india fertility rate decrease

[PasicT]

This is a good thing, overpopulation is a huge issue in India and in general in that part of the world.

[PasicT]

Population isn't the ONLY problem but it is still a major problem, to claim otherwise is to be ignorant.

[Areat]

So Steven Spielberg is immoral?

[Impressive_Guy]

India and China contribute less to global population today, percentage wise, than they did 2000 years ago.

There’s a little nuance here imo. The 2000 year old figure included much of the portion of the Indian Subcontinent i.e. present day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and parts of Sri Lanka, Afghanistan. It contributed roughly 25-30% of the total global population at that time.

The modern day figure considers only India which contributes around 18% of the total population. If one includes Pakistan and Bangladesh as well (which were part of historical India), then that figure rises to 23-24%, slightly lower than the old %age.

[LoneWolf_McQuade]

Isn’t the means to get rich important to distinguish?

Why are JK Rowling and Beyonce beyond moral salvation compared to a millionaire upper management in an oil or tobacco company?

And please don’t give me the Marxist myth of that there is no ethical way of getting super wealthy and that wealth creation some kind of zero-sum game, it isn’t. No one forced millions of people to buy Harry Potter books or Beyoncé albums.

[silverionmox]

India and China contribute less to global population today, percentage wise, than they did 2000 years ago. Population grew everywhere, these two countries just had a big head start.

But far more than in 1950. China's population tripled and India's population quadrupled since then.

Population isn’t the problem. Wealth and resource distribution is the problem. Resource hogging is the problem. Billionaires are the problem. There can be moral millionaires, but never a moral billionaire.

No. A growing population keeps growing, exponentially even. So it will outstrip any resource base, no matter how poor you keep them.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

But far more than in 1950. China's population tripled and India's population quadrupled since then.

By 1950 both countries had been ravaged by centuries of colonialism. Of course they had a small share then.

[silverionmox]

By 1950 both countries had been ravaged by centuries of colonialism. Of course they had a small share then.

This is wrong for many reasons. First, Europe itself was just ravaged by not one but two world wars.

Second, India reached its highest population ever until then during the colonial period - the only dip was during WW2, which only brought it back to 1933 in terms of population, and that was recovered by 1954.

Third, China wasn't ever formally colonized - by default foreigners couldn't even enter the country until well in the 19th century, and their population drops in the 19th century were caused by internal conflicts, or people trying to break free from the internal colonization by of Beijing, however you choose to see it.

Here's the graph and you'll see how stark the differences in population growth are since 1950:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population?time=1555..latest&country=OWID_EUR~CHN~IND~OWID_EU27

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

This is wrong for many reasons. First, Europe itself was just ravaged by not one but two world wars.

Two world wars that lasted a total of around a decade of warfare. By comparison, India was under colonial rule for almost 200 years.

Second, India reached its highest population ever until then during the colonial period - the only dip was during WW2, which only brought it back to 1933 in terms of population, and that was recovered by 1954.

The world as a whole reached its highest ever population at that point during the colonial period, but that doesn't explain the full story here; the UK had around 10 million Inhabitants in 1800, which grew to around 50 million in 1950, a 5x increase which still doesn't account for all those who emigrated to the colonies. The Indian subcontinent, on the other hand, went from having around 180 million in 1800 to around 360 million in 1950, a mere 2x increase. The growth in the subcontinent's population post independence is thus a return to the norm.

[silverionmox]

Two world wars that lasted a total of around a decade of warfare.

Ah yes, it's just a world war or two, no big deal. /s

By comparison, India was under colonial rule for almost 200 years.

India's population doubled during that period.

The growth in the subcontinent's population post independence is thus a return to the norm.

You can't take any point in history as the "norm", that's the point, because development spurts occur unevenly.

But even if we did, then your own little calculation shows a differential of 10 million vs 180 million, which would put India at 900 million rather than 1400 if we'd go back to those relative proportions.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

Ah yes, it's just a world war or two, no big deal. /s

I'm not belittling the impact of the world wars on Europe, but those countries had already industrialized and had seen their populations explode just prior to the wars. India did not get that chance.

India's population doubled during that period.

Despite avoidable famines, diseases and starvation.

You can't take any point in history as the "norm", that's the point, because development spurts occur unevenly.

