Global population will basically top out at 9-10bn.
I look forward to the problems we will face then, and the apocalyptic narratives the media will invent about this new problem. Here's my shot at a few:
- Even with better quality of life its going to be hard to make people who are over 70 work productively. But without children less and less people will need to take care of this large old age group. And they will need a bigger and bigger slice of the economy to survive.
- Wealth inequality will rise just from the fact that there are less productive people and people with wealth will live longer.
- Immigration won't be the solution for western nations that it used to be. And poor nations with insane birth rates don't have them any more. Already eastern europe, india, phillipines etc are becoming rich enough that much much less people want to emmigrate. Africas next. Cheap labour for corporations will basically dry up.
I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did.
> But religion is a small factor in fertility today, Muttreja says. “Hindus in Uttar Pradesh, for example, have a much higher fertility than Muslims in Kerala. There is no Hindu fertility or Muslim fertility.”
This is really strange he could have compared fertility rate of Muslims vs Hindus in Utter Pradeep and the same in Kerala. Instead he compares Muslims in Kerala vs Hindus in Utter Pranesh. Kerala is the least poor and most educated state in India and Utter Pradesh is one among the poorest and least educated states.
According to Vox: "In 1975, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the declaration of a national emergency. She seized dictatorial powers, imprisoned her political rivals, and embarked, with the help of her son Sanjay, on a mass, compulsory sterilization program that registers as one of the most disturbing and vast human rights violations in the country’s modern history." Source: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2019/6/5/186...
Of course, as the OP notes, America is partly to blame. The exact quote from Johnson was...a bit more direct:
> When an adviser asked the president if he wanted to promise [Indira] Gandhi more food aid during her visit, he exploded: “Are you out of your fucking mind? … I’m not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.”
If America can change the entire fertility of a country merely by the president getting frustrated, imagine what we could do when the entire legislature is upset!
Or the one comment is just used to defray blame, America does not have cosmic superpowers and India is in fact capable of making their own national decisions, seeing that they are a state.
Sanger like most historical characters is imperfect (so was LBJ) but it is a gross simplification of history to pitch them as the root cause.
Darkly hilarious in hindsight, but when I was in first grade, there was a rumor one day at school that there was going to be forced "nasbandi" at school that day.
We were kids and had no idea what the word (Hindi for vasectomy) meant but we were still freaked out for a while, because we knew it was bad. I still remember a Hindi protest song about it to this day, almost 50 years later.
This was during the Emergency (as that time is known in India).
The Gandhi family was all about total control and megalomania
Sikh genocide in 1984
Putting the opposition in jail and declaring an emergency
Ass kissing USSR and adopting "socialist" ideals - in the 60s you needed licenses to own things like radios and bicycles - till the 1990s there were only 3 to 4 brands of cars you could buy in India without being a millionaire
The Congress party was so hated for so many decades, which is why the nationalist right-wing party of Modi keeps winning even though he is also over the top.
But it does mean India joins much of the rest of the world with sub-replacement fertility with just a few outliers.
The challenge now switches to how to move from sub-replacement to sustainable fertility.
Japan and South Korea are leaders in sub-replacement fertility with not that much success in finding a path towards sustainable population. Both I believe are still dropping.
This is the grand social engineering challenge of the next 20 to 40 years I figure.
When I was a child about 40 years ago there was a slogan "हम दो, हमारे दो" which translates to "We are a couple, we will have two children". Then in my teens it turned to "हम दो हमारे एक", ie, "We are a couple, we will have one child". It was on TV, in print ads, on the sides of buses, everywhere. There was also a huge move to make contraception easily available to every woman in the country. Then in the 90s TV was privatized and it all disappeared.
Depends on what you mean by rich. India’s per capita income is more than 3 times what it was 30 years ago. So it can easily support significant social programs for the elderly, though not to western standards.
On top of this western productivity is linked to low birth rates enabling a larger percentage of the population to work. So low birth rates may be required for a wealthy country rather than being just the result of a wealthy country.
I am very suspicious of that supposed relationship. There are tons of productivity gains to be had, and nothing like a tightening labor market to force them.
The cost of living in India is going to be pretty low compared to colder countries, so it shouldn't cost a lot to provide a decent lifestyle.
With accelerating automation, most people are going to have to depend on a much smaller set of people/industries. A shrinking population is not bad given we make plans for the future.
There is A LOT of slack in a population of that size. Most women don't even work yet. Even if population declines, the labor force will continue to rise for a long time.
