4 ms·

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.

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.