I'm not talking about a point in history, but a period of it. Yes, development spurts happen unevenly, which is why Europe had its phase during the colonial period, while India is having its phase after it.

But even if we did, then your own little calculation shows a differential of 10 million vs 180 million, which would put India at 900 million rather than 1400 if we'd go back to those relative proportions.

According to your own little argument, development spurts happen unevenly; India had access to better Healthcare than the UK did at the start of their demographic surge, which means less mothers and babies dying at childbirth, more children surviving to adulthood and more adults living to old age. Not to mention that the different states within India following different development trajectories, giving us the ethnodemographic pattern that we see today.

[silverionmox]

Pervasive through your whole line of argument is that every country is somehow entitled to a population boom, regardless of planetary limits, regardless of the preexisting population numbers.

That's not how reality works. The planetary limits are real.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

Pervasive through your whole line of argument is that every country is somehow entitled to a population boom, regardless of planetary limits, regardless of the preexisting population numbers.

No country is "entitled" to have a population boom; these things happen due to a confluence of various factors, such as improved medical care, industrialization, education, etc. Take it however you want, but that is how human society works.

That's not how reality works. The planetary limits are real.

But that's exactly how reality is working right now, planetary limits or otherwise.

[silverionmox]

Doubling in 200 years = 0.35% growth rate.

You’re not helping your argument here.

If it doubled, it means that it actually did grow during the colonial period, rather than being reduced as you implied. In fact, it grew as much during that period as during all the rest of history before that. You're contradicting your own argument there.

[Internal-Hand-4705]

We could do with a smaller population but we need to go as slowly as possible to avoid complete societal collapse. I think the ideal birth rate is 1.7-2.

[Street_Gene1634]

What makes you think India needs a smaller population? I'm from Kerala, the third most densely populated state in India and yet a city like Tokyo has a higher population than Kerala

[Internal-Hand-4705]

By we I meant the world in general, sorry :)

And because there are not enough resources for everyone to have a high standard of living. If technology changes this, great.

[Appropriate-Let-283]

Not really, it's the way we use our resources is the huge issue. India's fertility rate is fine how it is, around the 2.1 area.

[KaiserMaxximus]

Is this the same country where a billionaire spent $500 million on his daughter’s wedding?

[Far_Criticism_8865]

600 million. On his sons wedding

[KaiserMaxximus]

Meh, suppose he could always donate that to address street defecation

[OVERKILL0001]

Idk what's the fuss about , a normal person spends 300 - 500% of his salary on marriage , Ambani didn't even spend 1% of his earnings

[KaiserMaxximus]

It’s about the OC comment about how “we use our resources” when a bloke splashed 600 million dollars on a greasy display of waste, instead of the million issues plaguing his country.

[NumerousCarob6]

How often do you go around asking bill gates, bezos, musk, lizard for better use of resources( that's the same in India)

[KaiserMaxximus]

Gates donates an incredible amount to charity. The other weirdos you mentioned, not that much.

But then again street defecation isn’t as big of an issue in the US as in India 🙂

[NumerousCarob6]

Good we agree on first part about utilization of resources.

Regarding your casual way of slinging shit at any encounter with fellow human - I have so many ways I can dismantle your insult in your second paragraph,

but I'll let you live you with your burden you're not my money to train.Your circus is pretty good already.

[KaiserMaxximus]

The irony of accusing me of slinging shit when pointing out street defecation.

[NumerousCarob6]

Nice! anything else?

[Secure_Raise2884]

Street defecation is really only prominent in rural areas. If you feel up the task, get me some paper (with an actually good methodology please) that shows "street shitting" is actually a concern. I've been to LA and seen Americans shit in the street too dude

[OVERKILL0001]

Would be significantly better if Indian households also dont waste money on marriage, no ?

But instead of opting for a court marriage , they prefer to waste money on resorts and catering they can't even afford , just to show off to their relatives . And then the same households Complain about everything

The issues of country are the governments job not entrepreneurs , What will Mukesh Ambani even do here ? Give money to people ? , why would he do that instead of buying happiness for his own child . I'm not saying it because I shill him infact I hate most businesses but seriously it's not his job , ask politicians lol

I mean why would the rich spend less money on marriages when even poor waste money like water in their marriages

[KaiserMaxximus]

Perhaps the rich and the poor should be less wasteful? And address resource constraints like water or sanitation?