There is no amount of wealth that will help. Increasing societal wealth leads to increasing power to the old, who will use it to transform the young into a slave class.
This is most visible in America’s response to COVID but also in Prop 13 etc.
Here is what I've heard argued from that ideological standpoint.
One off famines should be remedied with relief efforts which mandate the recipient country increase its food storage to be able to absorb the next one.
Chronic food shortages are a symptoms of overpopulation of the area, either because of lack of farming technology, terrain, etc. Supplying food aid only compounds the problem by increasing an unsustainable population. The remedy is to remove the mismanagement and relocate, and reducate the willing population and let nature take its course for those unwilling to adapt.
Sounds harsh but a famine of 1 million people being supplied with aid turns to 1.2 million the next time and 2 million the time after. A net increase in misery and suffering.
In reality faced with a starving person face to face, I believe most people would feed the hungry.
Read Robert Caro's excellent volumes about LBJ. You wouldn't think so, but they are real page turners. And yes, they will leave you with the impression that LBJ was not a wonderful person.
He might have said as much publicly but the reality is that India was a lot closer to the USSR so LBJ thought it was despicable that they were coming to the US asking THEM for help
So sad to see this happen. Paul Ehrlich made a similar prognostication that never came to pass. There are many places in the world that did a similar thing and had to work to reverse it (S. Korea, Russia), by actually paying families to have children, and China recently reversed its draconian one child policy because they have seen first hand the problems it creates.
Hopefully India doesn't run into the same problem down the road, because one a population starts to decline, history has shown that it is not reversible.
You're sad that people won't overcrowd themselves to death? As developing nations transition grow to developed, population growth tends to fall toward an equilibrion that is also found in nature. It's a trend seen time and time again. Yet you don't see developed countries on the brink of extinction, so I think this fear mongering is unnecessary.
Exactly. But how much effort was and is being put to control the psyche of the masses to achieve the population control? How much of this effort was original and far-sighted with good intentions?
Even if lifespans don't increase the population will probably continue to expand for about 25 years since the cohorts already born are larger than they ones they are replacing. Population only plateaus once we've been at replacement rate for the same number of years as mean age of mothers at birth.
Average lifespan has increased because of changes on the low end. Fewer people are dying young. There has been very little movement on the upper end of lifespan. The current trend of improvement has a natural wall at about 100-110 average lifespan.
Having said that, I suspect that once we crack aging, we may blow past the current limit and see a relativly sudden jump in lifespan
doesn't matter to be honest. We are already overpopulated and those who says it isn't just doesn't know how many people live under poverty and are simply privileged. I understand if we manage resources properly we have very high carrying capacity but it is not pragmatic to solve all those problems. Human greed, corruption has no bounds and will always hinder and there is no solution, is there? Rules, laws are generally made by elites even in democracy. Further, Nature makes us inherently greedy (selfish genes perhaps?) and many of us can't deny it, can we?
I think people like Elon always says declining fertility is huge problem but i simply don't see it as a problem. People like him will never suffer due to money problems and will live luxurious life. But only people working 996 realize how much exploited we are. And old age is not that big deal because of technology. One person can manage hundreds of people. We can scale a lot.
I disagree with just about everything you said.
"We are already overpopulated and those who says it isn't just doesn't know how many people live under poverty and are simply privileged." This makes no sense. As the global population has grown, less people live in extreme poverty [1].
Your entire comment is basically saying life is hard so people should not be born? This is absolutely the best time to ever be alive in history.
"One person can manage hundreds of people." Have you ever been to a nursing home? This seems insanely optimistic.
I wish the US had some of the options for male sterilization/contraception that are available in India. I've asked my doctor for years about some of the options available in other countries and am always given a blank stare of ignorance.
> “Women’s aspirations have changed,” Muttreja says. They look beyond the home for job opportunities and delay marriage and childbearing. “Education is the best contraceptive.”
I’m not sure I buy the story about job opportunities, as female participation in the labor force has been dropping in India, even as the country modernizes and slowly develops economically.
Also, this seems kind of self-contradictory:
> Some Indian politicians still talk of a population explosion and have proposed banning people with more than two children from government employment or, in Uttar Pradesh, even withholding welfare benefits. Critics say such rhetoric is often subtly aimed at the country’s Muslim minority. Muslim women on average had 0.5 more children than Hindus, according to the 2015–16 NFHS survey.
