This is utter nonsense. Taiwan, Korea, Isreal and the Netherlands all have higher population densities.
India's TFR is less than 2.2 with the majority of the states at sub-replacement levels.
Rising living standards result in slowing population growth. This is something that Malthusians wilfully ignore.
India faces a multitude of challenges. I will not pretend to know the answer for any of them. But, I do know that pointing to overpopulation as the root of all evil not helpful in the least.
The reality is that China and Japan are barreling towards a too many old people crises, as is India.
I come from Bengal, and my state, and city specifically have had a TFR below 1.8 for twenty years now. Combine that with out migration and we already have a problem there.
Yes, you're going to burn a few more percentage points of GDP during a window of time on caring for the elderly vs other progress producing activities, but such is the cost of reaching a population equilibrium with sustainable resource consumption.
Managing an old population is another issue and an issue everyone will have to come to terms with and manage at some point.
Consumption is another thing now. Power demand is rising rapidly. Air conditioning is becoming rapidly widespread, and given India's summer heat and humidity - it's understandable.
However, when it comes to per capita consumption and investment in cleaner technologies India honestly is not that behind. I won't be surprised to see the majority of India running on EVs in two decades with wind/solar/nuclear providing most of the power.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_terri...
This is a flawed calculation, that I’ve seen multiple people parrot. You cannot simply divide population/land - large parts of countries like India, USA, China, etc are unpopulated.
For eg, Bangalore has 12M people in 2000 sq.km while Amsterdam has 1.5M people in 220 sq.km. This is technically similar density. Either way, density is not the best measure when population is an order of magnitude higher.
This would imply that a one-child policy won't help, or really any population control mechanism -- the problem is then is that wealth is too centralized in too few cities. If you cut the population in half, they'd still all end up in Delhi.
The population chooses to be excessively dense (excessive in regards to their infrastructural support) -- they aren't being forced into it (because as you say, there's space available). So to solve it, you need to address why they go to the city in the first place (despite the danger)
I'm a Northerner of a so-called upper caste (but not a Brahmin). I had to move to Chennai (a Southern city) for a year. I was shocked when apartment-hunting there. At every "to let" apartment visit, I would soon be asked if I were a Brahmin. Then the person would let me know they were a Brahmin, and that they would only rent to Brahmins. Nope, didn't get a decent apartment in that city. It seems all the nice property there is cornered by Brahmins.
More specifically, it is in Southern India where "upper-caste Brahmins" are at the receiving end due to the long lived "Dravidian" movement.
I will only remind you of this quote;
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
Suitable is a question of idealogy and choices , one is cultural and other is ecological.
Whether you are comfortable living in a 700sq foot apartment or you need a sprawling 10 acre property is really about culture, europe is okay with smaller cars, more public transport , dense cities , US is not .
Sustainable density really then, Looking at the crazy limits in the bay area is funny to me, but perhaps it is right for people here they don't want higher density housing.
---
Earth itself quite capable of supporting multiple ten of billions but it would come at the expense of reduced bio diviserty
Most people would think that is bad, but there is case that it isn't . Earth has gone through multiple extinction events before us, however this is chance for life to become multi planetary for the first time, for life itself it is probably worth the risk.
Theoretically ofcourse we all cooperate and work in sync, we could achieve that without destroying the planet. However we aren't wired that way , evolution is not efficient.
If you can live on Mars you can live on Earth, the problem is that nobody wants to live on Mars or a Mars like Earth.
You are also underestimating the time it takes to colonize Mars. There aren't any plans right now, all we get is more rovers. Nobody is sending space manufacturing equipment to Mars nor is anyone sending an autonomous outpost ahead of time ready for people to move into it. As it is right now, if we were to send people to Mars we would send them there to die there.
If you are going to talk about Elon Musk, I'm going to remind you that he planned a Mars mission for 2018, he can't be trusted with anything.
Just Going to mars is not really multi planetary. The difference of few years when the first attempt takes place is not going to change much.
I am talking about a self sustaining significant colony. That is going be realistic probably only after 2150-2200.
Climate change and other problems will have huge impact but the humanity isn't going die from it.
You are right nobody would want to go mars today to live and work. To be the first sure, further science, unique experience sure, but regular people will have no interest in living there permanently.
However in 2150 earth is going to be rough enough that mars or space won't look too bad. The economics will also have low enough by then.
My point is that's real goal for life. we can be all eco friendly today, all it will go anyway with one extinction type of event , super volcano/asteroid/earth quake/.. take your pick
We need to keep that in mind, sustainability is important but not if we don't become multi planetary.
