented growth in economy and its clout in the global issues. India is now riding on the wave of a gigantic boom in computer driven new economy. Many developed countries of the world are seeking the huge pool of English speaking talented software professionals in India. Premier professional institutes like IIT and IIM have become the source of big international corporates' human resource need, both overseas and within India.

India is also a nuclear power. Its security concerns have been to some extent allayed by the possession of nuclear weapons, though fears remain of an expensive military expenditure to sustain the nuclear programs.

India is also poised to become the entertainment superpower. Already the Bollywood is churning out hundreds of films annually. With improvements in the technical and artistic aspects India can well give a stiff competition to western productions.

Indian culture is influencing the western world in dress, food and festivals. The Indian Diaspora is increasing in economic prosperity and status. The Indian community is a force to reckon with in every country because of its contribution to the country concerned. Indian lobby groups are funding partly some of the elections in vital countries of the world.

The 21st century could well belong to India if it fully utilize its resources and expertise. India's population is an asset and not a pull down factor. Finally India is going to prove just that.

Future of Russia

Future of Foundation
Future of Russian Foundation (FOR) is the only U.S. charitable foundation created for and solely committed to the mission of modernizing the Russian system for delivery of health care to women of reproductive age and infants, addressing Russia’s declining population, identified in then-President Putin’s inaugural address as Russia’s “greatest crisis.” Funded initially by the U.S. private sector ($3 m. in seed money from the family of Founder and Chairman Thomas J. Murray, $2 m. equipment gift from the employees of the General Electric Company through its Elfin Foundation, continuing support from the Coca Cola Company, and on-going leadership and support from the Atlanta Rotary Club), US government support has come from the Open World Leadership Program at the Library of Congress, now in its third year partnering with FOR, and in 2004, USAID’s first health care grant ($500,000) in Russia under its Global Development Alliance Program.

FOR operates by intense collaboration between American health care professionals and their Russian counterparts on the principle that healthy young women have healthy pregnancies, and that healthy mothers give birth to healthy babies. Training of perinatal professionals at all levels has occurred through bi-lateral exchanges, Russian teams consisting of neonatalogists, pediatricians, obstetricians, hospital administrators, midwives, and nurses spending a week each year in Atlanta, Georgia, working with American professionals at Emory University Medical School, the World Health Organization/Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health (WHO/CC/RH), and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with reciprocal visits of American teams to Balashikha, under the direction of Dr. Alfred W. Brann, Jr., FOR Medical Director and Director of the WHO/CC/RH.



Russia research to reality
presidential think-tank has proposed radical changes in Russia, including a return to certain liberal elements of Yeltsin’s policy, a multi-party system and cutting the president’s term.
The Institute of Contemporary Development (INSOR), whose board of trustees is chaired by President Dmitry Medvedev, outlined its vision of the country’s future in a 66-page report entitled "21st Century Russia: the Image of Tomorrow We Want", which was released Wednesday.
“Modernization” and “innovation” have become key words characterizing Medvedev’s presidency so far. The head of state has called for changes in almost all spheres of the political and social life of the country.
The idea of working out a systemized approach and defining exact steps in moving towards desired aims has long been in the air. The Russian business daily “Vedomosti” writes that the idea of a report on the issue came up last summer. Kremlin aide Arkady Dvorkovich said that Medvedev had received a draft of the proposals a few weeks ago, but had yet to comment.



Russia and China
China. The 2008 Beijing Games this week joined the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, and the 1980 Moscow Olympics. These four Olympiads were overshadowed by Russian attacks on neighboring countries that Moscow deemed overly independent. The timing of the attacks on Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Georgia was not coincidental: In the United States, Olympic years are also election years. And when Uncle Sam is heading for the ballot box, he is weak, and cannot prevent a Russian bear from devouring. For the fourth time in half a century, the Russian bear emerged from Olympic hibernation and feasted to his heart's content.

Russia. The Georgians liken the Russians to the Nazis. They believe Ossetia and Abkhazia of 2008 resemble the Sudetenland of 1938. As far as they are concerned, Vladimir Putin is Hitler, ripping chunks out of a neighboring democracy to destabilize and vanquish it.


The Georgians exaggerate, but under Putin's leadership, Russia is turning into a new Germany. Not the Germany of the Fuhrer and the swastika, but the Germany of the Kaiser and Bismarck. Like Germany in its day, Russia is a power in the process of getting renewed, reunited and rich, seeking to restore its lost hegemony.

Like Germany in the past, Russia in the present is a world power whose size, location and nationalism threaten its surroundings. Since Russia has friendly ethnic minorities in small neighboring countries - its potential for expansion and friction is high. Therefore, just as Germany destabilized the old European order even before Hitler, Russia is destabilizing the new European order.



