India’s population will start to shrink sooner than expected (2021)(economist.com)
economist.com
India’s population will start to shrink sooner than expected (2021)
https://www.economist.com/asia/2021/12/02/indias-population-will-start-to-shrink-sooner-than-expected
97 comments
While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - there is very little reason to lie here, since the data isn't correlated back with, for eg, your ration card.
NHFS (National Health Family Survey), used here, is a sampled survey (not a census), and has a detailed guide[1] on how they go about accounting for these biases, and ensuring their results remain representative despite sampling. afaik, the results from NHFS have the same limitation as a census - and it is not used for targeting benefit delivery.
You can look at the Questionnaire to get a better idea of how it was administered. It doesn't include any identity numbers (such as ration card or aadhar card), and starts with this:
> My name is _______. I am working with (NAME OF ORGANIZATION). We are conducting a survey about health all over India. The information on family welfare and health that we collect from households and individuals will help the government to plan health services. Your household was selected for the survey. I would like to ask you some questions about your household. The questions usually take about 25-35 minutes. All of the answers you give will be confidential and will not be shared with anyone other than members of our survey team. Your participation in the survey is voluntary. If I ask you any question you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time.
While incorrect answers are a real thing, surveys can be designed around these problems, with both statistical analysis and better survey design.
[1]: http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS5/pdf/NFHS%20data%20quality%20as...
[2]: http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS5/schedules/NFHS-5Household.pdf
NHFS (National Health Family Survey), used here, is a sampled survey (not a census), and has a detailed guide[1] on how they go about accounting for these biases, and ensuring their results remain representative despite sampling. afaik, the results from NHFS have the same limitation as a census - and it is not used for targeting benefit delivery.
You can look at the Questionnaire to get a better idea of how it was administered. It doesn't include any identity numbers (such as ration card or aadhar card), and starts with this:
> My name is _______. I am working with (NAME OF ORGANIZATION). We are conducting a survey about health all over India. The information on family welfare and health that we collect from households and individuals will help the government to plan health services. Your household was selected for the survey. I would like to ask you some questions about your household. The questions usually take about 25-35 minutes. All of the answers you give will be confidential and will not be shared with anyone other than members of our survey team. Your participation in the survey is voluntary. If I ask you any question you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to the next question or you can stop the interview at any time.
While incorrect answers are a real thing, surveys can be designed around these problems, with both statistical analysis and better survey design.
[1]: http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS5/pdf/NFHS%20data%20quality%20as...
[2]: http://rchiips.org/NFHS/NFHS5/schedules/NFHS-5Household.pdf
> While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - there is very little reason to lie here, since the data isn't correlated back with, for eg, your ration card.
Try explaining this to common Indian villager. Ground reality is they see the same govt employees collecting any data and they have their own assumptions. Govt employees themselves do not do very good job of explaining anything.
> NHFS (National Health Family Survey), used here, is a sampled survey (not a census), and has a detailed guide[1] on how they go about accounting for these biases, and ensuring their results remain representative despite sampling. afaik, the results from NHFS have the same limitation as a census - and it is not used for targeting benefit delivery.
I assumed so. Its not the question of the process set for NHFS. On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions.
Try explaining this to common Indian villager. Ground reality is they see the same govt employees collecting any data and they have their own assumptions. Govt employees themselves do not do very good job of explaining anything.
> NHFS (National Health Family Survey), used here, is a sampled survey (not a census), and has a detailed guide[1] on how they go about accounting for these biases, and ensuring their results remain representative despite sampling. afaik, the results from NHFS have the same limitation as a census - and it is not used for targeting benefit delivery.
I assumed so. Its not the question of the process set for NHFS. On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions.
> On-ground reality is completely different from their assumptions.
The people designing the survey are very well aware of the reality, imo. The survey is based on not just what the answers are, but also what the surveyer sees at the household. They have multiple questions to ascertain the actual number of people living in the household, including questions like "who all slept here last night".
Initial samplings of the survey are done with control groups (two separate teams) across different intervals to ensure that the methodology is good enough, and survey results are reflective of the ground-truth.
One way to validate the results would be to measure them with another methodology, and it turns out that the relevant result (India's Total Fertility Rate) has a fairly similar value (2.0 v/s 2.1)[1] via the SRS (sample registration system, 2020) which is conducted by another body (census of india) via a somewhat different methodology (tracking life-events by a local body, and using birth/death registrations alongside).
It's easy to give up and blame lying survey responders or sampling biases, but there are ways to solve for these, that are being used here.
[1]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-dec...
The people designing the survey are very well aware of the reality, imo. The survey is based on not just what the answers are, but also what the surveyer sees at the household. They have multiple questions to ascertain the actual number of people living in the household, including questions like "who all slept here last night".
Initial samplings of the survey are done with control groups (two separate teams) across different intervals to ensure that the methodology is good enough, and survey results are reflective of the ground-truth.
One way to validate the results would be to measure them with another methodology, and it turns out that the relevant result (India's Total Fertility Rate) has a fairly similar value (2.0 v/s 2.1)[1] via the SRS (sample registration system, 2020) which is conducted by another body (census of india) via a somewhat different methodology (tracking life-events by a local body, and using birth/death registrations alongside).
