General Comprehension (UPSC) (Part-VII)

The poverty line is quite unsatisfactory when it comes to grasping the extent of poverty in India. It is not only because of its extremely narrow definition of 'who is poor' and the debatable methodology used to count the poor, but also because of a more fundamental assumption underlying it.

It exclusively relies on the notion of poverty as insufficient income or insufficient purchasing power. One can better categorize it by calling it income poverty. If poverty is ultimately about deprivations affecting human well-being, then income poverty is only one aspect of it.

Poverty of a life, in our view, lies not merely in the impoverished state in which the person actually lives, but also in the lack of real opportunity given by social constraints as well as personal circumstances-to choose other types of living.

Even the relevance of low incomes, meagre possessions, and other aspects of what are standardly seen as economic poverty relate ultimately to their role in curtailing capabilities, i.e., their role in severely restricting the choices people have to lead variable and valued lives.

1. Development of agricultural technology is confined to developed countries.

2. Agricultural technology is not adapted in developing countries.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

In some places in the world, the productivity of staples such as rice and wheat has reached a plateau. Neither new strains nor fancy agrochemicals are raising the yields. Nor is there much unfarmed land left that is suitable to be bought under the plough.

If global temperature continues to rise, some places will become unsuitable for farming. Application of technology can help overcome these problems. Agricultural technology is changing fast. Much of this change is brought about by affluent farmers in the West Americas.

Techniques developed in the West are being adapted in some places to make tropical crops more productive. Technology is of little use if it is not adapted. In the developing world, that applies as much to existing farming techniques as it does to the latest advances in genetic modification.

Extending to the small holders and subsistence farmers of Africa and Asia the best of today's agricultural practices, in such simple matters as how much fertilizers to apply and when, would lead to a greatly increased availability of food for humanity. So would things like better roads and storage facilities, to allow for the carriage of surpluses to markets reduce wastage.

1. Poor countries need to bring about change in their existing farming techniques.

2. Developed countries have better infrastructure and they waste less food.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

In some places in the world, the productivity of staples such as rice and wheat has reached a plateau. Neither new strains nor fancy agrochemicals are raising the yields. Nor is there much unfarmed land left that is suitable to be bought under the plough.

If global temperature continues to rise, some places will become unsuitable for farming. Application of technology can help overcome these problems. Agricultural technology is changing fast. Much of this change is brought about by affluent farmers in the West Americas.

Techniques developed in the West are being adapted in some places to make tropical crops more productive. Technology is of little use if it is not adapted. In the developing world, that applies as much to existing farming techniques as it does to the latest advances in genetic modification.

Extending to the small holders and subsistence farmers of Africa and Asia the best of today's agricultural practices, in such simple matters as how much fertilizers to apply and when, would lead to a greatly increased availability of food for humanity. So would things like better roads and storage facilities, to allow for the carriage of surpluses to markets reduce wastage.

1. Growing enough food for future generations will be a challenge.

2. Corporate farming is a viable option for food security in poor countries.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

In some places in the world, the productivity of staples such as rice and wheat has reached a plateau. Neither new strains nor fancy agrochemicals are raising the yields. Nor is there much unfarmed land left that is suitable to be bought under the plough.

If global temperature continues to rise, some places will become unsuitable for farming. Application of technology can help overcome these problems. Agricultural technology is changing fast. Much of this change is brought about by affluent farmers in the West Americas.

Techniques developed in the West are being adapted in some places to make tropical crops more productive. Technology is of little use if it is not adapted. In the developing world, that applies as much to existing farming techniques as it does to the latest advances in genetic modification.

Extending to the small holders and subsistence farmers of Africa and Asia the best of today's agricultural practices, in such simple matters as how much fertilizers to apply and when, would lead to a greatly increased availability of food for humanity. So would things like better roads and storage facilities, to allow for the carriage of surpluses to markets reduce wastage.

1. species not fully prepared to face the environmental changes that await them will face extinction.

2. all the existing species would get extinct as their genomes will not withstand biological mishaps.

3. inability of the genome to withstand environmental changes would result in extinction.

4. extinction of species is a common feature.

Select the correct answer using the code given below:

Natural selection cannot anticipate future environments on the earth. Therefore, the set of existing organisms can never be fully prepared for environmental catastrophes that await life. An outcome of this is the extinction of those species which cannot overcome environmental adversity. This failure to survive, in modern terms, can be attributed to the genomes which are unable to withstand geological. vagaries or biological mishaps (infections, diseases and so on).

In biological evolution on the earth, extinction of species has been a major feature. The earth may presently have up to ten million species, yet more than 90% of species that have ever lived on the earth are now extinct. Once again, the creationist doctrines fail to satisfactorily address why a divine creator will firstly bother to create millions of species and then allow them to perish.

