4 ms·

Now you are grasping at (incorrect) straws. Firstly, roaring population growth != roaring fertility rate. Try and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_pr

Now you are grasping at (incorrect) straws. Firstly, roaring population growth != roaring fertility rate. Try and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_progression and then look at the fertility rate again and model how population growth would look based on that rate (assuming a constant or decreasing death rate). Anyway, the graph of absolute population looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India-demography.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India-demography.png, which is what I term "roaring population growth". My contention is that the fertility rate would have dropped much faster if the stringent family planning incentives during the Emergency would not have been imposed. At no point am I claiming that they have led to an increase in the fertility rate. The fertility rate naturally should decrease as a population gets better education and healthcare; and it should have dropped much faster than that graph you posted. Also note that the fertility rate is not the only thing that contributes to population growth. The death rate and its distribution among the population also affect the population of a nation during every decade.

r0h1n 13y ago
Allow me to recap your evolving assertions: a. >> "Massive overpopulation, caused in part by over-aggressive family planning measures" b. >> over-aggressive family planning measures [...] led to Government family planning measures being widely distrusted in rural areas for the next few decades. This, combined with improved healthcare and low infant mortality, has led to roaring population growth. c. >> the fertility rate would have dropped much faster if the stringent family planning incentives during the Emergency would not have been imposed If you think a = b = c, I rest my case.
- parennoob 13y ago
  In all honesty, I do think they are at least broadly similar in their fundamentals, if not exactly equivalent. Perhaps you want to believe that there is absolutely no unusual pattern in India's population growth that is causing people to leave, and the only reason for brain drain to the US are nebulously defined "better opportunities". In which case I am going to refrain from futher argument, and leave you with this cartogram of countries scaled to their population (density-equalized). http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~mgastner/cartogram/population1024x512_downsampled.png http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~mgastner/cartogram/population102...

r0h1n 13y ago

Allow me to recap your evolving assertions: a. >> "Massive overpopulation, caused in part by over-aggressive family planning measures" b. >> over-aggressive family planning measures [...] led to Government family planning measures being widely distrusted in rural areas for the next few decades. This, combined with improved healthcare and low infant mortality, has led to roaring population growth. c. >> the fertility rate would have dropped much faster if the stringent family planning incentives during the Emergency would not have been imposed If you think a = b = c, I rest my case.

parennoob 13y ago
In all honesty, I do think they are at least broadly similar in their fundamentals, if not exactly equivalent. Perhaps you want to believe that there is absolutely no unusual pattern in India's population growth that is causing people to leave, and the only reason for brain drain to the US are nebulously defined "better opportunities". In which case I am going to refrain from futher argument, and leave you with this cartogram of countries scaled to their population (density-equalized). http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~mgastner/cartogram/population1024x512_downsampled.png http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~mgastner/cartogram/population102...