Fewer Babies Please!

That can only happen when no one marries and large scale abortions are promoted by the government.

Govt should spend 1 billion rupees on feminists so that they can promote abortion in all streets in India.

By this multi-pronged approach, we can improve the economic situation of the country.

Every year 4 crore abortions happen in the world. Indian govt must make sure 25% of them happen in India.

It can happen only if the Indian society begins to popularise Male Foticide (as if its not happening at all these days), so that all the male children are MURDERED even before they are born. And that the Indian society has only females so they can commit any crime in any part of the world and return to India and under the cover of the idiotic Govt of India, curropt Law'n Order and the stupid Judicary extort money from those countries by claiming to be Victims under the sheild of Women Rights; and thus increase India's per capita - by revenue flowing into the country!!

Indian Men today do not even have as much rights as that of a Stray Dog who too are protected by fanatic feminists in the name of Animal Rights!!

What Animal Rights when there is no basic Human Rights in the world's largest Democracy!! Democracy I believe - for the people, of the people and by the people need to be changed to for the Fanatic Feminists, of the Fanatic Feminists by the Fanatic Feminists!!

Feminists are good - but Fanatism makes them worst. Fanatic Feminism encouraging Fanatic Terrorism globally in the name name of Women rights by creating Laws and misusing them, is the begining of another threat to the Global Security.

you guys are not making any goddamned sense. you know, it's just plain ridiculous... you're not promoting any dialog, just asinine rhetoric and hyperbole. you prevent people from wanting to discuss anything with you or seeing any valid points you may have about discrimination happening. all your hyperbole is only serving to alienate you. You might be attracting the attention of other angry men, but you're not going to get support or help from the people you really should be courting by talking all this smack.

Hey Folks...

Fewer children can be achieved through mass availability of reporustcive related health care, basic contarception, better empowerement of women, intense communication with the target groups and rewards for having fewer children. Abortion is and must be a last resort.

rgds

Hey Folks...

Fewer children can be achieved through mass availability of reproductive related health care, basic contraception, empowerement of women, intense communication to target groups and rewards for having fewer children. Abortion is and must be a last resort.

rgds

Smallsquirrel,

Have radical feminists, NCW, WCD, Leftists and Liberals ever allowed any meaningful discussion on "Gender Issues"?

No. Because they do not care whether one lives or dies.

Open your mouth, one will immediately get accused of being a MCP, a devil burning women and eating flesh of girl child.

That is how Feminists blackmailed other MPs when the parliament was supposed to discuss the Domestic Violence Law.

Where were you when radical feminists hijack an entire bill and bulldoze it in parliament without allowing any discussion?

We are just giving the medicine back. We are showing just the mirror image and it is working.

Our opponents said, no one takes us seriously. Evidence proves it otherwise. We are the most sanest and most influential blogger group in India. Only through blogging, we could make make Govt think twice before it brings any other law (example, workplace harassment law).

When truth is on ourside, we will tell it in the loudest tone.

Do you think only "Sexy MF*****" Husain has got the balls to make loud statements?

Dialogue works only with people, who have open minds.

People who have closed minds, need a blast to wake up.

Once they wake up and get ready for dialogue, we change the method.

By the way, most of the Indian Bloggers are actually idiots, who just blindly follow what couple of media channels show and they are terribly afraid of thinking anything different from what NDTV or AajTak shows them.

So, the minds of most bloggers of the country are controlled by just 5 or 6 people in Indian media.

Chandra - the problem here is twofold:
One, you can't enforce that rule. The last time someone did, it was in the Emergency and we know how well that turned out.

Two, most people don't have multiple children because they want big families. Broadly speaking, they have them because they're displeased with the gender of the child or because of their religious convictions or because they haven't yet understood/been educated or are suspicious of contraceptives.

So while an argument based on economics may appeal to some people, I suspect you're preaching to the choir.

SS - Siffie in chief says: Dialogue works only with people, who have open minds. without any sense of irony. Siffie minions are probably waiting in the wings to demonstrate their open minds like they have in the past so why feed the monster?

sumanth... well in this forum you should should be trying to engage the people HERE in dialog. use other methods in other areas.

I have an open mind, but steadily it is getting more closed because of the approach you are taking. I am a liberal, I am a feminist, and I am willing to see how these laws are being used badly and need to be modified. I am all for equality across the board. but when all you do is use rhetoric that serves only to make me want to not listen, I start not not care about your views at all. when you attack me without knowing me, when you accuse me of things without knowing what I stand for, when you call me names.. .why should I care then? You are alienating a lot of people unnecessarily, and it feels like you're doing it to prove a point... like "oh I told you they hate us, they are against us, they are horrible horrible women".

It's not the case, Sumanth. But your constant preemptive strikes, name calling and attacks make it more likely every day. I have tried to reach out to you in numerous forums here to see if there are things we can agree on and you have either ignored me or allowed one of your cohorts to piss all over me. So I do not see how methods have changed.

Sumanth, you should take that last comment to heart and internalize if a rational reasoned approach might be more effective. As our fearless temporal noted before, copy-paste blah will be excised going forward, so editors please take note and sharpen your editing pens...

Amrita

Actually, I have not proposed controls anywhere. I have done enough study on this matter to write what I did.

Secondly, the reason for having multiple children is not because people run after having a male child. The major reasons are poor empowerement of women and lack of desire to adopt contraceptive measures. No wonder the southern states and Orissa have fertility rates of 2.1 (the replacement rate). The problem is the bigger states of BIMARU.