Russia's Future Energy
Today energy is the decisive driver of Russian foreign and domestic policy. Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov’s recent speech to United Russia activists showed the government is prepared to sacrifice everything to become an energy superpower. In Surkov’s words, if you have long legs, you should do the long jump, not play chess. But the plan to become an energy superpower will not succeed.

Not only will the Kremlin plan ultimately fail, but it is also causing harm now. The authorities promote the “energy superpower” idea instead of fixing economic and social problems. Sustainable development and international competitiveness have vanished from the agenda. Instead there is only this phantom idea, which holds out the promise of a footprint in the global geopolitical landscape.

In discussing the resource curse, people normally mention weak institutions, corruption, and perverse political incentives. But Russia faces a more basic problem—it doesn’t have enough resources. Only a few petrostates have enough resources per capita to create a good life for their people. All have small populations. (Norway, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are in this category.) With Russia’s large population the state cannot rely only on resource revenue to promote development. Even if the state were to expropriate all oil profits, it would have only $80 per person per month to redistribute. Moreover the Russian economy is extremely energy-intensive and the country’s large territory imposes significant transportation costs, limiting export capability. So the Kremlin cannot build an economic and social policy on energy alone.

President Vladimir Putin has abandoned the reform agenda of his first term. He has done nothing to address problems in banking, the army, pensions, and infrastructure. Now the government focuses only on the “national projects,” i.e. redistribution.

Such thinking is especially misguided given the problems in the energy sector. Increasing state encroachment is undermining growth. While private companies continue to perform well, state enterprises stagnate. The return on assets in Gazprom and Rosneft is stable under 10 percent, well below average for the oil and gas industry. These companies have a lot of capital but can’t use it efficiently.



Russia Its Future
Russia is said by many to lack a “civil society.” But it partly makes up for this by having a rather interesting public sphere, in which serious topics do get debated, and where glimpses of the great are not entirely confined to televised snippets.

The first fortnight in September saw successive meetings of two major Russian political groups, the Valdai Discussion Club and the Global Policy Forum. The first was on a boat and ended with dinner with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at Sochi on the Black Sea. The second, in Yaroslavl, culminated in a symposium with President Dmitri Medvedev. Scholars, think-tankers, and journalists (both Russian and foreign) joined political and business leaders to discuss Russia’s future.

Three things made these events unusual in a typically Russian way. The first was the intense media interest. Indeed, even the most camera-shy academic can suddenly find himself a TV star in Russia.

Second was the willingness of both Putin and Medvedev to engage publicly with experts on the experts’ own intellectual turf. The only recent Western political leader I can think of who had the confidence to do this was Bill Clinton.

Finally, the two events saw the emergence of two rival political courts, each exuding the faint but unmistakable odor of a looming conflict. For those with eyes to see, the two conferences presented a fascinating glimpse of a crumbling diarchy.

Future and the United States

United States of America has got independence on July 4th 1776. But the time is unknown. So, Astrologers have taken different timings and drawn several horoscope charts for USA. Of the many charts proposed for that day, the most widely accepted continues to be the Sibly chart, set for 5.10 PM on 4th July 1776 in Philadelphia. This chart is constructed by taking the major events happened during the course of several events that have their own impact on the country.


As the opening decade of the twenty-first century draws to a close, what is the future of the United States in an increasingly complex and fluid world order?


In a prospective global scenario in which China dominates and reshapes Asia, India becomes a major economic power and extends its influence into Africa, Islam continues to spread its brand of social dominion, and Europe has become a loose confederation of states trying to maintain some semblance of importance, what role will the United States play?


It has become conventional wisdom that over the next 25 to thirty years, the United States will continue to experience a precipitous decline, and that China will become the dominant power in the world alongside the massive growth of countries such as India and Brazil. In short, according to the doom-and-gloom crowd, the days of U.S. world influence may well be over.


This assumes the global scenario of the past few centuries when just one part of the world dominated international affairs. That has been Europe (and by extension, the United States). Globalization combined with foolhardy economic and social policies has diffused power away from the West. But that power is moving to countries that have within their societies many built-in factors that will limit their ability to achieve global hegemonic power.


In the case of both China and India, their overwhelming populations and the increasing demands by the people for a piece of the expanding economic pie will force these countries to focus more on internal matters or risk societal upheaval. China, for example, if foolish enough to physically conquer other lands, will only add to its unsustainable internal burden. China can therefore be expected to rely instead on economic supremacy within its own sphere of influence.


