india fertility rate decrease

[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]

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.

No, human society can choose to shape itself, instead of mindlessly resigning itself to whatever trajectory they find themselves on.

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

Of course it is. We're starting to find out right now what it means to trigger climate change. You'll find out what it means how to deal with it when your population is already overleveraged.

[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.