Research from Johnson, Tellis, and Macinnis (2005) examined individuals who were buying and selling shares on the stock market. The subjects showed a variation of the gambler’s fallacy when examined. As stocks had a trend of doing poorly, the individuals had a tendency to believe that the stocks were due for improvement due to the time since they had last had an improvement. This belief showed gradual decrease over longer periods of time as the stock continued to perform poorly. The effects of the gambler’s fallacy increased steadily until a point and then proceeded to decrease as the negative trend continued. Ross and Degroot (1982) found that adolescences were more likely to be swayed by the gambler’s fallacy bias when problems built upon each other with higher degrees of similarities than when differences were greater between problems. This study could be perceived as showing how repetition of decisions could lead to the gambler’s fallacy. In examining the issue of cognitive biases further, a potential research question could serve as questioning what mental processes promote the occurrence of the gambler’s fallacy in individuals. This question would pertain to individual’s developing a mental fatigue to the repetition of similar responses.

            In contrast to falling victim to the gambler’s fallacy, popular fiction examines the possible applications in overcoming this bias and what could happen if one were to make decisions based upon the prescriptive model. This can be clearly seen in 21(Spacey and Luketic, 2008). In the film, college students are training to examine the statistical possibilities of certain cards being drawn in blackjack games. As the students bet accordingly with the best statistical possibilities, thousands of dollars are won by the kids. In avoiding biases such as the gambler’s fallacy, the film demonstrates the outcomes of betting on the best statistical outcomes. Popular culture is more concerned with avoiding such biases as opposed to the research. 21 (Spacey and Luketic, 2008) view the gambler’s fallacy and Bayes’s Theorem as being exploited and used for the purpose of financial gain while research attempts to understand the bias and theorem for the purpose of uncovering the ways in which individuals can be swayed among differing lines of thought and judgment. Research differs from the popular fiction how it views this knowledge being used. Research examines biases such as the gambler’s fallacy to attempt to predict how individuals will react. Popular fiction is more interested in exploiting how reality will play out as opposed to the person’s behavior.

            In examining the judgment making processes of individuals, several implications can be seen in the real world. Firstly, one can utilize biases to predict the behaviors of consumers when marketing products and examining trends and fads. Secondly, Bayes’s Theorem can be used to assist individuals in realizing the flaws in their judgments and how they are persuaded by advertisements and media influence to make inaccurate decisions. Thirdly, Bayes’s Theorem could be used to determine the likelihood of individuals utilizing such an understanding of human behavior for their own self-interest like how probabilities were used in 21 (Spacey and Luketic, 2008) for personal gain. In further examining the issue, the gambler’s fallacy could be used to address whether an individual tends to be swayed more like toward a pessimistic belief or optimistic belief as opposed to sound logic. In using this applicable knowledge, an individual would have a better understanding of his or her own judgment and be able to adjust according so as to be better aware of when they are being unsuspectingly persuaded by other individuals, the media, or advertisements to make decisions that are less than the best possible decisions. In essence, an improved understanding of the biases that affect decisions making will allow individuals to be less susceptible to the exploitation of such biases.

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.

The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.

This new data, derived by the French economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez from American tax returns, also suggests that those at the top were more likely to earn than inherit their riches. That’s not completely surprising: the rapid growth of new American industries — from technology to financial services — has increased the need for highly educated and skilled workers. At the same time, old industries like manufacturing are employing fewer blue-collar workers.

The result? Pay for college graduates has risen by 15.7 percent over the past 32 years (after adjustment for inflation) while the income of a worker without a high school diploma has plummeted by 25.7 percent over the same period.

Government has also played a role, particularly the George W. Bush tax cuts, which, among other things, gave the wealthy a 15 percent tax on capital gains and dividends. That’s the provision that caused Warren E. Buffett’s secretary to have a higher tax rate than he does.

As a result, the top 1 percent has done progressively better in each economic recovery of the past two decades. In the Clinton era expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, the figure was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent.

Just as the causes of the growing inequality are becoming better known, so have the contours of solving the problem: better education and training, a fairer tax system, more aid programs for the disadvantaged to encourage the social mobility needed for them escape the bottom rung, and so on.

Government, of course, can’t fully address some of the challenges, like globalization, but it can help.

By the end of the year, deadlines built into several pieces of complex legislation will force a gridlocked Congress’s hand. Most significantly, all of the Bush Tax Cuts will expire. If Congress does not act, tax rates will return to the higher, pre-2000, Clinton-era levels. In addition, $1.2 trillion of automatic spending cuts that were set in motion by the failure of the last attempt at a deficit reduction deal will take effect.

So far, the prospects for progress are at best worrisome, at worst terrifying. Earlier this week, House Republicans unveiled an unsavory stew of highly regressive tax cuts, large but unspecified reductions in discretionary spending (a category that importantly includes education, infrastructure and research and development), and an evisceration of programs devoted to lifting those at the bottom, including unemployment insurance, food stamps, earned income tax credits and many more.

