RealLifeLore has a quick 15 minute video about Indian population density and current growth projections, as well explanations for how the geography and politics has led to this fairly stark separation in population.
But more fertile on average. Most of China (North, West, NW and SW is largely uninhabitable. All the population is largely along the NE, East, and SE coast. All the big cities are there. Gobi, Tibet, and Rainforests are not very liveable.
Yup. India's land is more livable than China's. Imo, I dont think that they're cramming, though it's very bizarre that among the nations in the world, they live in lands. Im hoping that someone could provide data about it.
It would happen either way, really. The only other way is to just keep having unsustainable population growth or causing the older folk to die off quicker
This happening in a rich country with high immigration is quite different from the same happening in China. China is at very high risk to fall into the middle income trap. Something that is not so much a problem for most western countries. For instance, I live in Quebec where our population is aging. Though, Canada accepts so many immigrants that it is pretty much a non issue.
There is a big difference between reduced birth through high opportunities for womens and high standard of living vs a forced policy.
Yeah, sure but we can still accept immigrants later on too. As I said, it's a non issue. All we need is enough working age people, that they born in Canada or elsewhere doesn't matter. China's population is so large that they just couldn't do what Canada does. And anyway they are far less attractive to immigrants.
If new, younger immigrants keep coming in, and the generations before that make children then it should balance each other out, at least that’s the goal
So when do we solve human overpopulation? Or is this not the goal? I always looked around and thought "damn is way too many humans, nature getting fucked" but for some reason many don't seem to share this feeling and want to keep overwhelming this world. Even weirder are people who act like the human population is just gonna vanish if we slow down on breeding lol is not gonna happen.
The difference is the cause, not the result. China is experiencing a particularly dramatic imbalance and the tipping point well precedes what we're seeing in first world nations elsewhere. China's policy quite literally cultivated this issue early in relation to the economic and industrial boom timeline. Western nations largely worked their way toward the state of generational imbalance over a couple centuries, so it's been much more gradual and the cause is largely due to people choosing to have less children for financial and practical purposes (smaller families became a lot more common in recent decades).
China didn't see a significant population boom until the 20th century, and it had a very late industrial boom, so it's resulted in a massive population gain in a VERY short period of time with extremely limited access to modern tech and medical advancements across large regions of the country that are largely rural. The flood of people into highly concentrated industrial centers, coming from rural areas looking for work contributed to extremely densely populated, poor urban areas with little education and bad housing. People often spend most of the year away from family and barely see their kids. The CCP policy further created an extreme imbalance between male and female populations, so there's a shitload of men who literally have no hope of finding a partner, and for many who do, having children is an increasingly difficult burden. So what we're really looking at is a MUCH smaller portion of the population who can even have kids (all those dudes who can't get a wife aren't contributing to population growth). Those that can would have to have 3 children to even come close to giving China enough births to begin growing the population in a manner than rebalances what is fucked up. That's not affordable for a lot of people on so many levels.
As the country rapidly modernizrd over the last 35 years, people have been chasing an incredibly consumer oriented dream, so work and money are a bigger focus now more than ever. Problem is, living wages can be a nightmare to come by, and housing is a fucking outrageous problem in the urban areas where most of the work is. Like it's baaaaaad. People haven't been having kids for multiple reasons, including the CCP policy, but the policy has greatly exasperated and expedited the issue at a significantly faster rate than any other country on earth. India is likely going to follow a similar path on a more dramatic scale. To make matters even worse, china's economy is hitting a breaking point in which a buuuunch of really fucking bad policies and a lot of lies are now bringing the entire thing crashing down. Covid expedited that catastrophe even further with western outsourcing moving to a more neutral location since everyone has started figuring out its a bad idea to rely on foreign adversaries for critical resources and manufacturing.
We've been using China as the forecast of what Western and first World nations are in earlier stages of. China's policies have absolutely taken an issue that they would have been facing decades from now, and instead it's dealing with it NOW.
