India needs to grow at 10% for 30 years to meet population's demands

[beijingwalker]

India needs to grow at 10% for 30 years to meet population's demands
BY PTI | UPDATED: MAY 14, 2018, 07.31 PM IST
NEW DELHI: India needs to grow at about 10 per cent annually for the next three decades to be able to meet the ever-rising demands of its growing population, NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant said today.

This order of growth however will not be achieved if the 'business-as-usual' approach to the use of scarce resources continues, he cautioned.

He said that for reducing dependence on fossil fuels in transportation, a NITI Aayog analysis suggests that the way forward is the use of bio-fuels. "We are giving a big push to electric vehicles in a bid to conserve exhaustible natural resources and bring about resource efficiency," Kant said at FICCI's Circular Economy Symposium-2018 here.

He also underlined the need to embed the principles of circular economy in India's school education system.

A circular economy, in contrast to the 'make-use-dispose' model of the linear economy, focuses on use of resources for longest possible time as also recovering and regenerating products and materials at the end of their life cycle.

Noting that the government needs to enable regulatory framework for circular economy, he said: "We should incentivise use of renewable material for construction sector."

Kant also stressed that the government needs to push the limits of the circular economy and make it a mass movement.

According to FICCI-Accenture study, which was released today by Kant, by adopting circular business model, India could reap a reward of between USD 382 to USD 697 billion by 2030.

The report pointed out that the circular economy through its innovative business model, offers a unique opportunity to decouple growth from resource requirements.

According to the report, five factors will be critical to accelerate circular models in India -- greater awareness, disruptive technologies, enabling policy landscape, innovative funding models and collaborations and partnerships.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-populations-demands/articleshow/64162624.cms

 

[kvpak]

If Hindi states men and women work more during the day in farms and factories and offices instead of working at night in bedroom without birth control, Hindi state population will be controlled and India as a whole would be self sufficient.

@BlueTopaz @ashok321 @pothead @punit @shootingstar @Nilgiri @SOUTHie @patman @AMCA @abcxyz0000 @kmc_chacko @randomradio @Hindustani78 @manlion @psugumar @Zen0
@spsk
@xyxmt

 

[Theparadox]

We need a nuclear war

 

[Rusty]

If India employed all their people to make toilets I think they can achieve 10% growth AND everyone will finally get toilets.

 

[beijingwalker]

Now you can see that much condemned China's family plan policy did have a reason.

 

[Nilgiri]

If Hindi states men and women work more during the day in farms and factories and offices instead of working at night in bedroom without birth control, Hindi state population will be controlled and India as a whole would be self sufficient.

@BlueTopaz @ashok321 @pothead @punit @shootingstar @Nilgiri @SOUTHie @patman @AMCA @abcxyz0000 @kmc_chacko @randomradio @Hindustani78 @manlion @psugumar @Zen0
@spsk
@xyxmt

No one cares coming from you Mr. Pakistani that cannot speak one word of Tamil.

 

[Cybernetics]

South India would do fine, they have already balanced their birth rates and generally more literate. The problem comes in the future when the regional disparity in birth rates becomes more apparent. Uncontrolled migration might prove to be disastrous for the nation as a whole. Maybe the new smart cities would be a good regulator of population.

Now you can see that much condemned China's family plan policy did have a reason.

China's family planning policy were made by physicists and mathematicians. One of the main proponents was Song Jian who was the chief designer of China's submarine launched ballistic missile. It is just impossible to provide full development when resources are lacking . Unless of course the society adopts a minimalist lifestyle (non consumer, vegan, etc). Countries like Japan are highly dense, meaning they need to import much of its resources. This necessitates partnering with the dominant geopolitical player to securely access resources.

Song Jian determined back in 1985 that China's ideal population in the next 100 years was 650-700 million. The population was already 1 billion at the time thus the one child policy sought to reduce the population and stabilise it after 20-40 years. Now China is already 2 times the ideal population. What this means is that China has to spend billions every year into improving the productivity of its agricultural sector and into changing China's geography in order to increase the carrying capacity. This is not enough as half of China's meat is imported and imports much of its energy and minerals.

In the long run China cannot rely upon an external geopolitical player due to its scale in displacing the incumbent. The implications of this is that it has to be the strongest nation in the region and project power over its supply chain in order to develop.