Policies of this sort would exacerbate the very problem of income inequality that most needs fixing. Next week’s package from House Democrats will almost certainly be more appealing. And to his credit, President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need to address this problem. But with Democrats in the minority in the House and an election looming, passage is unlikely.

The only way to redress the income imbalance is by implementing policies that are oriented toward reversing the forces that caused it. That means letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy and adding money to some of the programs that House Republicans seek to cut. Allowing this disparity to continue is both bad economic policy and bad social policy. We owe those at the bottom a fairer shot at moving up.

          Rapid population growth is the fundamental problem of all development schemes. Fortunately, humans have realized the outcome of their reproduction feat and developed a thesis, and termed it ‘sustainable development’. This research paper will focus on these two terms.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A DEFINITION

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission coined the phrase ‘Sustainable Development’, to give recognition for rising human needs. Sustainable Development refers to ‘meeting the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (Giddings, Hopwood, O’Brien 2002, 188). Therefore, the three spheres of Sustainable Development indicate economic, social, and environmental issues that endanger human demands. The figure below reflects that the intersection between biological sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability leads to sustainable development. However, the model neglects the extent of actions taken to attain sustainable development. The literature provided below will explain further about this model.

          The term ‘sustainable development’ has faced much controversy from environmentalists, economists, and socialists. Giddings, Hopwood, and O’Brien (2002, 189) believe that the three spheres are often shown interconnected to simplify the understanding. But it is more complex than that, as Neumayer (1999), aptly stated, “it leads to assumptions that trade-offs can be made between the three sectors”, and that monetary capital can replace the natural ecosystem.

In reality, the three interconnected rings are three layers to sustainable development. For example, measures taken for economic sustainability will affect social and environmental sustainability and vice versa. To substantiate the above statement, Giddings, Hopwood, and O’Brien (2002, 189) stated that, “there are major weaknesses and limitations of this model. It assumes the separation and even autonomy of the economy, society and environment from each other”.

O’Connor (1994), a skeptic, claims that sustainable development is a phrase that can be manipulated according to human needs. And he proposed “one option to the dilemma of meanings over sustainable development is the use of word: sustainability” (O’Connor 1994) or “sustainable livelihoods” (Workshop on Urban Sustainability, 2000). Usage of such words makes the term sustainable development more precise and focuses on human needs and the environment. Brundtland’s connotation of sustainable development was the aim of the phrase, not its definition, according to Giddings, Hopwood, and O’Brien (2002, 188).

          Despite these controversies, sustainable development has gained worldwide acceptance. Future generations have to be assured that they will live their choice of lifestyle, which would presumably be different from today. To attain this criterion, there should be freedom of choice to choose from (Spangenberg 2001, 26), and natural resources have to be preserved for future exploitation. Many measures (Green Peace, Friends of Earth etc.) have been formulated based on this understanding of sustainability. Therefore Figure 1 should really be:

Economic stability at a national level helps social sustainability as there is lesser discrimination in the society. Both these factors contribute to managing environmental management. This relationship is justified in the following sections.

POPULATION GROWTH

According to Farflex Online Dictionary, the term population growth refers to “an increase in the number of people who inhabit a territory or state”. There are two large developing countries in the world, with the highest population growth: China and India.

India is the subject of our discussion. Figure 3 (UNICEF Organization 2005) gives an overview of India’s current state of affairs in terms of economical, social, and environmental characteristics.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH

          Sustainable development and population growth are implicitly linked to each other. To define this linkage, in the section of Population in the World Book Encyclopedia, the popular English economist, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), in his book Essay on the Principle of Population (1788) predicted that population will increase faster than food supplies; and he believed that wars and famine would kill the extra population. This simple prediction illustrates the linkage between sustainable development and population growth. The factors that convey this linkage are: environmental; economical and; social aspects.

          The implication and consequences of the linkage portrayed in the above depiction will be seen in depth, using India as a case study, in the following sections.

Environmental Sustainability vs. Population Growth

          Population growth is the fundamental element for the degradation of the environment. Environmental sustainability refers to the natural environment that we live in, and seeks to protect human welfare by protecting Natural Capital (NC). As contrasted with economic capital, NC consists of water, land, air, minerals, and ecosystem services; hence much is converted to manufactured or economic capital (Goodland 2002).

The impact on environment intensifies as the population and per capita consumption of India increases, and the level of technology used for that consumption (Population and Sustainable Development 1999). For example, if in Mumbai, the population increases at a rate of five babies per year (hypothetically); this means that five or more people in Mumbai would have reduced portions of food, as it’s a strain on the food supply. Agriculture technologists may claim that the Green Revolution has initiated beneficial means of increasing food supply; but Swaminathan, a crop scientist, (2006, 2293) argues that excessive use of fertilizers degrades the soil fertility and soil resistance. To meet these consumption patterns, extensive deforestation occurs, to shelter the new consumers of the scarce natural resource. Findings (Jorgenson and Burns 2007, 460) suggest that rapidly increasing rate of deforestation occurs in developing countries like India. The impact of population growth in India has prompted farmers to perform unsustainable practices such as burning forests, or deforestation to plant more crops to meet ration needs. Increasing population pressurizes on the available land, reducing its potentiality, making it ineffective for future generations.

