Nationalisms

[Narayan S. Raja]

Lars Martin Fosse wrote:


> Given the runaway demography, a literacy rate of 63% or even 40-50 % is
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, but this "runaway demography" comes
simply from a reduction in death rates.

Just after the British went away,
India's death rate per 1000 in 1950 was 27.4.
India's death rate per 1000 in 1997 was  8.9.

(The above numbers were obtained from:
  http://www.finmin.nic.in/eco/indi.htm
  http://www.ieo.org/budget99/social_sect.html
)

While the British were able to maintain a
"stiff upper lip" regarding the atrociously
high death rate in India, it dropped sharply
after the natives took charge.  Too bad from
an environmental point of view, but unavoidable.

Meanwhile, the birth rate per 1000 declined from
39.9 in 1950, to 27.2 in 1997.


> Other things being equal, I believe
> that India would have done much better for herself if she had managed to
> stabilize her population at, say, 300-350 millions.

India's population in 1950 was already 361 million.
So, only by magic could the population be stabilized
at 350 million while the death rate dropped by two-thirds
(from 27.4 to 8.9).


Ultimately, all of us third-worlders are suffering
from "overpopulation" due to the lack of new
continents to steal from the natives.

Europe (which, without Russia, is comparable
in size to India) has a population of about
300 million.  But if you bring back all the people
of European descent from North and South America,
Australia, etc., Europe would have a population
of 700 to 800 million -- quite comparable to
India.

In other words, third-worlders have a
"runaway population", while Europe has
a "population that ran away."  It ran
away to the Americas, etc., at the expense
of the local people.

Oh, well.  Ultimately, all biological
organisms must fend for themselves --
no point blaming others.

Best regards,


Narayan Sriranga Raja.