It's easy to give up and blame lying survey responders or sampling biases, but there are ways to solve for these, that are being used here.
[1]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/fertility-rate-dec...
>> My mom used to do census work in some of the villages in India, where people would give out questionable and unverifiable details based on benefits offered by the Govt.
> While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - there is very little reason to lie here, since the data isn't correlated back with, for eg, your ration card.
Would that matter? That seems to imply a certain amount of legal savvy that I'm not sure should be assumed of anyone, including "villagers" who I assume are typically uneducated.
If I were engaging in beneficiary fraud (like the OP describes), I probably would tell the same lie to every government agent that comes by, unless I had a compelling reason not to. Staying consistent is safer and also far easier than sorting out the minimum amount of lying required to pull it off.
> While incorrect data being used for beneficiary fraud happens, census is india is limited in scope by law, and is not used for targeted benefits delivery - there is very little reason to lie here, since the data isn't correlated back with, for eg, your ration card.
Would that matter? That seems to imply a certain amount of legal savvy that I'm not sure should be assumed of anyone, including "villagers" who I assume are typically uneducated.
If I were engaging in beneficiary fraud (like the OP describes), I probably would tell the same lie to every government agent that comes by, unless I had a compelling reason not to. Staying consistent is safer and also far easier than sorting out the minimum amount of lying required to pull it off.
Are they consistently biased one way? Multiple Aadhar would seem to bias down, while the double-child would bias up.
The first censuses in the US were basically "a dude rides into town, asks how many people live there, then leaves" and got surprisingly close to recent estimates.
I just wonder if this is a matter of "there's error everywhere, it's basically stochastic, the # is close enough"
The first censuses in the US were basically "a dude rides into town, asks how many people live there, then leaves" and got surprisingly close to recent estimates.
I just wonder if this is a matter of "there's error everywhere, it's basically stochastic, the # is close enough"
I'll give you a concrete instance where that was not true in a "stochastic sense".
In the mid 2000s the Indian government wanted to test its water at the local level. A lot of time and money went into purchasing Water test kits. They set up large agencies and funded offices to be built all over the place for water points of access to be tested and the data to be written down aggregated and sent off. For quite some time the Indian government believed they had IMPECABLE water, how could that be because ... they didn't. When these offices were audited in the early 2010s it was found most of them hadn't even OPENED the test kits and were just faking the data, much like you might on your intro chem lab.
Source: Me I worked on operationalizing that data collection and the engineering instrumentation of the test kits to literally track people to make sure they just did their job and what a cluster fuck that all was.
What is my point though, before believe government oriented data I'd have to know something about their methodology and how it's verified. Fraud does exist whether explicitly or emergent based on some factors cultural, bad incentive structure .. ect and you can't depend on stochastic hand waving to say it's close enough. Having said that you probably COULD depend on stochastic MCMC type analysis to tell you the likelihood your measured sample data is real.
In the mid 2000s the Indian government wanted to test its water at the local level. A lot of time and money went into purchasing Water test kits. They set up large agencies and funded offices to be built all over the place for water points of access to be tested and the data to be written down aggregated and sent off. For quite some time the Indian government believed they had IMPECABLE water, how could that be because ... they didn't. When these offices were audited in the early 2010s it was found most of them hadn't even OPENED the test kits and were just faking the data, much like you might on your intro chem lab.
Source: Me I worked on operationalizing that data collection and the engineering instrumentation of the test kits to literally track people to make sure they just did their job and what a cluster fuck that all was.
What is my point though, before believe government oriented data I'd have to know something about their methodology and how it's verified. Fraud does exist whether explicitly or emergent based on some factors cultural, bad incentive structure .. ect and you can't depend on stochastic hand waving to say it's close enough. Having said that you probably COULD depend on stochastic MCMC type analysis to tell you the likelihood your measured sample data is real.
India is a vast country with different cultures and states with varied benefits, so it is hard to say which way the bias is. The only thing I can say is they are not accurate.
That's the super power of statistics though.
Getting accurate enough numbers from unreliable sources.
Getting accurate enough numbers from unreliable sources.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Incomplete data might be usable if the underlying distribution is the same, and there is reason to assume it is the same. But that does not help if the data is bad in the first place.
Incomplete data might be usable if the underlying distribution is the same, and there is reason to assume it is the same. But that does not help if the data is bad in the first place.
>>> is a common occurrence to find people with multiple Aadhar or Voter cards.<<<
Voter cards yes, but AADHAR : No. I haven’t heard anyone still able to have two Aadhar number which are based on biometrics (Fingerprint + Iris Scan).
As for the accuracy of survey data, at least in new village, I know it to be nearly correct. Not grocery incorrect.
Voter cards yes, but AADHAR : No. I haven’t heard anyone still able to have two Aadhar number which are based on biometrics (Fingerprint + Iris Scan).
As for the accuracy of survey data, at least in new village, I know it to be nearly correct. Not grocery incorrect.
Probably true to some extent. but Im sure there are "agencies" out there which provide "Aadhaar card" services which does some shady sh*t if you need duplicate aadhar.
> It is a common occurrence to find people with multiple Aadhar or Voter cards
This is false. Voter cards perhaps, but not Aadhaar cards. It is technically not possible because the cards (identities) are tied to biometric data (fingerprints and retina scans) and would be immediately caught by the system if the same person were attempted to be registered in the database again.