          A contrasting study (Population and Sustainable Development 1999) blames developed countries for the high levels of pollution in the global climate. There are many possible reasons for such an accusation. But more precisely, poorer nations cannot afford the new technology. And most of today’s technology is largely dependent on natural resources such as coal, oil, and gas. However, developing nations such as India use older forms of technology in their daily life that also pollutes.

In the past few decades, India has improved incredibly in the field of IT (communication). Therefore, justifiably, as population grows, people aspire to “live better”; more domestic and international industries open doors of opportunities for employment, which in turn raises standard of living (Population and Sustainable Development 1999). Although this is a symbol of economic growth, environmental consequences have also risen, such as: high pollution levels, human traffic, and rise in global warming. Increased standards of living in the urban areas, has urged people to afford more luxuries in life, such as cars, bikes etc. These vehicles are not exactly environmentally friendly, as they emit Green House Gases (GHG) into the atmosphere choking the environment. As toxic pollutants in the air increases, it induces warmer climate, and raises the sea-level. This causes natural disasters, which destroys many well-built regions of the country, leaving just huge water mass for the future to dwell in. Furthermore, industries are increasing in India, and they dispose their industrial waste into nearby oceans, killing marine life, and jeopardizing future water supplies. In addition, as landfill sites increase, more and more percentage of landmass will decrease, whereby people will nucleate on the “fresh” land, exerting a strain on the resources of that land. Due to this, it causes human traffic, as more people want to benefit from the depleting resource leaving nothing for the future to benefit from.

This table is a brief overview of India’s rural and urban consumption of two basic amenities: Sanitation facilities and; improved water drinking resources (UNICEF Organization 2005):

The figures for access to improved drinking water resource prove that the government (Rotary Club of Hamden Foundation Inc. and South Asia Pure Water Initiative In. n.d.) has taken initiatives such as:

• Facilitating inexpensive water filtration systems, known as the Bio-Sand Filter
• Regional piped supply using mainly surface water.

By introducing such reforms, people in the rural areas can recycle the water and less strain on ground water for fresh supply.

The figures for adequate sanitation in urban and rural areas is very disconcerting, as poor sanitation facilities lead to higher increase in the spread of famine. One village’s lack of water sanitation can severely affect, the surrounding villages, and the country as a whole, if it is not restrained, contaminating the fresh water supply for the future.

The summarized linkage between population growth and environmental sustainability is: the higher the rate of population growth, higher the rate of depletion in natural resources, demoting sustainable development.  

Economic Sustainability vs. Population Growth

          Economical sustainability refers to the maintenance of economical capital. In other words, how the society manages its scarce resources (Gans, King, Mankiw 2005, 3).

The economy of India is strong, even though it supports a large population. India has failed to control population growth due to inadequate government policies, and religious beliefs. The IT boost, mentioned earlier, has triggered economic growth but has done nothing to improve poverty standards. This poverty line is largely due to many people being segmented in the agricultural sector. As Weaver, Rock, and Kusterer (1997, 133) revealed that, the government policies in developing nations like India, favor urban areas and industry over agriculture. More economic capital is spent on urban development, and as a result there is insufficient fund on other projects. Due to insufficient funds, has resulted Indians in the rural areas to believe that more children in the family mean more income, as the children go to work at a very young age. And these children are required to make ends meet in a rural family, because of the inflation crisis in India. However, as Larsen (2003) pointed out that fast-growing populations shrink crop-land area per person, up to the extent that they will be unable to feed themselves.

The aforementioned consumption patterns affect economical distribution of scarce resource throughout India. Rapid increase in population growth encourages consumption of manufactured items made from materials that are scarce and harmful towards the environment, such as plastic and automobiles (India’s sustainable development framework 2002). This has exerted tension on the natural resources of India, decreasing the profit that the resource can provide, if the population growth was appropriate to the consumption. This downgrades sustainable development further as future generations cannot benefit from the resource, if the resource is not available. As a result, India has faced trade-offs (Gans, King, Mankiw 2005, 3). It has traded off environmental sustainability to attain economic sustainability. For example, India shifted to an open-economy system in the early 90s, encouraging more foreign investors. The increase in foreign investment reduced the unemployment rate, and thrived on the Indian resources for industrial growth. Hence, the Indian population was deprived from consuming their share of the resource; which proves that the natural capital has become inadequate. 

On the account of more than two-thirds of people inhabiting the agricultural and fishing sector, India has done “overcapitalization of manufactured capital” (India’s sustainable development framework 2002), such as allotting too much capital on sawmills for declining forests. Yet, it has to expand territories, because of urbanization. Thus, a decrease in the allocation of resources to the natural capital occurs.

Likewise, Weaver, Rock, and Kusterer (1997, 83) imply that, economic growth can only be sustained if the performance, structure, and behavior of a national economy is effective, facing no fatal trade-offs like India; in addition, more focus is towards economic growth, at the cost of other sustainable factors and lesser concern for sustainable development.

A statistical data (UNICEF Organization 2005) will complete the cause-effect relationship understanding.

