Is India really over populated?

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
When did I say Indians are poorer today?

I said over-population is a bane, but not the only bane.

I also said we will never agree on what kind of index to use, in order to adjust GDP with inflation. (It can be proven that Indians are poorer/richer, either way, but hey, I am waiting for that μ and σ).

Read, then read again, and then read the third time, and then ask questions if you have doubts.


OK so you are not claiming India is poorer wither just that it stands still right?:rolleyes:
:lol: only you will have a problem with statistics as it will show how stupid socialist economy really is. GDP per capita real/ or GDP per capita in PPP are very good indicators of wealth for most mainstream economists. May be Marxist ones might have a problem with that.



Over population is a bane. But are we over populated now? If yes why are we 109th on the list of countries by population density?
 
Last edited:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Over population is a bane. But are we over populate now?

Of yes why are we 109th on the list of countries by population density?
I think we would have been better off with better family planning. We are indeed overpopulated. India would have been perfect with a population of 0.8 billion, but 1.2 billion is a bit too much. This is my opinion.

You need to adjust the population growth graph, which is usually exponential, to arrive at this number of 0.8 billion in 2014, and extrapolate the revenue generated minus the delta, for the adjusted population minus the delta.

I know this is confusing, but I will explain this later.
 

abhi_the _gr8_maratha

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
2,193
Likes
609
Country flag
Indian economy was stable in 2008 when most of big economies were in economical depression, the reason is agriculture.
.
so if india will have 3 billion population , how much land for agriculture will remaining . 25% reserved for forests. 10% will be for dams which will supply water. 30% for houses , 5% for roads and train tracks. Military and police bases 1%. 15-25% factories. How much for agriculture? Just 4% . What will we do if there is economic depression . Should we starve to death?
.
did anyone imagine how much of accidents will be there for 3 billion
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
I think we would have been better off with better family planning. We are indeed overpopulated. India would have been perfect with a population of 0.8 billion, but 1.2 billion is a bit too much. This is my opinion.

You need to adjust the population growth graph, which is usually exponential, to arrive at this number of 0.8 billion in 2014, and extrapolate the revenue generated minus the delta, for the adjusted population minus the delta.

I know this is confusing, but I will explain this later.
Its not actually confusing. By supposedly reducing the population growth to 3/4 of today's level, you also have the chance of reducing the same wealth earners to the same 3/4th of present value with the end result being that on average you remain the same.

Anyway I don't think you saw what Steven Landburg had to say in that video of @Sakal Gharelu Ustad .

Anyway I am done for now. Its very hard to fight against the decades of indoctrination. I think I have done more than enough consciousness raising for now. But hey, when some other mainstream economist comes up with the same thing later ,do remember I came up here first with the truth :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
Point it out.

And the data I presented on the OP was not enough to prove India is the 109th most over populated country in the world while being disproportionately high on underdeveloped world list ranking?

Its hard to see with bias really. But I would not blame you all. Its hard to see past the indoctrination happening over the decades
You also have set up your own criterias by leaving out a few countries by terming them as oil producing etc.

To me that is data manipulation. By manipulating data I can show India is the richest nation on the planet.
Sometimes ago there was a post on the crashes of fighter jets. There a DFIan had pointed out a formula which was flawed and manipulative. I had pointed that out. Take a look here( http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/59687-myth-busted-high-crash-rates-iaf.html )

The same holds true in this case too. Your logic is based on arable land. The fact is arable land alone cannot justify a country`s population.


Read this very slowly.

Suppose a person requires one acre of arable land,one tractor and one grinder for sustenance. Say a person in a hypothetical village has two acres of arable land,one tractor and one grinder. He is sustainable as per our criteria.

Say in 10 years, the village has a population of 2 people. Now there is no problem with arable land. Since for two you have two acres(one for each).
However what would be the case with the tractor and grinder.

See that is the problem with your formula. Arable land cannot be the sole factor for calculating the population of a country.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
You also have set up your own criterias by leaving out a few countries by terming them as oil producing etc.

