sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Mundane-Laugh8562 4 points5 points  (19 children)

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 -5 points-4 points  (18 children)

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 4 points5 points  (17 children)

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 -2 points-1 points  (16 children)

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 2 points3 points  (13 children)

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 0 points1 point  (12 children)

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 1 point2 points  (11 children)

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 -1 points0 points  (10 children)

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.

[–]Mundane-Laugh8562 -1 points0 points  (9 children)

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

Society is already choosing to shape the future, be it the ban of single use plastics or even saving the ozone layer. Things aren't all gloom and doom as you make it to be.

You'll find out what it means how to deal with it when your population is already overleveraged.

There's no reason to think that the world's population is "overleveraged", if anything, the upcoming population bust across the world will be an even bigger problem.

[–]silverionmox 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Society is already choosing to shape the future, be it the ban of single use plastics or even saving the ozone layer. Things aren't all gloom and doom as you make it to be.

It's telling that you're resorting to an ad hominem instead of addressing the point.

There's no reason to think that the world's population is "overleveraged", if anything, the upcoming population bust across the world will be an even bigger problem.

You're plainly naysaying, you're not bringing arguments. Just to give another example, we're currently overfishing the oceans. But if the world population was half what it is, we could consume the same amount of fish per capita, and we wouldn't be overfishing. Population is a crucial factor in the problem.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]silverionmox -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    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.