1 New Taiwan Dollar = 0.4067 Botswana Pula

1 Thai Baht = 0.3793 Botswana Pula

1 Turkish Lira = 1.7131 Botswana Pula

1 Singapore Dollar = 8.5965 Botswana Pula

1 Mauritian Rupee = 0.3058 Botswana Pula

1 Nepalese Rupee = 0.1004 Botswana Pula

1 Bangladeshi Taka = 0.1429 Botswana Pula

1 Moldovan Leu = 0.6811 Botswana Pula

1 Colombian Peso = 0.0031 Botswana Pula

1 Uruguayan Peso = 0.2815 Botswana Pula

1 Uzbekistan Som = 0.0012 Botswana Pula

1 Russian Ruble = 0.1654 Botswana Pula

1 Iraqi Dinar = 0.0102 Botswana Pula

1 Cayman Islands Dollar = 14.5693 Botswana Pula

1 Swiss Franc = 12.5072 Botswana Pula

1 CFA Franc BCEAO = 0.0201 Botswana Pula

1 Vietnamese Dong = 0.0005 Botswana Pula

1 Macedonian Denar = 0.2137 Botswana Pula

1 Zambian Kwacha = 0.0023 Botswana Pula

1 South Korean Won = 0.01 Botswana Pula

1 Jordanian Dinar = 17.1166 Botswana Pula

1 Lebanese Pound = 0.008 Botswana Pula

1 Bahraini Dinar = 32.1126 Botswana Pula

1 Chilean Peso = 0.0147 Botswana Pula

1 Maldivian Rufiyaa = 0.7833 Botswana Pula

1 Malaysian Ringgit = 2.8021 Botswana Pula

1 Nicaraguan Cordoba Oro = 0.353 Botswana Pula

1 Netherlands Antillean Guilder = 6.7649 Botswana Pula

1 Estonian Kroon = 0.8515 Botswana Pula

1 Danish Krone = 1.7649 Botswana Pula

1 Fiji Dollar = 5.3902 Botswana Pula

1 New Zealand Dollar = 7.4541 Botswana Pula

1 Croatian Kuna = 1.7503 Botswana Pula

1 Peruvian Nuevo Sol = 3.5729 Botswana Pula

1 Dominican Peso = 0.2206 Botswana Pula

1 Papua New Guinean Kina = 3.5402 Botswana Pula

1 Brunei Dollar = 8.5931 Botswana Pula

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

© 2007 IndiaUncut.com. All rights reserved.
India Uncut * The IU Blog * Rave Out * Extrowords * Workoutable * Linkastic

This is the 21st installment of The Rationalist, my column for the Times of India.

When all political parties agree on something, you know you might have a problem. Giriraj Singh, a minister in Narendra Modi’s new cabinet, tweeted this week that our population control law should become a “movement.” This is something that would find bipartisan support – we are taught from school onwards that India’s population is a big problem, and we need to control it.

This is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, our population is not a problem. It is our greatest strength.

The notion that we should worry about a growing population is an intuitive one. The world has limited resources. People keep increasing. Something’s gotta give.

Robert Malthus made just this point in his 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. He was worried that our population would grow exponentially while resources would grow arithmetically. As more people entered the workforce, wages would fall and goods would become scarce. Calamity was inevitable.

Malthus’s rationale was so influential that this mode of thinking was soon called ‘Malthusian.’ (It is a pejorative today.) A 20th-century follower of his, Harrison Brown, came up with one of my favourite images on this subject, arguing that a growing population would lead to the earth being “covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots.”

Another Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, published a book called The Population Bomb in 1968, which began with the stirring lines, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Ehrlich was, as you’d guess, a big supporter of India’s coercive family planning programs. ““I don’t see,” he wrote, “how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”

None of these fears have come true. A 2007 study by Nicholas Eberstadt called ‘Too Many People?’ found no correlation between population density and poverty. The greater the density of people, the more you’d expect them to fight for resources – and yet, Monaco, which has 40 times the population density of Bangladesh, is doing well for itself. So is Bahrain, which has three times the population density of India.

Not only does population not cause poverty, it makes us more prosperous. The economist Julian Simon pointed out in a 1981 book that through history, whenever there has been a spurt in population, it has coincided with a spurt in productivity. Such as, for example, between Malthus’s time and now. There were around a billion people on earth in 1798, and there are around 7.7 billion today. As you read these words, consider that you are better off than the richest person on the planet then.