To me that is data manipulation. By manipulating data I can show India is the richest nation on the planet.
Sometime ago there was a post on the crashes of fighter jets. There a DFIan had pointed out a formula which was flawed and manipulative. I had pointed that out. Take a look here( http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/59687-myth-busted-high-crash-rates-iaf.html )

The same holds true in this case too. Your logic is based on arable land. The fact is arable land alone cannot justify a country`s population.


Read this very slowly.

Suppose a person requires one acre of arable land,one tractors and one grinder for sustenance. Say a person in a hypothetical village has two acres of arable land,one tractor and one grinder. He is sustainable as per our criteria.

Say in 10 years, the village has a population of 2 people. Now there is no problem with arable land. Since for two you have two acres(one for each).
However what would be the case with the tractors and grinder.

See that is the problem with your formula. Arable land cannot be the sole factor for calculating the population of a country.
:facepalm:

Read about Indian agricultural output per hectare and then compare it with western averages.

Also its not my criteria. Its an "international" demographics term called physiological population density. But anyway I don't care. Whatever suits your boat:rolleyes:
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Ok people often come back to reducing population for same overall GDP will have the double per capita income growth.but the point they are missing is by halving the population , they are as likely to eliminate the productive ones from the non productive ones. .is, halving can work only if you find the non workers/ or low income half and removing them ALONE. But that's not the case as random decrease of population by half also mean the random halving of workers/high wage earners. So the overall GDP per capita remains the same the GDP overall remains the half

@Bangalorean
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
:facepalm:

Read about Indian agricultural output per hectare and then compare it with western averages.

Also its not my criteria. Its an "international" demographics term called physiological population density. But anyway I don't care. Whatever suits your boat:rolleyes:
No need to face palm that. I was trying to give you a simple,lucid example. You are incorrigible really.


Anyone is free to opine here on DFI. Also that "international" demographics term is used for each and every country. The "international" term is not used selectively on oil producing and non oil producing countries.

Agricultural output does not define prosperity. That is all I want to say. Can you live without a T.V.,A.C.,car,furniture etc?
Can you live by only eating your grown vegetables? Just try to understand what is my point.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Ok people often come back to reducing population for same overall GDP will have the double per capita income growth.but the point they are missing is by halving the population , they are as likely to eliminate the productive ones from the non productive ones. .is, halving can work only if you find the non workers/ or low income half and removing them ALONE. But that's not the case as random decrease of population by half also mean the random halving of workers/high wage earners. So the overall GDP per capita remains the same the GDP overall remains the half

@Bangalorean
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
No need to face palm that. I was trying to give you a simple,lucid example.


Anyone is free to opine here on DFI. Also that "international" demographics term is used for each and every country. The "international" term is not used selectively on oil producing and non oil producing countries.

Anyway let us be happy with our views.
:facepalm:
Oil is a confounding variable here and hence we need to remove it for comparison sake. But I seriously think you won't understand the logic behind exclusion of Oil.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
:facepalm:
Oil is a confounding variable here and hence we need to remove it for comparison sake. But I seriously think you won't understand the logic behind exclusion of Oil.
I think you are right on this point. I cannot understand why oil is a confounding variable. I really won`t understand why it has been excluded. Anyway can you still give the reason behind that to this dumb wit.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,855
Country flag
Ok people often come back to reducing population for same overall GDP will have the double per capita income growth.but the point they are missing is by halving the population , they are as likely to eliminate the productive ones from the non productive ones. .is, halving can work only if you find the non workers/ or low income half and removing them ALONE. But that's not the case as random decrease of population by half also mean the random halving of workers/high wage earners. So the overall GDP per capita remains the same the GDP overall remains the half

@Bangalorean
So if you have 300 million poor and illiterate people, how many years will it take to bring them up to standard? 20 years? Now how many years will it take if the number was 600 million instead of 300 million? And how many years will it take if that 600 million increases to 900 million in 20 years?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
Post Independence India developed, but in a lopsided manner, where the emphasis was influenced by the Soviet model and industrialisation centric.

Lal Bahadur Shastri added a new dimension - the Green Revolution.

However, none centred on the fact that without education, a nation cannot grow

If India indeed was following the Soviet model, it should have done so in its holity.

Here it is from Wiki.
The Soviet Union recognized that the foundation of their system depended upon complete dedication of the people to the state through education in the broad fields of engineering, the natural sciences, the life sciences and social sciences, along with basic education.