From the table, it can be seen that lesser, non-profitable proportion is spent on India’s development and larger proportion towards India’s protection. If resources are assigned in this manner, the future generations are going to be more protected from rivals rather than be healthy or educated. The other half of the statistical data shows that the government has certainly failed to facilitate means of communication throughout India which is in paradox with the IT boost mentioned earlier. These figures mean that there is lack of financial resources to promote technology to other parts, which is due to increasing population. If the population crisis continues in India, then the figures will become even smaller than they already are.  

In conclusion, the cause-effect relationship between population growth and economic sustainability is: increase in population growth puts a strain on the natural resource, which results in uneven distribution of economical assets and a shortage of resource for the future generation.

Social Sustainability vs. Population Growth

          Social sustainability refers to the maintenance of social capital. Social capital is investments and services that create the basic framework for society (Goodland 2002).          In India, certain social indicators have improved substantially, compared to late 60s. Literacy rates have risen, while mortality rates have declined. Reduction in gender gap has contributed in reducing the poverty rate (India’s sustainable development framework 2002). For instance, as women literacy rates increased in urban areas, it has encouraged a wider outlook to the concept of family planning, and other contraceptives in order to control population growth.

          In Hofstede’s cultural framework (Fletcher and Brown 2005, 95), India falls high in the masculine versus feminine scale. A high score reflects that India is more masculine oriented and women do not have the freedom of men. The female adult literacy rate is 48% as of 2004 (UNICEF Organization 2005); assuming that it includes the female population from rural and urban areas. This figure is comparatively low as compared to adult male literacy rate which is 73%. It can be deduced that more than half of the female population live in rural areas and do not receive the education that they deserve; and this is where population growth is the largest. This reduces the importance of social sustainability.

The role of women is an important segment of attaining social sustainability. A classic example is produced by Weaver, Rock, and Kusterer (1997, 206): in 1970 the Chipko movement in Northern India, and the birth of the term tree-huggers; many groups of women saved the trees in their nearby forests by rising earlier than men and hugging the trees to save it from being deforested. Similarly, in the Green Revolution technology, social scientists argued that women were alienated from technology based agriculture, adding to their marginalization (Swaminathan 2006, 2293). These studies portray that women are more environmental sensitive than men, and constant encouragement is required to boost this valuable characteristic of women.

          Soares (2007, 247) claims that “increases in life expectancy between 1960 and 2000 were largely independent of improvements in income”. He explains that, decline in death rates in developing nations like India is due to improved public health infrastructure, immunization, and sharing of knowledge in the society. Nevertheless, these improvements are only available in some parts of the country while some undeveloped villages are stranded to stew in their own crisis with no initiatives being taken to improvise their condition. Large population is the principal problem of such irregular reach of information. Other prime reasons are bribery, poor execution of concept, weak management, and political crisis. Because of these circumstances many Non-governmental organizations (NGO) have been formed, like research universities, to implement the unwritten proposals of the government. 

The final supplement to encompass the subject is a statistical data (UNICEF Organization 2005) on the social development of India.

The differences in the number in 15 years suggest that the concept has permeated into the rural areas at a gradual rate. NGOs have been more effective than the government in communicating their message which shows care and unanimity to reach sustainable development.

To summarize, the above literature justifies that the link between social sustainability and population growth is: higher population growth and lesser investment of social capital on services then lesser the understanding of fundamental problems of the country.

CONCLUSION

                    The study disproves the three spheres of sustainable development to be merely interconnected. Environmental depletion is caused due to inadequate economic capital and loss of social unity; Economic growth is caused at the expense of weak social capital which instigates environmental resources to diminish; Social strain occurs due to poor management of economic assets which gives rise to the exhaustion of environmental resources. Population growth is one of the factors that have been taken into account to establish this relationship.

          The aim of the study is clear. Environmental depletion, social disputes, and rapid economic growth, are the platform to a stranded future. Ignorance of such significant issues is ignorance of our future. Initiatives have to be taken, and it has to be taken now.

“We won’t have a society if we destroy the environment.”

- Margaret Mead

 [References]

CIA World Factbook. 2007. United Kingdom. https://www.cia.gov./library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html

Fletcher, R., and L. Brown. 2005. International Marketing An Asia-Pacific Perspective. New South Wales: Pearson Education Australia.

Gans, J., S. King, and N.G. Mankiw. 2005. Principles of microeconomics. Victoria: Thomson Learning.

Giddings, B., B. Hopwood, and G. O’Brien. 2002. Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development 10: 187-196.

Goodland, R. 2002. Sustainability: Human, social, economic and environmental. Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change.

India’s sustainable development framework. 2002. http://www.ias.unu.edu/research/indiasdf.cfm 

Jorgenson, K.A., and J.T. Burns. 2007. Effects of Rural and Urban Population Dynamics and National Development on Deforestation in Less-Developed Countries, 1990-2000. Sociological Inquiry 77 (3): 460. 

Larsen, J. 2003. Population Growth Leading to Land Hunger. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update21.htm 

Neumayer, E. 1999. Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Elgar: Cheltenham. Quoted in Giddings, B., B. Hopwood, and G. O’Brien., Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development (Sustainable Development, 2002), 189.

