India’s total fertility rate has now fallen below replacement, and is now only slightly higher than the fertility rate of the U.S.
The average age of the population in India is 28, the US 39, Germany 40, UK 40…
which country has the most people of childbearing years? India’s total fertility rate has plummeted … after increasing from 470 Million to 1.1 Billion in 40 years ('62 to '02). the UN puts their population peaking at 1.64 billion These are big unknowns… projections. If the current 2.0 births per woman remains constant… India’s population is projected to peak at 1.7 billion in 2060 before declining to 1.5 billion by 2100. The low projection assumes more rapid fertility decline to well below replacement level—about 1.3 births per woman
For example, if India’s current fertility of 2.0 births per woman remains constant that is the UN projection (around 1.7 billion) but if this current generation should increase to just 2.3 births per woman, its population would grow to 1.8 billion by 2050 and 2.5 billion by 2100. I agree that women today are more receptive to family planning in India than in the 70s. But India will fast become the county with the largest population on Earth. India’s total fertility rate has now fallen below replacement…
That number is quoted in Urban areas where the rate is thought to be 1.6, however latest numbers still has the current fertility rate for India in 2022 as 2.159 births per woman https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/fertility-ra….
Apparently, heat induced an increase in testicular chemical reactions and produced oxidative stress, free radicals AKA ROS, which decrease the number of functional sperm.
.
.
And, WebMD weighs in on a related subject. (Assuming red light therapy also raises testicular temperatures?) https://www.webmd.com/men/news/20220420/you-want-me-to-tan-m…
These are big unknowns… projections. If the current 2.0 births per woman remains constant… India’s population is projected to peak at 1.7 billion in 2060 before declining to 1.5 billion by 2100. The low projection assumes more rapid fertility decline to well below replacement level—about 1.3 births per woman
They’re also the more conservative projections, since the UN tends to have the highest estimates of future population growth. Given the speed with which India’s fertility rate has been falling (it collapsed from nearly 6 children per woman back in the 1960s to about 2.1 today), it’s not at all unreasonable to think that the trend will continue - especially since industrialization, economic development, and urbanization have resulted in declining birth rates in a wide variety of cultures and nations.
For example, if India’s current fertility of 2.0 births per woman remains constant that is the UN projection (around 1.7 billion) but if this current generation should increase to just 2.3 births per woman, its population would grow to 1.8 billion by 2050 and 2.5 billion by 2100.
But there’s no earthly reason to suspect that would happen. India’s fertility rate has been falling, invariably and consistently, for seven decades now. The fertility rate has declined every single year since 1950. That’s a natural consequence not only of the many formal steps the Indian government has taken to reduce the fertility rate, but also as a predictable consequence of the economic development of the country. We’ve seen the same thing happen in nearly every other developing country - as income levels and urbanization rise, population growth falls. There’s no plausible likelihood that this would suddenly reverse.
Regardless of whether the macrotrends site or the Indian ministry’s estimate of the TFR is correct (2.159 vs. 2.1), there’s no way that India is “the worst example of population growth that is out of control.” Large countries like Pakistan and Nigeria have much, much higher fertility rates. India’s one of the largest countries in the world, so it’s big on absolute numbers - but they’ve basically got their fertility rates down to replacement or slightly below, and it’s utterly implausible that they would suddenly start increasing again.
…many formal steps the Indian government has taken to reduce the fertility rate, but also as a predictable consequence of the economic development of the country. We’ve seen the same thing happen in nearly every other developing country - as income levels and urbanization rise, population growth falls.
Also, look at Bangladesh. Over the last two decades the population has increased from 125 to 168 million. The population growth rate has decreased by half, from 2% to 0.9% a year. At the same time their GDP has increased from $51 to $325 billion. The GDP per capita has gone from $410 to $1970, a 380% increase.
there’s no earthly reason to suspect that would happen…
I sold a second home in 2005, saying, this housing (prices) market is gonna crash. For the next two and a half years I continued to hear … there’s no earthly reason to suspect that would happen, this is real estate! It’s “Real”
(A little aside as to predictions…)
I don’t give much weight to the fertility rate numbers for 2022. The best we can actually say is that in 2020, fertility rate for India was 2.2 births per woman.
Furthermore, I should probably correct myself saying that India was “the worst example of population growth that was out of control.”
The urban centers (in India) are some of the most densely populated places on the planet. Immigration out of India has for decades been the greatest number of the any country. India has created an unsustainable growth rate and it has greatly contributed in the global warming that they currently are having to experience.
Going forward at our current rate of depletion of natural resources especially oil and gas I don’t believe that the Earth can sustain more than 2 and a 1/2 billion humans… but that will not be my concern. I’m too old for that to matter… but this was all predicted back on the First Earth Day April 22, 1970.
The GDP per capita has gone from $410 to $1970, a 380% increase.
