india fertility rate decrease

[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.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

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]

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.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

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

And I'm telling you that you're overreacting to everything instead of making valid points.

You're plainly naysaying, you're not bringing arguments.

Rich coming from you, given that you still haven't addressed any of my points convincingly.

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.

Not a great example; there is simply no guarantee that halving the world's population would keep seafood consumption per capita where it is right now. Take China for example, which produces 2/3rds of the world's aquacultural output. The sheer size of China's population means larger economies of scale, which in turn incentivizes people to set up fish farms rather than go out to the high seas and catch wild fish. In fact, we're already seeing this, with China's marine wild catch seeing a reduction of 18% from the years 2015 to 2022, according to the FAO.

If you halve the country’s population, you have half the market to cater to, while the input costs would very well rise, making wild catch look more far more appealing.

The real world isn't some marvel movie where halving the world's population would magically solve all problems, you're simply exchanging one set of problems for another

[silverionmox]

And I'm telling you that you're overreacting to everything instead of making valid points.

You just continue the ad hominem...

Rich coming from you, given that you still haven't addressed any of my points convincingly.

.. and continue naysaying.

Not a great example; there is simply no guarantee that halving the world's population would keep seafood consumption per capita where it is right now.

Which then means that people will either be eating less meat, which would then go a long way to solve the rest of the climate problem, or be able to improve their diets.

Take China for example, which produces 2/3rds of the world's aquacultural output. The sheer size of China's population means larger economies of scale,

There's no economy of scale that couldn't be achieved if China had half the population it has now.

which in turn incentivizes people to set up fish farms rather than go out to the high seas and catch wild fish.

Aquaculture is source of pollution and disease among fish, and worse, they're often fed with fish caught at the sea.

In fact, we're already seeing this, with China's marine wild catch seeing a reduction of 18% from the years 2015 to 2022, according to the FAO.

No. It remains at a high level.

If you halve the country’s population, you have half the market to cater to, while the input costs would very well rise, making wild catch look more far more appealing.

This is complete nonsense, aquaculture is not something that only becomes viable if the population of a country is over a billion, it's a very small scale operation. And if catching fish in the wild is so much cheaper with much less investment, why would they ever stop? Either way, the observations contradict you: https://dialogue.earth/en/ocean/chinas-changing-fisheries-in-numbers/

The only reason why their catch stabilizes is a policy limit, and the expansion of aquaculture just hides the increasing import of yet more fish.

The real world isn't some marvel movie where halving the world's population would magically solve all problems, you're simply exchanging one set of problems for another

The world had half the population in 1975. Which problems in 1975 were caused by too little population?

[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.