Is India really over populated?

[Mad Indian]

Here guys is the ranking of the countries by Physiological Density of Population

What is Physiological Density?

The physiological density or real population density is the number of people per unit area of arable land.[1]

A higher physiological density suggests that the available agricultural land is being used by more and may reach its output limit sooner than a country that has a lower physiological density.

List of countries by real population density based on food growing capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the countries in the list which have a worse Physiological Density than India but have a better standard of living than India are(Excluding the oil exporting countries)-

1. Singapore(this can be excluded as a case of being a small trade oriented country)
2. Iceland - 4229/sq.km of arable land
3. South Korea - 2998/sq.km of arable land
4. Taiwan - 2932/sq.km of arable land
5. Japan- 2924/sq.km of arable land
6. Netherlands- 2205//sq.km of arable land
7. Israel- 2147/sq.km of arable land
8. Columbia- 2064//sq.km of arable land
9. Switzerland - 1900/sq.km of arable land
10. Costa Rica -1803/sq.km of arable land
11. Malaysia - 1336/sq.km of arable land
12. Belgium- 1248/sq.km of arable land
13. Slovania - 1170/sq.km of arable land
14. United kingdom - 1077/sq.km of arable land
15. China - 943/sq.km of arable land
16. Liechestien - 843/sq.km of arable land
17. Luxumbourg - ~750//sq.km of arable land
18. Italy- ~750/sq.km of arable land

Note that, I have not included countries which I thought was insignificant or only marginally better than us like Indonesia, Srilanka(Which is better than us after a fukcing Civil war), Hong Kong etc, nor have I included the Oil exporters like Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Venezuela etc just to avoid the confounding variable.


So Now tell me why are we still whining about over population and giving it as an excuse when clearly, countries much more voer populated than us have succeeded much better?

All our ills are caused by misgovernance of 5 decades of CON(edit)d their misplaced socialism. Population was just a bogey to hide the incompetance of the Nehru clan and its shitty socialist policies. TO be frank, we would have sucked even if we had only a population of 2 crores instead of the present 125. But we can thrive even with 300 crore population if we utilize our potential to the maximum through capitalism.

@pmaitra @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Bangalorean @parijataka @Ray @Razor @TrueSpirit1 @Cliff@sea @arkem8 @LurkerBaba

PS: I know this requires a lot of outside the box thinking and goes against the years of indoctrination against over population, but atleast give it a thought

 

[pmaitra]

@Mad Indian, isn't Malaysia an oil exporting country?

 

[Mad Indian]

@Mad Indian, isn't Malaysia an oil exporting country?

Ok, by oil I meant petroleum and not palm oil. You had me there for a few mins

 

[pmaitra]

Ok, by oil I meant petroleum and not palm oil

I wasn't talking about palm oil.

Petronas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@asianobserve, please advise.

 

[Bangalorean]

This is a good topic for discussion @Mad Indian. Here is a simple point.

All these countries you have mentioned, have a certain population and a certain standard of living, a certain per capita income.

Now, assume that their population had been double of what it is now. The standard of living and per capita income/GDP would jump down to 50%. It is as simple as that.

No one is disputing the fact that Congoon socialism ruined the country. But whether the economic model is Congoon socialism or any enlightened progressive economic model, the fact remains that the greater your population, the less will be your standard of living. The same pie is shared among more people, it is as simple as that. Enlarging the size of the pie takes time, and will take longer to achieve results than if the population had been smaller.

With greater population, you need to create so many more jobs, so many more industries, so much more investment, etc. The path towards becoming a developed nation will be much longer. It is as simple as that.

Congoon socialism is responsible for ruining the country, but population is a problem too.

 

[Sakal Gharelu Ustad]

This is a good topic for discussion @Mad Indian. Here is a simple point.

All these countries you have mentioned, have a certain population and a certain standard of living, a certain per capita income.

Now, assume that their population had been double of what it is now. The standard of living and per capita income/GDP would jump down to 50%. It is as simple as that.

No one is disputing the fact that Congoon socialism ruined the country. But whether the economic model is Congoon socialism or any enlightened progressive economic model, the fact remains that the greater your population, the less will be your standard of living. The same pie is shared among more people, it is as simple as that. Enlarging the size of the pie takes time, and will take longer to achieve results than if the population had been smaller.