Next, you say people are suspicious. Actually this is not borne by facts on the ground. The problem in the past has been lack of funds. That is being taken care by almost doubling of funds during the last three years. This means better healthcare and education facilities per capita.

Orissa, my home state, reduced its fertility rates from 2.4 to 2.1 over the last 8 years. Not bad at all.

Things are moving fast, but we need to be faster, please. :-)

Let's take a look at how China's one-child policy is turning out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6282186.stm

Amen, squirrel. I'd glad you said that.

Personally, I'm happy to listen to any rational argument, but when people take stances and then just BLINDLY push an agenda, it gets my goat.

I've got to the point where I see the word Sumanth and I skip the comment. Usually, its a VERY long, and vitriol-filled comment, so there's a lot of scrolling to do.

I tend to disagree with the basic assumptions in Chandra's post. Firstly, per capita income doesnt just automatically increase by having fewer babies. Per capita income grows when economic growth exceeds the population growth. Economic history of ours and scores of other countries already proves this point. It is not the actual numbers of the population that determines the economic vibrancy of the country, but the percentage of the population that is in the productive age group. By that count, having more younger population in the country contributes more to the economic growth rather than impeding it.

Our country has enormous wealth, but it is concentrated in small sections of the population. If only we can mobilise a small portion of that and make education for every child compulsory, the same excess population would prove to be a boon rather than a bane.

On the question of urban infrastructure, you mentioned - "Having just one child in urban areas would mean fewer people using roads, lesser water being consumed and most critical- a larger number of families being able to access better quality of education."

The above is generally not true. The infrastructure of the urban areas is crumbling because of unabated migration from rural areas. This migration will continue, as there is more economic growth in urban areas mostly at the expense of other areas that are left behind. You have several instances where only a 100 miles away from a major urban area, rural populations have to trudge five miles to fetch a pitcher of water. Why wouldnt a family migrate to the urban area, even if they have to sleep under flyovers or train stations. At least they can get some water to drink and some food to feed their families.

A typical Malthusian position. I don't understand when people will realize that Malthus and every one of his progenies throughout the twentieth century have been irredeemably discredited my empirical evidence.

The problem in India is not too many babies--it's ineptitude and irrationalism in dealing with large population levels.

#16: For whatever reason, it annoys the crap outta me when somebody makes sweeping comments tinged with technical jargon because firstly most people wont understand it and secondly because labelling everything with such broad terms is just BORING, obsolete. Simplification is the key to having people understand your perspective and throwing out labels like "Malthusian position" does nothing but make readers roll their eyes at you. So let me take it upon myself to explain why Ergo here is disappointed in your very "Malthusian" perspective, Chandra.

Thomas Malthus had a theory which suggested that a growing population would eventually wipe out resources. Plain and simple. Now because he was a known figure, this philosophy came to be known by his name and used like a term, like Ergo has in #16.

But logically speaking (in celebration of the rationalism that Ergo points out is lacking in India), wouldnt it be true that no matter how good the infrastructure of any nation, no matter how ept the handling by a government, a country's natural resources are limited. A growing population puts a lot of undue and avoidable pressure on these resources which unfortunately cannot be replenished by pure rationalism. As most of us are aware, rationalism doesnt feed hunger or quench thirst.

Long story short, I agree with you, Chandra and in fact really like how your second to last paragraph is written up. I have a small addition to make to some of the ideas: Lack of awareness among those who cannot educate their children and pull them out of their socioeconomic class keeps the cycle of poverty in motion. So, governing the number of children born in a class which can eduacte their children and provide them with resources for a better future wouldn't be a solution. This might be what caused the ineffectivity of the one-child law in China that was alluded to by Sanjay in #13. The solution may lie in trying to control the number of children born in an already compromised economic setting where they will likely not be educated or provided vocation but will sadly add to the growing class of below poverty line people. Maybe the key lies in educating these classes in terms of contraception, reproductive health etc. It seems like a slow process but should be effective if the outreach is large-scale and there are incentives for compliance instead of laws against non-compliance.

Aditi,

The ignorance of others regarding whatever topic (be it Malthusian philosophy or anything else) is not an obligation upon me to *dumb* down my statements or--in your terms--use "simplisitic" language. In fact, one would hardly consider the use of the phrase "Malthusian position" a "technical jargon." If that were so, then any reference to any position of any thinker would be technical jargon, with the only standard of making this claim--the tyrannical ignorance of the masses.

Now, to briefly address your point: Yes, a rational and scientific approach to problems have empirically demonstrated an effectiveness in addressing and alleviating physical and infrastructural problems like the ones you state, including others. Malthus in his time, and others after him, decried the increasing levels of population, which was significantly *below* the levels we have today. And yet, we did not witness the kind of doomsday scenarios they predicted and continue predicting.

Instead, we witnessed the application of *reason* to technology and derived, for example, the green revolution and the white revolution.

Every problem man faces can only be competently tackled by the application of reason--nature in order to be commanded must be obeyed. Our civilization today is testament to the fact that man can command nature and that given a impending problem, man will/can find a solution--provided he remain committed to applying his reason to finding a solution as opposed to resorting to mysticism, irrationalism, prayer, doomsday panic, fear, etc.