Edit: In fact, because of this many lost kids who were tried to be registered by orphanages have been found and returned to their homes!
https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/about-5...
This is false. Voter cards perhaps, but not Aadhaar cards. It is technically not possible because the cards (identities) are tied to biometric data (fingerprints and retina scans) and would be immediately caught by the system if the same person were attempted to be registered in the database again.
Edit: In fact, because of this many lost kids who were tried to be registered by orphanages have been found and returned to their homes!
https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/about-5...
This is a year old article. Should have (2021) in title.
https://archive.ph/uJL4j
https://archive.ph/uJL4j
Added. Thanks!
I'm hopeful that humanity might actually be capable of outgrowing the virus mentality of self-destructive perpetual growth. Obviously that doesn't mean you need to root for outright human extinction, only the ability to reach a sustainable plateau.
The "virus mentality" of having more than 2 kids and then providing them with a more comfortable life than you had?
It is not clear to me at all that sustainability requires a plateau. Technological, infrastructural, agricultural, and industrial improvements should continually increase the carrying capacity of the planet.
An Earth with billions more humans could have enormous benefits for those living on it.
An Earth with billions more humans could have enormous benefits for those living on it.
Here is the actual report: https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/NFHS-5_Phase-I...
Interesting contradictions. Some news publications say India's population will continue to grow, overtaking China.
https://fortune.com/2023/01/17/india-china-population-declin...
https://fortune.com/2023/01/17/india-china-population-declin...
That's not a contradiction: that linked article says that India may have already overtaken China, this post's article says that the fertility rate in India has dropped below replacement rate. The latter only signals the beginning of population decline; it hasn't actually started declining. China's population has been declining for a while because they have been below the replacement rate for a while.
The two things aren't in contradiction.
India was forcast to peak at 1.7, now that forcast is lowered to 1.6 but still higher than China which is forcasts to already be at its peak, with 1.4 billion.
India was forcast to peak at 1.7, now that forcast is lowered to 1.6 but still higher than China which is forcasts to already be at its peak, with 1.4 billion.
It's not a contradiction.
As the article points out, fertility rates dropping below replacement does not mean India's population starts dropping now, because the population change lags the fertility rate by a few decades (EDIT: For why this is the case, consider the combination of increasing life expectancies and a still growing population "bulge"; most deaths occur in age groups that consists of fewer people than the age groups currently having children)
China's population, meanwhile, has started to drop.
As the article points out, fertility rates dropping below replacement does not mean India's population starts dropping now, because the population change lags the fertility rate by a few decades (EDIT: For why this is the case, consider the combination of increasing life expectancies and a still growing population "bulge"; most deaths occur in age groups that consists of fewer people than the age groups currently having children)
China's population, meanwhile, has started to drop.
https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/2020/ (which has predictions)
Note the teardrop shape currently where most of the population is in the... lets call it "working, adult, productive" age bracket.
In 2060, it will hit peak population, but you'll also note there that the population is now mostly in the 50s rather than 20s. That has significant impacts on governance and social services when the younger people are disproportionately caring for the older generation.
If you look at China - https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/
You'll note that it is at peak, and declining, and that there is a different shape to the pyramid where there are even fewer people in their 20s and late teens which will be asked to bear an increasing amount of support of the older generation as that graph gets more top-heavy.
Compare this with the US https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... or France https://www.populationpyramid.net/france/2020/ or Sweden https://www.populationpyramid.net/sweden/2020/ or Canada https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/2020/ and you'll see charts that represent a population that is better able to (in theory) support itself.
Note the teardrop shape currently where most of the population is in the... lets call it "working, adult, productive" age bracket.
In 2060, it will hit peak population, but you'll also note there that the population is now mostly in the 50s rather than 20s. That has significant impacts on governance and social services when the younger people are disproportionately caring for the older generation.
If you look at China - https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2020/
You'll note that it is at peak, and declining, and that there is a different shape to the pyramid where there are even fewer people in their 20s and late teens which will be asked to bear an increasing amount of support of the older generation as that graph gets more top-heavy.
Compare this with the US https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2... or France https://www.populationpyramid.net/france/2020/ or Sweden https://www.populationpyramid.net/sweden/2020/ or Canada https://www.populationpyramid.net/canada/2020/ and you'll see charts that represent a population that is better able to (in theory) support itself.
You are confusing population, it's first derivative (population growth) , and its second derivative (change in population growth).
It will continue to grow in the short term because there are currently women that have not reached fertility age yet. This is in the article. We will get to the peak in around 30 years at 1.6 billion.
[deleted]
The northeast of India still has a population replacement level above 2.1, due to highly fertile land there. So at least in that area, the population is still growing while the rest is shrinking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-OI7HcCeU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-OI7HcCeU
Population shrinkage? Great. I just hope people in this country (= Israel/Palestine) learn a lesson and stop trying one-upping the other side, or other family members/friends, in having more children.
Seems like the world is getting its act together. Now if we could only get Africa to these levels, things might start looking rosy again…
Africa is also seeing rapid declines across the board, just lagging a couple of decades behind.