The problem with many "democracies" is that the political system they have bought from the developed nations creates an mentality where strategic thinking is lacking. This also creates conditions for manipulation by developed nations. Strategy is a good that some nations provide to others if they lack it themselves. After a certain number (based on your nation's capacity) larger population doesn't increase national strength or make people's lives better, it does the opposite.

 

[Nilgiri]

South India would do fine, they have already balanced their birth rates and generally more literate. The problem comes in the future when the regional disparity in birth rates becomes more apparent. Uncontrolled migration might prove to be disastrous for the nation as a whole. Maybe the new smart cities would be a good regulator of population.

Might be interesting to watch for you given you seem to know some of the issues:

@jamahir @Joe Shearer @itachii

 

[nang2]

South India would do fine, they have already balanced their birth rates and generally more literate. The problem comes in the future when the regional disparity in birth rates becomes more apparent. Uncontrolled migration might prove to be disastrous for the nation as a whole. Maybe the new smart cities would be a good regulator of population.


China's family planning policy were made by physicists and mathematicians. One of the main proponents was Song Jian who was the chief designer of China's submarine launched ballistic missile. It is just impossible to provide full development when resources are lacking . Unless of course the society adopts a minimalist lifestyle (non consumer, vegan, etc). Countries like Japan are highly dense, meaning they need to import much of its resources. This necessitates partnering with the dominant geopolitical player to securely access resources.

Song Jian determined back in 1985 that China's ideal population in the next 100 years was 650-700 million. The population was already 1 billion at the time thus the one child policy sought to reduce the population and stabilise it after 20-40 years. Now China is already 2 times the ideal population. What this means is that China has to spend billions every year into improving the productivity of its agricultural sector and into changing China's geography in order to increase the carrying capacity. This is not enough as half of China's meat is imported and imports much of its energy and minerals.

In the long run China cannot rely upon an external geopolitical player due to its scale in displacing the incumbent. The implications of this is that it has to be the strongest nation in the region and project power over its supply chain in order to develop.

The problem with many "democracies" is that the political system they have bought from the developed nations creates an mentality where strategic thinking is lacking. This also creates conditions for manipulation by developed nations. Strategy is a good that some nations provide to others if they lack it themselves. After a certain number (based on your nation's capacity) larger population doesn't increase national strength or make people's lives better, it does the opposite.

Many people think it is the less efficient democracy that creates problems for India and ignore the fact that India was founded on socialism ideology. Regardless what the nominal ideology behind any government is, in general, people with sufficient freedom, particularly economic freedom, will be able to self regulate the population. Look at China and south India. Without freedom, since the state runs everything, inevitably, the population has to be controlled by the state as well.

 

[Cybernetics]

Many people think it is the less efficient democracy that creates problems for India and ignore the fact that India was founded on socialism ideology. Regardless what the nominal ideology behind any government is, in general, people with sufficient freedom, particularly economic freedom, will be able to self regulate the population. Look at China and south India. Without freedom, since the state runs everything, inevitably, the population has to be controlled by the state as well.

Its not entirely about efficiency in my perspective. Certain systems with lower efficiency are more robust but not always and robust low efficiency systems are not necessarily desired in all conditions. "Democracies" that are adopted by many developing nations might be less efficient but it also is in many cases, less robust (for the purpose of full development) in the long run because it doesn't solve some basic social problems though it might patch it. Many developing nations lack a long term vision that they could stick to, and this is vital in maintaining the "market conditions" for future development since the requisite condition for development changes as you progress. Depending on organic development can be efficient but it would mean that nation would be easily manipulated by a nation or nations that exercise strategic development which distorts the market which all players operate in. Democracy or not that component is only one part of a nation's governance. Democracy doesn't stop at one person one vote.

Strategic development is what preserves the conditions of that "freedom" in the future. Nations don't exist in a vacuum but a system. Its not a matter of "democracy" or "no democracy" that is low level ideology arguments.

Might be interesting to watch for you given you seem to know some of the issues:

@jamahir @Joe Shearer @itachii

I will give it a watch. Actually I don't know much of the issues in India but I can project points of conflicts and general timelines based on simple arithmetic and the data available. Based on the dynamics of internal issues, we can project foreign policy of nations.