You talk about crumbling infrastructure as a consequence of high population levels in India?
Witness the unprecedented growth of China--with a population greater than (or equal to??) that of India--their infrastructure does not seem to be crumbling. Indeed, quite the opposite: by the application of reason to science and technology, the Chinese nation has unrelentingly created a standard of living that is now fast approaching the standards in the United States. It is already the fourth largest economy in the world, and soon to replace Germany (whose population in comparison is meagre) for the third place.

The essence of Chandra position is, we have too many living human beings around us, and too much life is not a good thing. That is Malthusianism; and if some reader's ignorance here considers this a technical jargon, I'd advice that they get an education, instead of demanding that the discourse be watered down to "simplistic" terms for the understanding of the masses.

Having said all of the above, does it mean that I advocate having 5 or 10 children? I do not advocate that as equally as I do not advocate having no children at all. It's just up to you to choose to screw your life up (and that of your kids) or to be smart in making your life decisions. Whatever you choose, the consequences should be in your mind, and inescapable. Which is yet another reason why I do advocate free market and the removal of welfare and government interference in the matter.
If a family chooses to have 10 kids, well they should have the right to--and bear the consequences of it all. Do not have the government interfere with welfare checks and aid extorted from the rest of us who have fewer or no kids. In a free market, if you are burdened by the consequences of your actions, you will learn (perhaps the hard way) to make smarter choices.

So, am I saying we should have fewer babies? NO! I am saying, if you're rich and can afford it, then please, by all means, have 20! :) But don't expect society to bail you out when you hit hard times.

ergo... oh for crying out loud... giving a complete explanation is not "dumbing down" your argument. for the love of god PLEASE get off your high horse and come back to reality.

I agree with the arguments of Ergo. The doomsday scenarios have been made several times before and will continue to be made. For example, they said during the last oil crisis in 70's, by year 2000, the world would run out of oil. 2000 came and went and nothing happened. Maybe world will run out of oil in some distant future, but mankind WILL find an alternative to oil.

One can sympathise with Chandra's sentiment about the state of infrastructure or poverty in our country. But there is no evidence, the same would be any different if every couple in the country has one baby.

In fact, if every couple in the country has one baby instead of atleast two, it would have disastrous consequences for our economic future. Because, when the current generation retires and the next enters the workforce, for every working adult there would be two retired ones. That would mean, each working adult would have to support two non-working adults on an average.

This is nearly what is happening in the west. With economic prosperity, most adults delay marriages and kids and some never have either. With increasing life expectancy, more and more people are living into their eighties and nineties. There are more people to be supported on the backs of fewer working adults. So, the western governments are now offering all sorts of incentives to couples for having more and more babies. Since their economies are already advanced, they can weather the crisis and plan for a turnaround. But for an emerging economy like India, depopulation would be an anathema.

Our civil society must focus on childrens education than other imaginary social causes. That would have far greater economic benefit to the nation in the long run.

Ergo

I am unable to understand why you relate my arguments to Malthus. I dont believe in his theories completely either.

Secondly, I have not seen a single research that shows that with similar amount of resources and quality of Governance an economy with higher population growth does better than an economy with a population growing at replacement rates. I would be happy to see such a research.

Lastly, i have not argued Govt control anywhere, this is addressed to individuals and families. This is about choice.

Kris

I am sorry, I dont understand where I created a doomsday scenario.

I am asking you the same question

I have not seen a single research that shows that with similar amount of resources and quality of Governance an economy with higher population growth does better than an economy with a population growing at replacement rates. I would be happy to see such a research.

rgds

Ergo... you said "the Chinese nation has unrelentingly created a standard of living that is now fast approaching the standards in the United States." Um, have you GONE there? Sure, some people in China, in cities like Shanghai and Beijing are doing OK. But the rest of the country is still sinking in the quicksand of poverty. They simply cannot support the population they have. They are still using communist methods to employ people that in the end do not work. for example... when you have to pay a toll, you drive to one gate where someone tells you the amount of the toll... then you drive to the next point where you take a ticket, next gate to pay, next gate for a receipt. No kidding. *that* is how they employ people. Does that sound like it's approaching the standard of living in the US? Not hardly. I guess you're only watching CNBC's news about Blackstone's investments and not any of the documentaries about displaced rural farmers.

Furthermore, your "let people do whatever they want" attitude is a bit screwball. Fine, yes, you do not have to legislate it... but does that mean you do not educate people? That's like saying "well it's your choice to get AIDS or not... why should we educate... you should just learn from your mistakes"

Kris.. western government are NOT offering incentives for people to have babies in countries where birth rates are at replacement level. They are only doing so in countries where the population is declining at rates that threaten the workforce for the next generations.

Chandra - When you say "similar amount of resources" what resources you are referring to. Resources can be natural resources, human resources, technology, infrastructure etc that contribute to the running of economies. Every human resource in our societies has to engage in some activity that is of value to others. The higher the quality of that activity, the higher its value and thus higher the gross national product. Having natural resources alone does not advance economies. We would need the human resources to harvest the natural resources.

In fact, having plenty of natural resources is not even a necessary condition for economic advancement. If you look at Hong Kong and Singapore, the population density of both those places is highest in the world and far exceeds that of India. Neither of those two places are blessed with many natural resources. Then how is it that their per capita income so high?

I have already given a clear explanation with empirical evidence of western economies on how depopulation would affect our economic future. As to the quality of governance, that is a qualitative factor. If you half our population, would the quality of governance become twice better? We can easily guess, the answer is NO. Quality of governance will change with a cultural shift and with education.