O’ Connor, J. 1994. Is capitalism sustainable? Guilford: New York. Quoted in Giddings, B., B. Hopwood, and G. O’Brien., Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development (Sustainable Development, 2002), 188.

Population and sustainable development. 1999. http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/populationissues/development.htm 

Rotary Club of Hamden Foundation Inc. and South Asia Pure Water Initiative Inc. n.d. Water project: Focus on South India. http://www.rotary7980.org/avenues_of_service/4th_international_service/water_projects/Hamden-South%20Asia%20BioSand%20Filter%20Project.pdf 

Soares, R.R. 2007. On the Determinants of Mortality Reductions in the Developing World. Population and Development Review 33 (2): 247. 

Spangenberg, H.J. 2001. Sustainable development: from catchwords to benchmarks and operational concepts. Germany: GreenLeaf Publishing.

Swaminathan, S.M. 2006. An evergreen revolution. Crop Science 46 (5): 2293. 

UNICEF Organization. 2005. Information by Country: India. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_india_statistics.html 

Weaver, H.J., M.T. Rock, and K. Kusterer. 1997. Achieving Broad-Based Sustainable Development: Governance, Environment, and Growth with Equity. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.

Workshop on Urban Sustainability. 2000. Towards a comprehensive geographical perspective on urban sustainability. http://www.wbcsd.ch 

Our brain is made up of two sides: Right Brain and Left Brain. The Right side is random, intuitive, holistic, synthesizing and subjective. The Left side is logical, sequential, rational, analytical and objective. Both sides of the brain are important to us. Using both sides of the brain yields optimum output as we are making informed decisions and observations of the world around us.

Therefore, the right university degree/s should involve both sides of the brain. For example, if you are taking Bachelor of Business Administration, then take a minor in Mathematics or Statistics; or take a master’s degree in Statistics. Similarly, if you are doing Bachelor of Engineering, take minors in Management or Communication. You get the picture. The reason for this amalgamation of different subjects is because the curriculum within these disciplines requires the application of both sides of the brain.

Now the argument could be that each degree on its own includes a certain level of logical and intuitive cognitive processing. Thus, another smaller degree in another discipline is not required. However, the cognitive balance provided by one degree is tipped in favor of one side of the brain; soft sciences towards the Right side and Science degrees to the Left side. While this may be convenient, it may pose challenges in the future. For example, as important it is to make logical derivations of a problem, right communication strategies could help in effective and efficient delivery of an idea or theory. The core idea is to make use of both sides of the brain when looking at things and obtaining a degree/s that does this is a crucial characteristic of the right university degree.

Another argument could be that courses under the soft sciences can be learned by practice. Why should I go to the university and take Communication or Management, for instance, as part of my major? True story. It could absolutely be learned by handling tricky situations and socializing. But a degree from a university speeds up this process and helps you to socialize effectively and reduces the amount of bad eggs you encounter.

I hope this alleviates the problem a little. Sure, the ultimate combination of degrees depends entirely on your interests and passion. But, it is ideal and beneficial if you chose a combination that made you think logically and intuitively. You will be an asset to any institution you decide to work for. Good luck in your endeavors.     

Abusive head trauma or AHT is known more commonly as Shaken Baby Syndrome, Shaken Impact Syndrome or SBS. It is one of the most popular deaths of small children in households of those who are poverty stricken.  This maybe in part due to the stress level of parents living under these conditions, but is also due in part to the lack of education of the dangers of swinging, shaking and in some cases even bouncing a child excessively.

The head muscles of a child is not fully grown and excesses rocking of an infant can cause the child’s brain to rock back in forth in a way that causes ruptured blood vessels.  Another mishap could be the nerves of the brain tearing the brain tissue.  Since the brain rocks backs and forth in the skull, it is always the possibility that the brain hits the skull.  This would cause any of the aforementioned occurrences.

When any of these situations happen, the child may fall unconscious, taken to the emergency room and be reported as AHT in which a report would then be made on the parent or person thought to be responsible for any incident in a SBS case.  It can be deadly trauma to the brain in a small child.  If a child survives, there is the possibility of serious brain damage that could come with various complications a child must live with for the rest of its life.  Either way, a parent could be indicted as an abuser.

To avoid a mistaken child abuse case, parents and caretakers would do well to study what is considered excessive head shaking for a small child.  It may sound harsh, but going to an amusement park with a frail child on rides that rock back and forth could be dangerous for both the livelihood of the child and cause an uninvited case of neglect or abuse onto a parent whose child’s brain may not react to a ride until many days later.  Always have proof of entertainment that you participate in that may seem incident enough, but unknowingly dangerous to the brains of children.

