India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman • Hacker News Board

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#381

Post by menomatter » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 2:17 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #173

gizmo686 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a need to a sustainable population rate? There are about 8 billion humans on the planet. We can sustain a sub replacement birthrate for generations. There is a good chance we can sustain it for long enough to solve aging; or at least significantly push back the ~100 year limit to human life. Once we do that, we will need generations of sub replacement fertility just to compensate for having more generations…

Just by simple numbers – no, you don't need a sustainable population rate. We were perfectly fine as a species when the population was half or a tenth or hundredth of what it is now, and will still thrive if it gets to that again. The problem is the demographic breakdown. If the rate of growth is decreasing it means that when your current population ages and exits the labor pool there won't be enough young people to…

But isnt all a self correcting system? If there isn't enough care for older folks then they'll just die off and life expectancy would go down. We see this in countries with civil wars and major catastrophes. At least that's what happened/happening in Syria.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#382

Post by jay_kyburz » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 2:25 AM UTC

jay_kyburz wrote: post #379

wallacoloo wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think its mostly a financial problem, not a physical labor problem. what does this mean? i assume in your picture, the taxes (finance) are paying for the labor. if not, what is it that we’re struggling to finance?

Most people over the age of ~65 are given $967.50 a fortnight. (its means tested - but the family home is not counted). They spend that on whatever they like. I shudder to think how much goes into the pokies. Old people like to visit the GP, like every week, to chat about the weather and that weird pimple that's been growing in weird places. That's also paid for by the government. Here is a breakdown of where one Aus…

On readit, somebody posted a breakdown for UK taxes.

Welfare (23.8%)

Health (19.9%)

State Pensions (12.8%)

Education (12%)

National Debt Interest (6.1%)

Defence (5.3%)

Public Order and Safety (4.3%)

Transport (4.3%)

Business and Industry (2.9%)

Government Administration (2.1%)

Housing and Utilities, like street lighting (1.6%)

Culture, like sports, libraries, museums (1.6%)

Environment (1.6%)

Overseas Aid (1.2%)

UK Contribution to the EU Budget (0.7%)

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#383

Post by 627467 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 2:26 AM UTC

zpeti wrote: post #48

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 ne…

I agree in many points.

I will add that part of the problems created for the future is how newer generations have been trained to dismiss procreation using various arguments: it's expensive, it will take resources and time away from you, it's bad for the environment, the state will look after us not kids...

Everything just made it so easy for newer generations to fallback to default: naahhh I'll just won't bother.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#384

Post by ummonk » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 2:31 AM UTC

> “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?

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#385

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 3:08 AM UTC

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #189

baybal2 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They very much do, but now they have to pay "carbon tax" invented by people who were responsible for most of the pollution until China

History isn't fair but this resentment is going to destroy humanity.

History might say humanity was destroyed because it didn’t attempt geo-engineering fast enough.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#386

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 3:12 AM UTC

baskethead wrote: post #351

bboreham wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Gypsies [is] pejorative due to its connotations of illegality and irregularity as well as its historical use as a racial slur.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

Interesting I didn’t know that. Learn a new thing every day. I’ll remember this for the next time, thanks.

Too bad there isn’t a list of offensive terms that is updated daily. Even saying ‘Happy Holiday’s’ is apparently offensive.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#387

Post by techie128 » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 3:23 AM UTC

literallyaduck wrote: post #326

sildur wrote: post #82

> When famine struck, U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson initially refused to deliver food aid, citing the country’s high birth rate. I hope there is more context with that statement, because it sounds downright evil.

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 unsustainab…

India’s food insecurity was caused due to bad policies of the British rulers that left the country in a bad shape when they left. India experienced terrible famines and deaths of millions of people under British Raj. It took a while but India is not only self sufficient but a net exporter of raw and processed foods with a population of 1.2B. So it wasn’t that the country was not capable of supporting its population or managing famines. Its natural wealth was plundered for over 150 years and the country was left in ruins. UK still needs to pay India and other colonies reparations.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#388

Post by pdevr » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 3:59 AM UTC

>>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?

[1] http://rchiips.org/nfhs/data1.shtml

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#389

Post by redis_mlc » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

Danieru wrote: post #359

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is 'rich enough'? Looking at elderly issues in UK, noone ever is

China on a gdp per capita basis is still in the middle income trap. It seems likely they can escape, but they've not gotten out of the range yet.

> China on a gdp per capita basis is still in the middle income trap.

That's according to the CCP stats, which are rosy.

The reality is horrific - 1/3 of the adult population earns less than $140/month, and half of those zero. China is currently importing half of its energy and food, a situation that can go pear-shaped in only a few months of famine (or mining its harbors, etc.)

Every time you see a major flood ruining crops across a province, that's a million starving peasants who won't make it to the next harvest.

China is a train wreck in slow motion.

Re: India defuses its population bomb: fertility falls to two children per woman

#390

Post by refurb » Fri, Dec 17, 2021, 5:50 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #332

glitchc wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They very much show the opposite over the past couple of years, ever since the pandemic. Housing prices in suburban and rural areas have exploded across North America. People seem to want their own slice of land distant from others.

On the margins, sure, there suburbs are gaining a little relative to the city. On the whole, though, cities are vastly more in demand than suburbs.

Disagree strongly. Just look at suburb housing prices in the Bay Area versus within SF itself.

People want to be close to cities, but if it means giving up a single family home they’ll gladly live in the suburbs.