Is India really over populated?

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@Meriv90 Sorry I skipped the part about the FAO thingy as I dint first notice it!.


SO Why is that countries with higher real population density feed their citizens better than India? The answer is simple- most of our lands are not utilised properly. For instance we have the highest area under cultivation for rice and wheat while we are the top producers of neither. Thats because our agricultural policies/techniques are very out dated! For instance, our per hectare yield of wheat is one fourth that of China and China is hardly the technological super power. And they say India has a green revolution and that it is great that it has fulfilled its food needs(which I take it means that we can support even more population if we adopt better technologies!)

Also, I just mentioned about INdia. The same is true about the African countries! Do you think they are producing food at the highest capacity possible? So the claim that Food shortage will become an issue in a country like India which has 33% less real density of population than Britain is just silly!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
You agree that you were drawing parallels where little exists?
Dude, what he says about immigration is true for India also. We get workers who have not been fed with our food to work for us, for a cost cheaper than what it would take for us to employ an Indian. Hence there is a net gain.!
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Also, people get a wrong idea about this immigration thingy, when infact as long as any economic transanction happens it ultimately benefits all the people in the transanction so long as it is voluntary! This is the case for immigration too

For example, when a doctor migrates out of India to work in Singapore and works for 2L per month salary, he will remit atleast 50000 Rs back home. The average salary of a doctor today is 25000. So In place of one doctor, Indians now can afford two! This benefits both Singapore AND India! The same is true for all professions and all immigrations!

Only people who look at the superficial aspect of things wont see the beauty of free trade!
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Dude, what he says about immigration is true for India also. We get workers who have not been fed with our food to work for us, for a cost cheaper than what it would take for us to employ an Indian. Hence there is a net gain.!
Immigration sometimes fills the gap in the labour force. Sometimes, it simply overpopulates an existing section of the labour force, thus displacing natives, and driving down wages.
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
No, but India feels overpopulated because population densities (people per sq. km) in our towns and cities are among the world's highest.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Ok lets do the circle once again.

:frusty: Why do people in some countries with more real density of population than India have a higher standard of living then? Where did they get all those things from? From outerspace?:rolleyes:
No I am asking you to change the formula to something like Population/Necessities. I am not asking you take the actual population or physiological population density in your argument. Physiological density does not take the necessities of a person other than food. We are really going in circles here. You are keeping on saying that a person`s only need is food. He does not need clothes,medicines,shelter etc.

Also on why countries with higher physiological density have better life standards than India.
The fact is that this countries have less arable land than India, however they have more industries and more factories than India. if you change your formula to something like (Pop/No. of industries) then this countries would do better than India. I am repeating that your basis of evaluation is flawed because it only takes arable land into account. A person cannot live only on food,he needs clothes,medicines,etc too.
 
Last edited:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Exactly my ----ing point!



How the hell do they do that?


Why has it not happened till now then?




But Isreal's one has been sustainable till now(despite being higher than ours). How?



Again what prevented us till now?
Israel has a population of 8 million. India has a population of 1000 million. You are asking why Israel has sustainable population while India does not have one. This is because Israel is a developed country while India is a developing one.(Israel is the poorest developed country) Israel has more factories that produce life needs for its people. Unlike India, the poor people of Israel do not have to beg for getting medicines,clothes etc. As I have said your formula takes into account only arable land(aka food available to a person). It does not take into account the presence of factories that produce medicines,clothes,etc. Change your formula into Pop/No. of factories and you will understand why Israel has done better than India.

Also if Israel keeps increasing its population without increasing factories that produce life goods it will land in trouble. Till now their population is stable because the ratio of population to industries is sustainable.
 

Meriv90

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
220
Likes
124
@Meriv90 Sorry I skipped the part about the FAO thingy as I dint first notice it!.


SO Why is that countries with higher real population density feed their citizens better than India? The answer is simple- most of our lands are not utilised properly. For instance we have the highest area under cultivation for rice and wheat while we are the top producers of neither. Thats because our agricultural policies/techniques are very out dated! For instance, our per hectare yield of wheat is one fourth that of China and China is hardly the technological super power. And they say India has a green revolution and that it is great that it has fulfilled its food needs(which I take it means that we can support even more population if we adopt better technologies!)

Also, I just mentioned about INdia. The same is true about the African countries! Do you think they are producing food at the highest capacity possible? So the claim that Food shortage will become an issue in a country like India which has 33% less real density of population than Britain is just silly!
Globalization and trade, i lived in both in a importing country like Singapore where you have all the economy on the secondary and tertiary sector and Argentina where the main sector is agricultural.

It is called comparative vantage.