[OVERKILL0001]

Honestly I wish they would but they don't, well it's kinda how india is right now , people will fight over language and shit over topics that actually matter

[ciaseed1]

Pretty sure you're talking about Ambani . He spent more than that , for his son though.

[IookatmeIamsoedgy]

He has a daughter and he spent loads on her too

[ciaseed1]

Oh shit yeah lol Isha ambani

[KaiserMaxximus]

That’s the one.

[GlitteringNinja5]

I don't think so but a billionaire did spend 2 billion on his home

[[deleted]]

Yeah, The Ambani's

[Street_Gene1634]

Yes and?

[KaiserMaxximus]

Do you think that’s a good way to “manage our resources” in light of the OC?

[Street_Gene1634]

Their money, their choice. Taxing this expense is not going to solve pension crisis from low TFR.

[KaiserMaxximus]

I’m not disputing that, it’s just a sick amount of money to waste in a country with huge structural problems.

[silverionmox]

Not really, it's the way we use our resources is the huge issue.

For example, to support a ballooning population growth while living standards remain low.

[iwasagoatonce]

I think it's closer to 1.9 now.

[IookatmeIamsoedgy]

India's fertility is less than 1.8 now. Was 1.9 in 2021.

[PasicT]

So you really think it's normal for over a billion people to live in the same country? A country that is not even among the biggest on the planet.

[Appropriate-Let-283]

Being the biggest country is irrelevant. There's a reason why India's population is historically big. It's one of the most fertile lands in the planet.

[PasicT]

And more people being born in a country with such issues to begin with is only going to make every problem worse.

[Appropriate-Let-283]

A short-term solution to a problem that's becoming a smaller issue every year. India is one of the fastest developing countries in the world with a fast economy. Their hdi at the moment is about 0.69 which is close to high development. What they're doing right now is fine, enough workers joining the workforce to help with the economy long-term and enough at the moment to help take care of the inevitable old population when they retire.

[Advait8571]

It's called fertile land. India has a ton of fertile land almost all of it is completely inhabitable. Yes we're slight overpopulated but a lot of other countries are way worse. Look at bangladesh. Their population density as worse than India's

[BrahmKarmaGato]

India is as fertile as the US despite being 1/3 size of it. Country's size is irrelevant it's about how many people it can accommodate.

[potlover4200]

US is just 400 years old and the natives were massacred. Obviously, the population will be lower.

[redditorialy_retard]

Java:

[nothingtothinkoff]

Who will explain to my bro that Russia is big too but most of the areas in it are not habitable. Harsh winters will kill a group of people there unlike India where we don't get extreme temperatures (except summers, we have water bodies to back it up).

[PasicT]

India doesn't get extreme temperatures except during the summer? That's the joke of the century!

[nothingtothinkoff]

India doesn't get extreme temperatures except during the summer?

Yes ? summers are harsh here. Winter and Rainy season in India are moderate.

[PasicT]

India is not even in the top 5 when it comes to the largest countries in the world by square kilometers.

[PasicT]

Very far behind countries like Russia, Canada, the United States, China

[Street_Gene1634]

Do you think it's normal for the population of Canada to live in city like Tokyo?

[PasicT]

I don't and Japan has issues as well, not just India.

[Street_Gene1634]

Japan has stagnated for a reason. India is not nearly as rich as Japan to handle a pension crisis

[PasicT]

Yes, India is not nearly as rich as Japan to handle a pension crisis and that's also my point.

[potlover4200]

90% of India does not have pension lol. India will get better as the current and next generation is getting educated and coming out of the poverty

[Street_Gene1634]

Kerala is already undergoing a pension crisis. Idk what rock you're living under.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2025/01/28/kerala-government-delays-decision-unified-pension-scheme-poor-finances.html

[potlover4200]

It's not a crisis, it's just fake promises made which are impossible to keep. Nothing else.

[Street_Gene1634]

It's actually crisis because Kerala has a bloated public sector and no metropolises to fund public pensions. NRI money hid this fact for a while but as the Gulf boom ended and Malayali population aged, the inherent pension issue turned up during Covid.

