India's doomed - NASA satellite reveals unsustainable water use

[North King]

A Malthusian argument?

I didnt know we gave such credence these days

It held pretty well for a few thousand years, did it not?

Unofficial reports Indian population has already beaten Chinese. But Inida is only 1/3 of China' region and only one main river of Ganges.

It has more than one major river. The Krishna, the Narmada, the Brahmaputra...

Bet you were sitten pretty on some great lakes.

Do you think draining those to feed the Southwest is a good idea? I don't understand why people build in a desert and then expect us to pay for it...

 

[Berzerker]

Who exactly has rebutted Malthus?

wasnt that some economist who made a bet with him? The guy let Malthus pick 10 commodities that should have increased in cost according to Malthusian theory, they went down in cost.

 

[GoodGame]

Malthus's accidental contributions to biology and ecology have been footnoted, however.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/02/5/l_025_01.html Possibly, Darwin's ideas of natural selection were influenced by rethinking Malthus's ideas.

 

[Masada]

Malthusian arguments are a staple in economic history prior to the Industrial Revolution. In recent years they've also been used to explain the low per capita GDP growth in some African nations with varying levels of success. It doesn't apply to India which has GDP growth that is independent of any increase in population - i.e it's population is growing slower than GDP growth.

It held pretty well for a few thousand years, did it not?

It did, now review the assumptions underpinning Malthus's argument, I think you'll find that they don't hold anymore.

wasnt that some economist who made a bet with him? The guy let Malthus pick 10 commodities that should have increased in cost according to Malthusian theory, they went down in cost.

By the time he was writing his theories were bunk. If he had written them any time before then he wouldn't have had any such problem.

 

[Winner]

Because India is a more rural society than most western countries, it will be easier to convince the average man in the street or field that something is wrong. they will be able to see it with their own eyes. but doing somehting about it will probably be harder.

There is a big difference between seeing a problem and having the will to solve it. The worst thing is there are no easy and quick fixes that would yield immediate results - which what the poor people care about the most. Their lives are not dictated by long-term concerns but short term survival.

For example, they need to stop having more than 2 kids, in fact ti would be perfect if they restricted themselves to 1 kid per couple. Do you think you can realistically persuade the rural population in northern India to do that? In a society where large families are traditionally required to support the parents in their old age and where children are needed to help the parents work the land?

In case you hadnt noticed, Winner, your beloved Western governments dont seem to have a clue what to do either, so dont get too much of a superiority complex.

Stop projecting, Ralphy, this is not about some superiority complex, this is about real world facts.

More, what you're saying is patently wrong. Most European governments are adopting increasingly more environment-friendly policies (of course they're doing it only because of the massive public pressure). Of course there is a lot of pressure from other groups (farmers, fishermen, industrialists) against the green policies and some "green" policies are in fact more damaging to the environment than the alternatives, but in general the environmental awareness in the Western world is growing. Even in America, though they're at least 20 years behind Europe in this respect.

Now, compare it with the developing countries like India - they care about these things much less than we do and this mindset is understandable, even if it's wrong - they want to get rich, live like the Westerners they see in the movies, and then they'll have time to spend thinking about environment.

The bad thing about this plan is that it can't be done. The environmental stresses will bring about their collapse much sooner than they attain Western living standard. They're cought in a downward spiral without even knowing it and they have no easy way out, so many choose to ignore the problem and hope it disappears if they keep ignoring it. But it won't.

 

[Masada]

For example, they need to stop having more than 2 kids, in fact ti would be perfect if they restricted themselves to 1 kid per couple. Do you think you can realistically persuade the rural population in northern India to do that? In a society where large families are traditionally required to support the parents in their old age and where children are needed to help the parents work the land?

There are models which they could use Indonesia's family planning system under Suharto was successful at slowing down population growth from near double digit figures under Sukarno to around three percent thereafter. I don't see that happening in India though...

 

[Winner]

I wonder how big part does nationalism play in this ("we must have more people than the Chinese!"). If that's a reason why they're not doing anything about the population explosion, than it's a particularly stupid one too.

 

[Masada]

I think its the difficulty of implementing such a plan you need to placate all kinds of groups. Its far easier to do after a bloody counter-revolution.

 

[Arwon]

Who exactly has rebutted Malthus?

Well, Malthus himself in his second big tract, for one.

 

[Newbunkle]

build de-salinization plants

We must construct additional pylons!

 

[Dragonlord]

Now, compare it with the developing countries like India - they care about these things much less than we do and this mindset is understandable, even if it's wrong - they want to get rich, live like the Westerners they see in the movies, and then they'll have time to spend thinking about environment.

The bad thing about this plan is that it can't be done. The environmental stresses will bring about their collapse much sooner than they attain Western living standard. They're cought in a downward spiral without even knowing it and they have no easy way out, so many choose to ignore the problem and hope it disappears if they keep ignoring it. But it won't.

Bolding by me

Very true. The developing countries can't just copy the development of today's advanced nations. Resources have been plundered too much and the environment damaged by today's leading nations. Unfair, but there it is: no way can the Chinese or Indians achieve the standard of living in the US with yesterday's technologies. Their only hope is to drastically curb their population growth on the one hand, and make use of cutting-edge technologies for sustained development and clean power on the other hand, without the intermediate steps the developed countries have taken.