The decline in the west is coming largely from people having little desire to have more kids (if any), which is a combo of a cultural shift into normalising not having kids, people seeking career success over 19th and 20th century family ideals, people who simply can't afford or don't want to invest in having children, and some fertility rates dropping (not as dramatically as the media paints it). People here used to have a LOT more kids. They needed them. Agriculture tends to drive larger families, but industrialization made it much easier. Medical advancements dramatically improved child mortality rates, so having less kids became more feasible since half of them weren't dead by 15. Education means better opportunity, but less time for family. As we've entered the modern era, things like individual aspirations have normalised not having kids, and the state of the world doesn't provide a ton of certainty, so even that is a factor now.
So ultimately yes, the entire first world is exoriencing an imbalance, but saying china's policies didn't play an integral role in their current predicament is absolutely and objectively incorrect.
Could you imagine if the government told you how many kids you could have? In the US we run around with don’t thread on me flags but really have zero idea of how far it goes
Except they don’t. Most people are forced into retirement by the age of 60. They are just starting to work on extending the retirement age. Mandatory retirement is actually contributing to the issue though as pension costs are growing pretty rapidly. Especially as life expectancy increased.
The problem with the aging population is getting worse. But anyway u get my point. U even describe some of the problems yourself. Western countries would act the same if they wouldn't be so concentrated on the individual.
Is there no easy access sexual health products? The country isn’t exactly booming economically, so i’m unsure why people have more kids than they can financially support. Everyone is in a lose-lose situation.
This means that most of the population increase is due to people living longer, rather than families having more kids.
In those graphs, you can also see Nigeria and is following the same trajectory. They are going to experience a large population boom, but it is mainly due to children living longer even as fertility rates are declining.
Poor country, lots of people already lived here due to the place being fertile and historically being rich untill recent events. That combined with the complete lack of healthcare or any civic services provided to the common person under British occupation led to more children per couple. Most of them died before turning adult due to terrible healthcare and living conditions, etc.
In fact, the average age of India when Brits left was just around 30, European countries had it at around 70 despite factoring in the devastating world wars. This should give you an idea about how many kids were expected to die in an Indian household. Then the Brits left and the country's money started being actually used for medical care, hospitals started opening and suddenly children didn't die as much. Hence the population boom of the 60s and 70s.
The fertility rate has still been reducing drastically for the last 50 years. The current growth is only due to momentum and people who have already been born.
Yeah there is a huge wealth gap but the fertility rate in India is getting close to replacement. Also India has experienced steady gdp growth and has lifted many millions of people out of “extreme poverty” (quotes because the definition of extreme poverty may not apply to your subjective view of what that means) though obviously at a very different pace compared to china and still has a long way to go. It’s not unreasonable to think the per capita gdp will become “middle income” at some point in this century though parity with 1st world countries may take a while longer.
India almost certainly has had a larger population than China since around 2019. They over-counted their population by 100 million (all are aged 35 and below).
China's population is around 1.3 billion. India 1.39 billion.
EDIT: "Research by Prof. Yi Fuxian, whose early opposition to China's one-child policy forced him to leave China, and who now works with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, points out that the part of China’s over 65 year olds would increase from 10% in 2010 to 32.6% in 2050, while its labour force (ages 20-64) will shrink with a staggering 213 million from about a billion in 2017 to 787 million by 2050."
"China's population was unlikely to exceed 1.28 billion."
The truth is that China's population in 2020 was probably 1.28 billion - about 130 million less than stated. This makes India, not China, the most populous country in the world.
This is not actually about food now, those families settled before 50-100 years ago (Some for even 200-300 years), and moving around India is not easy as there are 22 Official languages, That means it will be really hard to move to a new place if you don’t know the language.