One more thing - for population to grow only at replacement levels, couples on an average must have two children. Any less, would result in depopulation.

Chandra:

You have simplified the problem. It is good to simplify a problem, it helps in concentrating on the essentials while trying to look for a solution.

But there is a danger that comes with these simplifications. Sometimes, we overdo it (oversimplification) and that can make us concentrate on unessential factors and thereby we end up finding a wrong solution.

The poor in India have a different incentive to make babies.

Its mostly economic.

Of course, it does not mean there are no other factors in play here. But the number of babies made by family is more of a economic condition than religious reasons.

The babies made by a lower class Hindu in Bihar/UP is the same as the babies made by lower class Muslim of Karnataka, or vice versa.

Most agrarian lower class people seem to benefit from more babies (on a short term), but on a long term such increase in population will deprive these societies of resources tending to make them poorer. However, human societies do not always work with such foresight.

Education and empowerment are essential to teach this foresight.

It is in the best interest of the poor to make more babies. The rationale goes like this. If you have enough kids coming into the family every two years or so, you will have a regular source of labor, which means more income. Most poor people look at kids as source of income into the family. A family with more kids will employ them all in a farm work and earn more money to the family. In case one or two kids die while young (which happens quite frequently) to a disease or an accident, there will be enough number to drive the economy of the family.

More kids is like more resources (akin to our software services industry) ;-)

No amount of contraception, abortion, etc, is going to change this mindset. The contraceptives are available freely in most part of India. Abortion is not illegal and is available at a certain cost in a nearby city or town. If they really didn't want the baby, they would go through it.

However, the calculations in play are quite different in these classes.

And that is an essential factor that you have missed out.

Sujai

Actually, the poor in the South and Orissa have different fertility rates than the poor of BIMARU (NFHS surveys). That has been the biggest challenge when it came to the question of delimitation of parliamentary seats.

Your argument about triggers for more number of children is correct but thats the challenge isn't it? How do you convince people to have fewer children considering the triggers that are in place in society. I dont think I missed the triggers out of ignorance, my intention was to bring high fertility rates as an issue. Nobody talks about this issue anymore these days. In all the southern states availability of healthcare and empowerement of women has been a big trigger. I understand both of these are an issue in BIMARU states.

And I totally agree with you about education and empowerement. That is my suggestion too. Accessibility to quality healthcare seems to be a clear cut problem in the BIMARU states. So the triumvarate of interventions are critical. It is working too in many states.

rgds

Kris

My argument is in favor of a 2.1 (replacement level), not for a reduction in population. When I say hamara ek, i did not imply reducing population growth below replacement levels. I am sorry for the confusion.

Kris: If only we can mobilise a small portion of that and make education for every child compulsory, the same excess population would prove to be a boon rather than a bane.

Chandra: Education being compulsory is not an issue, nor is it an issue of wealth. The problem with our education system is fairly simple- Fewer teachers, poor quality of teachers and extremely high dropout (50%) rates due to economic pressures at home. Economic pressures at home are due to many reasons, one of them is too many mouths to feed (sujai has already explained)

Kris: It is not the actual numbers of the population that determines the economic vibrancy of the country, but the percentage of the population that is in the productive age group

Chandra: I did not say actual numbers of population anywhere. I said actual number of people in a family. In particular poor households.

Secondly, the % of pop in productive age group is of no consequence if they donot have the skills to participate in the economy. That is the situation now

Kris: The infrastructure of the urban areas is crumbling because of unabated migration from rural areas

Chandra: Urban Infra problem is due to many reasons. Rural migration is only one of the many. But if you go to many cities, who use most of the water, electricity and roads? Rural folk or Urban middle class. I am afraid it is urban middle class.

Kris: With economic prosperity, most adults delay marriages and kids and some never have either. With increasing life expectancy, more and more people are living into their eighties and nineties. There are more people to be supported on the backs of fewer working adults

Chandra: This is not a valid example. This is a valid argument where older people are dependent on a social net supported by able bodied workers. India does not have a social security system. In the west, almost all countries have a security system that supports older people. Also, I support replacement levels, we are 2.6 now, we expect to touch 2.1 in 2030.


Kris: In fact, having plenty of natural resources is not even a necessary condition for economic advancement. If you look at Hong Kong and Singapore, the population density of both those places is highest in the world and far exceeds that of India. Neither of those two places are blessed with many natural resources

Chandra: Resources is not just natural resources.

Kris: As to the quality of governance, that is a qualitative factor. If you half our population, would the quality of governance become twice better? We can easily guess, the answer is NO. Quality of governance will change with a cultural shift and with education.

Chandra: Sorry, I am not suggesting reducing India's population. Would lower population mean better Governance, no. Would lower population mean better usage of existing resoutrces, YES.

Aditi-17

Amen!

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement. I need it :-)

SS- 24

Thank you. You have correctly understood the central theme. It is not about doomsday, it is not about Malthus's theories nor is it the only way to India's greatness. It is about couples having smaller families (1 or 2) and providing a good quality of life to those kids, It is about reducing the stress on our EXISTING resources. That simple. I recognise that it is not easy, but then if the southern states and Orissa can do it, why not the BIMARU states?

rgds



rgds

C
Secondly, the reason for having multiple children is not because people run after having a male child. The major reasons are poor empowerment of women

I think it has more to do with education of members(men and women) in a family unit rather than empowerment(per se) of women. If you educate either male or female, it will have direct impact on family size. That is because an educated male would too go for smaller family irrespective of empowered or empowered state of women in the family.