 

[El_Machinae]

I just don't see how Malthus is wrong. We have pretty well flat food production per capita these days, but almost all of our environmental indicators are plummeting. Does anyone suspect that fertilizer is going to become cheaper? Or freshwater become cheaper? or fish from the Commons more plentiful?

And while we can predict that something will change in order to provide more food, it's not my impression that healthy food is becoming cheaper, and it's not my impression that staples are becoming cheaper.

 

[Tee Kay]

China is making progress on the environment. Unfortunately, it's still an uphill battle, and global warming is set to make things even more complicated. India is a very different situation. While in China corruption and local interests make it difficult to enforce all its laws, in India it is worse. India's population is still growing rapidly, unlike China's. India is also much poorer, with worse infrastructure, health care system and educational system.

Their only hope is to drastically curb their population growth on the one hand, and make use of cutting-edge technologies for sustained development and clean power on the other hand, without the intermediate steps the developed countries have taken.

This is where the so-called "developed countries" should step in and offer real assistance to develop infrastructure and offer technological help. Western countries have so far been reluctant, because it is apparently not in their best interest to stop the collapse of their trading partners and prevent global mass extinction and climatic chaos.

 

[Winner]

Their only hope is to drastically curb their population growth on the one hand, and make use of cutting-edge technologies for sustained development and clean power on the other hand, without the intermediate steps the developed countries have taken.

Exactly - but then they realize that this would be extremelly costly and that they don't have the money (plus they need it for aircraft carriers, nukes and rockets, let's not forget about that), so they can't do it even if they wanted.

The could if the West funded it, but that's not going to happen for many reasons. First, Westerners are not so generous; second they have legitimate fears that their money would only be used to buy new weapons or other useless toys and it wouldn't help to avert the disaster anyway.

Those who've read Diamond's Collapse probably felt the same thing when they learned how the political/religious elites in the civilizations which later collapsed ignored the problems, because they focused on short term gains and their own narrow interests. Now, when you look at the leaders in many present-day developing countries, you see the same ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Political instability is making it even worse.

This is where the so-called "developed countries" should step in and offer real assistance to develop infrastructure and offer technological help. Western countries have so far been reluctant, because it is apparently not in their best interest to stop the collapse of their trading partners and prevent global mass extinction and climatic chaos.

I see I accidentally pre-empted this argument (I started writing this post sooner than I read yours)

 

[Verbose]

Some time ago, I predicted that India's going to face a catastrophic collapse in the future due to its unsustainable use of natural resources and unmitigated population growth. New data seem to support my prediction.

So, we have over a billion people crammed in a relatively small and arid subcontinent, and they're working hard on making the number rise to 1.5 billion in the next half of a century.

The population growth isn't unmitigated. It had dropped from 5,94 children/woman in 1950 to 2,7 today, and the trend is for the numbers to drop even further. It's a steady 2,7 rate that might put it at 1,5 billion in half a century. However half a century is rather a long time, and even a fairly modest increase like from 2,7 will do the trick.

Otoh as late as in 1987 the figure was 4,04; 3,05 in 2001. So if the present trend going on since 1950 holds India will be at the 2,1 replacement rate sometime just before 2020, and might then hypothetically go into negative growth.

It's the aftereffects of the massive population growth of a couple of decades ago, and increased life-span we are looking at, not some kind of Indian runaway breeding.

The water thing I would agree is worrying regardless of population projections though.

 

[RedRalph]

It is projected to overtake China at some point, isnt it?

 

[Masada]

I just don't see how Malthus is wrong. We have pretty well flat food production per capita these days, but almost all of our environmental indicators are plummeting. Does anyone suspect that fertilizer is going to become cheaper? Or freshwater become cheaper? or fish from the Commons more plentiful?

Read the rest of what he said and then get back to me because your only on the assumptions part and not the analysis.

 

[Tee Kay]

It is projected to overtake China at some point, isnt it?

Again, due to the massive growth late last century. Nevertheless, while overall Indian population growth is slowing, it still remains quite high. Fertility rate is still above the world average and comparable to Israel and Egypt.

 

[Winner]

It is projected to overtake China at some point, isnt it?

The graph from the OP, again:

 

[Winner]

The population growth isn't unmitigated. It had dropped from 5,94 children/woman in 1950 to 2,7 today, and the trend is for the numbers to drop even further. It's a steady 2,7 rate that might put it at 1,5 billion in half a century. However half a century is rather a long time, and even a fairly modest increase like from 2,7 will do the trick.

Otoh as late as in 1987 the figure was 4,04; 3,05 in 2001. So if the present trend going on since 1950 holds India will be at the 2,1 replacement rate sometime just before 2020, and might then hypothetically go into negative growth.

It's the aftereffects of the massive population growth of a couple of decades ago, and increased life-span we are looking at, not some kind of Indian runaway breeding.

The water thing I would agree is worrying regardless of population projections though.

1) The growth isn't evenly distributed:

2) Even though the rate might be slowing, it will still mean about 50% increase in the next 50 years. India can't sustain numbers like this, not with dwindling amounts of fresh water and arable land.

3) Increasing poverty in the northern regions may cause the birth rate to rise again. It's hard to predict, as you said.