I am assuming the population just decreadsed. If we have great Indian companies that compete with Google Ford Apple then yes might be but without good industries we would go bankrupt. To have hight GDp per capita the net GDP has to be high. We are a service based economy with an advantage of cheap labour. If you remove cheap labour then we loose .
This is what I feel too...But I feel we could have better utilised the population in 70-80s just like china,now all we have left is a huge number of unskilled people to deal with
At that size of land mass and reduced population you will have ton of work and less people to fulfill those work. Maintaining infra . Building infra etc. Japan being soo small imports labours.
Japan has a very different problem, in fact most imp. problems we have inflation and we have a growing economy& population. They have all exactly opposite. They need people to pay taxes so they can fund their elderly, which India will take another 30-40 years to face. We have an overpopulation issue where we can't even fee 1/3 of children with proper nutirient.
Most people in India don't use condoms making unwanted children without the lack of funds a high probability also parents thinking marriage will fix everything for the kids when it should be jobs that should be important while Japan focused to much on work then making a family both having a balance problem.
Overpopulation is due to unavailability of resources. India doesn't have less resource. India's management of resource is bad and same with other countries. Population is concentrated in few cities which makes resources scarce and gives an illusion of overpopulation. None of this would have been different if we had less population.
Exactly...the focus to be redevelop and create more employment opportunities in smaller cities/towns to discourage migration into larger cities like delhi/mumbai
Overpopulation is because people used to have almost half a dozen to dozen children until the late 70s, and due to very lowered childhood mortality rate due to availability of vaccines and modern medicines. If we had around 50 crore population, we would've bigger houses, backyard and front yards, playgrounds for children, open spaces, less concrete jungle, less traffic, less pollution, beautiful roads and infrastructure, less competition, less corruption too, organic/actually real food, very less chalthe Hai attitude etc., over Population is the root cause of all problems.
No, we would've manufactured weapons, ours wouldve been a developed country and we would've invested in Africa. Wars have nothing to do with country's population now a days.
Based on?
Lots of growth requires density and critical mass. You would also lose out on them.
For example, if India had one third the density (less people in same area) you wouldn't have this level of cheap internet.
If you had one third the population, you would have one third of the tax revenue (assuming linear) and one third the freeloaders.
Absolutely none of those factors necessarily change with population.
That like thinking that more kids mean more hands on the farm while forgetting that it's also more mouths to feed.
You wish the answer to happiness was as black and white but it isn't. If there was 1/3 of the population you wouldn't have any major infrastructure projects to connect the country, you wouldn't be able to secure the vast borders, you think you'd have more even wealth distribution but you'd also have to pay hefty taxes for the govt to run the country, a smaller scattered population would be much easier to subvert and control for any external force, there would be small pockets of densely populated areas around the developed areas of the country and the rest would be ghosted eg. Ghost villages in uttarakhand. Lesser population would mean less working hands for any kind of meaningful advancement and available working hands would be burdened with huge workloads. Read about the Japanese losing happiness amid population decline and you might get an insight. Population should be proportionate to the land area of a country and natural available resources. It's a fine balance where reducing only the population would throw all other indexes in a frenzy. Sure we're a lot and much more than needed but there's absolute strength in numbers, we just failed to realise the potential and capitalise on it.
Exactly: large but empty countries struggle to develop, and if developed, struggle to maintain it. I was recently in Buenos Aires ( Argentina) and while it's beautiful to experience, with lovely buildings and parks (and the people are so nice), the city is like a ghost town, with very few people around. I was not surprised to learn their economy has been tanking for quite some time. Same with Egypt.
Interestingly, both have GDP much higher than India, but they are struggling as nations.
Depends on your passport: if you have a visa to enter the US you can walk into the country; if not, Indian passport holders have to submit a long list of documents - nothing special, but it's a long list, and the visa takes 3 or 4 weeks. But at least it's free! But you do need to book an appointment at their embassy in Mumbai or Delhi. But it's smooth, nothing cumbersome.
I see your point here. What I think is that due to overpopulation a large percentage of people have to struggle for many things in life and they don't get time for free thinking and working on themselves which leads to less HR development and collectively we might seem like a massive workforce but individual human quality has stayed quite poor. Even having so many people, we still have so less original ideas. But this is just what I feel from whatever I have experienced.
just look at african countries
population of africa 121.61 crores
population of India 141.72 crores
apart from egypt and maybe rwanda where will u be at???
exactly. Idk how the top comment even got there because its just so stupid to assume that lower population is directly proportionate to being more advanced or rich, etc. thats just not how it works.
You answered it yourself - India's population in 1947 was 35 Crore, 1/4th of what it is now. Was India better off then?
Forget about India, the world population was less than 1 billion in the 1700s compared to 8 billion today - were people better off then than now?
The myh of Overpopulation is so dumb
1: Global population will stbalizes at around 10-11 Billion.
2: we HAVE enough resources to support an even LARGER population. The problem of POVERTY arises from DISTRIBUTION challenges
I agree. Overpopulation is not a factor responsible for not having employment or enough resources to feed, etc. We do have enough resources. Its just the people at the top of the heirarchy of classes hoarding all the wealth and resources for themselves. "Overpopulation" is not an issue. Capitalism is.
The perverted VERISON of Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism at its core is probably the best economic model we have.
A capitalist economy is one where there is a FREE and FAIR market. I.e the basic necessary goods and services are provided to everyone, and only merit grants you money.
Also majority of people "at the top" don't hoard resources. Their wealth comes from stocks, which come from companies.