Those nations dominated by Islamic fundamentalism will not experience growth, as the nature of their vision of Islam will prevent the expansion of capitalism. In order to keep their populations at bay, brutality will be the order of the day. Their major source of income, the exploitation of natural resources (mainly oil), can be replaced as other nations, such as the United States, tap into their own vast reserves of petroleum-related resources.


Europe will continue its decline, with Russia clinging desperately to past days of glory as a world superpower. However, with the negative birthrates throughout the continent and the widespread fealty to social democracy, Europe's influence will wane as the years go by, and within forty years, it will resemble the European city-states of the Middle Ages -- but still a major consumer and economic arena.


Thus, the world that will arise from these factors is not one of domination by one country or region, but one that contains numerous centers of power.


As these centers of power mature, they will take care of security and military matters within their domain. As long as nuclear weapons exist and these nations have them, the old Cold War theory of mutually assured destruction will act as a deterrent against global war. Within their orbit, these nations will have greater incentive to constrain the rogue states and dictators from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, as they will not want to risk conflagration and destroy their power base. Thus, the United States will not be alone in maintaining peace and acting as the world's policeman.


Beyond just military or security issues, the United States will be even more vital in this new world order.


These new centers of power will require a clearinghouse or arbitrator that has its foot in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean spheres of influence. Only the United States is in this position -- due not only to factors of geography, but also to the melting-pot influence of the population and the sheer size of its economy.


However, it is incumbent on the United States to get its house in order. Fiscal and monetary policy must recognize the reality of current financial mismanagement. The current ruling class and its Euro-socialist mindset must be replaced with those who are willing to deal with these matters honestly and lead the American people with honor and integrity. The first (albeit embryonic) steps were taken in the midterm election of 2010, but much more needs to be done and equitable sacrifices made by all segments of society.


Further, the country must focus on becoming the foremost haven for business in the world and revamp its foreign policy that is still based on the twentieth-century model of superpower confrontation.


The matter that could throw the remainder of this century into worldwide chaos and the United States into anarchy is not the emergence of other nations, but the collapse of the United States. That overall possibility rests solely in the hands of the American people.

Friday, May 20

Lynn Margulis

Lynn Margulis (born March 5, 1938) is an American biologist and University Professor in the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is best known for her theory on the origin of eukaryotic organelles, and her contributions to the endosymbiotic theory, which is now generally accepted for how certain organelles were formed.

Controversy
In addition to rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for diversity (on the grounds of her belief that random mutation and differential survival are insufficient to account for speciation), Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science. In 2009 she co-authored a paper arguing that the change in spirochete form, from more motile helical to more inactive cyst and back, may be a causal contributor to AIDS. In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson arguing that butterflies are the result of hybridization of a now extinct insect and velvet worms. Williamson's paper provoked immediate response from the scientific community, including a paper in PNAS. Developmental Biologist and Professor at Duke university Fred Nijhout was quoted as saying that the paper was better suited for "National Enquirer than the National Academy.". In September it was announced that PNAS will eliminate Communicated submissions in July 2010 but PNAS stated that the decision had nothing to do with the Williamson controversy.

Other
Margulis was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution.
guest Hagey Lecturer, University of Waterloo, 1985
She was inducted into the World Academy of Art and Science, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences between 1995 and 1998.
In 1998 the Library of Congress, Washington, DC, announced that it would permanently archive Dr. Margulis' papers.
In 1999 she received the William Procter Prize for Scientific Achievement for scientific achievement.
In 1999, she was awarded the National Medal of Science by President William J. Clinton.
She is also a proponent and co-developer of the modern version of Gaia hypothesis, based on an idea developed by the English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock.
She is profiled in a book published in 2006 by Resurgence Magazine in the UK, called Visionaries: The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders.
In 2006 with her son Dorion, she founded Sciencewriters Books, an imprint of Chelsea Green Publishing for science books.
In 2007 she expressed her support for a new investigation of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
In 2008 she was one of thirteen recipients of the Darwin-Wallace Medal, which, until now, has only been bestowed every 50 years, by the Linnean Society of London.
In March 2009 she spoke at the Biological Evolution Facts and Theories Conference held at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome aimed at promoting dialogue between evolutionary biology and Christianity.
In June 2010 she was inducted into the Leonardo DaVinci Society of Thinking[relevant? – discuss]; accepting induction at the University of Advancing Technology in Tempe, AZ.