With greater population, you need to create so many more jobs, so many more industries, so much more investment, etc. The path towards becoming a developed nation will be much longer. It is as simple as that.

Congoon socialism is responsible for ruining the country, but population is a problem too.

I do not think there is a big correlation between population density and wealth in today's world. We do not live in a Malthusian world any longer.

This video gives a new perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpBwxqbs1I

 

[vram]

Population growth prevention is a chimera which cannot in anyway be controlled beyond a certain point. What india really needs to do is maintain cleanliness and proper standards for public utility. Cleanliness of rivers, beaches and land is the most important aspect missing in INDIA. Just look at colombo for considering a regional context...same kind of food and habits ...but wow what clean public spaces and utilites...your entire standard of living is uplifted...

 

[LETHALFORCE]

This is a good topic. India does not have a space problem, the problem is tied to
Economy,infrastructure,planning and corruption. 7 decades of an apathetic government
Has produced the attitude the people have today.

 

[praneet.bajpaie]

here is the simple point on this issue,

India is very very over populated and that is not the real issue. Most of India's population is dirt poor with no education (literacy), healthcare, hygiene.

Even after 67 years of independence, we are worse off than Sub Saharan Africa. As Indians, our heads should hang in shame.

 

[vram]

India is very very over populated and that is not the real issue. Most of India's population is dirt poor with no education (literacy), healthcare, hygiene.

Must be careful while throwing around words. While I agree with your sentiments that more can be done..the fact that India has progressed a lot is a reality. During Indipendence our literacy was 24% and the middle class was non existent. there was NO piped water supply and indoor plumbing was not even available properly in the 4 Metro cities let alone rest of the vast country. Considering where we where...we are much ahead now. But different challenges face us now.
Plastic waste, Industrial effluents...degradation of environment due to fast industrialization etc...are the current issues...
Lack of society instincts of cleanliness and hygiene is the biggest problem...

Our petty fights over religion and language based chauvinism is distracting. If left to me I will make cleanliness in public and private spaces a separate religion. In that way all the fanatics can atleast contribute something good to the society

 

[abhi_the _gr8_maratha]

basically india not overpopulated from your calculation. But the problem is governance , illiteracy in india is 26% near to population of europe . Population of japan , korea etc. Is way lesser than india , so there are simpler to govern . Number of voters in india is near to population of america and europe , how it must be challenging for them to take election! To govern 121 crore is not simple .

 

[Mad Indian]

This is a good topic for discussion @Mad Indian. Here is a simple point.

All these countries you have mentioned, have a certain population and a certain standard of living, a certain per capita income.

Even on absolute population terms, we have Japan which has a population as high as 14 crores. Or even South Korea which has a physiological population density about 3 times ours

Now, assume that their population had been double of what it is now. The standard of living and per capita income/GDP would jump down to 50%. It is as simple as that.

No sir. They have a good government and work ethics and hence they would simply be having a larger GDP. My point is, if all things staying the same, and If Japan had a population larger than that of USA, with a positive demographic divident, Japan would be the Strongest nation on earth and not USA. Its pure logic of law of large numbers

No one is disputing the fact that Congoon socialism ruined the country. But whether the economic model is Congoon socialism or any enlightened progressive economic model, the fact remains that the greater your population, the less will be your standard of living. The same pie is shared among more people, it is as simple as that. Enlarging the size of the pie takes time, and will take longer to achieve results than if the population had been smaller.

NO sir. Its not. Consider this example sir. Lets take model country, which is very well developed. It has about 1000 population. Lets assume that 10% of the population is working in agriculture, 25% in manufacturing and 60% in services. It would mean that 100 is employed in agri, 250 in manufacturing, 600 in service, and 5% unemployment(50)! But, now, lets consider another country with higher population but everything else exactly the same(for the sake of comparison). So if the country has a population of 1,00,000 same proportion of people would be needed for those works and hence the unemployment should be at the same proportion,.ie, 10000 in agri , 25000 in manufacturing and 60000 in manufacturing and 5000 in unemployment. So when you compare the absolute numbers, 5000 unemployed is higher than 50 unemployed but on per capita basis, they are the same.

The same is the case with India . For the absolute high number of population, we will also have proportionately high number of employed as well(with right economic policies). IN fact higher population means we can afford to spend a lot less on a % basis on defence. For ex, we outspend Pakis with a much smaller defence budget as a % of GDP.