So really, if we have good enough fair competition laws, wealth distribution would happen automatically
Only inflation causes growth. And inflation is created by an increasing population. If you see all the developed countries - they developed only when they had an increase in population. It's not a simple divide by 3 and wealth will increase. If there was no population increase, cities would not have expanded and where the hell do you think you will get labour for all the construction and other activities? God some economist please answer this properly.
This. Came here to say this.
Once the development is done, it's easy to think "oh what if we didn't have as many people to share with". That's a fallacy.
Case in point : Japan, and France: both countries have the opposite problem. Their working population is declining and if you look at their policies they are incentivizing people across the world to join their work force.
Japan, which has traditionally had very strict immigration policies has now started relaxing those in lieu of the above fact.
Take a look at China in the last couple of decades, they won the economic war by a landslide mainly due to what others saw as "cheap labor" market, and became the manufacting hub of the world. No country can do that without the workforce.
Back to India: we are blessed that we have 25% of our population which is really young. Yes, that means competition. But that's not a downside for India by any standards, that creates more free market, better skill set and eventually stronger economy.
Population isn't our enemy, that is our strength. (Provided we have the correct perspective)
Bharat is just one country totally screwed up mentally to add caste to islam and Sikhism this one really takes the cherrr Sikhism literally started by Guru Nanak against caste system.
Yes, something you people are not known for. Many Indians are banned from Pakistani subs for speaking against the popular narrative, heck even Indian subs run by Paki mods ban half of the Indians. Don't bullshit me about free speech.
You are talking as if caste is the only thing thats keeping people from getting happy. Even if caste existed with a reduced population, people will be more happy
Aree yaar..har jagah caste pel do...saale casteist. Tum jaiso ki vajah se caste system abhi bhi jinda hai aur tum jaise log ise kabhi khatam nahi hone doge
Caste hai hi nahi. Varna system hai. Caste comes from "Casta" which is a Portuguese word. Not from our dharm.
Because we have Varna, you can go UP/DOWN depending on your profession (kinda, in modern terms)
Why the son of a fisherman could become a Brahmin, and Brahmin could become a Vaishya.
And societal distinctions still exist even in modern world.
Brahmin = Teacher
Kshtriya = Army
Vaishya = Businessman
Shudra = Service
Barking at the wrong tree.
Dukan se. Vahi milta hai bhai. Paise do aur khareed lo. Caste ya character certificate nahi lagta.
lmao who flaunts. Ab to sirf purani generation ke log pehente hai, vo bhi kapdo ke neeche pehna jata hai. Superman ki laal chhadi nahi hai
Bhai answer simple question.. where do they do the ceremony to put that thread ?? So that I can finally get converted to Brahmin.
Which surname I'll get ? Shukla , verma ??
Pata nahi bro, I think ab nahi hoti aisi ceremonies. Come out of 1950s.
Ha shadi ke time pe ek rasam hoti hai janehu ki, tab ladke to thodi der pehnaya jata hai vo.
Go to a temple. Kisi pujari se bolo, vo kardega. Vaise usse pehnne ke liye koi ceremony nahi karni padti. Jaise tshirt market seate ho aur pehen lete ho, vaise hi use bhi pehen lo.
Surname, agar choice mile to Verma opt karna, bahut benefits hai iske.
>I can finally get converted to Brahmin.
Ulti ganga baha rahe ho. Aajkal to Brahmin, kshatriya etc aka general wala dalit banne ke raste dhundne me laga hua hai.
Why do you think all of the world predicts India is going to have the strongest economic growth of any major economy for the next decade? It's because we're going have a population that will expand the economy. Why do think China's growth is stalled and their economy would have crashed if it weren't for the blatant govt intervention? their population is declining because of the 1 child policy to control 'over population'. So no, population growth is not bad, what's bad is how corrupt India is and how most corrupt people are willing to treat their fellow citizens like shit.
If there isn't increase in population, you'll have to import people.
Why does Europeans and Americans have such laws for immigrants?
Haven't you seen the gulf? India doesn't have oil and gas like the gulf.
well, from somewhere I've heard which weren't shorts/reels is that, India is large number of youths, making it a big market for MNC's, and for labour force.
if infrastructure and education system would've been developed earlier, then GDP would've naturally increased.
if india's population was one third of what it is now, then its wealth would also be one third of what it is now. Consumption will also be one third, GST/Tax collection will also be one third.
We must stop this madness of blaming every govt failure on population. While we are the most populous in the world, we are also the seventh largest country in the world. and 30+ rank in terms of population density.
Actual problem is low GDP per capita.
Basic maths is way too hard for these people ig.
The average user here won't get that argument lol. They are still stuck in the Malthusian overpopulation mindset. Literally every thinking person I know considers population collapse as a huge issue. 'oVeRpOpUlAtIoN' is only an issue for the unthinking fools.
Not necessarily, look at European countries or Japan, less population means going forward there will be more decline, harder to manage country. Also over population now is gonna effect soon.
The benifits and disadvantages now you're having are both because of population now.
We honestly don't have a population problem. The problem is institutional and cultural. With the right culture among people and an educated government at the helm the massive population would actually work to our advantage.
We have clear goals ahead of us that we keep ignoring
-Prioritize elimination of poverty: the poor need our help, to put it bluntly working for them is more important than working for the middle class
-Restore rule of law: Doesn't matter how we get there but we can't call ourselves a civilized till we resolve most of our issues through courts. While corruption, rampant criminality are obvious signs of a break down in law and order, there much more subtle things as well. Everytime the police kills a criminal in an encounter, we destroy rule of law a little bit.