UNPF lists Niger as the highest remaining, at 6.6. But only 8 countries are still above 5. Several African countries are now below 3 (Algeria, Eswatini, Botswana, Djibouti - all the way down at 2.5), and a clear majority of African countries are below 4.5.
Importantly given its size, UNICEF suggests total fertility for Nigeria might have dipped below 5 for the first time (it's one of the 8 mentioned above, as others still show it at 5.1-5.3). Notably the fertility rate of Nigeria is kept up by rural regions, and should keep dropping as urbanisation proceeds.
UNPF lists Niger as the highest remaining, at 6.6. But only 8 countries are still above 5. Several African countries are now below 3 (Algeria, Eswatini, Botswana, Djibouti - all the way down at 2.5), and a clear majority of African countries are below 4.5.
Importantly given its size, UNICEF suggests total fertility for Nigeria might have dipped below 5 for the first time (it's one of the 8 mentioned above, as others still show it at 5.1-5.3). Notably the fertility rate of Nigeria is kept up by rural regions, and should keep dropping as urbanisation proceeds.
It is a lot more complicated than just High population bad, low population good.
Even if you're only looking at it from a atmospheric carbon perspective, there are very complex interactions.
Even when it comes to Africa, the optimal population trajectory is unclear
Even if you're only looking at it from a atmospheric carbon perspective, there are very complex interactions.
Even when it comes to Africa, the optimal population trajectory is unclear
Optimal for what?
Not destroying the world with emissions.
If it's about lowering emissions then surely the optimal population is zero.
Essentially everything. Environment, happiness, GDP, suffering.
The interactions are all complex and nonlinear.
The interactions are all complex and nonlinear.
In terms of replacement birth rate? The world is already heading towards some catastrophic consequences. We need more babies not less.
Do we actually need birth replacement at our current numbers? 8,000,000,000 is a mind boggling number of humans, it's a good thing it's slowing down. The more people there is, the more conflicts for lack of resources we'll have.
It's not so much that we "need" replacement as that a too rapid decline would cause immense upheaval unless we first reach a level of automation very far in excess of where we are.
Consider that the faster a population is declining, the more people will live of the productive work of each working age adult.
Consider that the faster a population is declining, the more people will live of the productive work of each working age adult.
We'll not reach that level of automation on time.Anyway we look at it, we are doomed sooner or later. Some country already reach the point of non return. China for instance, they have 1.18 baby per woman. To sustain the actual population it need to be to 2.3 children per women. China will soon lack enough working adults to sustain the massive aging population. By 2035 the percentage of population older then 60 year old is expected to rise to 30%, or more than 400 million people.The working population simply can't sustain the aging people. This will cause unprecedented upheaval . This is just one exemple, Russia is not far off. In fact except a few countries the following decades the very social and political structure of the world will change dramatically and not in a good way . Yes we humans we are not producing enough babies and it is only getting worst.Brace yourself for a changing world.
Population growth under current projections will continue for another 80-100 years, so any country facing upheaval over the coming century will do so because they refuse to increase immigration, not because it's inevitable.
Yes, but this is happening only because life expectancy is increasing and underdeveloped countries are experiencing population growth. 8 out of 10 countries that are expected to experience population growth are in Africa. So, most of the world will lose population. The main issue here is how to sustain the aging population, not so much how much the population will increase over time. If you have 60% of people over the age of 60, it is impossible for the rest to sustain it. Immigration for those that are accepting will help, but this is most likely not enough.
Immigration will be enough for almost a century at current projections. We have a century to find ways of countering the decline, and any improvement in that respect will make it take even longer before a global decline sets in.
China, for example, is now encouraging three children. Whether that will work or not, we don't yet know. But we'll see increasing number of countries experimenting with encouraging, then likely rewarding, higher number of children. Even a modest reversal of fertility rates will prolong the time to global decline significantly.
China, for example, is now encouraging three children. Whether that will work or not, we don't yet know. But we'll see increasing number of countries experimenting with encouraging, then likely rewarding, higher number of children. Even a modest reversal of fertility rates will prolong the time to global decline significantly.
I think it is as simple as total population in terms of conflict.
Imagine overall numbers are going down, country X is increasing, while it's neighbors are decreasing.
Also imagine country Y has seen a century of improvement powered by population growth dry up. Now it is looking at stagnation and decline as the population ages. This is a recipe for social unrest.
Imagine overall numbers are going down, country X is increasing, while it's neighbors are decreasing.
Also imagine country Y has seen a century of improvement powered by population growth dry up. Now it is looking at stagnation and decline as the population ages. This is a recipe for social unrest.
For starters, this paragraph springs to mind:
"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate." (Communist Manifesto)
Whatever one thinks about Marx, the conflict between the continuation of economic growth and resistance to immigration is real. And in the face of a threat of population decline, resistance to immigration will become economic suicide, and so anti-immigrant populists and the economic elites will come to increasingly face off against each other.
"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate." (Communist Manifesto)
Whatever one thinks about Marx, the conflict between the continuation of economic growth and resistance to immigration is real. And in the face of a threat of population decline, resistance to immigration will become economic suicide, and so anti-immigrant populists and the economic elites will come to increasingly face off against each other.
That is a fair point and it is playing out in economies across the world.
The biggest examples are contrasting the US and China.
Both China and the US have similar fertility rates, well below replacement.