In Imperial Russia, according to the 1897 Population Census, literate people made up 28.4 percent of the population. Literacy levels of women were a mere 13%.

Another aspect of the inflexibility was the high rate at which pupils were held back and required to repeat a year of school. In the early 1950s, typically 8–10% of pupils in elementary grades were held back a year. This was partly attributable to the pedagogical style of teachers, and partly to the fact that many of these children had disabilities that impeded their performance. In the latter 1950s, however, the Ministry of Education began to promote the creation of a wide variety of special schools (or "auxiliary schools") for children with physical or mental handicaps.

During the early years of Stalin's rule, the period of the first Five-Year Plan (1928-1932), Russia became increasingly more labor focused and education was changed accordingly. Books such as Mikhail Ilin's New Russia Primer: The Story of the Five-Year Plan encouraged children to work together in being productive from a very young age. It outlines a "Little Five-Year Plan" that children could contribute to as part of their pioneer troops. It was during this time period that the brigade method and student groups based on pioneers were introduced into the schooling system. These systems really encouraged collectivism within the classroom. Brigades and pioneer troops had to succeed as a group, and if an individual was bringing down the class, they would be singled out, not in a malicious manner, but with a desire to help. Other members of the group would come up with ways that everyone could contribute to the cause of helping that one student succeed. This was usually done during group meetings or through the use of wall-newspapers (a newspaper with current school happenings that was periodically posted on school walls). During the first Five-Year plan, the role of the family in childcare was emphasized. This was not because the state trusted the family to properly raise children, but because orphanages, kindergartens, and schools were overwhelmed with the task of raising children and relying on the family became a way to relieve pressure on these institutions.
One is not sure as to why the Govts failed to understand the importance of education to be the powerhouse of progress, beyond lip service, but then since we are in this sorry state of illiteracy and thus, poverty, one cannot but help but wonder if they were without vision or too preoccupied with their pet dreams.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,840
There is this hot debate on the TV as to why add IITs and IIMs when the present once are substandard.

There are those who want private colleges and pay for the facilities no matter what is cost, others want foreign universities to open shop here and there are others who want IITs and IIMs in every state.

The problem is there is dearth of quality in education, teacher and facilities at all levels, be it primary, college or vocational.

It is time to ensure that the primary education is made better so that it churns out the right material (that has an analytical and logical mindset and not learn through rote). However, there is the lack of infrastructure and quality teachers. Therefore, there has to be colleges for proper teacher training and not the type that churns out the horrors seen as of today. All this will take time and planning.

It is also true that one cannot have such schools of quality in every village or hamlet. Therefore, as a starter there could be quality district level schools as envisaged in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (Public school type of education in rural areas}. I wonder why it did not take off after such an enthusiastic beginning.

The problem in this country is that scheme are announced with all the fanfare but never followed up. There must be some dedication somewhere if we are to succeed.

The KVs are also a great initiative. And they are in remote areas too. A good pay, recognition and free housing are the incentive. They function and produce quality students because they are monitored by the Centre through a structured monitoring system and since most of them are under military supervision being on military land. In short, the bottom line is that there has to be monitoring & supervision with accountability.

Likewise. if IITians and IIMs feel that having a surfeit of such colleges would bring their market value down, so be it., Raise similar institution with a different name and let them be of better quality so that the IIT and IIM chaps have a run for their money and false ego.

I have seen some of the ITI chaps and there sure is a requirement of improvement. Most of the trainees are theoretical. I was surprised when I met a auto mechanic, who was theoretical but had no clue about the practical aspects of repairing or maintenance of automobiles!

Mods.This being off topic, the issues of education and its ramifications can be taken to a new thread. These days I am a trifle preoccupied and so I cannot wade through the thread and do so myself. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,855
Country flag
So if you have 300 million poor and illiterate people, how many years will it take to bring them up to standard? 20 years? Now how many years will it take if the number was 600 million instead of 300 million? And how many years will it take if that 600 million increases to 900 million in 20 years?
And @Mad Indian, think about electricity, as an example. Let us say you have 10000 MW capacity. You can either increase capacity to enable the existing population to enjoy greater electricity consumption. Like everyone having geysers and multiple ACs at home. Or you can increase your population twofold and make sure everyone "enjoys" the same electricity supply (and hence, standard of living) as before.