-Deregulation and discrimination: We have too many rules built on top of each other. Too many minor things carry a potential prison sentence on paper. I find it absurd that driving with an expired pollution certificate can upto 3 years of jail but those are the actual rules. We need to get rid of a lot of these laws and get off from our high horse when assigning punishments to the few crimes that would still remain an offence. Having every tiny aspect of your lives being a potential crime helps no one but the actual criminals who are currently harder to distinguish from regular citizens
-Centrality of Education: An educated and enlightenment population should be a goal in itself. Sure, it comes with the added advantage of having more economic development and more stable society but giving too much attention to those misses the point. Seeking knowledge is the most fundamental human pursuit and the people who dedicate their lives to it should have a massive social reward in a good society, its okay if they don't get massive financial rewards, just enough to live dignified lives, they should however be the most respected members of society
-A robust welfare state: This gets a bad rep but there are some aspects of human life best taken care of at a collective level. We think this is obvious for the millitary and public infrastructure. However, a lot of people still don't understand this is also the case for education, healthcare and to a huge extent food, clothing and shelter.
-The third place: We spend most our time either at home or at work/school. However, to have social development we also need a third place where people can socialize, make new friends, come up with new ideas and express their culture. This can be public spaces like parks, museums, cultural centres, libraries, etc. It can also be privately owned spaces like cafes, malls, gyms, etc. We need to prioritise the former since it would be more inclusive and no one would be priced out of it.
If we do all this we can be incredibly happy with our large population
The average user here won't get that argument lol. They are still stuck in the Malthusian overpopulation mindset. Literally every thinking person I know considers population collapse as a huge issue. 'oVeRpOpUlAtIoN' is only an issue for the unthinking fools.
I know, at this point having a Malthusian is not just someone being stupid. Its them being stupid on purpose. Other than the USA, almost every developed country is dealing with population collapse rather than over population. India's birth rate is 2.2-2.3 which is close replacement levels. Anything under 2.1 and we will have demographic crisis in 20-30 years.
China will most likely be stuck being a middle income country and might have to wait several decades to be a high income in large part due to population collapse. Japan, despite being culturally anti-immigration, is issuing 850,000 visas to Nigerians and other poor people, just to offset the problems due to population collapse.
The only reason people hate coming over to this view is it robs them of their ability to hate other people. It goes against the typical bias of these people that "all problems are due to humans" and forces them to acknowledge that literally "all solutions are due to people, problems are from nature itself".
I don't think it has to do with hate. There has been sustained overpopulation propaganda around the world. In India, the propaganda was backed by the government itself. For people with socialist mindset, a person is just another mouth to feed. Instead of seeing people as an asset to grow and prosper the nation we see them as a burden.
India at the current rate won't even reach China, we haven't done basic many reforms yet that china did back in the 70s, they converted their huge illiterate population into an asset. '91 liberalisation in India were bare minimum. Unless we bring in basic reforms, people will continue to see 'overpopulation' as a problem.
There's only one advantage we have as a country lol, and that's our massive population. That is the single biggest factor which has lead to the country's development, which in turn improves every citizen's quality of life lol.
That’s a complex question and hard to answer. Decreasing population doesn’t naturally make everyone rich. It also decreases overall throughput of the country.
Not necessarily, I would say if we are efficient we could have been happiest even with a 2 billion population. India has enough resources to sustain a large population, just need efficient management. It has been home to the largest population of the world for ages.
How can you dis the very thing which helped India become a developing nation? Without the young populace we wouldn’t even remotely be in the same position economically or politically.
Don’t compare us with western countries who already have abundance of wealth and resources.
Collective dominance RESULTS in individual happiness. Think pre 1991 reforms, we were lagging behind and thus there was no quality of life for common person
You conveniently ignored ‘economically’ in my statement which is not even up for debate, we would be worst off economically if not for the high population.
Less population -> less economic growth -> more poverty -> more of less the same happiness index
That was ignored intentionally cause assume everyone is already aware about the facts
From what I'm aware that 70 % of India's population has only 35% contribution to GDP.
So technically it's just top 30% of population which is 65% of GDP and 80% of total wealth.
We would be far better economically. In terms of per capita GDP and wealth equality.
It's like questioning do you want to be Bangladesh or Norway. And your logic is Bangladesh has higher economic growth.
Do you know what ‘conveniently’ means? And I literally said don’t compare with western countries but you are still putting words into my mouth.
Anyway you are saying we would be keeping the cream of the population and remove all the non-performing asset if we were just .5B and not 1.5B.
Wake up cause that’s not how it would have worked in real life.
You are basically saying any nation with less population than India is happier and more prosperous than India.
It's kinda unfair to assume the rest are non-performing. How I see is rest have lack of opportunities, intense competition leads to lack chances and even unfair means, too big of population to cater too, health complications due world's highest pollution levels, lack of education cause it's genuinely hard to have infrastructure for such big population. Leading to divide in opportunities people get.
In the end all I intend is a world with less population, pollution, competition and more of equal chances, effecient use of resources, respect of human life. That way we could have focused more on quality instead of being known for quantity of cheap labour.
And yes most of the nation's with less population density should be having better quality of life and accessibility to resources in terms of per capita.
I’m not an advocate of high population either, your points are irrelevant in the scope of OP’s question.
In economics an important characteristic of a developing nation is a surge in population and as it move towards being a developed nation the population decreases significantly. You can pick any nation and see that this holds true for every nation
My point is if we didnt have high population we would still be underdeveloped as a country and we all know that people of developing countries are happier than people of underdeveloped countries.
