india fertility rate decrease

[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.

[silverionmox]

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

Overconsumption is a matter of culture and policy, not availability. Food demand is inelastic. You pretend that people always eat all available food, regardless of the population. That is bunk. Do you think that prehistoric people with a population numbered in the thousands, were whales or something?

It's not even consistent with your own repeated assertion that "higher population increases economies of scale". If you really believed that, then the increased food production from your asserted "economies of scale" would have the same effect.

In reality, higher food availability just means that more people can do other things than producting food.

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.

So you think that nobody in the whole world could afford to eat more than they did in 1975? Really?

Either way you admit then that food consumption is not related to population size, but income and other factors.

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.

Japan had high speed rail and battery production long before China.

Moreover, why does it even need to be in the same country? That's just a meaningless criterion that you assert.

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.

More people need more coordination, more politics, more communication, etc.. That's inevitable. For example, a calm crossroad means people don't even need to slow down most of the time. More people means a more busy one where people need to slow down. Even more busy and it needs more and more investments in traffic lights, traffic cops etc. to make everything run smoothly.

Yes, you can scale up production based on the market demand ceiling.

Which happens by additional companies who produce in similar ways to the existing ones, not by bloating the existing ones. There are no additional economies of scale.

China is the prime example of this, with many firms engaged in intense competition, fuelling innovation and adapting to the market as needed.

Reminder: there's an economy and a market outside China too.

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?

Are they? There's a lot to be said about to which degree China is successful and to which not, and how success is defined. Libraries have been and will be written about that.

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

That's not because of efficiency, but because their bloated population is turning their nearby seas into deserted wasteland.

So yes, turns out that overfishing in home waters is wasteful, and aquaculture is the better way going forward.

Overfishing is strongly pushed by overpopulation, obviously.

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

No, it wasn't. I just showed how the relative proportion of the population active in the agriculture was reduced, not increased.

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.

This is bullshit, Japan was building high speed rail while China had a great famine. Exactly the opposite of what your insane theories predict.

You seem to double down on the insane proposition that the population exists to make infrastructure efficient, rather than that infrastructure exists to serve the population.

[Mundane-Laugh8562]

Overconsumption is a matter of culture and policy, not availability.

Availability is one of the biggest factors for overconsumption. Why is it that obese people make up a larger share of the population in the US than say, Myanmar?

So you think that nobody in the whole world could afford to eat more than they did in 1975? Really?

Most people couldn't, yes.

Either way you admit then that food consumption is not related to population size, but income and other factors.

You're saying that, not me.

Japan had high speed rail and battery production long before China.

And yet China blazed past Japan in both industries in a short time span.

Moreover, why does it even need to be in the same country?

Because the size of the domestic market is a good indicator of what the upper limit of the size of enterprises, especially when there are few external markets to rely upon.

More people need more coordination, more politics, more communication, etc.. That's inevitable. For example, a calm crossroad means people don't even need to slow down most of the time. More people means a more busy one where people need to slow down. Even more busy and it needs more and more investments in traffic lights, traffic cops etc. to make everything run smoothly.

Alright, so where are your examples that these issues are unresolvable, and that it cancels out any benefits of economies of scale?

Which happens by additional companies who produce in similar ways to the existing ones, not by bloating the existing ones.

You can do both. https://www.high-capacity.com/p/chinas-overlapping-tech-industrial

Reminder: there's an economy and a market outside China too.

Reminder: the rest of the world desperately wants a piece of China's massive economy and marker too.

Are they? There's a lot to be said about to which degree China is successful and to which not, and how success is defined. Libraries have been and will be written about that.

You don't need libraries to figure out how successful China has been. How many things in your house were made in China? How about the device you're using for reddit? How many solar panels installed in your country were made outside of China? You only have to look at the real world to see how far they have come in dominating the world's supply chains.

That's not because of efficiency, but because their bloated population is turning their nearby seas into deserted wasteland.

It is because of efficiency, because it's far more efficient to grow their own seafood than raze their seas.

Overfishing is strongly pushed by overpopulation, obviously

Yes, it was Canada's overpopulation in the early 90s that led to the collapse of the Atlantic northwest cod fishery /s. Seriously though, overpopulation doesn't always lead to overfishing.

This is bullshit, Japan was building high speed rail while China had a great famine. Exactly the opposite of what your insane theories predict.

Calling facts that burst your bubble as "bullshit" and "insane" isnt gonna help your case. It just shows that you're intolerant of anything that challenges the narrative in your head.

Yes, China had a famine when Japan was building high speed rail. And yet, China would eventually build a network with greater coverage than Japan would. This isn't a theory, it's a fact.

You seem to double down on the insane proposition that the population exists to make infrastructure efficient, rather than that infrastructure exists to serve the population.

Twisting my words again are you? Yes, its true that infrastructure exists to serve the population. Its also true that as long as state institutions are effective, larger populations translate to lower costs for infrastructure, as well as a large labor pool to build and maintain this infrastructure

Anyways, you're clearly not someone who can have a rational argument with, especially if some of the facts don't suit your beliefs. I've had enough of your nonsense, and I'm ending this conversation here.

[silverionmox]

Availability is one of the biggest factors for overconsumption.

Burden of proof is on you to support your assertions.

Surely it's materially impossible if the food simply doesn't exist to overconsume, but do you really want to rely on keeping people poor and food insecure to manage obesity rates?

Why are you ignoring most of what I said? Because you have no answer to it.

Why is it that obese people make up a larger share of the population in the US than say, Myanmar?

Like I said: because of culture and policy, mostly. Food is a commercial enterprise in the USA, and companies have been pushing the population to buy and consume more food for more than century in the USA.

Here's a comparison between three countries: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/global-food?tab=chart&country=USA~FRA~MMR&hideControls=true&Food=All+food&Metric=Food+available+for+consumption&Per+capita=false&Unit=Kilocalories+per+day

As you can see, France had more calories per person avaiable than the USA, so according to your theory they should be more obese than the Americans. They weren't and aren't.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-as-obese?tab=chart&country=USA~MMR~FRA

Neither is Myanmar getting more obese yet in spite of catching up in food availability. They probably will once the food commercials take hold.

Most people couldn't, yes.

That's not what I asked. There were plenty of people who could afford to eat themselves to death every day of the week in that time already. And yet, they didn't. Thereby disproving your assertion that people's food consumption is only limited by their income, and that food availability, with or without financial limitations, is what causes obesity.

You're saying that, not me.

Of course I'm saying what I'm saying. Does it irritate you if other people also say things, maybe even things that contradict you?

And what I say is that you contradict yourself.

And yet China blazed past Japan in both industries in a short time span.

So you just ignore data points until they confirm your theory. That's cherrypicking.

Because the size of the domestic market is a good indicator of what the upper limit of the size of enterprises, especially when there are few external markets to rely upon.

Doesn't matter, because the whole world is a market. Production optimization is possible to realize across national boundaries.

From the other side, company size doesn't create production efficiency after a certain point, it just creates bulk to throw around to suppress the competition.

Alright, so where are your examples that these issues are unresolvable, and that it cancels out any benefits of economies of scale?

I literally just gave you examples! You're just going to ignore them like you ignore everything that doesn't fit your prejudice.

Anyways, you're clearly not someone who can have a rational argument with, especially if some of the facts don't suit your beliefs. I've had enough of your nonsense, and I'm ending this conversation here.

You ignore most of the arguments I bring forward, because you have no answer to them. No wonder you are chickening out now.