Whenever we plan for something, in any field or any endeavour in life - we plan based on demand, projected demand, constraints, supply, etc. - and we try to increase the supply to match projected demand. This is always the case. If you have a constantly moving population target, your projected demand tends to infinity. When do you stop? How do you ever increase overall standards and benefits?

Overpopulation is as big a plague as Congoon socialism. We need to reach replacement fertility levels of 2.1 for the entire nation. It needs to happen within the next 10 years if we want to see India as a developed nation in our lifetime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Its not actually confusing. By supposedly reducing the population growth to 3/4 of today's level, you also have the chance of reducing the same wealth earners to the same 3/4th of present value with the end result being that on average you remain the same.

Anyway I don't think you saw what Steven Landburg had to say in that video of @Sakal Gharelu Ustad .
I saw this video.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NtRmS7q9DlM

Watch the video. It also supports my view on bangla immigrants...
No, it doesn't support your view of Bangla immigrants.

Immigration into the US from its main sources is different from immigration into India from BD. The difference is in the graph you see at time 1:50 in the video.

Indian labour force looks like a pyramid, while the US labour force looks like a bulge with narrow top and bottom.


Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Economy_Watch/the-world-of-work/article1020683.ece

You are right about immigration in the US, and partially wrong about immigration into India from BD.

Anyway I am done for now. Its very hard to fight against the decades of indoctrination. I think I have done more than enough consciousness raising for now. But hey, when some other mainstream economist comes up with the same thing later ,do remember I came up here first with the truth :D
Yes, mainstream economic theories are meant to be fed to mainstream people, aka the plebs, which is why, the mainstream is always poorer than the extremely wealthy 1% in the case of the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Another point worth pondering : Indian women don't contribute as much to the economy. In Eastern Countries women contribute more than men. (Anecdotal)
 

abhi_the _gr8_maratha

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
2,193
Likes
609
Country flag
Another point worth pondering : Indian women don't contribute as much to the economy. In Eastern Countries women contribute more than men. (Anecdotal)
good point saar. In india many women prefer to be house wives which affects economy cause her working also gives works to kaamwali bayis......
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
I saw this video.
No, it doesn't support your view of Bangla immigrants.

Immigration into the US from its main sources is different from immigration into India from BD. The difference is in the graph you see at time 1:50 in the video.

India labour force looks like a pyramid, while the US labour force looks like a bulge with narrow top and bottom.
So how does that affect us negatively? If more hands are here to work for us, it is ultimately good for the economy
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
So if you have 300 million poor and illiterate people, how many years will it take to bring them up to standard? 20 years? Now how many years will it take if the number was 600 million instead of 300 million? And how many years will it take if that 600 million increases to 900 million in 20 years?
Sry for the long delayed reply. I was busy preparing for the PG entrance.

Anyway, since you have brought it out into the specifics of the problems of overpopulation(in this case illiteracy), I will point out why it is flawed and then you can extrapolate it to all the "supposed" problems of Over population

You see, if there are 300 Million illiterates rather than 150 million, then you will have an equvalent amount of literates more to bring them out of it effectively negating the negative impact of having a higher illiterate population!

For instance, if india had a population of just 300 million let us suppose for example sake take that 75% of it is illiterate, then you have 225 literates and 75 million illiterates. SO you have to use the resources generated by 225million to "educate"/"save" the 75 million. Now if you contend that it would be better if we had only 200 million people instead of 300 million people and so we would face only 50million illiterates instead of 75 million, then you are missing out the impact of the lower population on literates as well, since the number of literates would also be reduced to 150 million and you need to use the resource generated by 150 million instead of the 225 million, since 75% is the literacy rate in either case!

Now in the above example, replace 300 million with 1.25 bn which is the present indian population and 75% is the present literacy rate. If you think we would have less illiterates if the population was only 600million, then you are missing the fact that we would also have a proportionately lower literates.

I have just demonstrated why it is unfair to blame the illiteracy on overpopulation. Similiarly you can see why poor economy and poor development are not consequaneces of over population as such
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top