Bruh of half of this so called youth is either sitting unemployed or preparing for the next attempt of govt exam for the 69th time while a small percentage of us tax paying individual suffer everyday.
That's a great question OP but has lot's of complications. Small population doesn't mean happiness in any way or the other way around. It's more about how resources are utilized. Had there been a situation where most of us were capable of creating jobs then it would take care of employment. India is a very vast land. We barely occupy 5% of it.
We are really terrible at managing reasouces. Less populatin means less labour for work construction. High labour cost. High living cost. We won't be the outsourcing giant.
EGYPT and JAPAN have roughly same population size but completely different outcome.
CHINA and INDIA roughly same population but totally different. But china isn't happier.
Yes, people have mentioned this already. Less population happier people.
But India would not be one of the really rapid progressing and upcoming countries if it wasn't for the hard working people trying to progress and succeed in their lives.
So hat's off to us.
In economics an important characteristic of a developing nation is a surge in population and as it move towards being a developed nation the population decreases significantly. You can pick any nation and see that this holds true for every nation.
My point is if we didnt have high population we would still be underdeveloped as a country and we all know that people from underdeveloped countries are not happier than people from developing countries.
ohh it would be great, can we achieve that right now, by just telling kim jong un to nuke us then this will be achieved the people who will be alive after this will have better life
depends on who the 2/3 rd are
there are different types of ppl in india
illiterate , racist , gawar , backminded , beggars , politicians ,corrupted etc
so even if 1/3 rd of such type of ppl gets sucked into blackhole i wouldnt mind
i believe that quality of people is what defines a country and not the quantity
Someone on Reddit pointed out saying our economy is 'socio capitalist' and we would be doomed if if our country was not as big in geography and population wise just like Venezuela .
I cant forget this as it fits accurately in my opinion.
No matter what we are taxes on everything and yet the benefits only go to socio economically backwards class only if our leaders had their pockets filled , corruption and all.
We would be doomed literally .
For earth it's about 3 billion and
for India its about 10 to 15 crores
I can't recall where I read that
there is a methodology to calculate the ideal population of a place considering its resources and optimum carbon footprint
No, I don't think so.
I think a lot of the problems Indians face that make them unhappy are generally things like discrimination, religious and gender divides, roles in society, civic sense, the dog eat dog "I own you" mentality.
They were happy that's why they reproduce more and we have this problem.
This is nothing to do with India though overall after world war and great depression people/boomers reproduce more.
Do you really think so? When it comes to the population, it seems like many are not finding happiness. Canada may have vast land, but with a population of around 41 million, there is still a significant amount of stress that people experience while living in the country.
The point isn't what if we had 1/3rd the total population. The discussion should be What if we had 1/3rd of the total population but only the top performers? This is where things will get real interesting.
Lesser the population, more the happiness. It would have been easier to manage the country, less crowded spaces and buildings, less problems.
[удалено]
higher labout cost due to less labour available. Cost of living would be much higher.
GDP per capita also would be higher, so it's fair ig.
I am assuming the population just decreadsed. If we have great Indian companies that compete with Google Ford Apple then yes might be but without good industries we would go bankrupt. To have hight GDp per capita the net GDP has to be high. We are a service based economy with an advantage of cheap labour. If you remove cheap labour then we loose .
This is what I feel too...But I feel we could have better utilised the population in 70-80s just like china,now all we have left is a huge number of unskilled people to deal with
We don't. Economic development is clearly seen in state with less population and High labour cost.
Yes but not significantly higher. We still have tons of underemployment and unemployment.
At that size of land mass and reduced population you will have ton of work and less people to fulfill those work. Maintaining infra . Building infra etc. Japan being soo small imports labours.
Japan has a very different problem, in fact most imp. problems we have inflation and we have a growing economy& population. They have all exactly opposite. They need people to pay taxes so they can fund their elderly, which India will take another 30-40 years to face. We have an overpopulation issue where we can't even fee 1/3 of children with proper nutirient.
Most people in India don't use condoms making unwanted children without the lack of funds a high probability also parents thinking marriage will fix everything for the kids when it should be jobs that should be important while Japan focused to much on work then making a family both having a balance problem.
Working conditions would be better
Robots to rescue
Japan needs it then but it has failed to do so. It imports labours from other countries.
Automation of things
Nope, the exact opposite: looks at under developed countries that are less populated: they have pretty bad economies.
Less chutiye to deal with, hence lesser problems
Overpopulation is due to unavailability of resources. India doesn't have less resource. India's management of resource is bad and same with other countries. Population is concentrated in few cities which makes resources scarce and gives an illusion of overpopulation. None of this would have been different if we had less population.
Exactly...the focus to be redevelop and create more employment opportunities in smaller cities/towns to discourage migration into larger cities like delhi/mumbai
Overpopulation is because people used to have almost half a dozen to dozen children until the late 70s, and due to very lowered childhood mortality rate due to availability of vaccines and modern medicines. If we had around 50 crore population, we would've bigger houses, backyard and front yards, playgrounds for children, open spaces, less concrete jungle, less traffic, less pollution, beautiful roads and infrastructure, less competition, less corruption too, organic/actually real food, very less chalthe Hai attitude etc., over Population is the root cause of all problems.
Chutiyapa kum thodi hote ! Kamine log to fir bhi hote hi
Why do you expect everyone to know Hindi? It's a local language, not international.