I feel the need to delink(or at least clearly redefine) empowered state and educated state of an individual.

That in no uncertain terms should mean that we should not look into empowering women. That is to say, empowering women is a different phenomenon (with different consequences) than educating women and the only effect empowerment of women has on family size is through education factor of the family member(in this case female) and none beyond it.

China's infrastructure benefits are available only to those who live within those special economic zones. They have the most exclusion-based progress you can think of.

To address the widespread needs, they have decided to build several mega-cities, designed to hold several crores of people in one place. And then provide all services in that one place.

They figure 20 cities of 5 crores each is easy to manage.......

#18:

"The ignorance of others regarding whatever topic (be it Malthusian philosophy or anything else) is not an obligation upon me to *dumb* down my statements or.............the tyrannical ignorance of the masses."

Ergo, I have never quite heard anyone sound this condescending. And people on this forum know how unlikely I am of labelling someone thus without just cause. A true sign of education is being able to impart and share knowledge. You are not in a classroom, Ergo. You are on a public forum where people from many backgrounds are involved in the discussion, not just philosophers, epidemiologists etc. If I being a cancer researcher were to start using biomedical terminology and then claim that those who didn't understand it were ignorant, I would be displaying blatant conceit. Most people here are quite educated and they could if they wanted to use their area of expertise to demonstrate your ignorance. "If you can't convince them, confuse them" is a policy for those who cannot effectively elucidate their ideas.

You described how China's infrastructure isn't crumbling under the weight of a growing population. That is not true. The manifestations may not be as severe as they are in India considering the most basic parameter: surface area to accomodate a growing populace is smaller in India, however the nation's economy could use a lower population as many studies have shown. When I read Chandra's post what I liked is that he does not engage in hand-wringing: "Oh India does not have this and cannot do that, so lets have fewer babies". He does not lamet dearth and instead proposes the simplest, most logical way of releasing pressure off of the resources. His approach is more rational. It seems more like "We could have a better economy with fewer babies and here's why" This policy has been adopted in China as well.

We could engage in a discussion rife with different refs from sociology, economy and philosophy. My point remains simple: higher population puts greater pressure on a nation's resources. You cannot argue with that because technology, rationalism, infrastructure cannot possibly replenish natural resources. Even if they somehow were able to, a growing population is still more mouths to feed than a small population, thats just math. Less population, less number of people vying for the resources, jobs, amenities. Right? Or does one just keep distending this balloon to accomodate growing needs. We cannot just rely on technological advancements to fill up water tanks can we? We have to work on our present instead of relying on future developments that will help the nation cope with the deficit.

BTW most educated families that are able to provide for their children have the Hum Do Hamare Do principle. In my own recent study I found that people living under flyovers, on railways stations, in slum areas or have no provisions for the young ones have as many as five children. This imbalance disturbs me the most. Because this means that the section of society that is least likely to come out of the poverty cycle is feeding the population. The only way this can be prevented, as I suggested earlier (#17) is by contraception/ reproductive health awareness drives for them. Incentives for compliance (such as free education for the only child if father earns below a certain amount etc) instead of laws punishing non-compliance have proved to be more effective.

Hardy

Point taken. I am only quoting published research that I have read somewhere (sorry cannot recall where). This article specifies that empowering women is more likely to produce positive results than anything else.

Ergo

The difference between me and you is that you have this phenomenal habit of philosophying everything. If I said something your habit is to link it to some theory or philosophy because I guess you always operate within some or the other framework. Does not always make sense to do that. I have worked with far too many intelligent guys who often discover the chasm between theory and practice. I would also suggest that you learn to be a little practical.It will serve you well as I know you are a very intelligent person.

Ergo: You talk about crumbling infrastructure as a consequence of high population levels in India?
Witness the unprecedented growth of China--with a population greater than (or equal to??) that of India--their infrastructure does not seem to be crumbling.

Chandra: The chinese population growth is much lower than India (TFR, China is 1.75, India is 2.6). They are growing at approximately 0.6% while we are growing at 1.2%. The population density of china is 1/3rd that of India. No wonder their infra is not crumbling. Of course there are a billion other reasons. This is to bring the Pop perspective!!!

Ergo: Chinese nation has unrelentingly created a standard of living that is now fast approaching the standards in the United States.

Chandra: Check your facts. When I last checked the US per capita was 20 times that of china (2006)

Ergo: The essence of Chandra position is, we have too many living human beings around us, and too much life is not a good thing.

Chandra: Sorry, i did not say that. I said if there are more people than CURRENT RESOURCES and LEVELS OF GOVERNANCE, you will have a problem. The reality is that is we do have too many people for few resources (Roads, Water, Electricity etc). Secondly, Malthus did not say too many people is a problem, he said, a. food supply cannot match population growth and b. more the income, higher the population growth. Both have proven to be wrong. I have not made any statements related to either of these two points.

Lastly, what is better?

The current Indian Population growing at replacement rate or the current Indian Population growing at much more than replacement rate?

The anwer is fairly simple: Considering the current quality of our infrastructure (education, water, roads etc etc), anybody would prefer replacement rates.

rgds

@Aditi: Ergo, I have never quite heard anyone sound this condescending. And people on this forum know how unlikely I am of labelling someone thus without just cause.

