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.
We are 1.48 billion people (and growing) in a nation that is 1/3rd the size of the US. Expected to reach 1.7+ billion in another 20-30 years - which will increase desperation considerably.
The birth rate falling is a VERY good thing. India cannot really support more than 300-400 million people with a high quality of life with its geographic size and exhausted resources. Life becomes cheaper than disposable toilet paper otherwise.
India has roughly ~18% of humanity but only about 4% of global freshwater resources, and agriculture consumes roughly 80–90% of India's water. The World Bank estimates that around 600 million Indians already face water stress. (The number is actually higher in many estimates)
There is also substantial pressure on land. Government data report about 97.85 million hectares, or ~30% of India's geographical area, as affected by land degradation/desertification.
If you want long-term, sustainable agriculture, we need to heavily move to organic farming. This yields ~30% less food produce. I forgot the popular paper on this - can dig it up.
India has also exhausted its mineral reserves. This is not fully our fault. We were fully strip mined and utterly bankrupted by the British in WW2. <a href="https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=48&relid=75456" rel="nofollow">https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=...
(IMHO that is the real reason why we got independence - the Brits didn't want to keep holding to a distressed asset and immediately liquidated. Look at Bengal famine of 1943)
We are having heavy import dependency on minerals - a ridiculous 80%!!! dependency, which is causing significant problems in our trade/current-account deficit.
So, if we want maximum ecological comfort, and long-term, prosperous standard of living, we need a significantly reduced population. You can get the number by just halving our population simply taking into account high-availability to water and then reduce further for sustainable agriculture and sustainable mineral consumption.
That's very obtuse, there is always time to make more CASH, but there isn't to reverse a culture where having 0 children is normal and encouraged.
> there isn't to reverse a culture where having 0 children is normal and encouraged
Not normal. Not encouraged. Not the trend line. You’re projecting a problem from other countries onto a demographic context within which it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately this is a topic where one has to actually look at the numbers.
If the user above got what he wished, it'd be 0.90. That's what I'm talking about.
This is a topic where one needs to know how to read, my nagging friend.
I am not asking for 0 children - that is silly. I just gave a target number for sustainable, high-quality of life in one nation which currently has a very stressed population due to limited resources, ongoing-desertification, exhausted mineral resources and a water crisis. Obviously we should not stop having kids tomorrow. But neither should we subscribe to the birth-rate cliff paranoia where corpo billionaires want the birth rate to increase so they always have access to a desperate population that they can treat as effective slave labour.
> If you want long-term, sustainable agriculture, we need to heavily move to organic farming
This is deeply unsupported by the evidence I’ve seen. Organic farming tends to look far more resource intensive than modern methods. Often for little discernible gain in flavor and nutrition.
> You can get the number by just halving our population
I agree with your conclusion given the data, particularly around mineral exhaustion. (Though there is also the issue of severe mismatches. Lots of lithium, for example, yet no battery industry to speak of.)
> This is deeply unsupported by the evidence I’ve seen.
What ? This is well-supported unless you have been sadly influenced by the brainwashing of corrupt American Agricorpos - who btw do a terrific job of FUD & misinformation. I even learned about the benefits of organic farming in high-school biology class.
"organic farming generally had higher soil organic matter, lower nutrient losses per hectare, lower energy requirements and generally better biodiversity outcomes"
Actually, there are dozens of papers. The research is extremely supported for sustainable agriculture with the corresponding caveat of lower yields like I mentioned. No idea how you got "deeply unsupported".
organic farms with best-practice are sustainable with lower yields and do not cause soil degradation or desertification. Study attached in reply to other comment.
> The research is extremely supported for sustainable agriculture with the corresponding caveat of lower yields
Right. Modern agriculture with minor modifications (atmosphere-derived fertilizer) can yield more on less land with less water input more or less indefinitely, i.e. sustainably. To get the same yield with organic methods you need more resource inputs. It’s more resource intensive.
By the way! I like shopping at my farmer’s market. I do think the eggs and vegetables are fresher and taste better. But I don’t pretend it’s more sustainable. If everyone did what I do, we’d need to divert even more land and water and energy to farming.
No, it is most certainly not indefinitely - "corpo agriculture" only yields more for a limited period of time before land degradation and desertification comes into play. I hesitate to call it "modern agriculture" since that is a moving target.
Please check:
Land Degradation–Desertification in Relation to Farming Practices in India: An Overview of Current Practices and Agro-Policy Perspectives, Sustainability
It is very unfair you got downvoted. Your conclusions might be debatable but sourcing them with so many sources is laudable. I wish all my debate adversaries would drown me in data like you did.
I am hopeful for India. Each time that I visit every five years or so, it feels like a "new country" -- so many things are changing so fast. While Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are not as water-starved as India, they did a lot to become rich with almost not good "minerals" (I assume that you also include oil & gas). Regarding water stress, look at Israel. They switched to as much "drip irrigation" as possible. For non-ag water uses, again look to Israel: You will need a lot of desalination plants. For the interior regions, you'll need water movement infrastructure like California and China.