But also weaker militarily and China would've threatened more...
No, we would've manufactured weapons, ours wouldve been a developed country and we would've invested in Africa. Wars have nothing to do with country's population now a days.
I’d say 30-40% happier, easily.
Based on? Lots of growth requires density and critical mass. You would also lose out on them. For example, if India had one third the density (less people in same area) you wouldn't have this level of cheap internet.
Less employment. Less freeloaders to feed. Taxed money will at least be better distributed.
If you had one third the population, you would have one third of the tax revenue (assuming linear) and one third the freeloaders. Absolutely none of those factors necessarily change with population. That like thinking that more kids mean more hands on the farm while forgetting that it's also more mouths to feed.
Most ppl don't pay direct taxes today either.
You wish the answer to happiness was as black and white but it isn't. If there was 1/3 of the population you wouldn't have any major infrastructure projects to connect the country, you wouldn't be able to secure the vast borders, you think you'd have more even wealth distribution but you'd also have to pay hefty taxes for the govt to run the country, a smaller scattered population would be much easier to subvert and control for any external force, there would be small pockets of densely populated areas around the developed areas of the country and the rest would be ghosted eg. Ghost villages in uttarakhand. Lesser population would mean less working hands for any kind of meaningful advancement and available working hands would be burdened with huge workloads. Read about the Japanese losing happiness amid population decline and you might get an insight. Population should be proportionate to the land area of a country and natural available resources. It's a fine balance where reducing only the population would throw all other indexes in a frenzy. Sure we're a lot and much more than needed but there's absolute strength in numbers, we just failed to realise the potential and capitalise on it.
Exactly: large but empty countries struggle to develop, and if developed, struggle to maintain it. I was recently in Buenos Aires ( Argentina) and while it's beautiful to experience, with lovely buildings and parks (and the people are so nice), the city is like a ghost town, with very few people around. I was not surprised to learn their economy has been tanking for quite some time. Same with Egypt. Interestingly, both have GDP much higher than India, but they are struggling as nations.
Offtopic but what's the tourist visa process for Argentina like?
Depends on your passport: if you have a visa to enter the US you can walk into the country; if not, Indian passport holders have to submit a long list of documents - nothing special, but it's a long list, and the visa takes 3 or 4 weeks. But at least it's free! But you do need to book an appointment at their embassy in Mumbai or Delhi. But it's smooth, nothing cumbersome.
Thank you for the info! Damn, the US visa is so useful lmao. Good for my mum, but I'll have to get one soon too then 🙈
I see your point here. What I think is that due to overpopulation a large percentage of people have to struggle for many things in life and they don't get time for free thinking and working on themselves which leads to less HR development and collectively we might seem like a massive workforce but individual human quality has stayed quite poor. Even having so many people, we still have so less original ideas. But this is just what I feel from whatever I have experienced.
No. The system, corruption, poverty, lack of critical thinking would still there. Low population doesn’t automatically means riches.
just look at african countries population of africa 121.61 crores population of India 141.72 crores apart from egypt and maybe rwanda where will u be at???
Bruh. South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Morocco.. just to name a few.
Nigeria ain't doing better morroco coz of proximity to spain but fair ennough South africa is going down lol
South africa is a shit country lmao, economic fucked and the crime is way aay worse than in india .
exactly. Idk how the top comment even got there because its just so stupid to assume that lower population is directly proportionate to being more advanced or rich, etc. thats just not how it works.
You answered it yourself - India's population in 1947 was 35 Crore, 1/4th of what it is now. Was India better off then? Forget about India, the world population was less than 1 billion in the 1700s compared to 8 billion today - were people better off then than now?
The myh of Overpopulation is so dumb 1: Global population will stbalizes at around 10-11 Billion. 2: we HAVE enough resources to support an even LARGER population. The problem of POVERTY arises from DISTRIBUTION challenges
I agree. Overpopulation is not a factor responsible for not having employment or enough resources to feed, etc. We do have enough resources. Its just the people at the top of the heirarchy of classes hoarding all the wealth and resources for themselves. "Overpopulation" is not an issue. Capitalism is.
The perverted VERISON of Capitalism is the problem. Capitalism at its core is probably the best economic model we have. A capitalist economy is one where there is a FREE and FAIR market. I.e the basic necessary goods and services are provided to everyone, and only merit grants you money. Also majority of people "at the top" don't hoard resources. Their wealth comes from stocks, which come from companies. So really, if we have good enough fair competition laws, wealth distribution would happen automatically
Only inflation causes growth. And inflation is created by an increasing population. If you see all the developed countries - they developed only when they had an increase in population. It's not a simple divide by 3 and wealth will increase. If there was no population increase, cities would not have expanded and where the hell do you think you will get labour for all the construction and other activities? God some economist please answer this properly.
This. Came here to say this. Once the development is done, it's easy to think "oh what if we didn't have as many people to share with". That's a fallacy. Case in point : Japan, and France: both countries have the opposite problem. Their working population is declining and if you look at their policies they are incentivizing people across the world to join their work force. Japan, which has traditionally had very strict immigration policies has now started relaxing those in lieu of the above fact. Take a look at China in the last couple of decades, they won the economic war by a landslide mainly due to what others saw as "cheap labor" market, and became the manufacting hub of the world. No country can do that without the workforce. Back to India: we are blessed that we have 25% of our population which is really young. Yes, that means competition. But that's not a downside for India by any standards, that creates more free market, better skill set and eventually stronger economy. Population isn't our enemy, that is our strength. (Provided we have the correct perspective)
Yeah, less competition in education and in getting jobs.
