Is India really over populated?

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
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.
Err, who produces that electricity, or more properly, who pays for it, funds it and builds it? If your population can support 10000MW, when your population doubles, it will support twice as much! Why are you discounting that fact? Thats the point most malthusians miss out.

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.
And the people who produce it also tend to infinity right? Why have you not taken that into account!? Thats my point.

When do you stop? How do you ever increase overall standards and benefits?
What made the 18 high population countries ,I mentioned achieve better standards than us?
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.
LOL. There are less developed nations(compared to India) out there with a lower population as well as several more developed nations(again comapred to us) with higher population/population density. So your point on overpopulation is moot!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Meriv90

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
220
Likes
124
What made the 18 high population countries ,I mentioned achieve better standards than us?
LOL. There are less developed nations(compared to India) out there with a lower population as well as several more developed nations(again comapred to us) with higher population/population density. So your point on overpopulation is moot!
Demography: Quality time | The Economist here a good read why to reduce pop.
Mad Indian you are not taking in consideration capital allocation, since capital is a finite resource (even more in India where you have a chronic problem of investing in gold, and not reinvesting it) and you need it to improve your efficiency trough mechanisation and education. So more pop you will have more capital you will need (taking in consideration that that same population can't produce themselves enough capital)to get to the same phase as developed countries that you mentioned for high density.
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Demography: Quality time | The Economist here a good read why to reduce pop.
Mad Indian you are not taking in consideration capital allocation, since capital is a finite resource (even more in India where you have a chronic problem of investing in gold, and not reinvesting it) and you need it to improve your efficiency trough mechanisation and education. So more pop you will have more capital you will need (taking in consideration that that same population can't produce themselves enough capital)to get to the same phase as developed countries that you mentioned for high density.
Why is capital a limited resource?

and if what you say is true, why is India and china better now than in 1970, when they both had a smaller population?
 

Meriv90

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
220
Likes
124
I don't know about you but i learnt that money doesn't grow on threes, and there isn't an abundance of it, the demand is higher than the production rate or interest rate wouldn't exist.

Simple because you got more Capital (in poor words you got richer ,money, cash, to invest), why is china economical greatly better than you? because thanks to their population policies they had more resources per capita to spend. To spend in education/health and industrialisation.



Your fertility rate is at 2.55 meanwhile chinese one is at 1.55.

Mainly industrialisation.

About 85% of India's jobs are with "informal" enterprises—those organisations with fewer than ten staff which are not incorporated. Another 11% are casual jobs with formal companies. Only 16% of Indians say they get a regular wage. People with informal jobs are usually very poor. An official study of 2004-05 data concludes that 80% of informal workers got less than the then national minimum wage of $1.46 a day. There are some good jobs. But India's IT firms, for example, account for only a few million jobs out of a total of half a billion.

All this seems to be closely linked to the lack of manufacturing. Although some 23% of Indian workers are categorised as working in "industry", compared to nearly 30% in China and 22% in Indonesia, half of India's "industrial" workers are in construction whereas the figure is just a quarter in Indonesia. Of the remainder almost all are in the "manufacturing" subcategory. But these are not jobs that involve exposure to modern machinery, techniques and training (crucial for unskilled labour let down by the country's education system). More than half of Indians in the manufacturing sector work in facilities without electricity.
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
I don't know about you but i learnt that money doesn't grow on threes, and there isn't an abundance of it, the demand is higher than the production rate or interest rate wouldn't exist.

Actually it does. In my country, we have money printed on paper, which comes from trees. See , I can be a smartass too:rolleyes:. Seriously, dont think we are idiots here.

Simple because you got more Capital (in poor words you got richer ,money, cash, to invest), why is china economical greatly better than you? because thanks to their population policies they had more resources per capita to spend. To spend in education/health and industrialisation.


Why is the world temperature rising? Thats because of decrease in no. of pirates around the world. So global warming is linked to decreasing no. of pirates in the world. Here is the graph


In other words, co-relation does not mean causation. The ----ing fact that Chinese opened up the economy 15 years ahead of us totally not responsible for us lagging behind china by 15 years in any way or so?:sarcastic:
Your fertility rate is at 2.55 meanwhile chinese one is at 1.55.
.
Israel has a higher fertility rate than India. So is Israel poorer than India?Btw, Isreal has a physiological density about thrice that of India:rolleyes:

here I think you have skipped this video- this is by Economic Prof. Stephen Landburg, who wrote the famous "the armchair economist" book. Now after watching that video, come and debate.