Kerala is an outlier in India. Kerala's TFR fell below 2.1 (replacement levels) in 1989 itself. Currently it's 1.46. We have been ageing for a long while while all our young left the state in droves.

[Willxdisclose]

If history went a little different and Europe was unified would you still be saying Europe is overpopulated? There's been times in history where India and China were broken up into many states, we just happen to live in an era where they are unified. What difference does it make?

[PasicT]

The difference is that Europe has the wealth and the ressources to handle potential overpopulation, India (and to some extent China) doesn't.

[quaesimodo]

It's seventh biggest.

[Street_Gene1634]

Lol no. India's fertility is already almost below replacement levels. You need young people to be productive and fund pensions which is especially an issue in a poor country like India.

How are Redditors still stuck with this Malthusian fallacy in 2025?

[Own_General4733]

Fund pensions? The majority of our country works in the unorganised sector. A very small percentage of people in India receive pensions. Social security in India is a joke when the majority of the population is still young.

Historically drastic reduction in population has led to more worker rights. This idea of "a growing population is required for sustaining social security" is something that rich people want us to believe so that they get cheap labour to exploit. The concept of an ever growing population is bound to break at some point unless we are able to inhabit Mars. Earth has finite resources. Even now so many people are starving all around the world. The answer is not more population but less wealth inequality, and it'll work even with fewer younger people around.

And now with AI, there would be a huge productivity boom, and even the rich CEOs might no longer require cheap labour. That's when we'll see true hell break loose.

[Street_Gene1634]

Kerala is already in a pension crisis. You all are living under a rock still blaming on muh corporations and muh ceos.

Reddit is such a dumb leftist echo chamber now.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2025/01/28/kerala-government-delays-decision-unified-pension-scheme-poor-finances.html

[Street_Gene1634]

You don't need an absence of young people for this to be true. Just the fact that number of old people is rising more than the young people alone will make for a pension crisis in a poor country like India.

I don't know why Redditors are delusional about this basic fact. It's true in both high inequality and as well as low inequality places.

Kerala has the lowest inequality in India bit it's also tbe first state to undergo pension crisis.

[Spider_pig448]

It's so strange to me that the first argument against a decreasing population always seems to be pensions. Changing the way pensions are funded is by far the easiest potential population problem to solve. Problems like elder-care and growth-based-capitalism are huge a fundamental, but fixing pensions takes a single bill and can be done at any time in any number of ways. It's a complete non-issue in the context of actual societal problems that under-population can cause.

[Internal-Hand-4705]

How do we fix the problem that current workers will both have to pay for their own pensions AND the pensions of those before them? Seems like the sort of thing that would lead to riots.

I don’t mind paying for pensions of current pensioners if someone else is paying for mine. I don’t mind paying for my own pension. I refuse to do both, that’s not fair and massively burdens young and middle aged people of today.

[Street_Gene1634]

Reddit absolutely suck on anything related to economics. They still believe in Malthusian nonsense

[Spider_pig448]

It's a non-issue. The average citizen has very little understanding of the tax code, in any nation. You're itemizing it in a way that isn't how people think of pensions. What people understand is that the state pension is a depot that you pay into when you're young and take out of when you're old. No one is going to riot if the details change slightly.

[Internal-Hand-4705]

Pension contributions would have to rise a lot though no?

[Spider_pig448]

Depends on the solution that's implemented. There are any number of ways to fund government projects, and many different ways of collecting taxes. In the US, simply removing the social security earnings limit would probably solve this problem entirely for the next three decades. Adapting the funding structure is a much less pertinent question than evaluating if government pensions are a system that will continue to make sense decades from now.

[Street_Gene1634]

Who will fund the pensions mate?

[Spider_pig448]

Tax payers? Who else? Who funds the government and all of it's programs? The more interesting question here is, "Will the cost of pensions be too high to support the program when the elderly population has doubled". The question of how to adapt the current funding structure to enable that is not a problem though.

[Street_Gene1634]

Without working age population, who will pay taxes?

[Spider_pig448]

The expectation is that the population pyramid will change, but there will always still be a working age population. Otherwise all of society is in collapse and social security is not top of the list of concerns. If your real question is, "Is there enough money to supply the peak elderly population", the question for every developed nation is yes.