I agree with you completely and I don't like labeling people either. It is not just in the comments, Ergo's articles are likewise laced with this same condescending, patronizing, father-knows-best attitude and is a key reason why I've not engaged with him. It would be easy enough to take apart Rand's positivistic philosophy.

One fatal flaw in Ergo's argument about rationalism solving the world's problems is that he ignores the genocides, world wars, man made famines, diseases etc that have decimated the world's population over the past 200 years. A failure of rationalism to solve the world's problem, hence a descent into violence and irrationalism.

Speaking of China, it is estimated that the Chinese famine of 1958-61 killed off as many as 33 million and the communists may have killed off at least 70 million. Perhaps as a consequence of this famine, it was in1962 that a formal Birth Control Campaign was launched, pre-cursor to the one-child policy.

My point remains simple: higher population puts greater pressure on a nation's resources. You cannot argue with that because technology, rationalism, infrastructure cannot possibly replenish natural resources. Even if they somehow were able to, a growing population is still more mouths to feed than a small population, thats just math. Less population, less number of people vying for the resources, jobs, amenities. Right? Or does one just keep distending this balloon to accomodate growing needs. We cannot just rely on technological advancements to fill up water tanks can we? We have to work on our present instead of relying on future developments that will help the nation cope with the deficit.

Conceptually, this argument sounds logical. To make it empirically compelling however, we would need to first eliminate the hoarding effect (haves vs have-nots) that plagues today's world i.e. the richer countries hogging 80% of the planet's resources. Until this is done, it will be hard to make the claim that the planet cannot support this many people.

Sanjay says, "It would be easy enough to take apart Rand's positivistic philosophy."

:) I'd like to see you try. But first, get your philosophies straight. Rand's philosophy is *not* positivistic. Positivism is an outdated trend in philosophy that originated with the Vienna circle. :) Cheers. Let me know what you come up with.

Aditi said: "My point remains simple: higher population puts greater pressure on a nation's resources. You cannot argue with that because technology, rationalism, infrastructure cannot possibly replenish natural resources."

Any reasonable person can see that this is plainly false. History is replete with examples of how we have constantly replenished natural resources, improved upon nature's bounty, halted regression or extinction, etc. For example, we have developed complex technological tools that have increased output of land and crops manifold--where say only 2 units of grain could be produced over a piece of land, today we can extract 10 units. More recently, anticipating the shortage of fossil fuels, scientists are creating new energy sources--of course, with a commitment to allowing people the freedom to live and have children.

With every spike in population levels, the Malthusians have come out crying in panic, while the rational scientists and legislators have focused on how to best tackle the problem without curbing individual freedoms. What we witness today in terms of the advancement of our civilization is the manifestation of the works of scientists, not the predictions of Malthusians or of those who advocate having fewer children. What's the next fad in panic, now that we're over population levels, anthropogenic global cooling, global warming, etc.

I reiterate: I do not advocate having more babies just as equally as I do not advocate having no babies. It's simply *not* my prerogative to tell you what to do. But whatever you chose, don't expect hand-outs or welfare from the society, or expect the government to bail you out for whatever your chosen failures happen to be (either too few children to support you or too many children for you to support).

Aditi said: "Even if they somehow were able to, a growing population is still more mouths to feed than a small population, thats just math."

Well, that math is idealistic and divorced from practical reality. In reality, people have to figure out a way to feed their own mouths. A growing population simply means more people will have to figure out a way to feed their *own* mouths. Now, regardless of the number, every individual still has to feed his own mouth (and that of his dependents). Your argument can hold water only if you accept some collective obligation or responsibility for others to feed your mouth, in which case, more of *you* would certainly be a problem.

Aditi said: "Less population, less number of people vying for the resources, jobs, amenities. Right?"

Wrong.
Less population, less number of people also means less brains involved in the task of solving human problems, less jobs created by entrepreneurs, less industries, smaller-scale economics, less human life!

Aditi said: "Or does one just keep distending this balloon to accomodate growing needs. We cannot just rely on technological advancements to fill up water tanks can we?"

We have done exactly that for the past 200 years, and we have been remarkably successful!! We have relied on the brains of geniuses and rational men and have arrived at an unprecedented point in our civilization: from life spans of 40 and retirements at 50, from rampant epidemics and outbreaks to eradication or containment, from standing in line at ration stores to buy the only grain available, to facing a plethora of choices to touch and feel before we buy in a huge chain grocery store.

Aditi said: "We have to work on our present instead of relying on future developments that will help the nation cope with the deficit."

The future is indeed worked on in the present day. No one is denying that.

Finally, if you notice the empirical trend, as groups of people begin to move up in the economic class ladder, they tend to have fewer children *organically* and voluntarily, i.e., without external reasons of panic and planetary doom. It is the impoverished and the poor who mostly feed into a population: the cause of that is NOT ill-education but *poverty*, lack of economic security, and simply plain boredom with life. Improve their lot by economic reforms (free market has proven to be the only system best at producing wealth) and you will notice change. They don't need no education. ;)

Advocating fewer babies is not even wrong!

P.S. Using language from your specialized technical fields is certainly using jargon--by definition. However, my own specialized field is neither philosophy nor sociology, and not even anthropology. And yet, I am aware of more than just Malthusianism. There are a certain class of world ideas--ideas that for better or worse have shaped the world or have influenced the stream of ideas--that every cultured person must be aware of, must be educated in. THis is known as CULTURAL LITERACY. For a good list of such things, read E. D. Hirsch.