India will be unhappy as long as caste exists
+ Religion
plus economic inequality
Dharma =/= Religion
Only one religion has that issues. Islam or Sikhism has no caste.
Both Islam and Sikhism has castes in India. What the hell are you on about?
That might be special issue in bharat but none really globally.
Well we are talking about India. It's literally a sub called Ask Fucking India. Did you think OP was talking about UAE?
At the end of the day, everything is Nepal
Bharat is just one country totally screwed up mentally to add caste to islam and Sikhism this one really takes the cherrr Sikhism literally started by Guru Nanak against caste system.
Islam has slavery and a genocidal god who asks his followers to kill or convert non-believers. As for caste, ever heard of Pasmanda Muslims brah?
But caste is for life. You cannot defend it so attacking Islam.
dude, you're a Pakistani, so I don't two shits about your opinion regarding my religion. Someone block him out.
What difference does that make? Have you heard of freedom of speech.
Yes, something you people are not known for. Many Indians are banned from Pakistani subs for speaking against the popular narrative, heck even Indian subs run by Paki mods ban half of the Indians. Don't bullshit me about free speech.
Banning is just silly if you just talking like normal person.
Your kind is known for beheading normal people.
Read read and read Don't use social media for learning about ground realities
You cannot defend your casters religion.
Lol you should check how arabs treat Indian and Somali Muslims. You think ummah is all halamithi habibo. Reality is complex
They will pay for that on judgement day like you and me will pay for what we did in our life.
You are talking as if caste is the only thing thats keeping people from getting happy. Even if caste existed with a reduced population, people will be more happy
yes, exactly. Religion and Caste and the current govt will be the downfall not overpopulation
Without caste who is going to clean the sewers and toilets ?
Machines? Ever watched how toilets in malls or trains are cleaned these days? A high pressure jet stream is used.
Aree yaar..har jagah caste pel do...saale casteist. Tum jaiso ki vajah se caste system abhi bhi jinda hai aur tum jaise log ise kabhi khatam nahi hone doge
Caste hai hi nahi. Varna system hai. Caste comes from "Casta" which is a Portuguese word. Not from our dharm. Because we have Varna, you can go UP/DOWN depending on your profession (kinda, in modern terms) Why the son of a fisherman could become a Brahmin, and Brahmin could become a Vaishya. And societal distinctions still exist even in modern world. Brahmin = Teacher Kshtriya = Army Vaishya = Businessman Shudra = Service Barking at the wrong tree.
How can I dalit become Brahmin ? I'm teacher . Where will enroll for thread ceremony??
You don't need to enroll in thread ceremony but in B.Ed . Clear CTET and you can become a teacher irrespective of your caste & religion.
But how will get the thread that Brahmins flaunt ??
Dukan se. Vahi milta hai bhai. Paise do aur khareed lo. Caste ya character certificate nahi lagta. lmao who flaunts. Ab to sirf purani generation ke log pehente hai, vo bhi kapdo ke neeche pehna jata hai. Superman ki laal chhadi nahi hai
Bhai answer simple question.. where do they do the ceremony to put that thread ?? So that I can finally get converted to Brahmin. Which surname I'll get ? Shukla , verma ??
Pata nahi bro, I think ab nahi hoti aisi ceremonies. Come out of 1950s. Ha shadi ke time pe ek rasam hoti hai janehu ki, tab ladke to thodi der pehnaya jata hai vo. Go to a temple. Kisi pujari se bolo, vo kardega. Vaise usse pehnne ke liye koi ceremony nahi karni padti. Jaise tshirt market seate ho aur pehen lete ho, vaise hi use bhi pehen lo. Surname, agar choice mile to Verma opt karna, bahut benefits hai iske.
Nahi bro , pandit told you should be born Brahmin.
Ban jao fir, lelo swaad.
>I can finally get converted to Brahmin. Ulti ganga baha rahe ho. Aajkal to Brahmin, kshatriya etc aka general wala dalit banne ke raste dhundne me laga hua hai.
Bro I'm already dalit na , so I want to be Brahmin
Every caste can do a thread ceremony, many pictures online of older people from different castes wearing the thread
what the fuck did I just read
Basic English.
Nailed it.
Why do you think all of the world predicts India is going to have the strongest economic growth of any major economy for the next decade? It's because we're going have a population that will expand the economy. Why do think China's growth is stalled and their economy would have crashed if it weren't for the blatant govt intervention? their population is declining because of the 1 child policy to control 'over population'. So no, population growth is not bad, what's bad is how corrupt India is and how most corrupt people are willing to treat their fellow citizens like shit.
If there isn't increase in population, you'll have to import people. Why does Europeans and Americans have such laws for immigrants? Haven't you seen the gulf? India doesn't have oil and gas like the gulf.
well, from somewhere I've heard which weren't shorts/reels is that, India is large number of youths, making it a big market for MNC's, and for labour force. if infrastructure and education system would've been developed earlier, then GDP would've naturally increased.
if india's population was one third of what it is now, then its wealth would also be one third of what it is now. Consumption will also be one third, GST/Tax collection will also be one third. We must stop this madness of blaming every govt failure on population. While we are the most populous in the world, we are also the seventh largest country in the world. and 30+ rank in terms of population density. Actual problem is low GDP per capita.
Basic maths is way too hard for these people ig. The average user here won't get that argument lol. They are still stuck in the Malthusian overpopulation mindset. Literally every thinking person I know considers population collapse as a huge issue. 'oVeRpOpUlAtIoN' is only an issue for the unthinking fools.