The Darwinian explanation for extinct life is once again simple, elegant and at once convincing-organisms go extinct as a function of environmental or biological assaults for which their inheritance deems them ill-equipped. Therefore, the so-called Darwinian theory of evolution is not a theory at all. Evolution happens-this is a fact.

The mechanism of evolution (Darwin proposed natural selection) is amply supported by scientific data. Indeed, to date no single zoological, botanical, geological, pale-ontological, genetic or physical evidence has refuted either of the central two main Darwinian ideas. If religion is not taken into consideration, Darwinian Jaws are acceptable just like the laws proposed by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein-sets of natural laws that explain natural phenomena in the universe.

Natural selection cannot anticipate future environments on the earth. Therefore, the set of existing organisms can never be fully prepared for environmental catastrophes that await life. An outcome of this is the extinction of those species which cannot overcome environmental adversity. This failure to survive, in modern terms, can be attributed to the genomes which are unable to withstand geological. vagaries or biological mishaps (infections, diseases and so on).

In biological evolution on the earth, extinction of species has been a major feature. The earth may presently have up to ten million species, yet more than 90% of species that have ever lived on the earth are now extinct. Once again, the creationist doctrines fail to satisfactorily address why a divine creator will firstly bother to create millions of species and then allow them to perish.

The Darwinian explanation for extinct life is once again simple, elegant and at once convincing-organisms go extinct as a function of environmental or biological assaults for which their inheritance deems them ill-equipped. Therefore, the so-called Darwinian theory of evolution is not a theory at all. Evolution happens-this is a fact.

The mechanism of evolution (Darwin proposed natural selection) is amply supported by scientific data. Indeed, to date no single zoological, botanical, geological, pale-ontological, genetic or physical evidence has refuted either of the central two main Darwinian ideas. If religion is not taken into consideration, Darwinian Jaws are acceptable just like the laws proposed by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein-sets of natural laws that explain natural phenomena in the universe.

1. Only species that have the ability to overcome environmental catastrophes will survive and perpetuate.

2. More than 90% of the species on the earth are in the... danger of getting extinct due to drastic changes in the environment.

3. Darwin's theory explains all the natural phenomena.

Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Natural selection cannot anticipate future environments on the earth. Therefore, the set of existing organisms can never be fully prepared for environmental catastrophes that await life. An outcome of this is the extinction of those species which cannot overcome environmental adversity. This failure to survive, in modern terms, can be attributed to the genomes which are unable to withstand geological. vagaries or biological mishaps (infections, diseases and so on).

In biological evolution on the earth, extinction of species has been a major feature. The earth may presently have up to ten million species, yet more than 90% of species that have ever lived on the earth are now extinct. Once again, the creationist doctrines fail to satisfactorily address why a divine creator will firstly bother to create millions of species and then allow them to perish.

The Darwinian explanation for extinct life is once again simple, elegant and at once convincing-organisms go extinct as a function of environmental or biological assaults for which their inheritance deems them ill-equipped. Therefore, the so-called Darwinian theory of evolution is not a theory at all. Evolution happens-this is a fact.

The mechanism of evolution (Darwin proposed natural selection) is amply supported by scientific data. Indeed, to date no single zoological, botanical, geological, pale-ontological, genetic or physical evidence has refuted either of the central two main Darwinian ideas. If religion is not taken into consideration, Darwinian Jaws are acceptable just like the laws proposed by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Einstein-sets of natural laws that explain natural phenomena in the universe.

With steady economic growth, higher literacy and increasing skill levels, the number of Indian middle-class families has gone up exponentially. Direct results of the affluence have been changes in dietary patterns and energy consumption levels.

People have moved to a higher protein-based diet like milk products, fish and meat, all of which need significantly more water to produce than cereal based diets. Increasing use of electronic and electric machines/gadgets and motor vehicles needs more and more energy and generation of energy needs water.

For two or three generations past, ever-increasing numbers of individuals have been living as workers merely, not as human beings. An excessive amount of labour is rule today in every circle of society, with the result that man's spiritual element cannot thrive. He finds it very difficult to spend his little leisure in serious activities.

He does not want to think; or he cannot even if he wants to. He seeks not self-improvement, but entertainment which would enable him to be mentally idle and to forget his usual activities. Therefore, the so-called culture of our age is dependent more on cinema than on theatre, more on newspapers, magazines and crime stories than on serious literature.

For two or three generations past, ever-increasing numbers of individuals have been living as workers merely, not as human beings. An excessive amount of labour is rule today in every circle of society, with the result that man's spiritual element cannot thrive. He finds it very difficult to spend his little leisure in serious activities.

He does not want to think; or he cannot even if he wants to. He seeks not self-improvement, but entertainment which would enable him to be mentally idle and to forget his usual activities. Therefore, the so-called culture of our age is dependent more on cinema than on theatre, more on newspapers, magazines and crime stories than on serious literature.