#37:

Ergo said: "History is replete with examples of how we have constantly replenished natural resources, improved upon nature's bounty, halted regression or extinction, etc. "

Sure, so do we quit being responsible towards our own roles in trying to take the pressure of the resources or do we sit back and do as we please while relying on the upcoming technological and scientific advancements to fend us from the ill-effects of a fast growing population?

Ergo said: "A growing population simply means more people will have to figure out a way to feed their *own* mouths. Now, regardless of the number, every individual still has to feed his own mouth (and that of his dependents). Your argument can hold water only if you accept some collective obligation or responsibility for others to feed your mouth, in which case, more of *you* would certainly be a problem."

Ergo, with all respect to the spirit of practicality you are assuming that everybody born on the planet is going to assume responsibility for filling their tummies in manners that are fair. A growing population is not just a growing number of people...it could also mean a growth in a section of society which is unable to provide for themselves or their families by means which considered legal or unscrupulous. This increases crime, it increases the divide between one segment of society and another.


Ergo said: "Less population, less number of people also means less brains involved in the task of solving human problems, less jobs created by entrepreneurs, less industries, smaller-scale economics, less human life!"

This is under the very optimistic assumption that all members of this growing populace will be contributing towards solving human problems while practicality suggests that most people are adding to the list of existing problems.

Ergo said: "We have done exactly that for the past 200 years, and we have been remarkably successful!! We have relied on the brains of geniuses and rational men and have arrived at an unprecedented point in our civilization"

So let us continue to rely on the brains of genuises instead of stopping to think responsibly about what we give to society. Let us have the other baby we want to and leave it to scientists and philosophers and oh yeah, the infrastructure to cope with the escalating problems of an ever growing population. Disease, crime, housing issues, dearth of natural resources are all immediate problems of the present but in view of the future where all these bright scientists are going to fix them with a sweep of their wands, screw the present and look forward to the bright road ahead. The upside of this whole approach is that one doesnt lose much sleep being so positive.

Ergo said "Using language from your specialized technical fields is certainly using jargon--by definition. However, my own specialized field is neither philosophy nor sociology, and not even anthropology. And yet, I am aware of more than just Malthusianism."

Well, kudos to you! But since your interests lie in that area you know the terminology that other people are less likely to. It may take lot of reading and analysis to be a scholar but humility is the only path to wisdom, I guess.

Ergo said: "There are a certain class of world ideas--ideas that for better or worse have shaped the world or have influenced the stream of ideas--that every cultured person must be aware of, must be educated in. THis is known as CULTURAL LITERACY"

These may not be your own specialized fields but they are your own interests. This is a general discussion where as I pointed out earlier people from various backgrounds have gathered to contribute and take way perspectives from the discussion. Hence fruitful discussion is fueled moreso by lucidity and clarification than by verbose critique. Knowing terminology doesnt not indicate wisdom, it indicates the inability of that person to expand on the terminology so that others can understand. This is called lack of DISUCUSSION ETIQUETTE.

In short, when you bring in a specialized term that people may or may not know, they are less likely to even engage you.

Ergo said: "For a good list of such things, read E. D. Hirsch."

You refer me to a book, I however will refer you to LIFE. Live a little, meet people, meet those who have interests that are not the same as yours, meet those who have not based their philosophies on a book but on experience.

E.D.Hirsch's book may give you a list, but experiences will give you a million philosophies to add to that list.

As we say in science, coursework never prepares you for the hands-on lessons.

Thank you for the discussion!

Aditi,

I love how you have so conveniently ignored the most crucial aspects of my critique only to obfuscate what I have said (and invent tangents from what I have *not* said). As only one example, where in any of my critiques did I say that we must sunder personal responsibility and just depend on the minds of rational men?? Indeed, I have *explicitly* said the exact opposite of what you have tried to attribute to me.

This is bordering on intellectual dishonesty, particularly when it comes in the light of your apology to me on my blog and in a personal email. Your apology now seems disingenuous to me.

P.S. If you are so flippant about knowledge derived from books--which, incidentally, are written by authors who observe LIFE and comment upon life from their unique perspective--then why bother getting an education? Why bother sending kids to school to learn from books? Why not just roam the streets and learn first-hand from LIFE?

The problem with your perspective is that you draw a false dichotomy between knowledge derived from books and knowledge derived from experience--as if books exist in some platonic realm written by platonic ghosts who are all utterly divorced from the reality and the context of their lives on earth. Sounds rather mystical to me.

#39: Ergo :)

Ok, firstly, my apology was for coming down too hard on you, not for my opinion. I believe I stated that in my email, didn't I? I told you what twas that bothered me about your use of these terms. I still insist that wedging ideas and opinions under broad terminology while expecting others to know what you are refering to is a tad presumptious.

It would've been intellectual dishonesty if you had asked me to comment on every aspect of your discource. Its an open discussion where I can comment on any of the ideas you have placed as long as I don't intentionally distort them. I chose only the areas that I could comment on. Copy, pasting the rest wouldn't serve a purpose. If you feel I misunderstood your critique in some way, point it out to me and I will gladly clarify.

To me disagreeing just makes the discussion more interesting. We don't have to agree on everything, do we?