FOR MORE INFORMATION regarding the signs and other frequently asked questions about Shaken Baby or Shaken Impact Syndrome, refer to the attached link for the safety of a child’s brain, log onto the following website:

National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome

http://www.dontshake.org/sbs.php?topNavID=3&subNavID=21

http://expertscolumn.com/content/dangers-head-banging

Genetics being linked to criminal behavior and activity has been an ongoing debate for over 40 years since the XYY theory was introduced to the criminal justice world. Many investigators and criminology experts have been analyzing the factors that influence an individual’s criminal behavior, and some of the first research conducted was by Montagle and Walker when they proposed the association between criminality and genetic factors. The research concluded that the XYY genotype was found twenty percent higher amongst prisoners than that of the general population. (GOSAVI, S.R., GAJBE, U.L., MESHRAM, S.W., CHIMURKAR, V.K. 2009). Sense the XYY theory has been introduced there has been a vast amount of studies conducted including twin studies, adoption studies, and testosterone studies that merit the idea that genetics are a source of criminal behavior.

Twin studies have been conducted to evaluate the possibility that genetics can be linked to criminal behavior. Twins studies are conducted by evaluation identical twins and their rates of criminal behavior versus fraternal twins and their rates of criminal behavior to effectively analyze the roles of genetic and environmental factors that contribute to the criminal behavior. After thorough evaluation, researchers discovered that identical twins that suffered from antisocial disorders as children also suffered from it as an adult and that is was most likely genetically inherited from their parents, but when pertaining to general criminal behavior, they discovered that hereditary factors are most likely of little significance to criminal behavior. (Jones, C. M. 2005).

Adoption studies have been conducted evaluating the links between adopted children and criminal behavior to conclude if genetics can be confirmed to cause criminal behavior. These studies analyze both the biological parents and adopted parents to contrast environmental factors that can influence criminal behavior. Some of the first studies conducted were on adopted children that were born from incarcerated females, the evidence showed that the children that were born from incarcerated females had much higher rates of criminal convictions as adults than those that were not born from incarcerated females. Another study conducted was that of children who were born from biological fathers that have a history of committing property crimes. This study was conducted in Demark and found that adopted children whose biological fathers had a history of committing property crimes often committed these types of crimes themselves but did not engage in committing violent crimes.

According to Jones, “Children whose biological fathers had been convicted of property crimes were more likely to engage in similar behavior, when compared to those biological fathers who had been convicted of violent crimes”. The final results of studying the hereditary influences of criminal behavior in adopted children provided evidence that there is in fact an increased risk of criminal behavior in the adoptive children that are born from incarcerated females, and the children with biological fathers that committed property crimes also had higher rates of property crime convictions as adults. (Jones, C. M.2005).

Testosterone studies have also been conducted to analyze the role that testosterone levels influencing aggressive and criminal behavior in men. Because there is a higher rate of male criminal offenders than females, researchers have conducted studies on how much male hormones influence criminal behavior. One of the most commonly known researchers of this topic is James Dabbs Jr. and his finding found that men and women that have high testosterone levels were more prone to commit violent and sexual crimes. (Crime Times.2007). Men that have high levels of testosterone are often found to have more aggression that can lead to violent behavior, substance abuse, high levels of sexual activity, and also problems with authority such as teachers, parents, and employment supervisors. After conducting research on male prisoners the results concluded that inmates who were convicted of crimes that were sexual oriented or violent had higher levels of testosterone than of those male inmates that were convicted of property and drug crimes. (Crime Times.2007).

Some of the strengths that are effectively linked to genetics and crime are those that pertain to adopted children from biological parents that have a criminal history. It has been proven that the adopted children of women whom are incarcerated often inherit traits that influence criminal behavior rates as adults. Also adoptive children whose biological fathers who have a history of committing property  crimes often are found to have a high chance of committing property crimes themselves as children or adults, and there are higher rates of property crime convictions of these  children as adults. (Jones, C. M.2005). High testosterone levels can be inherited genetically but environmental influences can both raise or lower a man or woman’s testosterone level. The only supporting evidence that high testosterone levels are linked to crime is through aggression not genetics. (Crime Times.2007).

There are many weaknesses in the debate of whether genetics are linked to criminal behavior. The most prominent weakness is that the environment in which the adolescent is raised in can truly influence the chances of criminal behavior. Even if a child is born with a mental illness that provokes criminal behavior, they can receive the care and treatment to deter the chance and teach the child to not engage in criminal activity. (Jones, C. M.2005). On the other hand, in many cases criminals are raised in a loving environment and do not have genetic inheritance to criminal behavior and still chose a life of crime, so as a result criminal behavior cannot at this time be fully linked to genetics. There has been an immense amount of research conducted to find the links between those that have the XYY chromosome versus those with the normal XY chromosomes. It has been proven that there are higher chances of those with XYY chromosomes engaging in criminal behavior than those with the normal XY chromosomes, but no evidence that the chromosomal differences were the complete influence on the offender’s choice to commit crimes. (GOSAVI, S.R., GAJBE, U.L., MESHRAM, S.W., CHIMURKAR, V.K. 2009).

Because genetics and crime has been such a highly debated topic, it is vital that police departments and the criminal justice system consider or dismiss the findings effectively. I believe that police departments should consider genetics being linked to criminal behavior but to be very careful to have supporting physical evidence that proves the crime being committed. I feel that by knowing the possible inherited traits it can help police officers understand an offender better but genetics should not play a key role in explaining why a crime is committed. Therefore, my observation is that genetics should only be used for understand one’s behavior but not one’s criminal actions.

