Hi Michael,

> India's population IS a problem...

> 1: They have overgrown the capacity of their
> land to feed them. They NEED to import food.
> That is a problem.

Japan needs to import food too. They seem to do alright. Singapore as well. Singapore even has to import its fresh water (it imports it from neighboring Malaysia).

If you have money coming in, you can use it to buy food. I've read that there's enough food produced in the world to more than feed everybody. When there are famines, it's usually due to political situations (like civil wars) or economic situations (can't afford to import food). As long as you don't have civil war-type problems, and you have the income to import food, I don't see it as a problem, at least not with the current population.

And I think we still have more capacity to grow food, if we want to. The shallow waters of the oceans are practically untapped for farming. However, these areas can be used to farm edible seaweeds, for fish farms, lobster farms, etc. This already happens now, though on a very small scale.

I'm sure there's a limit. Thomas Malthus in the 19th century predicted that the world would be undergoing huge famine by at least a few decades ago, since he thought the growing population would run out of food. The reason it hasn't happened is that he didn't count on technology. New technology has allowed us to grow food more and more efficiently.

Yes, there is probably a limit - but we clearly haven't reached it yet. (And I don't think we're even close, when you take into account the untapped potential of ocean farming.)

> 2: The overly large population leads to
> disease situations. The infrastructure
> cannot keep up with the demand being placed
> on it. That is a problem.

Japan has some of the most densely packed populations in the world, but don't seem to have a big problem with spreading disease. Yes, it is something that needs to be managed. Again, the problem is more the economy - if you have enough income, you can solve the problem through technology.

> 3: The large population is breeding faster
> than resources can be utilised to accomodate
> them. That is a problem.

On the other side of the equation, new technology allows us to use our resources more and more efficiently. And new technology even "creates" new resources for us to use. For example, our ocean coastal areas are practically unused. A new technology like ocean farming allows this area to be used for food production. (As I said, this is already happening, though right now it's on a very small scale. I predict this industry will grow over the next few decades.)

Yes, there's a limit - but I don't think we're there yet.

Anyhow, better educated populations tend to reduce their birth rates naturally. With further education, you would expect the same would happen with India.

> IF the population grows at a rate equal to
> or less than the available resources and
> technology and infrastructure, then the only
> problem a large population has to face is
> the capacity of the land to feed them.

> Left to Mother Nature, all the overcrowded
> populations would go through a natural die
> off and balance would be obtained.

> Cruel for sure. That's natures way.

That's the Malthusian argument. As I said, he predicted that widespread famines would happen decades ago, based on the same argument you're making. They didn't happen, because he didn't take into account the effect of new technology.

> As I think of the difference between the
> western world and the third world countries
> trying to "modernise" I realize
> the west got civilized/modern while
> populations were small, and then the
> populations grew at a balancing rate with
> the technology and infrstructure.

What about Japan? It's progress after WWII was incredibly rapid.

I think China - the country with the world's largest population - is rapidly modernizing. It's expected by many people to be the next "economic superpower".

I hear from those I know in university that overseas students from mainland China are being taught in increasing numbers in Australian universities. That means that (1) these students (or the Chinese government, for those on scholarships) have the money to pay for this expensive education, and (2) many will bring this knowhow back to China, which will contribute further to China's economic growth.

For India, I think the answer lies in education, especially in getting the literacy rate up. When people can read, then they can start to educate themselves. New technology helps to solve the problem too. It helps to solve the problem of spreading disease, and helps to solve the problem of food creation. And once people become educated, experience shows that the birth rate goes down. So I think that education is the solution.

It's summarized in that old saying,

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a life time."

A well-educated population brings in more than it uses. So, in some cases, a big population can be a plus. It's due to this that China is often predicted to become the next "economic superpower". A big population means more ideas, more inventions, more new technology. However, you need education to tap this potential.

(Economists call this "human capital". When you have an educated population, it has "human capital" - that is, it becomes a resource, just like any other "natural resource". This is how resource-poor countries, like Japan and Singapore, can become quite wealthy countries - since they've built their "human capital" through education, and encouraging the development of technology.)

- Dien Rice