Research
Lynn Margulis attended the University of Chicago, earned a master's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1960, and received her Ph.D. in 1963 from UC Berkeley. In 1966, as a young faculty member at Boston University, she wrote a theoretical paper entitled The Origin of Mitosing Eukaryotic Cells. The paper however was "rejected by about fifteen scientific journals," Margulis recalled. It was finally accepted by The Journal of Theoretical Biology and is considered today a landmark in modern endosymbiotic theory. Although it draws heavily on symbiosis ideas first put forward by mid-19th century scientists and by Merezhkovsky (1905) and Wallin (1920) in the early-20th century, Margulis's endosymbiotic theory formulation is the first to rely on direct microbiological observations (as opposed to paleontological or zoological observations which were previously the norm for new works in evolutionary biology). The paper was initially heavily rejected, as symbiosis theories had been dismissed by mainstream biology at the time. Weathering constant criticism of her ideas for decades, Margulis is famous for her tenacity in pushing her theory forward, despite the opposition she faced at the time.
The underlying theme of endosymbiotic theory, as formulated in 1966, was interdependence and cooperative existence of multiple prokaryotic organisms; one organism engulfed another, yet both survived and eventually evolved over millions of years into eukaryotic cells. Her 1970 book, Origin of Eukaryotic Cells, discusses her early work pertaining to this organelle genesis theory in detail. Currently, her endosymbiotic theory is recognized as the key method by which some organelles have arisen (see endosymbiotic theory for a discussion) and is widely accepted by mainstream scientists. The endosymbiotic theory of organogenesis gained strong support in the 1980s, when the genetic material of mitochondria and chloroplasts was found to be different from that of the symbiont's nuclear DNA.
In 1995, prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins had this to say about Lynn Margulis and her work:
“ I greatly admire Lynn Margulis's sheer courage and stamina in sticking by the endosymbiosis theory, and carrying it through from being an unorthodoxy to an orthodoxy. I'm referring to the theory that the eukaryotic cell is a symbiotic union of primitive prokaryotic cells. This is one of the great achievements of twentieth-century evolutionary biology, and I greatly admire her for it.

Robert Whittaker

Robert Harding Whittaker (1920–1980) was a distinguished American plant ecologist, active in the 1950s to the 1970s.
Born in Wichita, Kansas, he obtained a B.A. at Washburn Municipal College (now Washburn University) in Topeka, Kansas, and, following military service, his Ph.D. at the University of Illinois.
He held teaching and research positions at Washington State College in Hanford, Washington, the Hanford National Laboratories (where he pioneered use of radioactive tracers in ecosystem studies), Brooklyn College, University of California-Irvine, and, finally Cornell University.
Extremely productive, Whittaker was a leading proponent and developer of gradient analysis to address questions in plant community ecology. He provided strong empirical evidence against some ideas of vegetation development advocated by Frederic Clements. Whittaker was most active in the areas of plant community analysis, succession, and productivity. "During his lifetime Whittaker was a major innovator of methodologies of community analysis and a leader in marshaling field data to document patterns in the composition, productivity and diversity of land plant communities. Thus Whittaker was innovative in both empirical data sampling techniques as well as synthesizing more holistic theories.
He was the first to propose the five-kingdom taxonomic classification of the world's biota into the Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, and Monera. He also proposed the Whittaker Biome Classification, which categorized biome-types upon two abiotic factors: temperature and precipitation.
Whittaker was elected to the National Academy of Science in 1974, received the Ecological Society of America's Eminent Ecologist Award in 1980, and was otherwise widely recognized and honored. He collaborated with many other ecologists including George Woodwell (Dartmouth), W. A. Neiring, Herb Borman (Yale) and G. E. Likens (Cornell) , and was particularly active in cultivating international collaborations.
Ph.D. Students


Ecologists completing Ph.D.s under Whittaker include Walter Westman, Robert Peet (now at University of North Carolina), Susan Bratton (now at Baylor University), Thomas Wentworth (now at North Carolina State University), Owen Sholes (now at Assumption College), Mark Wilson (now at Oregon State University), Linda Olsvig-Whittaker (now at the Israel Nature and Parks Authority) and Kerry Woods (now at Bennington College).
Family

Whittaker married biochemist Clara Buehl (then a coworker at Hanford Laboratories) in 1952. Their children are John Whittaker (b. 1953, now a Professor of Anthropology at Grinnell College), Paul Whittaker (b. 1955, formerly an ecologist/entomologist; now an abstract artist and photographer in Evanston, Illinois) and Carl Whittaker (b. 1957, a natural history illustrator and professional chef in Ithaca, New York).
Clara was diagnosed with cancer in 1972; her health deteriorated and she died December 31, 1976. Whittaker married graduate student Linda Olsvig in 1979, but was himself diagnosed with lung cancer; he died October 20, 1980.

Friday, April 29

The Royal Wedding