Some of the dangers of suggesting that there is a criminal gene are that more offenders can claim that their genes made them commit criminal offenses. A good example is the insanity plea that exists today, many offenders whom of which are not clinically insane attempt to use the insanity plea to avoid incarceration for the crimes they have committed instead of facing the consequences of their criminal actions. I feel that if proven true that genetics are linked to criminal behavior, there will be more offenders attempting to claim that genetics made them a criminal instead of the fact that they chose to commit the crime due to their interests and lifestyle. Another danger is that because criminal with attempt to use genetics to their benefit it as a result makes the court process of convicting them longer and more costly. I believe that the only time a court proceeding should be drawn out due to genetic factors is when the criminal is proven to be diagnosed with a severe mental illness that caused the crime commit, such as psychopaths.

In my opinion, some of the repercussions that would occur in the field of criminal justice if the existence of the criminal gene is proven to be true is higher rates of criminals claiming the gene made me do it, which as a result creates a much more difficult and lengthy investigation and court process. (Cohen, Patricia.2011). The next repercussion is that of criminals that have already been incarcerated for the crimes they have committed, these criminals that are receiving harsh sentences for violent crimes can turn around and request a trial to plea that genetics was the key component in choosing to commit crime. As a result this could create a mass amount of new trials for violent offenders and slow down court processes of offenders’ current awaiting sentencing. To be stated simply, I believe that if the criminal gene is proven to be true, there will be much more work for those within the criminal justice field because every violent criminal is going to attempted to claim that they genetically were linked to criminal behavior, resulting in the requirement of deeper investigations and higher funding to convict the violent criminals of today and the future.

References

Cohen, Patricia. (June, 19, 2011). Genetic Basis for Crime: A New Look. Retrieved on Jan, 15, 2012. Retrieved from New York Times Website. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/arts/ genetics-and-crime-at-institute-of-justice-conference.html?pagewanted=all

Crime Times. (2007). High Testosterone Linked to Crimes of Sex and Violence. Retrieved on January, 15, 2012. Retrieved from website. http://www.crimetimes.org/95c/w95cp4.html

Jones, C. M. (2005). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior. Retrieved on Jan, 15, 2012. Retrieved from Website. http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/jones .html

All of this started supposedly on September 17, 2011 but actually we have to take into account the rest of the world.  The OWS is just the continuation of a cancer that started in the 3rd world countries with the intervention of the IMF and the forceful imposition of its redemption packages. The very same banks that caused the financial crisis that started on 2000 (the press says it started on 2007) were the responsible for the collapse of many nations like Argentina, Ecuador, Japan and many many more.

Sooner of later this sickness had to come home with such a dramatic impact.  Reviewing all the evidence, the origin in the US would be with the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  Reagan handed the country to the service of the supper rich.  Just taking a look to the salaries of workers, these have not increased ever since.  Nowadays, the upper 1% of the people in the US takes in nearly a quarter of the nation‘s income. All the growth that has occurred in our country over the last decade or more has gone to the upper 1%. Much of the wealth of this 1% comes from investments in political capital in Washington [Vanity Fair May 2011] The average American worker was taking home $752 a week in late 2010 while the median pay for top executives at 200 big companies last year was $10.8 million. In fact, the gap between chief executive compensation and average US worker pay rose from a ratio of 263 to 1 in 2009 to 325 to 1 on 2010. [Washington Post Aug 31st 2011] It is estimated that 400 US Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined. This exclusive group benefited directly or indirectly from the multi-trillion bailout in 2008, and now they have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.  Globally, the richest 2% owns more than half the household wealth in the entire world and the richest 10% holds 85% of total.

All the info is taken from the book “Confrontational Poetry”