A better gauge is what has happened the the % of population living in extreme poverty. It matters not only how much bigger the pie has gotten but also how it’s cut up.
I don’t think oil and gas (and coal) are the gating factors. Not anymore. Last time albaby provided numbers, oil and gas consumption was down globally compared to 2018(??). I think per capita, but if he’s reading this I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong. I suspect some of that was COVID lockdown, but not all of it.
I’d link something, but the sources I’m finding stop at 2016…
The problem is not global climate change, it is global human population infestation. As India, Sub-Saharan Africa, China, and Central Asia (notably Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) add another 2 billion people to the planet in the next twenty years, stories like this (North-west and central India experienced the hottest April in 122 years, while Jacobabad, a city in Pakistan’s Sindh province, hit 49C / 120.2F on Saturday, one of the highest April temperatures ever recorded in the world) will multiply.
This is an investment board. Please stay on topic.
How can a Fool capitalize on the misery as water issues, energy issues, pollution issues, food logistics snowball?
I mean, if Elon and the Supremes insist on forcing women to bear rapists kids, and then watch them get gunned down in elementary school by ammosexuals, while others starve and get traffiked …well, by God, why not make some money off of it?
India is far, far, far from the worst example of population growth,
I’m sure that’s heart warming consolation to Asian and African people dying of thirst in outta control heat, as their crops fail, and energy prices soar due to wars and Gods whims. But hey, economic figures have improved and GDP is up, and gosh, even if we can’t get it where it’s needed, we can grow the heck outta corn.
What thread count do you suppose the sheets will be on that Motel 6 in space? Complimentary mini-bar?
The GDP per capita has gone from $410 to $1970, a 380% increase. — A better gauge is what has happened the the % of population living in extreme poverty.
Poverty and extreme poverty have decreased. The poverty rate in 1983 was 97%. By 2016 that had fallen to 84%. www.macrotrends.net/countries/BGD/bangladesh/poverty-rate
It has continued to decline since then. Using different measures, the Asian Development Bank found that “the population living below the national poverty line dropped to 20.5% in 2019 from 24.3% in 2016.” www.adb.org/countries/bangladesh/poverty
Not surprisingly, poverty increased some during 2020.
Wheat price unlikely to rise as Govt to continue exports on back of bumper crop www.cnbctv18.com/agriculture/wheat-price-unlikely-to-rise-as…
A government official told CNBC-TV18 that India is well positioned on wheat availability and the stock in April is estimated at 190 lakh metric tonne (LMT) versus a stocking requirement of 75 LMT.
Further, India’s current buffer grain stock stands at 513 LMT and this is double the requirement of 210 LMT for April.
I’m sure that’s heart warming consolation to Asian and African people dying of thirst in outta control heat, as their crops fail, and energy prices soar due to wars and Gods whims. But hey, economic figures have improved and GDP is up, and gosh, even if we can’t get it where it’s needed, we can grow the heck outta corn.
As we discussed back on AF, global poverty - especially in the developing world - has also fallen markedly over the last few decades as Asia and Africa have continued developing. Rising GDP in these nations has overwhelmingly led to fewer and fewer people living in extreme poverty, as the economy has moved people from subsistence farming.
The ironic thing is that the factors that give rise to rising carbon emissions are also the things that alleviate poverty and reduce population growth in developing nations. Which is why decarbonizing is such a thorny problem, because significantly impeding economic growth has such a negative consequence not just (or not even primarily) for the world’s wealthy, but for the world’s poorest. And the world just doesn’t have a lot of institutional mechanisms available to remedy that through transfers - the only thing that has been shown to make a dent in global poverty rates is letting the poorest nations have access to the globalized economy and develop.
CherrypickinDB2 is at it again. That light ain’t the end of the tunnel; it’s a train headed right at the worlds overpopulated hungry people.
Global food inflation to worsen further as India weighs wheat export curbs
To safeguard domestic supplies amid a heatwave-fuelled shortage, the government is considering limiting wheat exports Wheat-importing nations have looked to India for supplies after the Ukraine war upended trade flows out of the key breadbasket region
Beware of cherrypicking misdirection.
ByPratik Parija and Shruti Srivastava May 4, 2022, 4:13 AM PDTUpdated onMay 4, 2022, 11:22 AM PDT
India is considering restricting wheat exports as severe heat waves have damaged crops, exacerbating tight global supplies after the war in Ukraine sent food inflation soaring.
The South Asian nation experienced its hottest March on record, shriveling the wheat crop that the world was relying on to alleviate a global shortage. To safeguard domestic supplies, the government is considering limiting wheat exports, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.
The ironic thing is that the factors that give rise to rising carbon emissions are also the things that alleviate poverty and reduce population growth in developing nations. Which is why decarbonizing is such a thorny problem,
factors? Ironic? Thorny? We had to destroy the village to try to save it?
factors? Ironic? Thorny? We had to destroy the village to try to save it?