Also, please note that all the indicaters are measured in Per capita basis and not on absolute numbers- take PCI, Maternal Mortality, Literacy, Infant Mortality, Doctors per population, Nurses per population , no. of beds per population.

Your argument is that- if more population is there, we would need more doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers etc! My point is exactly the same, which is if you have a bigger population, you will also have a bigger supply of doctors, teachers, nurses, engineers and hence higher population must be a moot point, provided all things other than population are the same!

With greater population, you need to create so many more jobs, so many more industries, so much more investment, etc. The path towards becoming a developed nation will be much longer. It is as simple as that.

But also, at the same time, with more population, you will have more people to create more jobs, more people to create more industries, more people to invest more. No sir, the path to development will be the same if all other things remain the same!

Congoon socialism is responsible for ruining the country, but population is a problem too.

I really dont think population is a problem at all. If it had been so, we should have not been ranked 109th in physiological density of population(.ie population per arable land) and worse in absolute development

 

[Mad Indian]

Also, think about it , we have less unemployment now than we had in 1980s. Why? Surely 1980s had a fewer educated people(and fewer population too) and hence lower competition for jobs and yet we sucked. Why? Its because the government and economic system were pure crap then

 

[praneet.bajpaie]

India is considerably overpopulated and will face immense challenges to meet domestic demand of clean water and food supply.

Global warming and industrialisation is changing local.climate and the reforms are too slow to secure future supplies.

Neo, worry about your own failed a*s state, which has the same problems that India has but some more like the ones India doesn't namely sectarian killings, everyday terrorist attacks and rampant cases of polio.

 

[praneet.bajpaie]

Must be careful while throwing around words. While I agree with your sentiments that more can be done..the fact that India has progressed a lot is a reality. During Indipendence our literacy was 24% and the middle class was non existent. there was NO piped water supply and indoor plumbing was not even available properly in the 4 Metro cities let alone rest of the vast country. Considering where we where...we are much ahead now. But different challenges face us now.
Plastic waste, Industrial effluents...degradation of environment due to fast industrialization etc...are the current issues...
Lack of society instincts of cleanliness and hygiene is the biggest problem...

Our petty fights over religion and language based chauvinism is distracting. If left to me I will make cleanliness in public and private spaces a separate religion. In that way all the fanatics can atleast contribute something good to the society

We might have come a long way from where we were during independence but we must also agree that a lot needs to be done even now.

 

[Mad Indian]

basically india not overpopulated from your calculation. But the problem is governance , illiteracy in india is 26% near to population of europe . Population of japan , korea etc. Is way lesser than india , so there are simpler to govern . Number of voters in india is near to population of america and europe , how it must be challenging for them to take election! To govern 121 crore is not simple .

A population of 1,00,000 might need 1% bureaucracy or government(100). Now a population of 1,000,000 will also need the 1% population for the same(1000) and so one.. Hence the governance of big population being difficult is purely as crap as that of over population itself

Seriously, this is a very very out of the box idea. I dont think you will comprehend it unless you are willing to atleast try and see it from a neutral perspective

 

[Mad Indian]

P.S :- I think it's over-populated, But i couldn't find shortage of anything in near future. India is actually improving in those parts.

Yes,. India is overpopulated but India is improving despite that when overpopulation is actually worsening and hence India is overpopulated. makes so much sense.

Seriously guys, why is it so hard for you people to actually consider things from a neutral unbiased perspective

 

[Mad Indian]

I do not think there is a big correlation between population density and wealth in today's world. We do not live in a Malthusian world any longer.

This video gives a new perspective:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpBwxqbs1I

Awesome video bro.

Did any of the blind population haters even see this video

 

[Peter]

Here guys is the ranking of the countries by Physiological Density of Population

What is Physiological Density?

The physiological density or real population density is the number of people per unit area of arable land.[1]

A higher physiological density suggests that the available agricultural land is being used by more and may reach its output limit sooner than a country that has a lower physiological density.