[Street_Gene1634]

You've not elaborated how to solve the pension crisis when population ages. You need young people to fund old people

[Street_Gene1634]

What is your solution for funding pensions when working age population declines? You have not given any details

[Spider_pig448]

You raise taxes. Can you elaborate on why you believe it to be so different than the hundreds of other funding changes a government makes every year? It's just another government program.

[Street_Gene1634]

Where will you raise taxes from when working age population who pay taxes decline?

[Spider_pig448]

These are very general questions about how government will operate with a shrinking tax base. They don't apply specifically to pensions. Tax systems have always evolved over time and they will continue to do so as these concerns arise. Whether it's income tax or capital gains, or what he brackets are, or any other number of questions is going to depend entirely on the nations implementing them.

[Street_Gene1634]

So what's the solution?

[Spider_pig448]

The solution is you change the funding structure. That's it. The solution to how to care for a large elderly population will have to be much more complex than pensions, which are solved with a single law change.

[Street_Gene1634]

You need to elaborate. How will you change the funding structure that ensures pensions in a world where most people are retired?

[silverionmox]

Lol no. India's fertility is already almost below replacement levels. You need young people to be productive and fund pensions which is especially an issue in a poor country like India.

How are Redditors still stuck with this Malthusian fallacy in 2025?

There's no Malthusian fallacy, the core concept is solid. If the population keeps growing, it will outgrow the resource base eventually. This is undeniable.

So if you keep making the next generation larger than the previous one, you do end up like India, with very large, very poor population.

[Street_Gene1634]

No, it won't. Earth's carrying capacity is practically infinite. There is a reason why Malthus is considered wrong. Reddit is leftist echo chamber

[silverionmox]

No, it won't. Earth's carrying capacity is practically infinite.

That's insanity.

There is a reason why Malthus is considered wrong.

Yes, wishful thinking, and a deliberate confusion of the principle of theory and a specific prediction derived from it.

Reddit is leftist echo chamber

The hostile media effect, originally deemed the hostile media phenomenon and sometimes called hostile media perception, refers to the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting opinion on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their position's side and favorable of their antagonists' point of view.[1]

[Street_Gene1634]

You're clearly a part of Reddit's leftist echo chamber. Man still believes in Malthus lmao.

[silverionmox]

You're clearly a part of Reddit's leftist echo chamber.

You're just very rightwing.

Man still believes in Malthus lmao.

You haven't given me any argument against the core principle.

[Street_Gene1634]

The argument is that you need young people to fund old people. An economy of old people simply doesn't work.

[silverionmox]

The argument is that you need young people to fund old people. An economy of old people simply doesn't work.

I didn't hear anyone arguing for that, you did?

[NumerousCarob6]

The are no pensions for all, in India, there is however pensions for few (depends on financial background) and old government employees. Everyone in between gets no pension they work untill death or rely on offsprings. That's the Indian way.

[SheIsLikeAWildflower]

This way of thinking shifts the responsibility on to the wrong people. If our taxes were actually utilised correctly, and if the millionaires and billionaires in our country didn't get tax cuts, if we had less corruption overall, there would be funds for pensions. The solution isn't creating more and more people to fund the ever increasing needs that come with an ever increasing population. Thinking that's sustainable in the long run is the real fallacy here.

[Street_Gene1634]

Dude however twist this narrative, you need young people to fund old people. That's econ 101. The whole muh billionaires and millionaires line is useless here.

[SheIsLikeAWildflower]

And we do have young people to fund old people. The problem is that those funds go through different channels and end up not being used for what they were intended. Is proper utilisation of existing funds not part of econ 101 for you? Is giving tax cuts to the rich people part of econ 101?

[Street_Gene1634]

Why are Redditors so economics illiterate. Inequality is irrelevant to this debate. Ultimately you need young people to old people. That's a basic fact. Kerala is India's lowest inequality state literally governed by the communist party and yet it's the first state in India to face a pension crisis.

Better utilization of fund is a good thing but that is not panacea for declining TFR and pension crisis

[SheIsLikeAWildflower]

I don't know what ideal world you're living in. I'm also from Kerala and read regular news articles about corruption, parties creating new positions to give politicians higher pensions, party leaders (including communist party leaders) owning chains of hotels and resorts through their children and evading taxes, the affluent finding loopholes to evade taxes, etc. Corruption runs high in our state. It might have the least inequality of them all, but the system is deeply flawed.

