I wonder how many HNers recall life in Delhi even 20 years ago? Cutting electricity loss is one thing, but getting rid of "load shedding" (unplanned power cuts) is the really revolutionary part. It was not uncommon for the power to go out several times a day and you had to rush to unplug expensive appliances (TV, laptop), because when the power came back it was often accompanied by a surge. My office was wired with two sets of electrical sockets, one connected to grid mains and the other connected to the UPS (for important equipment only).
India's ongoing growth, and overall the positive sentiment of the population, is such a breath of fresh air compared to the decadent west. I have had a few friends from there for almost a decade and the improvement has been huge.
It's just a shame that you are also speedrunning population collapse. Modi completely ignoring the cratering birth rates under him is a real hero.
> Replace the 100 million value with 300, 400, 500, and my point isnt going to change
Your ratios are all wrong. There are about 500mm Indians aged 6 to 26 today who will be over 80 (and under 100) by 2100. Even if nobody dies, India isn’t hitting 1.2bn 80-year olds. As for under-18s in that timeline, it ranges from 100 to 500 million depending on fertility.
Put another way, there is no deterministic population collapse in India the way there almost must be in Korea and Germany.
I'm honestly very glad to hear it won't be too bad but I reaaaaallly do not really care about numbers, my point is much broader.
I'd prefer if it didn't have to go through this at all. Knowing you are headed for bad times isn't something to live with, it's something to fix. And it's not like the birth rates in each state are staying the same, they are actively dropping. The issue isn't just there, it's also getting worse.
> I reaaaaallly do not really care about numbers
Then don't raise them! Also, don't raise problems that are easily disproven with real numbers! Demographics is a terrible domain to vibe your way through.
> Knowing you are headed for bad times isn't something to live with, it's something to fix
I literally just showed you that demographic projections for India give realistic scenarios for the number of under-18 year olds being equal to the number of over-80 year olds by 2100. The worst case is a 5:1 ratio.
I agree! But I just like using them to drive points across. Practical examples drive points across much better than some generalizations that take 10x as many words to be expressed.
exactly. so in 2150, or 2200, or someday, it will be a problem. So yes, it is a problem even today. It's kind of why you don't stand on train tracks even if there are still 15 minutes.
Future problems need to be fixed, else you end up as the countries you listed, Korea and Germany. It's not that hard
> so in 2150, or 2200, or someday, it will be a problem
No. Never of the magnitude you suggested. The population pyramid simply doesn’t have the shape required for a population bomb the likes of which we’re seeing in e.g. Korea.
Given current and projected fertility, it never blows out the way you suggest. It gently curves. If Indians, tomorrow, suddenly stop having kids that would be the problem you suggest. But they aren’t. And it isn’t.
What makes you confident that declining population is gonna be worse than the alternative?
Smooth population decline means much less contention on ressources, energy and living space, which is highly relevant when all of those are already somewhat at the limit.
Significant positive growth is clearly completely unsustainable even over centuries, and I don't see why a somewhat smaller total human population could not be just as successful/satisfied over the next decades.
It's clearly a massive exaggeration to talk about population collapse, but India has dropped below replacement, and will start seeing a decline in population in the next few decades, so they're heading in the same direction as everywhere else.
But of course that also makes blaming Modi pretty silly - every country sees this happening as their economic and social conditions improves. We don't know of any way of stopping it short of maybe throwing people into poverty.
(the only remaining places that has not yet dropped below replacement is sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Middle East, but they too are seeing birth rates drop).
I think we do know how to stop it: Welfare Queens, but really. If you can actually "live large" by doing nothing else than raising a bunch of kids (either with some controls that ensure you raise them well, and/or significant structured investment into rearing kids by the state), people will do that.
The reaction to that idea shows you how undervalued baby production still is. Morons insist that $20k or similar is enough incentive. It's laughable.
Whatever happens with AI "taking all the jobs", this will drive real societal change, because it has to. The options are obscene authoritarianism and removal of bodily autonomy from women so we can just force them to reproduce like society is used to, or actually adapting to what it will cost to encourage women to go through literal trauma and 20 years of really hard work because the rest of society will benefit. Seeing as de-facto enslaving all women is horrific, I hope people see that we should do everything to avoid the first option.
It has to become very attractive to be an average person, with average social standing, with average resources. The uber rich might have to give up some of their share of the pie.
I really don't think we do know how to stop it. Even massively increasing welfare payments has totally failed to produce lasting change where attempted.
It is possible going significantly higher could, but if so we have not yet figured out how high, and it's clear the threshold is much higher than people have tended to think it would be. E.g. look at financial incentives in Hungary, or the welfare system in places like Norway that makes parental leave in many developed countries look like third world conditions.
Rich people do seem to have a somewhat higher fertility rate, so it is possible that you could fund it enough, but the rise happens at high enough income levels I don't think our economy could handle it.
I agree with the rest of your comment, though - I just don't think we know if purely financial motivation would be sufficient at a level that is actually possible (and I do fear authoritarian approaches will end up being tried instead). It might take a lot more effort than that in terms of lightening the burden and/or making it more attractive in other ways.
Only for a year and a bit (parental leave in e.g. Norway is up to 100% of salary for 49 weeks capped at ca $85k, or 80% for up to 61 weeks).
On top of that you get a bunch of other subsidies - e.g. in Norway again, nursery spaces are guaranteed by law and capped at around the $200/month mark, and child support is paid monthly until the child turns 18 at about the same rate.
Norway is below replacement, so we know that rate is too low.
Maybe your 60k/year on an ongoing basis would be sufficient. Whether anyone would be prepared to take the economic hit of trying is another question.