List of countries by real population density based on food growing capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the countries in the list which have a worse Physiological Density than India but have a better standard of living than India are(Excluding the oil exporting countries)-

1. Singapore(this can be excluded as a case of being a small trade oriented country)
2. Iceland - 4229/sq.km of arable land
3. South Korea - 2998/sq.km of arable land
4. Taiwan - 2932/sq.km of arable land
5. Japan- 2924/sq.km of arable land
6. Netherlands- 2205//sq.km of arable land
7. Israel- 2147/sq.km of arable land
8. Columbia- 2064//sq.km of arable land
9. Switzerland - 1900/sq.km of arable land
10. Costa Rica -1803/sq.km of arable land
11. Malaysia - 1336/sq.km of arable land
12. Belgium- 1248/sq.km of arable land
13. Slovania - 1170/sq.km of arable land
14. United kingdom - 1077/sq.km of arable land
15. China - 943/sq.km of arable land
16. Liechestien - 843/sq.km of arable land
17. Luxumbourg - ~750//sq.km of arable land
18. Italy- ~750/sq.km of arable land

Note that, I have not included countries which I thought was insignificant or only marginally better than us like Indonesia, Srilanka(Which is better than us after a fukcing Civil war), Hong Kong etc, nor have I included the Oil exporters like Saudi, Kuwait, Qatar, Venezuela etc just to avoid the confounding variable.


So Now tell me why are we still whining about over population and giving it as an excuse when clearly, countries much more voer populated than us have succeeded much better?

All our ills are caused by misgovernance of 5 decades of CON(edit)d their misplaced socialism. Population was just a bogey to hide the incompetance of the Nehru clan and its shitty socialist policies. TO be frank, we would have sucked even if we had only a population of 2 crores instead of the present 125. But we can thrive even with 300 crore population if we utilize our potential to the maximum through capitalism.

@pmaitra @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Bangalorean @parijataka @Ray @Razor @TrueSpirit1 @Cliff@sea @arkem8 @LurkerBaba

PS: I know this requires a lot of outside the box thinking and goes against the years of indoctrination against over population, but atleast give it a thought

Nice article mate. I would like to point out a few things here.

First let me tell you that I think that India is really overpopulated.

Don`t believe me take a ride in a local train from Sealdah to Nadia during Dolyatra.

Anyway now on your analysis.

Have you observed one strange fact in all this rankings. If you go to the wiki link too will see the strange pattern there too.

A lot of the countries which are on the top rankings are small countries with a high HDI. They also have a lot of urban areas as their population is quite well off and do not live in villages. Quite naturally their small area,highly developed cities and non farming people would account for a great physiological density and their rankings are on the top.

Now for the case of ranks on physiological density itself. I think is a bit flawed. This is because the physiological density is being calculated on population/arable land. There is a big problem on that arable land. The fact is you are expecting that the growth of arable land of a small country to that of a large country would be uniform. However that is not true.The arable land percentage may vary too much.

Anyway you have made a few mistakes in the rankings. How can you make these gaping blunders.


Rankings
109. India
110. Italy
205. United States(~#!@^&*! This rank completely demolishes this article)
213. Russia(~#!%@)

Members pleas check from the link. Easiest way is to do Ctrl+F and type the name of the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tion_density_(based_on_food_growing_capacity)

 

[Peter]

@Mad Indian have you now seen the ranks.
Anyway your argument that a greater population would produce more doctors,engineers etc is not correct.

What makes an engineer or a doctor? Is it brains or money?

I would say you do require brains but MONEY plays a bigger role.Do you see the same number of students from villages as compared to city students in your medical college? What is the reason- the village people have no brains or is that the village people cannot afford special tuition in fitjee,akaash etc.? Money is a huge factor is success. With a larger population you would not have the adequate resources to produce doctors,engineers etc.

Let me make it clear with an example.

Say a farmer couple has only one child. They decide they would have no further children and make their only son an engineer. Despite all their hardships the farmer saves enough to make his son an engineer by giving him proper tuition etc.

Now say another farmer after seeing this, he too decides to make his progeny doctors,engineers etc. However he decides he will have more children than the other farmer and will make more doctors,engineers etc. His logic is simple the more the better. Unfortunately he does not have more money.He has five kids. Do you think that this farmer will succeed in his big dream? What will happen to his children? Let me tell you what will happen. Not even one of them will become a doctor,engineer etc. They will all end up as farmhands.

Why do you not understand the simple fact that a greater population means less resources for everyone?
So a greater population does not mean greater number of success stories etc. As long as resources do not increase(bit like Malthusian concept) a smaller population will always win.