Yeah. This is the standard too many people are bad 60s rhetoric.

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.

This is not a problem, it is a challenge to be managed. The world is on track to peak at 10 billion people near 2100. It is not a bad thing total fertility rate continues to decline far below replacement rate.

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.

How long would India be able to keep up TFR with low-density high-TFR places? If people become more affluent and demand more and consume more, at some point minor events become catastrophic. It's not sustainable, unless we start populating other planets (not likely any time soon).

Managing an old population is another issue and an issue everyone will have to come to terms with and manage at some point.

India's high TFR mostly comes from the so-called BIMARU states - Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh [1]. In fact, almost all of Indian states are below a TFR of 2 now.

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...

> Taiwan, Korea, Isreal and the Netherlands all have higher population densities

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.

>large parts of countries like India, USA, China, etc are unpopulated.

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)

You're right, but the greater point stands. Seoul has a higher population density than Delhi and Bangalore. The problem with India isn't that it's overpopulated, it's that it's poor (and therefore can't afford the infrastructure to support its massive population).