PS: You would get a proper debate if you drop that attitude. The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but illusion of it. Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
So how does that affect us negatively? If more hands are here to work for us, it is ultimately good for the economy
More hands also mean more mouths to feed conversely. You still have not got the point.
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
Actually it does. In my country, we have money printed on paper, which comes from trees. See , I can be a smartass to. Seriously, dont think we are idiots here.
No money may be printed on paper but it does not grow on trees. I think you are under the illusion that printing more money as we have more people will benefit the nation. No that will not be the case. It will only result in inflation and complete financial breakdown. Also you are keeping on equating physiological population density with the real population density. Why are you not comparing India`s position with that of US,UK etc.?
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
More hands also mean more mouths to feed conversely. You still have not got the point.
There is something called as demographic divident. "understand" what it means . You will get the answer to your question
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
No money may be printed on paper but it does not grow on trees. I think you are under the illusion that printing more money as we have more people will benefit the nation. No that will not be the case. It will only result in inflation and complete financial breakdown.
Thanks for educating me. I totally dint know that. Thats totally why I dint follow that line with "I can be a smartass too". Oh wait I did :sarcastic:

Anyway," the capitol is finite" is a false statement. Has the Capitol remained the same from 20000BCE?

Also, Did you see the video i posted. If not, pls dont bother debating me. I am not interested in "debating" with people who have no interest in actually knowing what the problem is and are only interested in proving themselves right

Also you are keeping on equating physiological population density with the real population density. Why are you not comparing India`s position with that of US,UK etc.?
What it means is that UK and US can support a much much higher population than what they are having right now. Nothing else. Also the point is that there is no corelation between economic succcess and population. Your point has nothing to counter that point

EDIT: Seriously dude? WTH? UK is there in the list I gave. It has a physiological density of population of 1000+ against our's of 750+
 
Last edited:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@Peter @Meriv90 The video I posted contains the answers for the article you quoted and it also explains why the concept that "if some one is not here/born, there will be more for everybody else" is not true

Edit: China is relaxing its One child norm BTW. Incase if you people are actually interested in learning stuff:rolleyes:

Now it is legal for the parents to have second child if they are a single child to their parents...


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24957303
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
Thanks for educating me. I totally dint know that. Thats totally why I dint follow that line with "I can be a smartass too". Oh wait I did :sarcastic:

Anyway," the capitol is finite" is a false statement. Has the Capitol remained the same from 20000BCE?

Also, Did you see the video i posted. If not, pls dont bother debating me. I am not interested in "debating" with people who have no interest in actually knowing what the problem is and are only interested in proving themselves right



What it means is that UK and US can support a much much higher population than what they are having right now. Nothing else. Also the point is that there is no corelation between economic succcess and population. Your point has nothing to counter that point

EDIT: Seriously dude? WTH? UK is there in the list I gave. It has a physiological density of population of 1000+ against our's of 750+
I repeat physiological density is not the same as real population density.
Physiological density=Pop/arable land
You are mistaken when you think that arable land is the only basis for calculating the total population a country can have. Your argument would hold good in the 1500 ADs when food was the essential thing needed for a person`s well being. In the modern age food is not the only commodity that a person needs. He needs a lot of things that are not related to arable land. For eg medicines are not accounted for in arable land. Industries which produce life needs are not accounted for in arable land. there lies the problem with your argument.

Also I did see your video.

Now for the part of economic success with population density. I admit that a nation requires a certain amount of people to achieve its financial/military goals. That does not mean a nation with a large population will outdo a similar smaller one. If you had read about the Industrial Revolution you would know that the population of England during the end of the Hundred years War(1400 something) was only 2.5 million. On the other hand India is reported to have a population of 100 million. So as per your logic India should have become more technologically developed as it had more population,yet history tells us a different story.

Same holds true for US.
 
Last edited:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
There is something called as demographic divident. "understand" what it means . You will get the answer to your question
Go to the wikipedia page and read the definition and eg there again. The countries that prospered did so only after their population had stabilized.

Demographic dividend - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the course of the demographic dividend there are four mechanisms through which the benefits are delivered. The first is the increased labor supply. However, the magnitude of this benefit appears to be dependent on the ability of the economy to absorb and productively employ the extra workers rather than be a pure demographic gift. The second mechanism is the increase in savings.
 
Last edited:

Meriv90

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
220
Likes
124
Actually it does. In my country, we have money printed on paper, which comes from trees. See , I can be a smartass to. Seriously, dont think we are idiots here.



Why is the world temperature rising? Thats because of decrease in no. of pirates around the world. So global warming is linked to decreasing no. of pirates in the world. Here is the graph


In other words, co-relation does not mean causation. The ----ing fact that Chinese opened up the economy 15 years ahead of us totally not responsible for us lagging behind china by 15 years in any way or so?:sarcastic:

Israel has a higher fertility rate than India. So is Israel poorer than India?Btw, Isreal has a physiological density about thrice that of India:rolleyes:

here I think you have skipped this video- this is by Economic Prof. Stephen Landburg, who wrote the famous "the armchair economist" book. Now after watching that video, come and debate.


