[vishnugupta]

> A fertility rate of 2.3 (the .3 accounting for child death and people who don't ever have kids) is replacement rate.

This is a good point which often gets overlooked in the heated debate of population explosion.

Coincidentally just a year or two ago Indian growth rate reached replacement levels[1]. As per the latest data (not sure if it's been reviewed/confirmed) it's now slightly below the replacement levels.

Also, if you notice, the southern states's growth rate is well below that of replacement level.

[1] https://niti.gov.in/content/total-fertility-rate-tfr-birth-w...

[lotsofpulp]

I would say the debate is more accurately about distributing resources to an "exploding" amount of people. Bringing up the entire population of India (just as an example, could be any country) to the living standards that are commonly discussed (such as potable water, sufficient nutrition, healthcare, etc) could very well be practically impossible.

[betwixthewires]

Yep, when I make the argument that "the problem is resource allocation, not overpopulation" I don't mean to imply that resource availability can be instantaneously ramped up locally with an influx in population, there is obviously latency there, and there will be a lag in standard of living during a sharp population increase. But this isn't a permanent state due to there being too many people.

I don't think it is impossible to bring the projected population of India up to decent living standards, I think this is highly unlikely, but my point doesn't account for that, so it could very well be.