However, the US augments and stabilizes the population growth with immigration. Immigrants both add to the total, and have many more children than native born individuals.
China on the other hand has net migration out of the country, and fewer immigrants to stabilize the population and rate.
Because of this, China is much more vulnerable to the impacts of a population bust.
The biggest examples are contrasting the US and China.
Both China and the US have similar fertility rates, well below replacement.
However, the US augments and stabilizes the population growth with immigration. Immigrants both add to the total, and have many more children than native born individuals.
China on the other hand has net migration out of the country, and fewer immigrants to stabilize the population and rate.
Because of this, China is much more vulnerable to the impacts of a population bust.
Indeed, and while China is an obvious one because their fertility rate is now so low and their immigration policy has been very strict, a whole lot of countries are going to have to figure this out very rapidly.
With respect to immigrants having more children, that's true to some extent, but with the caveat that 1) immigrants tends to have children at similar rates as where they come from, and that means you'll see immigrants from fewer and fewer places are likely to have a fertility rate above replacement, and 2) fertility rates among people of immigrant background tends to normalise to their surrounding environment within a generation or two, so it's a short term boost.
But back to China, it will be very interesting to see how they react to this. Odds are there'll be increased pressure to have more kids, coupled with carrots, but that they still won't be able to avoid allowing increased immigration. Then that raises the question of this means they'll start making paths to permanent residency or citizenship easier, or if they'll go the gulf state route of importing a near indentured servant class. The latter might be hard to sustain once other countries also start competing for the same labour sources.
With respect to immigrants having more children, that's true to some extent, but with the caveat that 1) immigrants tends to have children at similar rates as where they come from, and that means you'll see immigrants from fewer and fewer places are likely to have a fertility rate above replacement, and 2) fertility rates among people of immigrant background tends to normalise to their surrounding environment within a generation or two, so it's a short term boost.
But back to China, it will be very interesting to see how they react to this. Odds are there'll be increased pressure to have more kids, coupled with carrots, but that they still won't be able to avoid allowing increased immigration. Then that raises the question of this means they'll start making paths to permanent residency or citizenship easier, or if they'll go the gulf state route of importing a near indentured servant class. The latter might be hard to sustain once other countries also start competing for the same labour sources.
I think you're saying you want fewer Africans? Is that right?
Fewer people in general but given that they’re the only continent reproducing above replacement rate, yes - specifically fewer Africans.
africa is quite huge, farmland in hectares by person is "abundant".
Stats about Arable land (hectares per person) in 2020 ->
SubSaharian Africa : 0.19
Mena : 0.11
China : 0.08
India : 0.11
European Union : 0.22
U.S.A : 0.48
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_...
Stats about Arable land (hectares per person) in 2020 ->
SubSaharian Africa : 0.19
Mena : 0.11
China : 0.08
India : 0.11
European Union : 0.22
U.S.A : 0.48
Source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?name_...
Sounds like you are getting dangerously close to some ideas by some other people that history has not looked kindly on.
Please don't post flamebait.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The unfortunate reality: When NGOs, the UN, and other do gooders stop providing aid to Africa, the population problem will (unfortunately) solve itself. This scenario may happen sooner rather than later if a world war breaks out or further shocks to the good supply occur.
This is not in any way supported with the evidence, which is that dropping fertility rates correlates strongly to increased development, and with the fact that fertility rates across Africa has been dropping pretty consistently for the last 3-4 decades depending on country.
Indeed true, Africa's fertility rate, while slowly dropping, is still whopping 32 births per 1000 people. Increased development helps but food aid is what supports a large number of sub Saharan Africans who are bolstering those numbers. Famine and food prices are still a strong dictator of fertility in Africa.
The data does not in any way support that improving food safety "bolsters those numbers" if by that you mean they're keeping fertility rates up.
I think this is a bad take. It assumes that Africa is at a carrying capacity and this capacity is being artificially increased by aid.
Im not sure either of those is actually true.
Im not sure either of those is actually true.
Africa isn't at all at carrying capacity. There's more than enough arable farm land to support the current population and more.
See Kenya, once the bread basket of Africa and now no longer because their leadership kicked out white farmers, gave the land to local Kenyans, and unfortunately those locals even after all these years haven't figured out how to get the yields that the old owners did.
The problem comes down to the locals who are either unwilling or unable to farm effectively at yields that support the population. Then the food aid comes in which is where we're at now.
See Kenya, once the bread basket of Africa and now no longer because their leadership kicked out white farmers, gave the land to local Kenyans, and unfortunately those locals even after all these years haven't figured out how to get the yields that the old owners did.
The problem comes down to the locals who are either unwilling or unable to farm effectively at yields that support the population. Then the food aid comes in which is where we're at now.
Maybe I completely missed the point of your post. I thought you were saying NGO aid is counterproductive at reducing population growth. That is to say, it makes it worse.
What were you saying instead?
What were you saying instead?
If we let Russia take over Ukraine the problem will resolve itself. If we just let China eliminate all the Uighyurs the problem will resolve itself. If the Nazis were allowed to carry out the final solution to completion the problem will resolve itself. If we didn’t have vaccinations for any diseases the problem will resolve itself.
