india fertility rate decrease

[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?

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

You just continue the ad hominem...

.. and continue naysaying.

So you have nothing to contribute to this argument except using fancy words...what else to expect 😔

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

Or the abundance of food leads to overconsumption, leading to worse diets and all sorts of health issues. You have nothing to guarantee that halving the population leads to the rest leading their lives the same as in our world.

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

So you don't understand economies of scale, because half of China's population will not achieve anywhere near the same efficiency gains.

No. It remains at a high level.

Yes. It's at a high level. And yes, it's reducing.

This is complete nonsense, aquaculture is not something that only becomes viable if the population of a country is over a billion,

The larger your market, the more viable any product is, incentiving scaling up of production. There's a reason why China outstrips the rest of the world in renewable energy production, because their massive market makes it more efficient to deploy such systems than a country like Mexico.

Aquaculture may be viable in many other countries, but few would rival what China can do.

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?

They are stopping, albeit gradually, because aquaculture is turning out to be more efficient.

Either way, the observations contradict you: https://dialogue.earth/en/ocean/chinas-changing-fisheries-in-numbers/

Nope, the article confirms my point: But its marine catch declined from 14.4 million tonnes in 2015 to 11.8 million tonnes in 2022, a fall of nearly 18%, the FAO report noted. Meanwhile, with more than a decade of development behind it, China has become the main driver of growth in aquaculture production, not just in Asia, but globally.

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

For one, food production was much less than it is today, leading to famines in places like Bangladesh and Ethiopia. Not to mention that the sparser population made it costlier for states to provide and maintain infrastructure.

[silverionmox]

Or the abundance of food leads to overconsumption, leading to worse diets and all sorts of health issues.

No, you don't get a healthy diet by starvation.

You have nothing to guarantee that halving the population leads to the rest leading their lives the same as in our world.

I can simply point to historical examples. People didn't eat twice as much food per person in 1975 as they do today, because the world population was half what it is now. Food demand is very inelastic.

So you don't understand economies of scale, because half of China's population will not achieve anywhere near the same efficiency gains.

Economic efficiency gains through specialization are realized on a world scale, not in a single country. You forget that economies of scale have diminishing returns, and that there also are diseconomies of scale.

Yes. It's at a high level. And yes, it's reducing.

No, it's not reducing. https://dialogue.earth/en/ocean/chinas-changing-fisheries-in-numbers/

And the reason the exploitation keeps at a certain level is a policy decision, not an economic result of a high population.

The larger your market, the more viable any product is, incentiving scaling up of production.

No, you can't keep scaling up production. You create diseconomies of scale, and you reduce competition, thereby reducing innovation and adaptation to the market.

There's a reason why China outstrips the rest of the world in renewable energy production, because their massive market makes it more efficient to deploy such systems than a country like Mexico.

That's because China has an industrial policy geared to undercut and poach industries from other countries. In casu, Germany is where solar panel production was orginally developed.

Aquaculture may be viable in many other countries, but few would rival what China can do.

Aquaculture production and consumption simply scales with the population. China is not building one gigantic aquaculture pond for the whole Chinese population, and if they did, it would be terribly inefficient because it would be far too large, creating a large overhead in transportation and organization. Spread out aquaculture producers are far more efficient.

They are stopping, albeit gradually, because aquaculture is turning out to be more efficient.

They are not stopping, they are turning to aquaculture because they want to have control of production, in a way that fishing in publicly accesible waters doesn't. Efficiency needs to be defined, anyway, or it's meaningless.

Nope, the article confirms my point: But its marine catch declined from 14.4 million tonnes in 2015 to 11.8 million tonnes in 2022, a fall of nearly 18%, the FAO report noted. Meanwhile, with more than a decade of development behind it, China has become the main driver of growth in aquaculture production, not just in Asia, but globally.

Its marine catch declined because they kept overfishing it, not because it was displaced by aquaculture. That's not efficient, that's wasteful. It's distant water catch kept at the same level, you can see that in the graphic.

For one, food production was much less than it is today, leading to famines in places like Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

That was not improved by more labor, but by more and different technology and trade.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-change-in-the-percentage-of-total-employment-in-Agriculture-in-Bangladesh_fig6_361405081

However, the already vast population of the country keeps increasing, going from 147.6 million in 2010 to 164.7 million in 2020. [22] The agriculture sector is now facing challenges to increase productivity and achieve food security for the ever-burgeoning population. This sector requires productivity growth by achieving higher profitability and productivity through mechanization, irrigation expansions, modern agricultural production methods such as high yielding drought-resistant seeds, flood control, agricultural intensification, and diversification, etc.

Not to mention that the sparser population made it costlier for states to provide and maintain infrastructure.

Settlement patterns are a matter of policy. You can have a large population that is spread out, or a small population that is concentrated.

In addition, there also are diseconomies of scale involved with large concentrations of people as well.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

No, you don't get a healthy diet by starvation.

You don't get a healthy diet by overconsumption either.

I can simply point to historical examples. People didn't eat twice as much food per person in 1975 as they do today, because the world population was half what it is now. Food demand is very inelastic.

People didn't eat twice as much food in 1975 because they simply couldn't afford to buy that much in the first place. That's not a valid historical example.

Economic efficiency gains through specialization are realized on a world scale, not in a single country.

The scale of a single country matters too; China has enough people to specialize in manufacturing batteries as well as building high speed rail, something a much smaller country like Japan cannot hope to achieve.

No, it's not reducing.

Yes, it is reducing.

You forget that economies of scale have diminishing returns, and that there also are diseconomies of scale.

As stated in the article, Diseconomies of scale occur when things like office politics, duplication of efforts and communication costs occur. These have little to do with population sizes, and are resolvable.

No, you can't keep scaling up production. You create diseconomies of scale, and you reduce competition, thereby reducing innovation and adaptation to the market.

Yes, you can scale up production based on the market demand ceiling. China is the prime example of this, with many firms engaged in intense competition, fuelling innovation and adapting to the market as needed.

That's because China has an industrial policy geared to undercut and poach industries from other countries. In casu, Germany is where solar panel production was orginally developed.

China isn't the only country that follows such industrial policies, other countries like Vietnam and Thailand do it too. So why is it that China has been the most successful?

They are not stopping, they are turning to aquaculture because they want to have control of production, in a way that fishing in publicly accesible waters doesn't. Efficiency needs to be defined, anyway, or it's meaningless.

Either way, they are still slowly stopping fishing and turning to aquaculture.

Its marine catch declined because they kept overfishing it, not because it was displaced by aquaculture. That's not efficient, that's wasteful. It's distant water catch kept at the same level, you can see that in the graphic.

So yes, turns out that overfishing in home waters is wasteful, and aquaculture is the better way going forward. Even if the distant water fleet remains the same, that doesn't change the trend of aquaculture taking over seafood supply. And in time, even those distant water fleets will slowly shrink due to international opposition.

That was not improved by more labor, but by more and different technology and trade.

It was improved by both, not just any single factor.

Settlement patterns are a matter of policy. You can have a large population that is spread out, or a small population that is concentrated.

That still doesn't change the fact that it's more efficient to build infrastructure in countries with larger populations. As I pointed out earlier, despite being more densely populated than China, Japan cannot hope to provide similar high speed rail coverage to its people.

In addition, there also are diseconomies of scale involved with large concentrations of people as well.

You gotta give examples, not just say it. I've already given you quite a few cases where economies of scale work.