1. In 1750 there were about 800 million people in the world. In 1850 there were a billion more, and by 1950, another billion. Then it took just 50 years to double to 6 billion.
2. Half the world’s population earns about 5% of the world’s wealth.
3. There are more than 600 million telephone lines, yet almost half the world’s population has never made a phone call on a land line. However, many more have made a cell phone call; there are some 4 billion cell phones in use.
4. More personal telephone calls are made on Mother’s Day in the USA than on any other day in any other country.
5. Most reverse charge calls takes place on Father’s Day.
6. One in ten people in the world live on an island.
7. The opposite sides of a dice cube always add up to seven.
8. If you count the seconds without stopping, it would take you eleven-and-a-half days to reach one million, and 32 years to reach one billion.
9. In the US, murder is committed most frequently in August and least frequently in February.
10. In 1870, there were more Irish living in London than in Dublin.
11. In 1870, there also were more Catholics living in London than in Rome.
12. The chance of being born on Leap Day is about 684 out of a million, or 1 in 1461. Less than 5 million people have their birthday on Leap Day.
13. The odds of being struck by lightning are about 600,000 to one.
14. About 27% of food in developed countries are wasted each year. It’s simply thrown away.
15. Almost 1,2 billion people are underfed – the same number of people that are overweight to the point of obesity.
16. The world average of egg consumption per capita is 230.
17. In the US, about 280 million turkeys are sold for the Thanksgiving celebrations.
18. Half the world’s population is under 25 years of age. 10% are over 60 years of age.
19. On average in the West, people move house every 7 years.
20. US Post Office handles 43% of the world’s mail. Its nearest competitor is Japan with 6%.
21. In the developed countries, the proportion of adults married has declined from 72% in 1970 to 60% in 1996. The chance of a first marriage ending in divorce is between 50% and 67%. The chance that a second marriage will end in divorce is about 10% higher than for the first marriage.
22. The world’s average school year is 200 days per year. In the US, it is 180 days; in Sweden 170 days, in Japan it is 243 days.
23. Since 1972, some 64 million tons of aluminum cans (about 3 trillion cans) have been produced. Placed end-to-end, they could stretch to the moon about a thousand times. Cans represent less than 1% of solid waste material.
24. More than a billion transistors are manufactured… every second.
25. 92% of Chinese belong to the Han nationality, which has been China’s largest nationality for centuries. The rest of the nation consists of about 55 minority groups.
26. According to the US Census Bureau, 19% of US children live in poverty.
27. According to the US Weather Service, their one day forecasts are accurate more than 75% of the time. They send out 2 million forecasts a year.
28. There are more than 110 million sheep in Australia, a nation of 21 million people.
29. New Zealand is home to 4 million people and 50 million sheep.

In one territory, the locals, upset that over 50% of their children were malnourished while over 30% were borderline decided that the ’statistics’ applied to ‘healthy American children’.  Hence, they altered their measurements.

They were then able to announce that 80% of their children exceeded the standards only 10% fell below.  These findings were published by WHO and accepted as accurate.

This is just to warn you to be very careful when dealing with such things as ‘Polls’. 

Where and when the Poll is done is also vital.

Many areas lean in one direction or another; experience particular events which shape opinions.  Unless the pollsters are completely aware of this, they might assume a ‘cross section’ of the community would give them an honest result. 

A cross-section of persons who are unemployed, or who have no medical coverage, or who experienced a disaster will turn up a result which is biased.

Be very careful when you rely on statistics.

I’m always confused listening to people who talk about global warming as if they seem to know the true answer.  There are those who believe it is true and there are those who do not believe.  What surprises me at times; although it should not by now, are the illogical and subjective attitudes on both sides, scientists and non-scientists alike.

The answer of course is to ignore the army of emotional thinkers that permeate the debate from one extreme to the next, and define with the facts the nature of the errors on both sides of the argument.

First let us get rid of the superfluous commentaries by the scientific illiterates who judge the efficacy of global warming or cooling based on their own local observations of what they think are extreme changes  of both hot or cold weather.  Those who say, “I’ve lived here for forty years,  it’s never been this hot before.”  Or those  who look at the long cold days that stretch endlessly beyond their experience and wonder, “how could the earth be warming up.”

A basic understanding of thermodynamics will tell you that any energy change within a system i.e., ‘Earth’s weather system’ will show sudden temperature changes in both directions of the temperature scale.  It’s all about homeostasis, finding stability which translates into balancing forces within the system.

This means that for regional areas of the earth we will see both increases and decreases in temperature, each cancelling out the other when we look at the overall average temperature of the Earth.  When we talk of Global warming, we are by definition talking about an average increase of the world’s temperature.  Even such a basic thing is difficult to measure when we take in the complex heat processes that drive weather patterns for such a large system.

Second, the mathematical tools we have work well for small systems, but even here predictability is left to the statistical methods that give us directions for our research, but never give answers to the patterns that inherently are non-linear.

To validate the logic of either side, we would have to have mathematical tools that look at the universe well beyond our present understanding or ability, “THEY DO NOT EXIST.”  If they do not exist then any computer program using the tools at our disposal will be limited to the data points on hand, as well as understanding the processes that make up the system we live within.  Since even the best records give us only a few hundred years, or even a few thousand looking at cultural records, geological data, Botanical etc. when we compare it to the life cycle of our planet and that of our local sun, we are doomed to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable statistical error, preventing any real substantive conclusions.

We know that pollution can change weather patterns, but we do not know whether that same pollution can change the overall average temperature of the earth.  We do know for a fact that at multiple times throughout the earth’s history, that the world’s average temperature was much greater then it is now and much colder then it is now; this long before our technological invasion of the biosphere.

The truth is we as scientist’s just do not know the nature of what is true and what is not, but so long as agenda driven grants are given to non-science based groups then the real research into the how’s and why’s of our worlds weather will continue to elude us.

Personally I tend to agree that the world is going through a warm-up cycle, a natural cycle within the normal parameters of the system we call Earth.  Can I prove this, no, no one can.

The goal of this diatribe is to remind people that we do not know us much as many would believe we do.  If we had the understanding of “Star Trek” science, yes we could probably solve many of the problems we have, but blindly following what some guru says that you want to believe will not get us there.  For now “Star Trek” is science fiction sad to say, but so is the science of global warming regardless of which side you are on.