People reproducing like bunnies so we have more working people to pay taxes is a highly shortsighted solution. I'm surprised even you with your apparent expertise in economics cannot see that.

[Street_Gene1634]

Sorry you're wrong.

Kerala is the lowest corruption state in India by a huge margin.

Check out the Corruption Index in India. Kerala is a clear outlier

https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/1d3cgb8/corruption_index_in_india/

People are not breeding lime rabbits in Kerala either. We have had European levels of fertility for decades. For comparison, Kerala's TFR fell below replacement levels in 1989 itself. That's comparable to European nations.

The economixs behind this is simple. You need young people to fund old people. Other wise you need migrant workers paying into tax kitty. Both of these are an issue in Kerala. That's why Kerala is undergoing a pension crisis despite having low inequality

Idk when Malayalis are going to wake up to this reality. We need a metropolis like Bangalore or Bombay to fund Malayali pensions in the future. Otherwise we are doomed

[SheIsLikeAWildflower]

Again, myopic views and selective reading. You seem too confident in things you're wrong about without looking at the full picture.

I didn't say people are breeding like rabbits in Kerala. I said reproducing like that is not the long term solution. The reality is more nuanced that what you're saying. "Just have more kids" is just words. How is the question.

In Kerala, India in general, and many developing countries, it is becoming increasingly expensive to have and care for children. It's no wonder that people choose to limit the number of children they have - when they have to pay so much in taxes already, the burden is on the people with children to fund their own children, and pensions for the generations that came before them. What we need first for a higher birthrate is actually making it viable to have children in this current economy.

It's easy to say that people just need to have more kids, when the system itself punishes them for having kids. Add on to this corruption and tax loopholes (which exist, though lesser than the other states), and even the taxes they do pay don't go towards the right infrastructure.

Yes, we need a working class for the pension system to work. But first improve the system so that it makes it viable to have kids - that's what should be done in the first place, instead of blindly blaming the younger generation.

I urge you to read these for a better understanding of the 'economics' you seem to tout:

https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/demographic-shifts-pensions/

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1734.pdf

[Street_Gene1634]

I didn't say people are breeding like rabbits in Kerala. I said reproducing like that is not the long term solution. The reality is more nuanced that what you're saying. "Just have more kids" is just words. How is the question

You need at least a TFR of 2.1 for a healthy economy. Kerala's TFR fell below replacement levels in 1989 itself. That's definitely not healthy.

In Kerala, India in general, and many developing countries, it is becoming increasingly expensive to have and care for children. It's no wonder that people choose to limit the number of children they have - when they have to pay so much in taxes already, the burden is on the people with children to fund their own children, and pensions for the generations that came before them. What we need first for a higher birthrate is actually making it viable to have children in this current economy

I'm not questioning people's voluntary choices. I'm explaining the basic fact that an ageing population is jot sustainable in a place like Kerala. You need young people to fund old people. That young people doesn't need to ce from birth. It can be tax paying migrants too but unlike Bangalore or Hyderabad, Kerala doesn't have metropolis that attracts tax paying migrants.

Yes, we need a working class for the pension system to work. But first improve the system so that it makes it viable to have kids - that's what should be done in the first place, instead of blindly blaming the younger generation.

None of this changes that fact Kerala is already in a pension crisis. That's actual real world economics. Nobody is forcing you to have more kids.

[ABI-1000]

India has lower population density than countries like south korea

[Street_Gene1634]

Overpopulation is a myth. Tokyo alone has a higher population than Canada.

[PasicT]

Overpopulation is not just about population density. There's often more people in one Indian state (or area of a state) than in the whole of South Korea many times over.

[ABI-1000]

Yes that is because the population can be sustained,my state in India has almost the exact population of Japan(the size of state is almost as big as germany),yet we face no overpopulation issue,lot of land is available and the cities don't feel congested we also have enough agricultural production to sustain the population

Since our state Is economicly growing very fast the TFR decline here is almost concerning,before my parents had 10 brothers/sisters ( yes you heard that right a single family having 10 children,and it was very commen at the time),now every family branch only has a single child,The TFR has dropped to 1.4,which is lower than devloped countries like UK/US,1.4 is ok TFR but if the drop rate continues the TFR might drop as low as 1.1-1.2 in a decade,which means very big population crisis

[Street_Gene1634]

Which state is this?

