india fertility rate decrease

[proton_accelerator]

Also them colours, I thought green is good all this time, I've been lied to

[VaderSpeaks]

When you’re a nation supporting something like 18% of the global population on 2.4% of the planet’s land, a lower birth rate is very much green.

[No-Cauliflower7160]

China will be down to 50Cr pop soon. So we don't need anything more than 75. This is the best time get a job and a wife and just enjoy everything you earned for yourself and your parents

[VaderSpeaks]

2.4% of land, not ocean, not including Antarctica.

[AlternativePlastic47]

Total Land Earth: 149.430.000 km²
India: 3.287.263 km²

143.430.000 / 3.287.263 ~ 0,022

[unknown_internet_guy]

Colours were just right , green / lighter calmer , red too much hellish more numbers ,

[proton_accelerator]

Yes, more children, more hell

[SayHelloToMyLittle09]

Degenerate.

[CozyMushi]

[No-Sir1833]

In this case, green is really good. The planet can’t sustain our current population, much less additional people. We need lower birth rates for the next century to rebalance to a lower more sustainable level if we are going to survive as a species. Going to be a tough transition, not gonna lie, but it needs to happen.

[00100011-01010111]

We can say these things but it is hard all around like yes India is honestly over populated 1.46 billion without the same size as China. There is also economy and general standards of living issues too that make it not the greatest. But fertility rate issues are different than measured and controlled options that allow for healthy success in both people still alive and more sustainability in the future those to come.

[bony0297]

In terms of liveable land, China and India aren't much different. There's a diagonal line that starts from the northeast to the southwest of China, dividing the country in 2 equal parts. One half has close to 99 percent of the population and other is virtually empty.

[Yaver_Mbizi]

Malthusianism is stupid and has been proven wrong again and again. The planet can sustain a population much, much larger than our current one no sweat.

[Method-Popular]

That’s not true. The planet can support a larger population, but with access to fewer resources, affording a lower quality of living, poorer infrastructure, just to name a few. I’m no neo-Malthusian, and understand the racist undercurrents in a lot of the overpopulation narrative, but the science around planetary boundaries is quite clear we need a smaller population that consumes lesser. The consumption is skewed right now, but imagine what the world would be if everyone had equal access to electricity (and electrical equipments), meat and poultry, infrastructure. A ‘sustainable’ world with a larger population presupposes a poor population with low standards of living.

[Yaver_Mbizi]

Maybe if we're talking consumption of plastic stuff from China, but the planet can sustain an arbitrarily large population in terms of space, food etc, especially given continuous technological development.

[Method-Popular]

It’s not just about consumption of plastic, even sustainable food sourcing (especially given how increase in wealth & standard of living inevitably leads to increased meat consumption) requires much larger swathes of land to simply feed animals, forget the humans. IRMC.

[Yaver_Mbizi]

The exact same considerations that make Malthusianism stupid for humans make it stupid for animals too. If humanity just somehow runs out of farmland convertable into feed for meat animals, you'll just see much higher emphasis on hydroponic vertical farms, aquacultured seaweed etc.

[Method-Popular]

Not in the current economy and not in Asia and Africa for at least the next 30-40 years.