----
To me it like we are fixing bugs and improving code and efficiency instead of worrying about HA. For uptime that's most important damn thing.
Users(humans) care about the bugs and issues (sustainability) , system (life) should be worried about uptime /reliability. That is lot easier with HA.
As an engineer I would prioritize developing HA/fail over and DR over fixing the bugs if I had to choose, I would only fix bugs which make the application completly unusable and user leave (die?) Until I have a solid uptime solution
My own viewpoint is that, our mastery of technology has enabled us to overcome "natural" limitations in a given geographical area, human potentialities and thus our relationship with the "planet". Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is no longer simple but has become multidimensional. Modern urban centers are an interplay of complex systems sustained by marvels of technology each of which is quite "fragile" to external shocks. Thus when something like Covid happens you can imagine the devastation due to ripple effect and aftershocks.
> My own viewpoint is that, our mastery of technology has enabled us to overcome "natural" limitations in a given geographical area, human potentialities and thus our relationship with the "planet".
I don’t think this is borne out by the evidence and certainly not supported by Diamond. We inhabit all sorts of niches, but unsustainably so. We farm in places we can’t sustain by taking water from natural reservoirs that won’t refill for thousands of years or else from lakes or rivers. Similarly we farm in such a way as to promote erosion. If we have the technology to live sustainably, we aren’t using it to that end.
Your question was; Why do you suppose that European population density is sustainable all over the world? Presumably the sustainable population density is going to vary with climate and geography ?
"It is not" w.r.t. the first one and "Yes" w.r.t. the 2nd one. Diamond's books were pointed out because they were the most popular ones showing the influence of Geographical Latitudes on the spread/sustainability of Human Civilizations.
Coming to my point; our mastery of technology has enabled us to overcome "natural" limitations in a given geographical area, human potentialities and thus our relationship with the "planet"
What i meant was that ever since the start of the "Technological Age" i.e. the industrial revolution, we have gained power to drastically change our environments to sustain larger Human populations (eg. in the extreme northern latitudes, desert regions, megapolises in the already densely populated regions etc.) which Nature by herself would not have allowed. Now add the influence of Technology to extend Human lifespans and potentialities and you realize that our very "technological progress" is now our greatest danger to survival. Nature no longer has the upper hand (other than infrequent occurrences like natural disasters etc.) and our stewardship of Technology is not well thought out. Though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_technology wikipedia page is not well written, it points to authors who have thought about the detrimental influence of Technology on Society.
That's going to be a disaster, its dawning on China that this was a mistake. You end up with a demographics that skewed towards the old, and that brings its own problems.
India is not a problem that can be solved in an HN comment
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bill-gates-vaccinations-de...
In the early millennium, while traveling for several months in India and being shocked at the situation in states like Uttar Pradesh, I would occasionally ask Indians I met if overpopulation was not seen as a problem. The response was often that India’s mighty population is what will let it throw its weight around globally in the 21st century, and claims that India is overpopulated are a Chinese or Pakistani (or both) plot.
I wonder if this belief has only strengthened with the more nationalist government in recent years, and the even greater tension with China.
However it will come with great pain for the vast majority.
India is politically reverse of the US. More populated states like UP have more representatives, they are usually conservative (nationalist/right wing) in politics, lesser education, lesser efforts in family planning etc.
There has not been redistricting called delimitation commission in India since 1976 on some of these population growth concerns, it is currently scheduled for 2026.
The TFR in most parts of india is below 2 these days, but the most populous states are still growing , that make the national average.
It is hard to win an national election even today without UP.
However they have other very large islands (Sumatra, and part of Borneo) that could be settled, so it's not an insurmountable problem.
China's and India's large populations are their Achilles heels - they need vast quantities of food and water, yet China imports 50% of some food items, and India relies on Himalayan headwaters that China is diverting.
The real reasons are far more complex and involve the interactions between lack of resources, poor infrastructure, geographical spread, uncontrollable diversity, overpopulation and of course History.
You are utterly dumb, numb and emotionless. I guess you belong to the same class of people - who are chanting after each gun shooting - "guns don't kill people".
Air pollution is not killing 5000+ people everyday in India, but COVID is.
For example about 200,000 people have died so far in India with COVID, but over 1 million are estimated to die each year from the effects of air pollution:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/absolute-number-of-deaths...
India's fundamental problem is that it is overpopulated - stretching all of the natural resources of the country, and increasing density leading to viruses like COVID transmitting more easily.
The country needs a one child policy, or to put serious money back into Vasalgel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_inhibition_of_sperm...