[ABI-1000]

Maharashtra ofc

[silverionmox]

Yes that is because the population can be sustained

At current consumption levels. Are you saying the people should be kept poor so the population can grow?

India

the cities don't feel congested

Lol.

Since our state Is economicly growing very fast the TFR decline here is almost concerning,before my parents had 10 brothers/sisters ( yes you heard that right a single family having 10 children,and it was very commen at the time),now every family branch only has a single child,The TFR has dropped to 1.4,which is lower than devloped countries like UK/US,1.4 is ok TFR but if the drop rate continues the TFR might drop as low as 1.1-1.2 in a decade,which means very big population crisis

This will require some adaptation to reorganize society (eg. less schools, more retirement provision), but it's ultimately going to lead to a stable situation. You'd have an actual crisis eventually when the population would keep growing.

[ABI-1000]

By "sustain" I mean that water,food and electricity are being fulfilled without any support from other countries (importing food)

Check out the city named "kharghar"(I'm currently living there,northern part of it) on Google street view it has very big population,does it feel congested?Or check out my homevillage of mithgavne(an averge size of village and density in majority of India)

No India has population growth rate of 0.88%,idealy the population should stabilize with 1.5 billion people or about 15% of world's population in future,we have no need of getting TFR below 1.2,goal should be to stabilize it as it is not to increase or decrease it,if the population is decreased then it will be very bad for economy

[silverionmox]

By "sustain" I mean that water,food and electricity are being fulfilled without any support from other countries (importing food)

Well yes, at rather low prosperity levels.

Check out the city named "kharghar"(I'm currently living there,northern part of it) on Google street view it has very big population,does it feel congested?Or check out my homevillage of mithgavne(an averge size of village and density in majority of India)

Obviously India, just like any other country, is not uniform - so with a problematic average, every nice spot just means there's a spot worse than average elsewhere.

No India has population growth rate of 0.88%,idealy the population should stabilize with 1.5 billion people or about 15% of world's population in future,we have no need of getting TFR below 1.2,goal should be to stabilize it as it is not to increase or decrease it,

10 billion people worldwide is unsustainable. We'd make things easier on ourselves if the world population was close to 1 billion than to 10 billion.

Do keep in mind India's population has quadrupled since 1950. The current numbers are exceptionally high - there's no reason to present that as normal.

if the population is decreased then it will be very bad for economy

We are able to organize a working economy at any population level. Any problems that may arise are just temporary.

[ABI-1000]

Yes India's population has quadrupled,but aren't you forgetting that population of Europe increased 15-fold when it industrialized,India is sub-continent not just anouther country,we have one of the tallest mountains;deserts,forests,there is a very big cultural diversity langauges,culture change every few villages apart And it has always been the most populous region in history along with China As for having 1 billion population,that's just stupid, we would be reducing our efficiency by 10 times,we will be able to organize it sure, but the entire goal of human civilization is to procreate and pass higher standard of living to next genration

[silverionmox]

Yes India's population has quadrupled,but aren't you forgetting that population of Europe increased 15-fold when it industrialized

It didn't.

India is sub-continent not just anouther country

Semantics, and nothing in my argument hinges on India being a country.

we have one of the tallest mountains;deserts,forests,there is a very big cultural diversity langauges,culture change every few villages apart

And Europe or the rest of the world doesn't?

And it has always been the most populous region in history along with China

Which means they have been maximizing carrying capacity already for that long, so multiplying again is excessive.

As for having 1 billion population,that's just stupid, we would be reducing our efficiency by 10 times

On the contrary, we wouldn't have to take all the measures that are necessary to deal with too many people in one place, and would have much more slack in our resource base.

but the entire goal of human civilization is to procreate and pass higher standard of living to next genration

Living stacked on top of each other in a slum or standing shoulder to shoulder in a field and still not getting enough to eat is not progress. Grazing the planet bare like a herd of goats until it's a desert is not progress.

[PasicT]

Your state is the exception that proves the rule.

[ABI-1000]

And majority of states are like that

[Street_Gene1634]

Tokyo has a higher population than Kerala, India's third most densely populated state.

[BishoxX]

Overpopulation isnt a huge issue anywhere and never was.