> But religion is a small factor in fertility today, Muttreja says. “Hindus in Uttar Pradesh, for example, have a much higher fertility than Muslims in Kerala. There is no Hindu fertility or Muslim fertility.”
If a state-level policy is aimed against those with more children, but Muslims in a given state don’t have more children than Hindus there, how can the policy be targeted at Muslims?
>>NFHS administered three types of questionnaires: the Household Questionnaire, the Woman’s Questionnaire and the Village Questionnaire. The Village Questionnaire was administered only in the rural areas. For each state and at national level three data files are associated with these questionnaires. Also available are data files with information on children born during the three years preceding the survey (last two children only) along with mother's basic characteristics.[1]
Basically, people are given questions, and the answers are used to obtain data. The accuracy of this whole thing depends on the accuracy of those answering the questions.
I would think a better way would be to compile this based on the citizens' data collected by the governments. How do other countries do this?
We struggle greatly to actually understand population numbers in many countries. Consider Afghanistan, where the numbers were in part made up until recently[0]. I really wish we could see more background on these numbers.
They didn’t mention the last two years as possibly contributing to less childbirth. There could be counteracting effects there, stuck together with nothing to do, vs nobody to meet and nothing to do - but it at least deserves a mention. This 2019-2021 drop could bounce right back up if people chose to delay childbirth.
Taking this as an opportunity to plug the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT). Pay no attention to the tongue-in-cheek name, it has nothing to do with mass suicide or genocide, and merely advocates for us to stop breeding.
> Phasing out the human species by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.
[+] [-] zpeti|4 years ago|reply
I look forward to the problems we will face then, and the apocalyptic narratives the media will invent about this new problem. Here's my shot at a few:
- Even with better quality of life its going to be hard to make people who are over 70 work productively. But without children less and less people will need to take care of this large old age group. And they will need a bigger and bigger slice of the economy to survive.
- Wealth inequality will rise just from the fact that there are less productive people and people with wealth will live longer.
- Immigration won't be the solution for western nations that it used to be. And poor nations with insane birth rates don't have them any more. Already eastern europe, india, phillipines etc are becoming rich enough that much much less people want to emmigrate. Africas next. Cheap labour for corporations will basically dry up.
I predict these issues will cause bigger problems than population expansion ever did.
[+] [-] arkj|4 years ago|reply
This is really strange he could have compared fertility rate of Muslims vs Hindus in Utter Pradeep and the same in Kerala. Instead he compares Muslims in Kerala vs Hindus in Utter Pranesh. Kerala is the least poor and most educated state in India and Utter Pradesh is one among the poorest and least educated states.
[+] [-] jasonhansel|4 years ago|reply
An odd euphemism for a program that, in practice, involved forced sterilizations and eugenics: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790
According to Vox: "In 1975, Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered the declaration of a national emergency. She seized dictatorial powers, imprisoned her political rivals, and embarked, with the help of her son Sanjay, on a mass, compulsory sterilization program that registers as one of the most disturbing and vast human rights violations in the country’s modern history." Source: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2019/6/5/186...
Of course, as the OP notes, America is partly to blame. The exact quote from Johnson was...a bit more direct:
> When an adviser asked the president if he wanted to promise [Indira] Gandhi more food aid during her visit, he exploded: “Are you out of your fucking mind? … I’m not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.”
Source: https://qz.com/india/1414774/the-legacy-of-indias-quest-to-s...
[+] [-] vorpalhex|4 years ago|reply
Or the one comment is just used to defray blame, America does not have cosmic superpowers and India is in fact capable of making their own national decisions, seeing that they are a state.
Sanger like most historical characters is imperfect (so was LBJ) but it is a gross simplification of history to pitch them as the root cause.
[+] [-] muststopmyths|4 years ago|reply
We were kids and had no idea what the word (Hindi for vasectomy) meant but we were still freaked out for a while, because we knew it was bad. I still remember a Hindi protest song about it to this day, almost 50 years later.
This was during the Emergency (as that time is known in India).
[+] [-] rep_movsd|4 years ago|reply
Sikh genocide in 1984
Putting the opposition in jail and declaring an emergency
Ass kissing USSR and adopting "socialist" ideals - in the 60s you needed licenses to own things like radios and bicycles - till the 1990s there were only 3 to 4 brands of cars you could buy in India without being a millionaire
The Congress party was so hated for so many decades, which is why the nationalist right-wing party of Modi keeps winning even though he is also over the top.
[+] [-] kderbyma|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bhouston|4 years ago|reply
But it does mean India joins much of the rest of the world with sub-replacement fertility with just a few outliers.