And no you aren't efficient in the production. But it is silly to think that Uk is food autonomous.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/07/half-population-food-imports-2050
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Globalization and trade, i lived in both in a importing country like Singapore where you have all the economy on the secondary and tertiary sector and Argentina where the main sector is agricultural.

It is called comparative vantage.

And no you aren't efficient in the production. But it is silly to think that Uk is food autonomous.

Over half the world's population could rely on food imports by 2050 –-study | Environment | The Guardian
But the point is, we dont have to be food autonomous. UK is wealthy and prosperous despite being not autonomous on food right? Also, there is so much untapped potential to the world- Africa comes to my mind. And while at it, what about China? Is it not much more over populated than India and yet is four times as wealthy as India?
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
It's simple. It takes longer for a billion people to reach a certain standard of living (measured by GDP per capita) than it would a nation of 50 million people. It is true that if the larger nation even comes close, it will have a much bigger overall GDP and thus, more influence in the world. The US is unique in that it has the largest economy in the world and has a great GDP per capita but India can't hope to reach that level. Not until at least 2100 anyway. While the size of its GDP grows, and the pie gets larger, so do the number of slices. Each slice still gets bigger but at a slower rate than it would if there were less people to share that pie with.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
It's simple. It takes longer for a billion people to reach a certain standard of living (measured by GDP per capita) than it would a nation of 50 million people. It is true that if the larger nation even comes close, it will have a much bigger overall GDP and thus, more influence in the world. The US is unique in that it has the largest economy in the world and has a great GDP per capita but India can't hope to reach that level. Not until at least 2100 anyway. While the size of its GDP grows, and the pie gets larger, so do the number of slices. Each slice still gets bigger but at a slower rate than it would if there were less people to share that pie with.
wow. I should call out nonsense more often it seems. Now that you have made your assertion, give me proof. USA itself is a living example of why population should not be a matter at all on economics but anyway, go ahead. Give me proof that Highly populated countries cant grow up fast.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
7,869
Likes
23,213
Country flag
TBH our country is lop-sidedly dense.

All the population is concentrated in certain centres, namely the Gangetic plains, the 6 metro cities and their satellite towns.

Rest of the entire country is loosely populated.

Look at my region for instance.

If you come here, you'll be shocked how empty our states are compared to northern or southern India.


The problem is, our states are regionally divided, linguistically enemies of each other and hate each other.

Our governments should have developed a method where ANY INDIAN, could live in ANY part of the country, buy land, buy house and settle in that state.

Sadly, this regionalism, politics etc have made population centres skewed and therefore we find this lop sided density really a pain.
 

Abhijat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
648
Likes
840
Country flag
From what I have read, till now, in this thread is:

Capitalism seems to be way to use our dormant populace , changing , by way of investment in education & health , into a productive asset .

As we have more population, so by channelizing them, we can have greater rate of growth.

But, the question is : Will it be sustainable?

Sustainability,usually, have three aspects:

1. Economic
2. Social
3. Environmental.

First, Economic : It would not only be sustainable , but also highly profitable , if we can follow the "export model" of growth , of our Indian talent , like Teacher/Nurse.

Second, Social : I think here, we would fail , as "greed" basis of animal spirit of capitalism , is something we detest culturally. So continuance investment , a prerequisite of Capitalism, might not be fulfilled.



So , a western model of capitalism, can proved to be beneficial to us, but on the same hand , may not be totally adoptable to society.
 

anupamsurey

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
1,032
Likes
514
Country flag
TBH our country is lop-sidedly dense.

All the population is concentrated in certain centres, namely the Gangetic plains, the 6 metro cities and their satellite towns.

Rest of the entire country is loosely populated.

Look at my region for instance.

If you come here, you'll be shocked how empty our states are compared to northern or southern India.


The problem is, our states are regionally divided, linguistically enemies of each other and hate each other.

Our governments should have developed a method where ANY INDIAN, could live in ANY part of the country, buy land, buy house and settle in that state.

Sadly, this regionalism, politics etc have made population centres skewed and therefore we find this lop sided density really a pain.
our nation is overly populated, there is no doubt about it (you can blame the climate for it or blame the humans living here), by having a huge population doesnt mean that we donot have enough space for people to live in it, but it means that we add stress on our agriculture (cultivation of food grains), water resources and many other natural resources along with increased competition for as simple things as like public transport.

north east is less populated, some portions of himachal pradesh and orrisa too are less populated because they are not a easy place to live (we either have hilly region, or forest).

but i must clarify on your single mistake that, In India, Indians can travel, stay, live, by land and house, and settle in that state, city or town as they wish (except in the case of J&K-art. 371). this is your fundamental right as an Indian.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top