There is a clearly defined path around population control that has worked pretty much everywhere and very effectively. Don’t know why you’re recommending soft genocide instead.
There is a clearly defined path around population control that has worked pretty much everywhere and very effectively. Don’t know why you’re recommending soft genocide instead.
> Don’t know why you’re recommending soft genocide instead.
I didn't recommend that at all. It's the cold reality and if it's too much for you to stomach that's your problem.
I didn't recommend that at all. It's the cold reality and if it's too much for you to stomach that's your problem.
The only way we go extinct is through this.
Not climate change
Not climate change
I don’t think so. Humanity would do quite well at 2MMM. We don’t really need 8 or more.
I agree with Elon on some things but not on this. Certainly this means a new economic system, so there are some tough things that need working out.
I agree with Elon on some things but not on this. Certainly this means a new economic system, so there are some tough things that need working out.
We're 8 billion people and rising, which is nowhere near to going extinct. But if we keep multiplying and consuming planetary resources and polluting it at the same rate as today, we'll definitely accelerate our extinction.
> Seems like the world is getting its act together
No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population (a few, not dozens of multiples) with the current technology according to the statistics. The problem is the economic system that induces scarcity in order to facilitate profit mechanisms. With such a system, it wont matter if there are 300 million people or 300 billion on the planet - there will always be scarcity and ensuing problems. Food rotting in warehouses to protect the prices in commodities markets or even by its own producers, immense amounts of food being thrown away from houses and restaurants etc in the West and so on.
Moreover, this 'overpopulation' rhetoric mostly came from the Western literature & press and it was always targeted at the emerging world (Asia, Africa, South America) instead of the entire world. The long-standing rhetoric called for this countries to reduce their birth rates while at the same time promoting having children in Europe through social programs etc.
No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population (a few, not dozens of multiples) with the current technology according to the statistics. The problem is the economic system that induces scarcity in order to facilitate profit mechanisms. With such a system, it wont matter if there are 300 million people or 300 billion on the planet - there will always be scarcity and ensuing problems. Food rotting in warehouses to protect the prices in commodities markets or even by its own producers, immense amounts of food being thrown away from houses and restaurants etc in the West and so on.
Moreover, this 'overpopulation' rhetoric mostly came from the Western literature & press and it was always targeted at the emerging world (Asia, Africa, South America) instead of the entire world. The long-standing rhetoric called for this countries to reduce their birth rates while at the same time promoting having children in Europe through social programs etc.
>No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics.
How so? Population growth isn't free and without cost. I'm tired of these BS claims that "look, if we put everyone on the planet shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit in the space of Texas or Poland, therefore the world is not overpopulated and we can keep the population numbers growing multiple times over."
The problem is not just about real estate or land. People need food and energy to survive, and as the Ruso-Ukrainian war proved it, the global food and energy supply chain is limited and very sensitive, and several developing nations are already on the brink of social collapse because of the increase in food and energy prices this war caused. How will adding billions more people in developing nations fix this or reduce the risk of this happening again?
Making more food for more people also isn't free, it comes at the cost of increase in CO2, and with that, comes more global warming and more extreme weather phenomenons.
These wouldn't be such big issues, if all countries on the planet worked together in peace and harmony for the common good, but that's not the case. Even in the EU we can't get members to work together on hot topics like nuclear energy, migration, China or Russia, as each member is following their own personal agenda at the expense of the others. It's even worse in global politics where every country is keeping their cards against their chest with one hand and a knife behind their back with the other. As desirable land, food and energy get scarce, each global power will try to claw as much of it as possible for themselves, leaving the smaller, less powerful countries to fend for themselves at the cost of social unrest, anarchy or even war.
We need to come to terms with the fact that having modern society and economic systems be dependent on having an ever increasing population in order to function, was a poorly thought out Ponzi scheme that sounded good post-WW2, but won't scale indefinitely, and isn't sustainable long term, but instead of admitting it, we've been kicking the can down the road ever since.
How so? Population growth isn't free and without cost. I'm tired of these BS claims that "look, if we put everyone on the planet shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit in the space of Texas or Poland, therefore the world is not overpopulated and we can keep the population numbers growing multiple times over."
The problem is not just about real estate or land. People need food and energy to survive, and as the Ruso-Ukrainian war proved it, the global food and energy supply chain is limited and very sensitive, and several developing nations are already on the brink of social collapse because of the increase in food and energy prices this war caused. How will adding billions more people in developing nations fix this or reduce the risk of this happening again?
Making more food for more people also isn't free, it comes at the cost of increase in CO2, and with that, comes more global warming and more extreme weather phenomenons.
These wouldn't be such big issues, if all countries on the planet worked together in peace and harmony for the common good, but that's not the case. Even in the EU we can't get members to work together on hot topics like nuclear energy, migration, China or Russia, as each member is following their own personal agenda at the expense of the others. It's even worse in global politics where every country is keeping their cards against their chest with one hand and a knife behind their back with the other. As desirable land, food and energy get scarce, each global power will try to claw as much of it as possible for themselves, leaving the smaller, less powerful countries to fend for themselves at the cost of social unrest, anarchy or even war.
We need to come to terms with the fact that having modern society and economic systems be dependent on having an ever increasing population in order to function, was a poorly thought out Ponzi scheme that sounded good post-WW2, but won't scale indefinitely, and isn't sustainable long term, but instead of admitting it, we've been kicking the can down the road ever since.