Why is this? The answer lies in the title of Simon’s book: The Ultimate Resource. When we speak of resources, we forget that human beings are the finest resource of all. There is no limit to our ingenuity. And we interact with each other in positive-sum ways – every voluntary interactions leaves both people better off, and the amount of value in the world goes up. This is why we want to be part of economic networks that are as large, and as dense, as possible. This is why most people migrate to cities rather than away from them – and why cities are so much richer than towns or villages.

If Malthusians were right, essential commodities like wheat, maize and rice would become relatively scarcer over time, and thus more expensive – but they have actually become much cheaper in real terms. This is thanks to the productivity and creativity of humans, who, in Eberstadt’s words, are “in practice always renewable and in theory entirely inexhaustible.”

The error made by Malthus, Brown and Ehrlich is the same error that our politicians make today, and not just in the context of population: zero-sum thinking. If our population grows and resources stays the same, of course there will be scarcity. But this is never the case. All we need to do to learn this lesson is look at our cities!

This mistaken thinking has had savage humanitarian consequences in India. Think of the unborn millions over the decades because of our brutal family planning policies. How many Tendulkars, Rahmans and Satyajit Rays have we lost? Think of the immoral coercion still carried out on poor people across the country. And finally, think of the condescension of our politicians, asserting that people are India’s problem – but always other people, never themselves.

This arrogance is India’s greatest problem, not our people.

The India Uncut Blog © 2010 Amit Varma. All rights reserved.
Follow me on Twitter.

Scapy is a powerful interactive packet manipulation tool, packet generator, network scanner, network discovery tool, and packet sniffer. It provides classes to interactively create packets or sets of packets, manipulate them, send them over the wire, sniff other packets from the wire, match answers and replies, and more. Interaction is provided by the Python interpreter, so Python programming structures can be used (such as variables, loops, and functions). Report modules are possible and easy to make. It is intended to do the same things as ttlscan, nmap, hping, queso, p0f, xprobe, arping, arp-sk, arpspoof, firewalk, irpas, tethereal, tcpdump, etc.

Scapy is a powerful interactive packet manipulation tool, packet generator, network scanner, network discovery tool, and packet sniffer. It provides classes to interactively create packets or sets of packets, manipulate them, send them over the wire, sniff other packets from the wire, match answers and replies, and more. Interaction is provided by the Python interpreter, so Python programming structures can be used (such as variables, loops, and functions). Report modules are possible and easy to make. It is intended to do the same things as ttlscan, nmap, hping, queso, p0f, xprobe, arping, arp-sk, arpspoof, firewalk, irpas, tethereal, tcpdump, etc.

Scapy is a powerful interactive packet manipulation tool, packet generator, network scanner, network discovery tool, and packet sniffer. It provides classes to interactively create packets or sets of packets, manipulate them, send them over the wire, sniff other packets from the wire, match answers and replies, and more. Interaction is provided by the Python interpreter, so Python programming structures can be used (such as variables, loops, and functions). Report modules are possible and easy to make. It is intended to do the same things as ttlscan, nmap, hping, queso, p0f, xprobe, arping, arp-sk, arpspoof, firewalk, irpas, tethereal, tcpdump, etc.

Scapy is a powerful interactive packet manipulation tool, packet generator, network scanner, network discovery tool, and packet sniffer. It provides classes to interactively create packets or sets of packets, manipulate them, send them over the wire, sniff other packets from the wire, match answers and replies, and more. Interaction is provided by the Python interpreter, so Python programming structures can be used (such as variables, loops, and functions). Report modules are possible and easy to make. It is intended to do the same things as ttlscan, nmap, hping, queso, p0f, xprobe, arping, arp-sk, arpspoof, firewalk, irpas, tethereal, tcpdump, etc.

AV Arcade Pro version 5.4.3 suffers from an insecure cookie vulnerability that allows for access bypass.

Solar energy companies could fill the void created by the lack of secure energy transfer between UK and EU, the group says.

The Philippines Department of Energy (DOE) released a report today saying its US$133.4 million 10.6-MW Pulanai hydropower plant being constructed in the southern province of Bukidnon on the Island of Mindanao, was attacked by armed individuals on Feb. 25.

Solar energy companies could fill the void created by the lack of secure energy transfer between UK and EU, the group says.

As editors we delight in learning which of the stories that we wrote or commissioned were most popular with our readers. That’s why at the end of each calendar year, we pull reports that tell us which stories we posted got the most shares, the most views, the most comments, etc. We also look at which videos were watched the most. Often, we post articles that we know will be a big hit: like explanations of controversial solar legislation. But other times you surprise us, readers, by taking great interest in articles that we felt were solid but not necessarily ground-breaking.