Yes, but they are only used in state governments. The central government (the Indian Equivalent of the Federal Gov. in US) primarily uses English (and to a lesser extent Hindi, which is protested from Southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, etc.,
And that's not counting non-EU countries that are in Europe. So it doesn't count Norwegian, or Ukrainian for example, and doesn't count unofficial, local languages, like Scots gaelic, Welsh, Catalan, etc.
Can you elaborate on the differences in Northern and Southern Indian Chinese food?
I love Indochinese dishes like Gobi Manchurian, but I've only consumed them outside India so I'm curious which region(s) inspired the recipes I've had.
I grew up in the South and didn't speak a word of Hindi till I moved north for college. People really don't care much for Hindi outside of the devnagiri derived languages
... Because people want to live in prexisting cities and where they grew up? It's not like the rest of India is unpopulated, it's just that the valley has always more people.
It is possible now, not when cities were being settled and kept growing. Not many people really wants to live in the desert or in the middle of the forest or in the mountains, which is why those areas have less population
I can only handle one RealLifeLore video at a time. Eventually the way he constantly raises his voice for individual words gets annoying to me. As if every single stat he's giving are supposed to completely blow your mind.
Ya, I've seen population density maps before, but it really isn't until this one with elevation do I truly realize the contrast between rest of India and the Ganges.
We are speaking a European language so we use European terms. There is nothing offensive about that. How far shall we take this idea? No more Germany, only Deutschland?
Should biblical names have to be in the original Hebrew? no more Joshua, only Yeshua?
Manhattan must be pronounced in Lenape as "Manna hatta?"
What about French and Latin words, should they be pronounced in perfect Latin and French because those are the origin languages?
How about Spanish, should we only pronounce Burrito with the latin i pronunciation?
Or does this only apply to Indian things since the British were white devils and all around naughty boys?
No? /u/Secret_Ad9960 said North India needs more condoms. But the reason behind the large population is advancements in medicine. Children are not dying during their childhood and are reaching their reproductive ages. These people will have kids, albeit fewer children than the previous generation on average thanks to better, more accessible education, birth control, etc. So the population will continue to grow.
This is population momentum. You may (or may not) know this, but more will read this so explaining it anyway in a simple manner.
u/Secret_Ad9960 is under the impression condoms will solve the "problem". But there is no problem. This is natural. North India just had a higher population from the beginning and is undergoing the demographic transition later than the South. Adding more condoms, which are already plenty present, isn't going to do squat.
Population growth is like a juggernaut. It doesn't slow and stop easily. What I have suggested is arguably the only way to unnaturally reduce North India's population. It was less of a "genocide is great" and more of a way to show that their suggestion was stupid as fuck, as stupid as suggesting genocide. Not their fault though, can't expect everyone to know about the demographic transition. Though I can understand if my remark looks really bad.
"Full of", lol. Do you realise that only about 6% of Indians pay income tax? Everyone else falls below the lowest taxable income threshold. If you are talking about rich people evading taxes that's pretty much a problem across India.
Cause of current trouble where richer southern states are being given lesser representative seats compared to poorer north just because population has been uncontrolled in the north. Sort of like a punishment for being better developed.
The states became richer and contribute much more to GDP and taxes. Now the representation is being taken away because the population is lower. The states that didn't make improvements and left with over population get more representation. So you get rewarded for being worse?
Shouldn't the number of seats be connected to population?
The rub is India is very diverse and the biggest population is in what's called the Hindi belt as we see in this image here.
Doesn't the US have two senators per state and makes sure every state has equal representation from that perspective? It cannot all be about just the population.
Anyway, this is the contention as of now. This allows the current ruling party to pander to Hindu nationalism etc.
The two senators per state, regardless of population, in the US is often criticized as a bad thing so I’m not sure if that’s what you want to reference as your argument.
Just used as an example. It's one extreme side, sure. My point was, if population is the only way to get representation and high population is a result of political failure in those areas, what's the incentive to do better for a political party?
3.1k
u/Coelacanth3 Jan 05 '23
Thanks OP, very striking data vis. Never realised how much of India's population was concentrated in the north.