4 ms·

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2015.png https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/imag

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2015.png https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw... 2.5 x India.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Consider this...how much of the world’ resources are used by the various countries to export to the rest of the world. China supplies most of the manufacturing muscle to the whole world including India. Also consider this...the foot print of India is much less because the resources are all used up. The older the country, the less natural renewables remains.. I am from India myself and I realize that their carbon foot print is certainly less than America even with what I said above..but 1+ billion people is simply not sustainable in a land which is water and power and resources availability is challenged. The entire world should adopt the 1/2 surviving child/person quota that is non transferable so we can maintain diversity in the gene pool and across cultural/socio-economic/religious segments. Population grows exponentially. That’s what the OP meant(I assume) with the comparison of human population to bacteria. The geometric progression will eventually explode within a constrained environment. And if resources aren’t available to continue, the die off will likely begin(I am not a microbiologist tho).. Does it matter which country one is from...species extinction is species extinction. We can arrest the speed and/retard the progression and explosion and die off sequence with strict population control quota across the board. Starting with 1/2 surviving child/person. We are all going to live longer or we can..but we can’t if we insist on living like it’s 1900.
- jogjayr 7y ago
  India's fertility rate is at the global average, has been dropping for decades, and that trend is expected to continue.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    In 1981, it was 4.5. In 2016, it is 2.2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_fertility_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_ter... In 1981, population was 700 million vs 1.3 billion in 2016. World population in 1981: 4.4 billion. World population in 2016: 7.4 billion. 2.2 replacement rate is still too high for India. China stats are at a more slower rate due to the one child policy. It wasn’t perfect and that’s why we need to incentivize rather than act punitively. If the US or China or even Europe or Africa has the accepted 2.1 replacement rate, they can manage due to land mass and resources..India is tiny and we are already bursting at the seams. While the US can claim to reduce population because it’s a ‘problem’..it’s a full blown crisis in India. The future generations will suffer. I can’t see the rationale. When one compares the quality of life benefits to low density living, it is baffling that current generations want their descendants to suffer and perish.
    - vkou 7y ago
      > If the US or China or even Europe or Africa has the accepted 2.1 replacement rate, they can manage due to land mass and resources..India is tiny and we are already bursting at the seams. The current lifestyles of US, Europe, and China are only 'sustainable' thanks to unsustainable import of non-agricultural resources from the Middle East, South America and Africa. And that's not even getting into their addiction to carbon-derived energy.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        You are right. I don’t think it’s sustainable. A lot comes the other way too by way of industry and technology. It’s not a one way transfer. But ..regardless..that is not a reason for a overpopulated country to compete with under populated counties and insist on rationalizing more children/person.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Example: if we stop all trade. US/China/Europe can grow food, have enough water and take care of existing citizens. India is running out of water. I think it’s time to stop having multi children families. Communal living should be in and nuclear families must be out. FWIW: I grew up in an Indian joint family. Even as an only child, I never missed having a large family or siblings. The rationale behind large families is having kin and bloodline. This is acutely felt in nuclear families. I always say that I was raised by four mothers. All my cousins are my siblings, as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that would provide some psychological salve to the loneliness of nuclear families.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw-graphic-pie-chart-co2-emissions-by-country-2015.png https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2017/11/gw... 2.5 x India.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

Consider this...how much of the world’ resources are used by the various countries to export to the rest of the world. China supplies most of the manufacturing muscle to the whole world including India. Also consider this...the foot print of India is much less because the resources are all used up. The older the country, the less natural renewables remains.. I am from India myself and I realize that their carbon foot print is certainly less than America even with what I said above..but 1+ billion people is simply not sustainable in a land which is water and power and resources availability is challenged. The entire world should adopt the 1/2 surviving child/person quota that is non transferable so we can maintain diversity in the gene pool and across cultural/socio-economic/religious segments. Population grows exponentially. That’s what the OP meant(I assume) with the comparison of human population to bacteria. The geometric progression will eventually explode within a constrained environment. And if resources aren’t available to continue, the die off will likely begin(I am not a microbiologist tho).. Does it matter which country one is from...species extinction is species extinction. We can arrest the speed and/retard the progression and explosion and die off sequence with strict population control quota across the board. Starting with 1/2 surviving child/person. We are all going to live longer or we can..but we can’t if we insist on living like it’s 1900.

jogjayr 7y ago
India's fertility rate is at the global average, has been dropping for decades, and that trend is expected to continue.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  In 1981, it was 4.5. In 2016, it is 2.2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_territories_of_India_by_fertility_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_union_ter... In 1981, population was 700 million vs 1.3 billion in 2016. World population in 1981: 4.4 billion. World population in 2016: 7.4 billion. 2.2 replacement rate is still too high for India. China stats are at a more slower rate due to the one child policy. It wasn’t perfect and that’s why we need to incentivize rather than act punitively. If the US or China or even Europe or Africa has the accepted 2.1 replacement rate, they can manage due to land mass and resources..India is tiny and we are already bursting at the seams. While the US can claim to reduce population because it’s a ‘problem’..it’s a full blown crisis in India. The future generations will suffer. I can’t see the rationale. When one compares the quality of life benefits to low density living, it is baffling that current generations want their descendants to suffer and perish.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > If the US or China or even Europe or Africa has the accepted 2.1 replacement rate, they can manage due to land mass and resources..India is tiny and we are already bursting at the seams. The current lifestyles of US, Europe, and China are only 'sustainable' thanks to unsustainable import of non-agricultural resources from the Middle East, South America and Africa. And that's not even getting into their addiction to carbon-derived energy.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      You are right. I don’t think it’s sustainable. A lot comes the other way too by way of industry and technology. It’s not a one way transfer. But ..regardless..that is not a reason for a overpopulated country to compete with under populated counties and insist on rationalizing more children/person.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Example: if we stop all trade. US/China/Europe can grow food, have enough water and take care of existing citizens. India is running out of water. I think it’s time to stop having multi children families. Communal living should be in and nuclear families must be out. FWIW: I grew up in an Indian joint family. Even as an only child, I never missed having a large family or siblings. The rationale behind large families is having kin and bloodline. This is acutely felt in nuclear families. I always say that I was raised by four mothers. All my cousins are my siblings, as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that would provide some psychological salve to the loneliness of nuclear families.