It’s a difficult question because the positive results that come from industrialization and economic development are so enormous, even for the very poorest of society. It’s not at all like destroying a village to try to save it - it’s like giving desperately poor people a job and an income that’s higher than absolute poverty, which not only saves them from a lifetime of absolute misery but also reduces population growth - but at the cost of having carbon emissions go up.
The “right” answer to fighting population growth and climate change and poverty is to allow the large, poor countries of the world (notably India and China) to continue to have access to the globalized economy so they can engage in economic development, and to let them have access to cheap sources of energy. But to make the western developed economies pay for that cheaper source of energy so that it can be cleaner - either directly by transfers of wealth to subsidize cleaner energy sources, or indirectly by forcing our domestic industries to have even higher levels of carbon reduction than the developing ones. Because most of the carbon emissions we have to stop aren’t present emissions from the wealthy countries, but future emissions from the poor ones.
The reason we can’t implement that “right” answer (well, one of many reasons) is that there is no mechanism at all to make those transfer payments. In theory, it’s easy - just go to all the wealthy voters of the developed world and tell them they have to pay money so that kids in India and China will be better off than their parents were. In practice, that is never going to happen.
So we have to choose between perpetuating the immiseration of the global poor, or letting carbon emissions continue to rise. The folks running those poorer nations know full well what the right choice is for them - and that the best way to fight population growth is to get people off subsistence farms (where having more children is economically advantageous) and get them into schools and working in urban settings in non-ag jobs (where having more children is often economically disadvantageous).
That’s why it’s a ‘thorny’ problem with difficult ‘factors’ - and nothing like burning a village to save it.
which not only saves them from a lifetime of absolute misery but also reduces population growth - but at the cost of having carbon emissions go up…So we have to choose between perpetuating the immiseration of the global poor, or letting carbon emissions continue to rise.
Rising carbon emissions/pollution/global warming exacerbates the plight of the poor…not so much the wealthy.
It’s a catch-22. Rising carbon emissions reduces the plight of some poor regions, but continues to contribute to pollution and global warming, which disproportionately harms the poor.
The only way to stop the catch 22 is to reduce carbon emissions, and mount a full court press of birth control programs and education.
Anything less is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
albaby: " the only thing that has been shown to make a dent in global poverty rates is letting the poorest nations have access to the globalized economy and develop."
You keep missing or ignoring the big picture.
If providing food and goods to an overpopulated planet is destroying the environment, everybody loses; poor, middle and rich.
Earth's oceans are feeling the wrath of human-induced climate change. Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising and reefs are dying – and now, according to a new study published in Science Advances, the sea is losing its memory altogether
If providing food and goods to an overpopulated planet is destroying the environment, everybody loses; poor, middle and rich.
I’m neither missing nor ignoring it. I just think you’re wrong about it in two key ways.
The first is the ironic part: providing food and goods to an overpopulated planet has terrible negative consequences, but doing so reduces population growth. We’re not like bacteria in a petri dish - we respond to abundance by having fewer offspring, not more. The richer a society, the fewer kids it has - once it gets rich enough, fertility rates drop below replacement. So as ironic as it may be, the long-term solution to overpopulation appears to be economic development, not austerity.
The second is that your conclusion about everyone losing is simply wrong. The environment isn’t being destroyed. It’s certainly being damaged, and by quite a lot - but even under the most extreme projections, the environment remains quite capable of sustaining human life and society. As I mentioned in our thread on the other board, even under the hottest scenario under the IPCC report, human welfare increases as time goes by. Poverty is lower, and hunger is lower - humans are going to be, on average, in a better place in 2100 than they are today, even in a hotter world. The people of China and India are vastly better off because their nations have undergone massive economic development, even though the world is warmer because of it. That is almost certainly going to remain true - they will be vastly better off if their nations continue economic development, even though their economic development will be the deciding factor in pushing us into a still even warmer world.
India is considering restricting wheat exports as severe heat waves have damaged crops, exacerbating tight global supplies after the war in Ukraine sent food inflation soaring.
India will still have a surplus for export next year, less than this year but more than the year before.
www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest…
India emerged as a key supplier of wheat in February-March after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine stalled most of the supplies from the Black Sea region. The Indian government in February also projected wheat output at a record 111.3 million mt for MY 2022-23 (April-March). Banking on likely record production, markets were expecting Indian wheat exports to reach an all-time high of 11 million-12 million mt in MY 2022-23…
Wheat output in MY 2022-23 is now seen at around 105 million-106 million mt…India typically consumes around 98 million-100 million mt/year of wheat…India exported around 7.85 million mt wheat in MY 2021-22, almost tripling from 2.1 million mt the year before.
