General Comprehension (UPSC) (Part-I)

1. Rainfed crops should not be cultivated in irrigated areas.

2. Farming under water-deficient areas should not be a part of development strategy.

Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Today's developing economics use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions.

A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term.

The spread of economic prosperity has always been interwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely.

As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term.

Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers.

And clearing mangroves the natural coastal buffers against storm surges to make way for intensive farming or housing development increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana.

1. Sustainable economic growth demands the use of creative potential of man.

2. Intensive agriculture can lead to ecological backlash.

3. Spread of economic prosperity can adversely affect the ecology and environment.

With reference to the passage, which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Today's developing economics use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions.

A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term.

The spread of economic prosperity has always been interwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely.

As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term.

Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers.

And clearing mangroves the natural coastal buffers against storm surges to make way for intensive farming or housing development increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana.

Today's developing economics use much less energy per capita than developed countries such as the United States did at similar incomes, showing the potential for lower-carbon growth. Adaptation and mitigation need to be integrated into a climate-smart development strategy that increases resilience, reduces the threat of further global warming, and improves development outcomes. Adaptation and mitigation measures can advance development, and prosperity can raise incomes and foster better institutions.

A healthier population living in better-built houses and with access to bank loans and social security is better equipped to deal with a changing climate and its consequences. Advancing robust, resilient development policies that promote adaptation is needed today because changes in the climate, already begun, will increase even in the short term.

The spread of economic prosperity has always been interwined with adaptation to changing ecological conditions. But as growth has altered the environment and as environmental change has accelerated, sustaining growth and adaptability demands greater capacity to understand our environment, generate new adaptive technologies and practices, and diffuse them widely.

As economic historians have explained, much of humankind's creative potential has been directed at adapting to the changing world. But adaptation cannot cope with all the impacts related to climate change, especially as larger changes unfold in the long term.

Countries cannot grow out of harm's way fast enough to match the changing climate. And some growth strategies, whether driven by the government or the market, can also add to vulnerability particularly if they overexploit natural resources. Under the Soviet development plan, irrigated cotton cultivation expanded in water-stressed Central Asia and led to the near disappearance of the Aral Sea, threatening the livelihoods of fishermen, herders and farmers.

And clearing mangroves the natural coastal buffers against storm surges to make way for intensive farming or housing development increases the physical vulnerability of coastal settlements, whether in Guinea or in Louisiana.

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities.

Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregulars into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.

One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome.

The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there.

For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them.

1. To breed exotic species with local varieties.

2. To increase agricultural productivity.

3. For beautification and landscaping.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities.

Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregulars into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.

One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome.

The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there.

For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them.

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities.

Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregulars into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.

One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome.

The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there.

For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them.

1. By smuggling live organisms.

2. By building highways.

3. By making ecosystems sensitive so that new species are not allowed.

4. By ensuring that new species do not have major impact on local species.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities.

Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregulars into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.

One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome.

The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there.

For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them.

1. Erosion of endemic species.

2. Change in the species composition of the community of the ecosystem.

Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities.

Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregulars into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.

One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome.

The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal of most species in the face of the physical barriers that exist to dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous. It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there.

For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to augment British biodiversity. The significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill-equipped to deal with them.

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare-they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development.

The theorists of the practical split "Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?" often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful- through the 1970s and 1980s and even later in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.

To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy.

Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.

If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links.

Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is "conducive to development", we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the "constituent components" of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to be growth of GNP.

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare-they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development.

The theorists of the practical split "Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?" often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful- through the 1970s and 1980s and even later in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy.

To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning). The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy.

Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development.

If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links.

Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is "conducive to development", we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the "constituent components" of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to be growth of GNP.