We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services. For the existing economic system (capitalism) this is not desirable because it seeks to maximize profits by providing minimum while extracting maximum revenue. Therefore there will never be a lower population level at which things will be 'okay'. The system will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems.
If the system changes to one that prioritizes the fundamentals and well being of others, even the currently existing technology level is enough to support many multiples. Without noting that with new technologies like vertical farming, lab grown food and many more, even more population could be possible.
> China or Russia
The current Anglosaxon war started against China (not Russia) because the US wants to remove an emerging economic competitor is a gigantic indicator of the ills of the current system. The US think tanks & policy makers openly advocated for this for more than a decade. Those who openly sought this by going to the extent of openly declaring that intention during the elections got elected. Now they are implementing this outrageous intent that so openly and bluntly declared for years. Imperialism - peak capitalism in its final form. It does not seek to do anything good, it only seeks to maximize its profits at whatever cost.
If the system changes to one that prioritizes the fundamentals and well being of others, even the currently existing technology level is enough to support many multiples. Without noting that with new technologies like vertical farming, lab grown food and many more, even more population could be possible.
> China or Russia
The current Anglosaxon war started against China (not Russia) because the US wants to remove an emerging economic competitor is a gigantic indicator of the ills of the current system. The US think tanks & policy makers openly advocated for this for more than a decade. Those who openly sought this by going to the extent of openly declaring that intention during the elections got elected. Now they are implementing this outrageous intent that so openly and bluntly declared for years. Imperialism - peak capitalism in its final form. It does not seek to do anything good, it only seeks to maximize its profits at whatever cost.
>We have the capability to produce food for many multiples, house and clothe them along with providing more services
Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. There is always a price to pay for growth. There is no free lunch here. You're just buying current growth by selling away your future, or the future of the next generations. This winter set new records for warmth weather in Europe and is the price we're paying for the past 20-50 years of growth without thinking of the consequences.
>The system [capitalism] will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems.
We had communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing than today because it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market, so everything just collapsed. We didn't lack housing though so that was at least a big plus.
Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering. There is always a price to pay for growth. There is no free lunch here. You're just buying current growth by selling away your future, or the future of the next generations. This winter set new records for warmth weather in Europe and is the price we're paying for the past 20-50 years of growth without thinking of the consequences.
>The system [capitalism] will introduce scarcity even at lower population levels to maximize profit, and that will cause the same problems.
We had communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing than today because it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market, so everything just collapsed. We didn't lack housing though so that was at least a big plus.
> Yeah, and all that will come at the cost of more environmental damage and more suffering.
Not at all. The current systemic environmental destruction happens because it is more profitable to do so. There is no money in protecting the environment. Worse - it costs money to do so. So the system wont do it because avoiding doing it is needed due to the profit maximization mechanic of the system.
> We tried communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing
No Eastern European country suffered from any of those until the US and its Gulf Allies started the economic war against your bloc in late 1970s to starve it of GDP. In fact, Kennedy administration feared in 1960s that everyone in the world would imitate your development model because you were developing way too fast and raised your people from mud houses and barefeet level to apartment blocks and physics education level within the same generation. They thought 'something needed to be done about it'. And they did - it was the Vietnam war. That is called 'the Domino Theory' read about it.
Note that if anyone did even a fraction of what the US did to your bloc to the US itself, the US would immediately trigger a nuclear war as the examples with previous, much lesser offenses show. In a way, your bloc sacrificed itself to avoid a delirious, unstable nuclear-armed actor from destroying the human civilization if it couldn't get its way. And Im not using the 'delirious' and 'unstable' words as metaphors - the US strategic documents actually, literally advocate projecting an 'unstable persona'.
> it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market
You have no idea about how efficient the free market is yet.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
Entire Eastern Europe is still protected from much of the free market because it still keeps a lot of social democrat measures that were leftover from your communist era and Europe's 1960s era socialism. Wait until those measures are disappeared to make way for 'the market' through the trojan-horse policies of centrist and right wing neoliberal parties backed by the US.
Not at all. The current systemic environmental destruction happens because it is more profitable to do so. There is no money in protecting the environment. Worse - it costs money to do so. So the system wont do it because avoiding doing it is needed due to the profit maximization mechanic of the system.
> We tried communism as well in my Eastern European country, where all the resources were owned by the state, and there was even more poverty, scarcity and rationing
No Eastern European country suffered from any of those until the US and its Gulf Allies started the economic war against your bloc in late 1970s to starve it of GDP. In fact, Kennedy administration feared in 1960s that everyone in the world would imitate your development model because you were developing way too fast and raised your people from mud houses and barefeet level to apartment blocks and physics education level within the same generation. They thought 'something needed to be done about it'. And they did - it was the Vietnam war. That is called 'the Domino Theory' read about it.
Note that if anyone did even a fraction of what the US did to your bloc to the US itself, the US would immediately trigger a nuclear war as the examples with previous, much lesser offenses show. In a way, your bloc sacrificed itself to avoid a delirious, unstable nuclear-armed actor from destroying the human civilization if it couldn't get its way. And Im not using the 'delirious' and 'unstable' words as metaphors - the US strategic documents actually, literally advocate projecting an 'unstable persona'.