PS: You would get a proper debate if you drop that attitude. The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance but illusion of it. Thanks
Sorry it wasn't my intention, you will love this webpage then
Spurious Correlations
my personal loved correlation is Per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese (US) correlates with Civil engineering doctorates awarded (US) ;)

Israel rate of birth is a consequence of the treats that the country has, it is a biological thing (plus government push for it)

Plus the birth rate isn't the cause but the consequence, by heavy investing in industrialisation Chinese population became highly urbanised bringing up the cost of progeny. So what i meant wasn't that you were poor because you were overpopulated but that you were overpopulated because you aren't industrializating correctly and you are protecting other sectors.

Seeing the video and pointing out doubts about it.

1- The fact that he isn't including in the benefits workforce, shows that his models is primary centred in a first world country and not a third world country specially with a high rural population like india, where i imagine children still works

In 2001, out of a 12.6 million child workers, about 120,000 children in India were in a hazardous job.[7] UNICEF estimates that India with its larger population, has the highest number of labourers in the world under 14 years of age, while sub-saharan African countries have the highest percentage of children who are deployed as child labour.[8][9][10] International Labour Organisation estimates that agriculture at 60 percent is the largest employer of child labour in the world,[11] while United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates 70% of child labour is deployed in agriculture and related activities.[12] Outside of agriculture, child labour is observed in almost all informal sectors of the Indian economy.[13][14][15]"
2- He is analysing mainly the social effects, still to grow that apple to fish that fish you need natural resources and they are limited, and not in a far future but right now this is from the FAO

Or from the world bank

AS you can see we are at break even point and Asia is still vastly growing, countries like Philipines and Indonesia haven't started the boom and lets not talk at all about Africa.

3- While confronting the two families, yes the numerous families will have a lot of the benefits that he mentioned, but they will have less capital to put in practice their Ideas, they will be more illiterate since at the same working condition what a parent can give to a one son is the double of what the other father can give to his two sons.
So from one side you will have two sons with a high schools degree and no capital and on the other one a Phd one with capital. In a world like ours with our level of specialisation who do you think will have the most winning idea? who do you think will have the money and the knowledge to put down the production line to realise his idea?
The next generation of the populous family will get a better education since their parents worked and thanks to the value added they are richer, but at the same time this happens also with the 0 increase family, their child will get even more education and capital than their previous generation keeping the advantage on the populous family.

From a social side the mere the merrier but as the article i posted before (have you read it? ) economically it is proved that a 1,4 fertility rate economy is viable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
@Peter

To answer your question of why I am using Physiological density of population vs the Usual population density:

The reason is because population density per se is a useless statistic as it does not take into account the area of cultivable land available for growing the food/supporting the population. Fot instance, Saudi arabia has a very vast land than but most of it is desert and hence is not arable and hence wont be cultivable. SO it would be meaning less to decide if saudi arabia is over populated or not from just the population density. That is why Real population density(aka Physiological population density) should be used .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Go to the wikipedia page and read the definition and eg there again. The countries that prospered did so only after their population had stabilized.

Demographic dividend - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sigh. Dude, I insisted on Demographic divident to prove that people who work contribute more than what they consume. THat is how it works. You wont work a job if it wont pay you enough to feed your mouth! Period.

Also, Israel has a Fertility rate of 2.9 and we have only 2.5 . So from your logic, we should be doing better than Israel!
 

Peter

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

To answer your question of why I am using Physiological density of population vs the Usual population density:

The reason is because population density per se is a useless statistic as it does not take into account the area of cultivable land available for growing the food/supporting the population. Fot instance, Saudi arabia has a very vast land than but most of it is desert and hence is not arable and hence wont be cultivable. SO it would be meaning less to decide if saudi arabia is over populated or not from just the population density. That is why Real population density(aka Physiological population density) should be used .

Actually the use of physiological density would be correct if you talk of a person whose quality of life depends only on the food he is able to get.. You are negating his other life needs like medicines,oil,cars,luxury goods. Theses factors are not accounted for in physiological density.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,939
Likes
3,345
Country flag
Sigh. Dude, I insisted on Demographic divident to prove that people who work contribute more than what they consume. THat is how it works. You wont work a job if it wont pay you enough to feed your mouth! Period.