The challenge now switches to how to move from sub-replacement to sustainable fertility.
Japan and South Korea are leaders in sub-replacement fertility with not that much success in finding a path towards sustainable population. Both I believe are still dropping.
This is the grand social engineering challenge of the next 20 to 40 years I figure.
[+] [-] bluesmoon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kumarm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Callmenorm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retric|4 years ago|reply
On top of this western productivity is linked to low birth rates enabling a larger percentage of the population to work. So low birth rates may be required for a wealthy country rather than being just the result of a wealthy country.
[+] [-] f00zz|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teraku|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ericson2314|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naruvimama|4 years ago|reply
With accelerating automation, most people are going to have to depend on a much smaller set of people/industries. A shrinking population is not bad given we make plans for the future.
[+] [-] ashwinm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_zeros|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manojlds|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netizen-936824|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] renewiltord|4 years ago|reply
This is most visible in America’s response to COVID but also in Prop 13 etc.
[+] [-] sildur|4 years ago|reply
I hope there is more context with that statement, because it sounds downright evil.
[+] [-] literallyaduck|4 years ago|reply
One off famines should be remedied with relief efforts which mandate the recipient country increase its food storage to be able to absorb the next one.
Chronic food shortages are a symptoms of overpopulation of the area, either because of lack of farming technology, terrain, etc. Supplying food aid only compounds the problem by increasing an unsustainable population. The remedy is to remove the mismanagement and relocate, and reducate the willing population and let nature take its course for those unwilling to adapt.
Sounds harsh but a famine of 1 million people being supplied with aid turns to 1.2 million the next time and 2 million the time after. A net increase in misery and suffering.
In reality faced with a starving person face to face, I believe most people would feed the hungry.
[+] [-] mdavis6890|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ffwszgf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dadjoker|4 years ago|reply
Hopefully India doesn't run into the same problem down the road, because one a population starts to decline, history has shown that it is not reversible.
[+] [-] s17n|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anhner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balaji1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conjecTech|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gizmo686|4 years ago|reply
Having said that, I suspect that once we crack aging, we may blow past the current limit and see a relativly sudden jump in lifespan
[+] [-] manojlds|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cute_boi|4 years ago|reply
I think people like Elon always says declining fertility is huge problem but i simply don't see it as a problem. People like him will never suffer due to money problems and will live luxurious life. But only people working 996 realize how much exploited we are. And old age is not that big deal because of technology. One person can manage hundreds of people. We can scale a lot.
[+] [-] hersko|4 years ago|reply
Your entire comment is basically saying life is hard so people should not be born? This is absolutely the best time to ever be alive in history.
"One person can manage hundreds of people." Have you ever been to a nursing home? This seems insanely optimistic.
[1]https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
[+] [-] zionic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hersko|4 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lJJ_QqIVnc&t=711s
[+] [-] pilom|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mitigating|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carapace|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-based_contraception
[+] [-] dougmwne|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ummonk|4 years ago|reply
I’m not sure I buy the story about job opportunities, as female participation in the labor force has been dropping in India, even as the country modernizes and slowly develops economically.
Also, this seems kind of self-contradictory:
> Some Indian politicians still talk of a population explosion and have proposed banning people with more than two children from government employment or, in Uttar Pradesh, even withholding welfare benefits. Critics say such rhetoric is often subtly aimed at the country’s Muslim minority. Muslim women on average had 0.5 more children than Hindus, according to the 2015–16 NFHS survey. > But religion is a small factor in fertility today, Muttreja says. “Hindus in Uttar Pradesh, for example, have a much higher fertility than Muslims in Kerala. There is no Hindu fertility or Muslim fertility.”
If a state-level policy is aimed against those with more children, but Muslims in a given state don’t have more children than Hindus there, how can the policy be targeted at Muslims?
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pdevr|4 years ago|reply
Basically, people are given questions, and the answers are used to obtain data. The accuracy of this whole thing depends on the accuracy of those answering the questions.
I would think a better way would be to compile this based on the citizens' data collected by the governments. How do other countries do this?
[1] http://rchiips.org/nfhs/data1.shtml
[+] [-] jimbob45|4 years ago|reply
[0]https://youtu.be/WF3Rkt42wPY?t=266
[+] [-] twobitshifter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _haoa|4 years ago|reply
From https://www.vhemt.org/:
> Phasing out the human species by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.
[+] [-] reducesuffering|4 years ago|reply