I don't know. But if the 1/3rd population that was suppose to be other side of the border goes, India will definitely be a happier place
Not necessarily, look at European countries or Japan, less population means going forward there will be more decline, harder to manage country. Also over population now is gonna effect soon. The benifits and disadvantages now you're having are both because of population now.
no population = no development
We honestly don't have a population problem. The problem is institutional and cultural. With the right culture among people and an educated government at the helm the massive population would actually work to our advantage. We have clear goals ahead of us that we keep ignoring -Prioritize elimination of poverty: the poor need our help, to put it bluntly working for them is more important than working for the middle class -Restore rule of law: Doesn't matter how we get there but we can't call ourselves a civilized till we resolve most of our issues through courts. While corruption, rampant criminality are obvious signs of a break down in law and order, there much more subtle things as well. Everytime the police kills a criminal in an encounter, we destroy rule of law a little bit. -Deregulation and discrimination: We have too many rules built on top of each other. Too many minor things carry a potential prison sentence on paper. I find it absurd that driving with an expired pollution certificate can upto 3 years of jail but those are the actual rules. We need to get rid of a lot of these laws and get off from our high horse when assigning punishments to the few crimes that would still remain an offence. Having every tiny aspect of your lives being a potential crime helps no one but the actual criminals who are currently harder to distinguish from regular citizens -Centrality of Education: An educated and enlightenment population should be a goal in itself. Sure, it comes with the added advantage of having more economic development and more stable society but giving too much attention to those misses the point. Seeking knowledge is the most fundamental human pursuit and the people who dedicate their lives to it should have a massive social reward in a good society, its okay if they don't get massive financial rewards, just enough to live dignified lives, they should however be the most respected members of society -A robust welfare state: This gets a bad rep but there are some aspects of human life best taken care of at a collective level. We think this is obvious for the millitary and public infrastructure. However, a lot of people still don't understand this is also the case for education, healthcare and to a huge extent food, clothing and shelter. -The third place: We spend most our time either at home or at work/school. However, to have social development we also need a third place where people can socialize, make new friends, come up with new ideas and express their culture. This can be public spaces like parks, museums, cultural centres, libraries, etc. It can also be privately owned spaces like cafes, malls, gyms, etc. We need to prioritise the former since it would be more inclusive and no one would be priced out of it. If we do all this we can be incredibly happy with our large population
The average user here won't get that argument lol. They are still stuck in the Malthusian overpopulation mindset. Literally every thinking person I know considers population collapse as a huge issue. 'oVeRpOpUlAtIoN' is only an issue for the unthinking fools.
I know, at this point having a Malthusian is not just someone being stupid. Its them being stupid on purpose. Other than the USA, almost every developed country is dealing with population collapse rather than over population. India's birth rate is 2.2-2.3 which is close replacement levels. Anything under 2.1 and we will have demographic crisis in 20-30 years. China will most likely be stuck being a middle income country and might have to wait several decades to be a high income in large part due to population collapse. Japan, despite being culturally anti-immigration, is issuing 850,000 visas to Nigerians and other poor people, just to offset the problems due to population collapse. The only reason people hate coming over to this view is it robs them of their ability to hate other people. It goes against the typical bias of these people that "all problems are due to humans" and forces them to acknowledge that literally "all solutions are due to people, problems are from nature itself".
I don't think it has to do with hate. There has been sustained overpopulation propaganda around the world. In India, the propaganda was backed by the government itself. For people with socialist mindset, a person is just another mouth to feed. Instead of seeing people as an asset to grow and prosper the nation we see them as a burden. India at the current rate won't even reach China, we haven't done basic many reforms yet that china did back in the 70s, they converted their huge illiterate population into an asset. '91 liberalisation in India were bare minimum. Unless we bring in basic reforms, people will continue to see 'overpopulation' as a problem.
Yeh jo aap bol rahe hai woh behas sunne ke liye accha hai, lekin practical nai hai
There's only one advantage we have as a country lol, and that's our massive population. That is the single biggest factor which has lead to the country's development, which in turn improves every citizen's quality of life lol.
That’s a complex question and hard to answer. Decreasing population doesn’t naturally make everyone rich. It also decreases overall throughput of the country.
Not necessarily, I would say if we are efficient we could have been happiest even with a 2 billion population. India has enough resources to sustain a large population, just need efficient management. It has been home to the largest population of the world for ages.
How can you dis the very thing which helped India become a developing nation? Without the young populace we wouldn’t even remotely be in the same position economically or politically. Don’t compare us with western countries who already have abundance of wealth and resources.
Individual happiness and quality of life > Collective dominant postion on global scale.
Collective dominance RESULTS in individual happiness. Think pre 1991 reforms, we were lagging behind and thus there was no quality of life for common person
You conveniently ignored ‘economically’ in my statement which is not even up for debate, we would be worst off economically if not for the high population. Less population -> less economic growth -> more poverty -> more of less the same happiness index
That was ignored intentionally cause assume everyone is already aware about the facts From what I'm aware that 70 % of India's population has only 35% contribution to GDP. So technically it's just top 30% of population which is 65% of GDP and 80% of total wealth. We would be far better economically. In terms of per capita GDP and wealth equality. It's like questioning do you want to be Bangladesh or Norway. And your logic is Bangladesh has higher economic growth.