> it lacked the competition and efficiencies driven by the free market
You have no idea about how efficient the free market is yet.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/americas-dirty-little-secret...
Entire Eastern Europe is still protected from much of the free market because it still keeps a lot of social democrat measures that were leftover from your communist era and Europe's 1960s era socialism. Wait until those measures are disappeared to make way for 'the market' through the trojan-horse policies of centrist and right wing neoliberal parties backed by the US.
> No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics
Citation needed. How many multiples? 10 times the current population? That's perilously close to disaster, given the exponential possibilities of growth.
Citation needed. How many multiples? 10 times the current population? That's perilously close to disaster, given the exponential possibilities of growth.
I read the article some time ago. It was only a few times of the current population, but with existing technology. It did not count in emerging technology like vertical farming, lab-grown food etc.
>No, the world and our civilization can support multiples of the population it has according to the statistics.
Maybe if we return to -10,000 lifestyles. No drugs, no technology, no fuel. The resources needed to support a given lifestyle multiplied by the population cannot exceed what the planet can provide and accept without being wrecked. The higher the population the more basic the lifestyle each of them can have. You simply cannot have 20 billion people living like 21st century Americans. There's not enough resources to go around.
Maybe if we return to -10,000 lifestyles. No drugs, no technology, no fuel. The resources needed to support a given lifestyle multiplied by the population cannot exceed what the planet can provide and accept without being wrecked. The higher the population the more basic the lifestyle each of them can have. You simply cannot have 20 billion people living like 21st century Americans. There's not enough resources to go around.
I believe industrialized farming/fertilizers/GMO's are required to support the current population levels; preindustrial hunting/agriculture practices required much greater land use than current techniques.
You're probably right. My understanding is that the primary limiter of agricultural performance is nitrogen fixation.
Educate the girls.
In my experience, more Indian girls/women ( as a %) are in STEM than in Western Europe or USA.
Indian students (and more importantly, their parents) are generally averse to non-STEM fields when it comes to education. Getting through engineering/medical colleges is literally a part of the default life cycle in the current generation of middle-class India.
AFAIK this is the norm for countries that aren't so repressive as to deny women education or the (realistic) ability to have a career, but that do offer less overall opportunity or freedom (in practice, if not de jure) than your average liberal "western"-model country, and have middling per-capita GDP.
This is true for upper middle and so on. But the big numbers (of undereducated) are in the lower classes.
Especially Muslim girls are less likely to be allowed to get an education, some areas are very conservative
wouldn't this decrease the fertility factor more? It also doesn't address existing economic issues with different society classes (e.g. Hindu vs Muslim)
Absolutely!! And encourage them to take up a career.
It feels a lot like some portion of policy makers are happy at this news. After all, they have been pandering for low birth rates for a long time.
It is impressive that we seem conditioned into attaching good sentiment to low birth rates in our considerations, while in reality it's going to make us suffer later in life.
Life in a society with high dependency ratio will be necessarily harsh, unless some truly fantastical technological force multipliers will be there in time to take the load. This latter part is usually implied when discussing the demographic change, but it fails even under moderate intellectual scrutiny.
I would very much like to have a serious discussion about the demography and dependency ratio trends with people across opinion spectrum.
Life in a society with high dependency ratio will be necessarily harsh, unless some truly fantastical technological force multipliers will be there in time to take the load. This latter part is usually implied when discussing the demographic change, but it fails even under moderate intellectual scrutiny.
I would very much like to have a serious discussion about the demography and dependency ratio trends with people across opinion spectrum.
> pandering for low birth rates
I'm having trouble understanding what this means. Supporting policies that lower birth rates?
I'm having trouble understanding what this means. Supporting policies that lower birth rates?
Take the 3 million square miles of USA supporting 330 million people, and add 1 billion more people to it. That's India. They have a population crisis which their land area can't support.
USA has the kinds of land that cannot support so many people. This is not the issue with India. Their land is abundant in food and shelter resources, the only elements required for thriving societies.
The USA (including Alaska) has about 3 times the land area of India, so India has about 4 times the population on 1/3 the land, or 12 times the population density, but I don’t think even that implies India cannot support its own population.
Their GDP per capita is about 1/30th of that of the USA, or about 2/5 of that of the USA per km², and I think that’s a better way to approximate land needed than raw population size.
Their GDP per capita is about 1/30th of that of the USA, or about 2/5 of that of the USA per km², and I think that’s a better way to approximate land needed than raw population size.
Nobody includes Alaska in these calculations because 80% of it us uninhabitable. I was only talking about the lower-48.
Even that part is about twice the area of India.
Except India is ~1.3M square miles...
[deleted]
They are already overpopulated, so no need to panic.
My mom used to do census work in some of the villages in India, where people would give out questionable and unverifiable details based on benefits offered by the Govt. For example, a kid is reported to be staying with grandparents ( which is very common ) and also with the parents ( in a different village). Both of them avail benefits from Govt for the kid. India has no infrastructure to verify the validity of the data even with Aadhaar. It is a common occurrence to find people with multiple Aadhar or Voter cards.
So, the surveys do not give an accurate picture of India.
Edit: Typos