India can easily become a green energy super power due to its enormous solar productivity. Think of all the industries in the 21st century that thrive with cheap power.
No, Mumbai is significantly more densely populated than Paris when looking at the entire urban scale and not just a few areas of Paris. This is easily fact-checked.
I mean Mumbai's population is 10x Paris population, so this should be obvious.
Wikipedia lists the core city of both as 50,000 per square mile, though it looks like the Mumbai numbers are somewhat old. More recent numbers say 73,000 per square mile for Mumbai. Which is similar to Manhattan’s residential population density.
motionlessveloc · · focus · HN ↗
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
The birth rate falling is a VERY good thing. India cannot really support more than 300-400 million people with a high quality of life with its geographic size and exhausted resources. Life becomes cheaper than disposable toilet paper otherwise.
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Source for this carrying capacity?
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
India has roughly ~18% of humanity but only about 4% of global freshwater resources, and agriculture consumes roughly 80–90% of India's water. The World Bank estimates that around 600 million Indians already face water stress. (The number is actually higher in many estimates)
<a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/brief/2026/03/19/how-india-is-addressing-its-water-needs" rel="nofollow">https://www.worldbank.org/en/brief/2026/03/19/how-india-is-a...
There is also substantial pressure on land. Government data report about 97.85 million hectares, or ~30% of India's geographical area, as affected by land degradation/desertification.
<a href="https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=48&relid=75456" rel="nofollow">https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=...
If you want long-term, sustainable agriculture, we need to heavily move to organic farming. This yields ~30% less food produce. I forgot the popular paper on this - can dig it up.
India has also exhausted its mineral reserves. This is not fully our fault. We were fully strip mined and utterly bankrupted by the British in WW2. <a href="https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=48&relid=75456" rel="nofollow">https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?lang=2&reg=...
(IMHO that is the real reason why we got independence - the Brits didn't want to keep holding to a distressed asset and immediately liquidated. Look at Bengal famine of 1943)
We are having heavy import dependency on minerals - a ridiculous 80%!!! dependency, which is causing significant problems in our trade/current-account deficit.
So, if we want maximum ecological comfort, and long-term, prosperous standard of living, we need a significantly reduced population. You can get the number by just halving our population simply taking into account high-availability to water and then reduce further for sustainable agriculture and sustainable mineral consumption.
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Not normal. Not encouraged. Not the trend line. You’re projecting a problem from other countries onto a demographic context within which it doesn’t exist. Unfortunately this is a topic where one has to actually look at the numbers.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
belowavgiq · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
This is deeply unsupported by the evidence I’ve seen. Organic farming tends to look far more resource intensive than modern methods. Often for little discernible gain in flavor and nutrition.
> You can get the number by just halving our population
I agree with your conclusion given the data, particularly around mineral exhaustion. (Though there is also the issue of severe mismatches. Lots of lithium, for example, yet no battery industry to speak of.)
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
What ? This is well-supported unless you have been sadly influenced by the brainwashing of corrupt American Agricorpos - who btw do a terrific job of FUD & misinformation. I even learned about the benefits of organic farming in high-school biology class.
"organic farming generally had higher soil organic matter, lower nutrient losses per hectare, lower energy requirements and generally better biodiversity outcomes"
<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22947228/" rel="nofollow">https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22947228/
“Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity - A meta-analysis and meta-regression” (2017)
<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0180442" rel="nofollow">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourn...
Land‐use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta‐analysis
<a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4299503/" rel="nofollow">https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4299503/
Actually, there are dozens of papers. The research is extremely supported for sustainable agriculture with the corresponding caveat of lower yields like I mentioned. No idea how you got "deeply unsupported".
quixoticelixer- · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
quixoticelixer- · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Right. Modern agriculture with minor modifications (atmosphere-derived fertilizer) can yield more on less land with less water input more or less indefinitely, i.e. sustainably. To get the same yield with organic methods you need more resource inputs. It’s more resource intensive.
By the way! I like shopping at my farmer’s market. I do think the eggs and vegetables are fresher and taste better. But I don’t pretend it’s more sustainable. If everyone did what I do, we’d need to divert even more land and water and energy to farming.
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
Please check:
Land Degradation–Desertification in Relation to Farming Practices in India: An Overview of Current Practices and Agro-Policy Perspectives, Sustainability
<a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6383" rel="nofollow">https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6383
ptsneves · · focus · HN ↗
throwaway2037 · · focus · HN ↗
India can easily become a green energy super power due to its enormous solar productivity. Think of all the industries in the 21st century that thrive with cheap power.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
lenkite · · focus · HN ↗
I mean Mumbai's population is 10x Paris population, so this should be obvious.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