India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The illiterate peasants contribute to society too. The US was built with such rough material.

Not 700 million of us, though.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

What do you mean, "as far as it goes?" Do you people not see the environmental devestation around you? Do you honestly think that we can keep growing forever?

DanS needs to come here and see all our non-existant tallgrass prairie.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by mindseye

Don't be too sure about that. The countryside suffers from widespread un- and underemployment, the opposite of the situation in the US during its days of frontier expansion.

I'm sorry, but IMO anyone who thinks China could in some way - any way - benefit from having more people needs a better understanding of the immensity the crushing weight of so many people sucking up a limited amount of natural resources, the resulting staggering levels of pollution in many areas, the galloping desertification, the choking population density, etc.

The implications for the world's environment are scary. One that really worries me these days are the plans for about 70 more conventional nucelar reactors. As is well known, Chinese typically place very little value on safety, especially in any situation in which it comes at the cost (no matter how small) of profit.

I can't recall having met anyone living here in China who felt that it would be in some way be beneficial to have still more people competing for the same amount of jobs, resources, food, living space, water, etc.

Photo: Shanghai subway station at rush hour. Try asking these folks if China would benefit from more people.

Indeed, China's pop. is both a boon and a burden.

[Pyrodrew]

9B

The answer to solve all population problems/concerns... more people...

U.N.: World Population to Hit 9B in 2050
Fri Feb 25, 8:47 AM ET World - AP Asia
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - The world's population will increase by 40 percent to 9.1 billion in 2050, but virtually all the growth will be in the developing world, especially in the 50 poorest countries, the U.N. Population Division said.

In a report Thursday, the division said the population in less developed countries is expected to swell from 5.3 billion today to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of richer developed countries will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion.

"It is going to be a strain on the world," said Hania Zlotnik, the division's new director. She said the expected growth will be concentrated in countries that already struggle to provide adequate shelter, health care and education.

The report reconfirmed many trends, including an increasingly aging population in developed countries. But it said immigration would prevent the overall population in richer countries from declining.

The United States is projected to be the major net recipient of international migrants, 1.1 million annually, with its population increasing from 298 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050, the report said.

Between 2005 and 2050, population growth in eight countries — India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States, Ethiopia and China — is likely to make up half the world's increase, the report said.

Median fertility is expected to decline from 2.6 children per woman today to slightly over 2 children per woman in 2050.

Zlotnik said India's population will surpass China's in the coming decades because its fertility, currently at 3 children per woman, is higher than China's, estimated at 1.7 children per woman.

In 2000-2005, fertility levels remained above 5 children per woman in 35 of the 148 developing countries, including 30 of the poorest nations. The pace of decline in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia was slower than anticipated.

In southern Africa, the region with the highest AIDS (news - web sites) prevalence, life expectancy has fallen from 62 years in 1995 to 48 years in 2000-2005, and is projected to decrease further to 43 years over the next decade before a slow recovery starts, it said.

Thoraya Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said the new projections should spur more action to stop the spread of HIV (news - web sites)/AIDS and help couples freely determine the size of their families.

"We must take more urgent action to promote access to reproductive health, including family planning, and fight HIV/AIDS to save millions of lives from AIDS and maternal death, as well as to reduce poverty in developing countries," she said in a statement.

In 2002 the Population Division had estimated global population in 2050 of 8.9 billion.

[Sandman]

There's no way that this is 'good news' for India. America had loads of spare land to accomodate population growth, India has nothing of the sort.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by mindseye


Photo: Shanghai subway station at rush hour. Try asking these folks if China would benefit from more people.

Oh, look at that huge gap between their heads and the ceiling.


You could usefully squeeze in some of China's pseudo-achondroplasic dwarf population in there assembling novelty goods for Christmas crackers, or offering haircuts for busy commuters.


(Reminds me of some Australian politicians, seemingly unaware of the problems Australian states have with potable drinking water, shrinking river systems, rising salinity and changing weather patterns, as well as denuded marine areas, wanting big increases in immigration to Australia. Crazy.)

[DaShi]

Originally posted by DanS


The illiterate peasants contribute to society too. The US was built with such rough material.

Still is.

[Pekka]

WEll let's take a look at it.. in China and in India.. say 10 million new babies come. Booming economy, yay. Who thinks they'll be poor as hell, esp in India, living in bad conditions, and the fact that some ****er has even more cheap labour is good for.. who? You and me, we get cheap shirts. NO WAIT, shirts are expensive, that's right, the designer bastard gets more.. oh that's right, and the mob.

So NO to baby booming in countries where there already will be problems because of the huge amount of people living in there.

[DanS]

Still is.

What do you mean, "as far as it goes?" Do you people not see the environmental devestation around you? Do you honestly think that we can keep growing forever?

Yes, I think we can grow forever. Malthus has been irrelevant for about 2 centuries. Maybe a century and a half in the US.

Also, the environment is getting better where I have lived. Especially the water. City-folk have a warped view of what is going on.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Also, the environment is getting better where I have lived. Especially the water. City-folk have a warped view of what is going on.

Yeah, well where I live it's getting worse. And the gov wants to double the state population. We already have a lack of fresh water here in the southern end of the state, and their answer is to build piplines from the north.

[Asmodean]

Surely for an overpopulated country such as China, there has to be some benefits in a declining population.

Asmodean

[DanS]

Don't be too sure about that. The countryside suffers from widespread un- and underemployment, the opposite of the situation in the US during its days of frontier expansion.

Actually, you're quite wrong about the US experience, but in any event your point is inapposite. Ask yourself why all the people moved in from the countryside in the US, so that now we're a majority urban society. If workers in rural areas were so well employed and compensated, they would have stayed there.

The inapposite part comes because the economic strength of the US is not in its frontiers, but rather in its cities. It doesn't matter much overall to the US economy what happens in Montana. It never has, even during the frontier era.

I'm sorry, but IMO anyone who thinks China could in some way - any way - benefit from having more people needs a better understanding of the immensity the crushing weight of so many people sucking up a limited amount of natural resources, the resulting staggering levels of pollution in many areas, the galloping desertification, the choking population density, etc.

The inefficient sucking up of so many natural resources is due to such insane rates of economic growth, not the number of people. If the Chinese government throttled the growth rate back to something more reasonable, Chinese companies could do a better job at picking out the most efficient resource sources.

[DanS]

Surely for an overpopulated country such as China, there has to be some benefits in a declining population.

There is no such thing as an overpopulated country in our era.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by DanS


There is no such thing as an overpopulated country in our era.

You mean in economic terms?

I'm can think of a number of contexts where overpopulation is indeed a very real factor. HINT: Think Mexico City.

Asmodean

[DanS]

The problem with Mexico City is that it's not built to accommodate so many people, not that it has too many people. Even Mexico has plenty of knowledge and resources in order to build cities properly for the number of people living there. They just aren't doing it.

The trap you're falling into is thinking that the amount of resources is finite. In our era, this is decidedly not the case.