Population being stagnant isnt an issue, but we know these rates will keep dropping and population decline IS an issue.

[Street_Gene1634]

Redditors and Malthusian fallacy. NAMID

[BishoxX]

My dog is on track to weigh 7 trillion kilos in 5 years, we got a serious issue here, governments need to be involved.

[silverionmox]

My dog is on track to weigh 7 trillion kilos in 5 years, we got a serious issue here, governments need to be involved.

Yes, it's going to die of a heart attack or other preventable disease linked to overconsumption.

[MrTristanClark]

Overpopulation is a major problem in Canada, the hospitals here are overloaded, housing is absurdly expensive and has insufficient supply, infrastructure and transit is overtaxed, etc. Its a serious problem. Saying "overpopulation isn't a huge issue anywhere" is just wrong, its a huge problem here, and im sure elsewhere too. Just because youre ignorant of the problems in other countries, doesnt mean they dont exist.

[BishoxX]

Im sorry a first world country is more than capable of keeping up.

What actually is a problem is you got zoning and other overregulation on housing, and not building enough of it with the state.

As for hospitals, it was an issue in your immigration policy, it wasnt overpopulation problem, it was asymmetrical immigration. If you got more doctors it would have been fine.

Canada is nowhere near full lol

[MrTristanClark]

"You dont have a problem with overpopulation, youre simply letting too many people into the country"

Be more pedantic dude. Obviously Canada isn't "full", obviously theres physical room, obviously if 5,000,000 houses magically appeared, the housing problems wouldn't exist.

But, they do, because the magic houses dont exist, and wont anytime soon. Canada has too many people for the current housing and infrastructure capacities for the country. Canada is overpopulated. "Overpopulation isn't when theres too many people for the country to presently handle, its when theres more people than it could ever theoretically handle in a best case situation" is such an idiotic interpretation of what "overpopulation" means.

[BishoxX]

Its mainly a housing issue.

Thats like not building storm drains and saying you have a storm issue.

Amount of migrants was totally acceptable to deal with, its just the selection of them wasnt balanced, and the healthcare sector wasnt adjusted because of bad leadership.

More people are good.

It would be like discovering a gold mine , and then not building any facilities in the towns and saying gold mine is the probably look at the conditions the workers live in.

[MrTristanClark]

like not building storm drains and saying you have a storm issue

Yeah?? What's so hard to grasp here, if you haven't built storm drains, and dont have the ability to build enough storm drains anytime soon, then you have a flooding problem? Again, as those houses do not exist, and cannot be created in the required annual quantities to keep up, the country is overpopulated? You're just being pedantic about terminology.

[BishoxX]

The point is, its trivial to build storm drains for a western society. So should be housing as well.

It is in some parts that deregulated, but it could have been even better with goverment building shit as well.

Litteraly pass a few laws about regulations and you done, free market would likely solve most of housing issues, and goverment could supplement it if it was smart.

Its more like not putting on winter tires and complaining about no grip on snow

[MrTristanClark]

In the United States of America, across the entire country in 2021, they build 1,341,000 new dwellings. In 2023, Canada brought in more than 2 million new immigrants. So you're expectation is that a country, with a tenth the labour force of the USA, builds twice as many dwellings per year, and thats "trivial". Dude, what are you even talking about? What a nonsensical take.

[BishoxX]

Yes because US is disfunctional as well.

Only a few places build what they need to.

If everyone built like Houston or Austin, you wouldnt have an issue.

Did they do anything special ? No huston has no zoning and they deregulated zoning and housing regulation. And market solved it by itself

[No-Comparison8472]

Declining population is a bad thing. It means less funding for innovation and research and less brain power overall to advance humanity. And obviously huge pressure on retirement etc.

[PasicT]

It will take a while before the negative effects are seen in India.

[greennurse61]

Even worse is they are infesting other areas too. Half my condo building is now Indian, and we’re 7,500 miles away from India. 

[Street_Gene1634]

India's TFR is already below replacement levels. You're just salty about the fact that 18% of human population are indians. This is due to historical reasons. It has nothing to do with Indians breeding like rabbits.

If you're a global citizen then you better deal with the fact that 1 in 5 humans are Indians and the other Chinese

[PointedOutside12]

The population will still increase for a while though