I suspect we'll see a lot of desperate flailing, creeping authoritarianism (e.g. curtailing abortions etc.), virtue signalling (it's your patriotic duty...), and increased reliance on immigration (until that supply also dries for an increasing number of countries) before someone is willing to try to figure out what a high enough number to change it is.
Yeah I think it's too expensive for anyone to really implement it, but I do think if you want it to be a viable choice to not pursue a career for a while (and a year isn't long enough) then it's the only ethical way to do it.
Banning women from working certain jobs or something seems like the authoritarian method instead, and unfortunately easier to implement.
Incorrect. It is 1.48 billion and expected to hit 1.7+ billion in next three decades in a nation that is <1/3rd size of the USA. Birth rate collapse cannot come soon enough.
motionlessveloc · · focus · HN ↗
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
There are 1.2 billion Indians.
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
You see, I know it's hard to grasp for some, but everything is really relative.
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Your ratios are all wrong. There are about 500mm Indians aged 6 to 26 today who will be over 80 (and under 100) by 2100. Even if nobody dies, India isn’t hitting 1.2bn 80-year olds. As for under-18s in that timeline, it ranges from 100 to 500 million depending on fertility.
Put another way, there is no deterministic population collapse in India the way there almost must be in Korea and Germany.
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
I'd prefer if it didn't have to go through this at all. Knowing you are headed for bad times isn't something to live with, it's something to fix. And it's not like the birth rates in each state are staying the same, they are actively dropping. The issue isn't just there, it's also getting worse.
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Then don't raise them! Also, don't raise problems that are easily disproven with real numbers! Demographics is a terrible domain to vibe your way through.
> Knowing you are headed for bad times isn't something to live with, it's something to fix
I literally just showed you that demographic projections for India give realistic scenarios for the number of under-18 year olds being equal to the number of over-80 year olds by 2100. The worst case is a 5:1 ratio.
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
exactly. so in 2150, or 2200, or someday, it will be a problem. So yes, it is a problem even today. It's kind of why you don't stand on train tracks even if there are still 15 minutes.
Future problems need to be fixed, else you end up as the countries you listed, Korea and Germany. It's not that hard
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
No. Never of the magnitude you suggested. The population pyramid simply doesn’t have the shape required for a population bomb the likes of which we’re seeing in e.g. Korea.
Given current and projected fertility, it never blows out the way you suggest. It gently curves. If Indians, tomorrow, suddenly stop having kids that would be the problem you suggest. But they aren’t. And it isn’t.
myrmidon · · focus · HN ↗
Smooth population decline means much less contention on ressources, energy and living space, which is highly relevant when all of those are already somewhat at the limit.
Significant positive growth is clearly completely unsustainable even over centuries, and I don't see why a somewhat smaller total human population could not be just as successful/satisfied over the next decades.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
Sorry champ, literally nobody is going to be infuriated by you pointing out that migration exists.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
vidarh · · focus · HN ↗
But of course that also makes blaming Modi pretty silly - every country sees this happening as their economic and social conditions improves. We don't know of any way of stopping it short of maybe throwing people into poverty.
(the only remaining places that has not yet dropped below replacement is sub-Saharan Africa and parts of the Middle East, but they too are seeing birth rates drop).
mrguyorama · · focus · HN ↗
The reaction to that idea shows you how undervalued baby production still is. Morons insist that $20k or similar is enough incentive. It's laughable.
Whatever happens with AI "taking all the jobs", this will drive real societal change, because it has to. The options are obscene authoritarianism and removal of bodily autonomy from women so we can just force them to reproduce like society is used to, or actually adapting to what it will cost to encourage women to go through literal trauma and 20 years of really hard work because the rest of society will benefit. Seeing as de-facto enslaving all women is horrific, I hope people see that we should do everything to avoid the first option.
It has to become very attractive to be an average person, with average social standing, with average resources. The uber rich might have to give up some of their share of the pie.
vidarh · · focus · HN ↗
It is possible going significantly higher could, but if so we have not yet figured out how high, and it's clear the threshold is much higher than people have tended to think it would be. E.g. look at financial incentives in Hungary, or the welfare system in places like Norway that makes parental leave in many developed countries look like third world conditions.
Rich people do seem to have a somewhat higher fertility rate, so it is possible that you could fund it enough, but the rise happens at high enough income levels I don't think our economy could handle it.
I agree with the rest of your comment, though - I just don't think we know if purely financial motivation would be sufficient at a level that is actually possible (and I do fear authoritarian approaches will end up being tried instead). It might take a lot more effort than that in terms of lightening the burden and/or making it more attractive in other ways.
nemomarx · · focus · HN ↗
If child rearing is a full time job maybe we can treat it like one.
vidarh · · focus · HN ↗
On top of that you get a bunch of other subsidies - e.g. in Norway again, nursery spaces are guaranteed by law and capped at around the $200/month mark, and child support is paid monthly until the child turns 18 at about the same rate.
Norway is below replacement, so we know that rate is too low.
Maybe your 60k/year on an ongoing basis would be sufficient. Whether anyone would be prepared to take the economic hit of trying is another question.
I suspect we'll see a lot of desperate flailing, creeping authoritarianism (e.g. curtailing abortions etc.), virtue signalling (it's your patriotic duty...), and increased reliance on immigration (until that supply also dries for an increasing number of countries) before someone is willing to try to figure out what a high enough number to change it is.
nemomarx · · focus · HN ↗
Banning women from working certain jobs or something seems like the authoritarian method instead, and unfortunately easier to implement.
satvikpendem · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
Incorrect. It is 1.48 billion and expected to hit 1.7+ billion in next three decades in a nation that is <1/3rd size of the USA. Birth rate collapse cannot come soon enough.