"The National Crime Records Bureau of India reported in its 2012 annual report that 135,445 people committed suicide in India, of which 13,754 were farmers (11.2%)."
"India's adjusted annual suicide rate is 10.5 per 100,000, while the suicide rate for the world as a whole is 11.6 per 100,000."
Of the total number of farmer suicides in 2002, 16.81% are attributed to crop failure, 2.65% to a price crash and debt burden and 0.88% to borewell failure.
My conclusions:
1. While even a single suicide is one suicide too many, India is better off in per capita terms than many developed countries.
2. Farmers constitute 60% of the population, while 11.2% of the total people committing suicides are farmers.
3. Of the farmers committing suicides, only 16.81+2.65+2.65+0.88 = 22.99% do it for farm related reasons. This means percentage of farm related suicides is 11.2x22.99 = 2.57%.
4. The other reasons for a farmer to commit suicide are similar to reasons for anyone else to commit suicide. Those suicides should ideally not be counted under farmers' suicides.
In pure number terms, it appears to me that suicide among farmers is not the pandemic it is made out to be. On the contrary, least number of suicides seem to be attributable to farm related reasons.
Suicide is probably a bigger problem in another demographic, but we don't talk about it.
PS: Assumption - the 2002 statistics for reasons for committing suicide by farmers are assumed to be roughly same today also.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_India
Thursday, April 30, 2015
The agnostics have all the fun
The trouble with both atheists and religionists (yes, I am coining a word - the word believer is a misnomer many times) is that they are both stuck in their belief system - one believes there is no God while the other believes there is God. The moment you start a premise with a belief system, it throws all logic and proof out the window.
The atheists say, "Aha! But show me proof that God exists." I say, "Didn't the Berlin wall come down? Didn't apartheid end? Didn't African Americans get their rights?" Are these events anything short of miracles? Of course Moses didn't part the sea and Jesus didn't convert water to wine. All that is urban legend. But is it that much of a stretch to consider that not all that we see around us can yet be explained by science? It is this unwillingness to accept the possibility of an alternative narrative that makes atheists fundamentalists. It makes them no different than the religionists' refusal to accept the possibility that God may not exist.
The agnostics, on the other hand, do not care either way. They are the open source coders of this world, their allegiance neither to Apple nor to Microsoft. They use the best possible piece of code to write the most efficient programs. They don't care if this code was written by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs/Wozniak or Linus Torvalds or their grandmother. If it fits their requirement, meets their objective then the code becomes their bible (for lack of a better synonym).
Apple or Microsoft fanboys never get to write the most efficient programs. To them, nothing exists beyond their respective ecosystems. Yes, their programs will achieve the same results as those of open source coders but they will also be more convoluted.
To me, the debate between atheists and religionists is a Canon vs. Nikon or an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Agnostics have all the fun. Award winning pictures are not taken because you have the best camera gear. They are taken because you woke up at 3 in the morning to capture the most perfect light 30 minutes before dawn. And any camera today will help you capture that.
The difference lies in knowing.
The atheists say, "Aha! But show me proof that God exists." I say, "Didn't the Berlin wall come down? Didn't apartheid end? Didn't African Americans get their rights?" Are these events anything short of miracles? Of course Moses didn't part the sea and Jesus didn't convert water to wine. All that is urban legend. But is it that much of a stretch to consider that not all that we see around us can yet be explained by science? It is this unwillingness to accept the possibility of an alternative narrative that makes atheists fundamentalists. It makes them no different than the religionists' refusal to accept the possibility that God may not exist.
The agnostics, on the other hand, do not care either way. They are the open source coders of this world, their allegiance neither to Apple nor to Microsoft. They use the best possible piece of code to write the most efficient programs. They don't care if this code was written by Bill Gates or Steve Jobs/Wozniak or Linus Torvalds or their grandmother. If it fits their requirement, meets their objective then the code becomes their bible (for lack of a better synonym).
Apple or Microsoft fanboys never get to write the most efficient programs. To them, nothing exists beyond their respective ecosystems. Yes, their programs will achieve the same results as those of open source coders but they will also be more convoluted.
To me, the debate between atheists and religionists is a Canon vs. Nikon or an Apple vs. Microsoft debate. Agnostics have all the fun. Award winning pictures are not taken because you have the best camera gear. They are taken because you woke up at 3 in the morning to capture the most perfect light 30 minutes before dawn. And any camera today will help you capture that.
The difference lies in knowing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)