#40: Ergo: I am not flippant about knowledge derived from books at all! I too love deriving thoughts, ideas and philosophies from my own exploits at the library. You are right, authors do deduce most of what they write from books. My objection is not to your own derivations from books but to your expectations from others in this discussion.

Malthus may have given his name to the philosophy but plugging every theory that bears semblance to Malthus's perspective cannot be deemed Malthusian. Why? Because he lived in a different period. I remember having this discussion with somebody else on a similar forum. I had said that a philosophy by itself is in a nascent stage, its effects and empirical manifestations demonstrated only by the environment in which it is applied. Until then it is only a hypothesis, unexperimented. Therefore equating someone's thoughts or opinions on the matter to those that Thomas Malthus made years ago is not only taking the theory out of context but also insulting the intelligence of the person who contributed that theory to the discussion by taking away the originality of his/ her thought process. The minute you credit Malthus with that theory, you discredit the person who placed forth his/ her thoughts in a very specific context, not to mention Malthus sadly cannot be here to defend his theories. This could potentially stall a discussion.

Don't misunderstand me. I have great respect for your knowledge of philosophy. I also admit that you bring in very interesting perspectives. My only disagreement with you is about the milleau in which you choose to drop the verbose terminology. Thats a pretty minor grievance.

For example: I would be more interested in knowing what you think and not what Rand would've proposed. Her influence on your thinking should not be mistaken as Objectivism itself but as Ergoism (your perspective favorably garnished with her line of thinking). I wouldn't want to dismiss everything you say or think as Objectivism simply because of the Rand influence.

I hope you see my point because I don't like to antagonize those that give me such great gifts of discussion.

I agree with you Chandra and hope the world moves in that direction - educate women, free contraception and fewer babies.

@Ergo: :) I'd like to see you try. But first, get your philosophies straight. Rand's philosophy is *not* positivistic. Positivism is an outdated trend in philosophy that originated with the Vienna circle. :) Cheers. Let me know what you come up with.

I'm not sure its worth the effort. It is often said that Rand is a favorite with college students and ignored by college professors - as well as by other philosophers.

btw, I stand corrected on mis-identifying Rand's philosophy as Positivism. It was my oversight.

chandra, I am sure u know about the policy of one kid in china. Government can try and impose a law that any couple with their annual income less than a partcular amount (i.e needed to support a child, his/her education and decent/basic upbringing), should not have more than one child.

Meera

Somehow I am not sure that imposing laws of such nature is a smart idea. In Orissa, the Govt had a scheme called GREEN CARD, if you resort to certain reproductive control practices, you become eligible for a 5% QUOTA in engineering and medical schools (I am not sure if it is still there as of today). A reward based scheme would be better. However, all data shows that the best motivator for reproductive healthcare is education and access to healthcare. Many states in India have achieved this without resorting to harsh means like the Chinese.

rgds

Another way to have fewer babies is

1)to marry sif guys, their friends, relatives and brothers. They will make sure an ultrasound is done when a lady is pregnant, then done if it is a girl child, then kill it.

2)Also sif guys have accepted that they will pay for children only if their child( a minor) makes a commitment/ contract with their father , ie the child will take care of the father in old age.

3)Ladies, if you come across a man who wants to make this contract with his children, make sure not to bear any more babies.

4) Parents if you have sons, please do not get them married because they will be implicated in false cases. Let your sons visit protitutes and get various STDs, so what, anyway per Sumanth a man does not even see old age, so better he enjoys and dies sooner.

5) Ladies make sure not to bear any children with dowry seeking men..too many on the block, internet and bowling arcades.

meera.. the one child policy in China is horrific and is abused and abusive... it causes women to abort and abandon female children (they have no such female infanticide laws like in India) because the poor farmers feel they need male help on their farms, etc. and men have a better chance of earning. That is not a policy you want to adopt in India. Chandra is 100% right on this.

meera.. the one child policy in China is horrific and is abused and abusive... it causes women to abort and abandon female children (they have no such female infanticide laws like in India) because the poor farmers feel they need male help on their farms, etc. and men have a better chance of earning. That is not a policy you want to adopt in India. Chandra is 100% right on this.

hee, whoops sorry for de double post... technical difficulties! :P

A better approach would be to get rid of old people as babies are future productive citizens.


(Note for sarcasm impaired, above *is* sarcasm)

effing malthus and intellectual descendents of him.

If you think population is destroying our country, go commit hara kiri.

wow corporate serf.. such an enlightened point.
WTF?

Well ss,

It gets my goat that people who suggest population control always think that it's others who need to control the population (in the Indian context it would be "those Biharis")

Yeah, so I reacted a bit too much; but I think it's perfectly justifiable.

Substituting older people for babies perfectly illustrates why population control is odious; and why it invariably boils down to something out of a horror movie (think Sanjay Gandhi / China / female infanticide, which is completely related to population control in China, though not so in India )

Ultimately, the imposition of reproductive laws by the government is a far more frightening prospect than any economic freedom we don't have.

Here's the scenario: BJP comes to power, population control gets imposed on Muslims; cpim comes to power, population control gets imposed on anti-communists, enemies of the proletariat, and religious hindus

much, much better! LOL

not that I am the thought police or whatever, but I knew you had more of a point to make. and I think you make a good one. I am really not for government getting involved in legislating population control. I think much like others on this thread who have shown that education is likely to be the best route.

I do not think India has to think too far back to remember a time when forced sterilization happened here, and it was none too pretty.