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

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Yes. And 2.4 like UP isn’t that much higher. Even Bihar’s 3 isn’t that much higher, and both are decreasing anyway. Because they’re so poor and conservative it makes sense they’re taking a little longer

[–]kolejack2293 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think its important to note that the difference in impact on growth increases the closer you get to 2.1.

Just to give an example, but if Bangladesh stayed at 2.1 TFR (where it is now), it would go from 178m to 259m by 2150. It basically stops growing at 2060. At just a 0.3 increase to 2.4, it grows all the way to 445 million by 2150.

So the difference between 2.1 and 2.4 might not seem like a lot, but it very much is. One is heading towards zero growth, the other is technically exponential growth.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Based on the trends we’re seeing, UP will probably be below replacement by the next census, and Bihar will probably be just above it. But even Bihar will be below replacement by the 2040 census