Also, Israel has a Fertility rate of 2.9 and we have only 2.5 . So from your logic, we should be doing better than Israel!
Read my post again. The population is sustainable in Israel despite their high birth rate ie they can provide their people with all life necessities (including food,oil etc). Their high birth rate if left unchecked would hamper their economy. Our population is not sustainable. If the trend continues we would eventually have a more sustainable population than Israel and do better than them.,
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Sorry it wasn't my intention, you will love this webpage then
Spurious Correlations
my personal loved correlation is Per capita consumption of mozzarella cheese (US) correlates with Civil engineering doctorates awarded (US) ;)
Thanks for the site:thumb:

Israel rate of birth is a consequence of the treats that the country has, it is a biological thing (plus government push for it)
Still dint hamper its industrialisation or its economic growth. While India is a low income country, Israel is a high income one. You are just giving the explanation for why Israel has a higher TFR than India( which I dont give a damn about) instead of explaining why it has not gone down the drain like India has since you claimed high TFR directly causes poor economic performance(which I actually want to know)

Plus the birth rate isn't the cause but the consequence, by heavy investing in industrialisation Chinese population became highly urbanised bringing up the cost of progeny.
So what i meant wasn't that you were poor because you were overpopulated but that you were overpopulated because you aren't industrializating correctly and you are protecting other sectors.
Exactly. Did you even read the OP. My point was that India is poor because we missed 5 decades of growth in the name of socialism ! But people often whine about over population in India, when infact india is the 100th over populated country in the world. Thats stupid and misplaced and places the country in danger of being exposed to Socialism again

Seeing the video and pointing out doubts about it.
1- The fact that he isn't including in the benefits workforce, shows that his models is primary centred in a first world country and not a third world country specially with a high rural population like india, where i imagine children still works
Children used to work in the 90s. Not anymore(thanks to the liberalisation which has improved the livelihood of every one). But, this still does not debunk his argument neither does it debunk mine!
2- He is analysing mainly the social effects, still to grow that apple to fish that fish you need natural resources and they are limited, and not in a far future but right now this is from the FAO
Actually no. Without me producing/catching it, no matter how much is out there , it wont come to anyone's mouth. So essentially, so long as I dont thieve, I am not a burden on society! See, you are discounting the other sources of food which are infact not limited-grain and meat. That is why the "real density of population" is more meaningful than the statistic "population density". Since the "real population density" counts the population density per arable land.

3- While confronting the two families, yes the first families will have a lot of more of the benefits that he mentioned, but they will have less capital to put in practice their Ideas, they will be more illiterate since at the same working condition what a parent can give to a one son is the double of what the other father can give to his two sons.
So from one side you will have two sons with a high schools degree and no capital and on the other one a Phd one with capital. In a world like ours with our level of specialisation who do you think will have the most winning idea? who do you think will have the money and the knowledge to put down the production line to realise his idea?
The next generation of the populous family will get a better education since their parents worked and thanks to the value added they are richer, but at the same time this happens also with the 0 increase family, their child will get even more education and capital than their previous generation keeping the advantage on the populous family.
You dint get what he was conveying. What he means is that both will benefit from the other. Its NOT about competition between the family but rather the effects of such two families on the society. The question is not which family succeeds better, but does the "society" as a whole is enriched by it or not due to increased population! Since the ideas can revolutionise the economy/production/efficiency/technology, the supposed ill effects of the population is largely negated by its positive effects. Also Dint you notice the point on how the decision on whether they should be richer or lovier(whatver) is the choice of the family themselves and not that of the outsiders(society).

Also, I can have four children and I can turn them all into doctors instead of having two. Then am I doing a disservice to the society? Please answer this question and why?

Also, ideas dont have to come PhDs dude. Come on. Now thats just non sense. There are several un-educated elites in our country who own several times the wealth of the people here combined(including europeans like you)

From a social side the mere the merrier but as the article i posted before (have you read it? ) economically it is proved that a 1,4 fertility rate economy is viable.
It is viable in the sense that you guys will have a static economy while the ones with a stable/growing population will continue to grow stronger(like India/Indonesia).

There is a reason all the economists are predicting that India will grow to become the largest economy by 2050 and will still continue to grow by 5-6%! while they predict China's economy will come to a standstill. Also, Why do you think Japanese growth miracle(which looked it will overtake that of US) ended in 90s? The median age(or was it mean?) of Japan is 45!

PS: Of course I read the article. Where do you think I got the number 2.9 of Israel from

@Peter Seriously dude?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Actually the use of physiological density would be correct if you talk of a person whose quality of life depends only on the food he is able to get.. You are negating his other life needs like medicines,oil,cars,luxury goods. Theses factors are not accounted for in physiological density.
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:
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,762
Country flag
Read my post again. The population is sustainable in Israel despite their high birth rate

Exactly my ----ing point!

ie they can provide their people with all life necessities (including food,oil etc).
How the hell do they do that?

Their high birth rate if left unchecked would hamper their economy.
Why has it not happened till now then?

Our population is not sustainable

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

. If the trend continues we would eventually have a more sustainable population than Israel and do better than them.,
Again what prevented us till now?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top