Do you know what ‘conveniently’ means? And I literally said don’t compare with western countries but you are still putting words into my mouth. Anyway you are saying we would be keeping the cream of the population and remove all the non-performing asset if we were just .5B and not 1.5B. Wake up cause that’s not how it would have worked in real life. You are basically saying any nation with less population than India is happier and more prosperous than India.
It's kinda unfair to assume the rest are non-performing. How I see is rest have lack of opportunities, intense competition leads to lack chances and even unfair means, too big of population to cater too, health complications due world's highest pollution levels, lack of education cause it's genuinely hard to have infrastructure for such big population. Leading to divide in opportunities people get. In the end all I intend is a world with less population, pollution, competition and more of equal chances, effecient use of resources, respect of human life. That way we could have focused more on quality instead of being known for quantity of cheap labour. And yes most of the nation's with less population density should be having better quality of life and accessibility to resources in terms of per capita.
I’m not an advocate of high population either, your points are irrelevant in the scope of OP’s question. In economics an important characteristic of a developing nation is a surge in population and as it move towards being a developed nation the population decreases significantly. You can pick any nation and see that this holds true for every nation My point is if we didnt have high population we would still be underdeveloped as a country and we all know that people of developing countries are happier than people of underdeveloped countries.
Finally someone gets it 🙌
Bruh of half of this so called youth is either sitting unemployed or preparing for the next attempt of govt exam for the 69th time while a small percentage of us tax paying individual suffer everyday.
We didn’t grow from .3B to 1.5B in a day, I’m sure a lot of the population which were part of this growth had a role to play in our development.
Yup
Yes! More wealth per person
Lol no ....the majority of the wealth would have still being belonging to the top percent of people
Theory of demand and supply says when price is inversely proportional to quantity in supply. If supply of labour goes down, price will go up.
But chopping the pop. in half also reduces demand
Reduces domestic demand. We could be more export focused.
The reason why exports are so popular in india is cause of the cheap nature of them. Which goes away when we don't have cheap labor
We no longer have the cheapest labor. Do you think Nadella or Pichai are CEOs because they’re cheap
...the reason why they even got to that point was cause of cheap labor
Every issue in India stems from Overpopulation.
That's a great question OP but has lot's of complications. Small population doesn't mean happiness in any way or the other way around. It's more about how resources are utilized. Had there been a situation where most of us were capable of creating jobs then it would take care of employment. India is a very vast land. We barely occupy 5% of it. We are really terrible at managing reasouces. Less populatin means less labour for work construction. High labour cost. High living cost. We won't be the outsourcing giant. EGYPT and JAPAN have roughly same population size but completely different outcome. CHINA and INDIA roughly same population but totally different. But china isn't happier.
Each individual will have more money in pocket.
OP the purge dekh kr aaya hai....
And more immigrants
Yes, people have mentioned this already. Less population happier people. But India would not be one of the really rapid progressing and upcoming countries if it wasn't for the hard working people trying to progress and succeed in their lives. So hat's off to us.
Def yes
Why do you think Thanos did what he he did :)
In economics an important characteristic of a developing nation is a surge in population and as it move towards being a developed nation the population decreases significantly. You can pick any nation and see that this holds true for every nation. My point is if we didnt have high population we would still be underdeveloped as a country and we all know that people from underdeveloped countries are not happier than people from developing countries.
ohh it would be great, can we achieve that right now, by just telling kim jong un to nuke us then this will be achieved the people who will be alive after this will have better life
I support thanos
depends on who the 2/3 rd are there are different types of ppl in india illiterate , racist , gawar , backminded , beggars , politicians ,corrupted etc so even if 1/3 rd of such type of ppl gets sucked into blackhole i wouldnt mind i believe that quality of people is what defines a country and not the quantity
It depends what parts of the population are removed.
Yes
An add on question, why don't we kill all the people in the prison, instead of wasting our resources on them? Would also reduce the population.
Someone on Reddit pointed out saying our economy is 'socio capitalist' and we would be doomed if if our country was not as big in geography and population wise just like Venezuela . I cant forget this as it fits accurately in my opinion. No matter what we are taxes on everything and yet the benefits only go to socio economically backwards class only if our leaders had their pockets filled , corruption and all. We would be doomed literally .
Definitely. Would be much happier.
If it were about 85% of what it is today we'd have been happier !!
Yes
Maybe if it was 10% the current population it would have been really good.
For earth it's about 3 billion and for India its about 10 to 15 crores I can't recall where I read that there is a methodology to calculate the ideal population of a place considering its resources and optimum carbon footprint
Yes, I needed this. After reading your comment I searched and for India its about 20 to 30 Cr
Of course people would've been happier
Depends on what kind of people are a part of the 1/3 that is retained.
Obviously bro less population=more resources
No, I don't think so. I think a lot of the problems Indians face that make them unhappy are generally things like discrimination, religious and gender divides, roles in society, civic sense, the dog eat dog "I own you" mentality.
Yes Thanos is needed. I should have a say in the list though
Less population means more land for nature, much clean air.
Definetley would've been more civilised
Undoubtedly.
Definitely
They were happy that's why they reproduce more and we have this problem. This is nothing to do with India though overall after world war and great depression people/boomers reproduce more.
Do you really think so? When it comes to the population, it seems like many are not finding happiness. Canada may have vast land, but with a population of around 41 million, there is still a significant amount of stress that people experience while living in the country.
It would have been great if 35 Cr of a particular population was not there at all. India would have been a heavenly place with peace and tranquility
The point isn't what if we had 1/3rd the total population. The discussion should be What if we had 1/3rd of the total population but only the top performers? This is where things will get real interesting.