 

[nang2]

Its not entirely about efficiency in my perspective. Certain systems with lower efficiency are more robust but not always and robust low efficiency systems are not necessarily desired in all conditions. "Democracies" that are adopted by many developing nations might be less efficient but it also is in many cases, less robust (for the purpose of full development) in the long run because it doesn't solve some basic social problems though it might patch it. Many developing nations lack a long term vision that they could stick to, and this is vital in maintaining the "market conditions" for future development since the requisite condition for development changes as you progress. Depending on organic development can be efficient but it would mean that nation would be easily manipulated by a nation or nations that exercise strategic development which distorts the market which all players operate in. Democracy or not that component is only one part of a nation's governance. Democracy doesn't stop at one person one vote.

Strategic development is what preserves the conditions of that "freedom" in the future. Nations don't exist in a vacuum but a system. Its not a matter of "democracy" or "no democracy" that is low level ideology arguments.

A nation does not exist from a system. It is not the end in itself. It serves a purpose, being a system or not. Its purpose is the public security, one step in civilization progress away from the society that one must defend himself. It is a grouped defense that proves to be more effective, less costly and more conducive in preserving freedom. Maybe that is what you meant by "a system". This may serve as the base standard for any nation, regardless how it is formed. In another word, without public security, it can barely be called a nation. Therefore, strategic development is also a less essential subject, much like government formation, democracy or not.

 

[Nilgiri]

I will give it a watch. Actually I don't know much of the issues in India but I can project points of conflicts and general timelines based on simple arithmetic and the data available. Based on the dynamics of internal issues, we can project foreign policy of nations.

It goes into some depth regarding what you summarised earlier....and lot of commentary with how China managed quite well by early female education/empowerment....and those parallels with the more developed parts of India (South and West and a few cities in the north and also demographically the NE and East to some level)

 

[Cybernetics]

It goes into some depth regarding what you summarised earlier....and lot of commentary with how China managed quite well by early female education/empowerment....and those parallels with the more developed parts of India (South and West and a few cities in the north and also demographically the NE and East to some level)

I'm watching it now. It's interesting. China made social reforms before the economic reform. Female empowerment aids the industrialisation and post industrialisation process but some post industrial nations experience the overextension of female empowerment which become "feminism", a form that degrades society, perhaps it is a symptom of some deeper social issues that needs to be addressed.

A nation does not exist from a system. It is not the end in itself. It serves a purpose, being a system or not. Its purpose is the public security, one step in civilization progress away from the society that one must defend himself. It is a grouped defense that proves to be more effective, less costly and more conducive in preserving freedom. Maybe that is what you meant by "a system". This may serve as the base standard for any nation, regardless how it is formed. In another word, without public security, it can barely be called a nation. Therefore, strategic development is also a less essential subject, much like government formation, democracy or not.

I don't think the "system" is the end in itself, I think the opposite or refer to the "system" as something static that we must follow 100% by the book at all times, it exists for a purpose. Individuals don't exist in vacuums, all our success, development, aspirations are facilitated through the collective (at various scales from such as national or international). This doesn't mean everyone needs to have the same perspective of everything or do the same thing but the collective refers to the resources and institutions available that serves to expands individual capacity. Pure focus on the individual is unsustainable and eventually destructive as it degrades the fundamental pillars of the "system" which provides people the "freedoms" in the first place. The system facilitates the functions and aspirations of a nation (made up of individuals) and that system exists within a global system with other players which you need to react to. Depending on internal and external conditions and needs that system will evolve.

Pure ideological focus can erode the "system" that facilitate these collective functions for individual development. Strategic development and long term vision in my opinion needs to be maintained. In addition I don't just view "democracy" as one person one vote, it is too simple and misleading. The process is facilitated by a multitude of institutions, social conditions, etc some visible some not so visible. I think a nation needs to develop its institutions through an organic process but protected and guided by strategic development.

As a hypothetical if I don't desire to have children I would never promote or encourage my lifestyle publicly, I would actually encourage people to have children of their own and have stable families. The family lifestyle for the mainstream is what keeps the collective functioning, and I would benefit off the fruits of that collective, why would I seek to undermine it through narrow minded ideology? Pure individual focus might make me feel self important enough to promote my narrow minded ideology to undermine the collective.

 

[nang2]

I'm watching it now. It's interesting.


I don't think the "system" is the end in itself, I think the opposite or refer to the "system" as something static that we must follow 100% by the book at all times, it exists for a purpose. Individuals don't exist in vacuums, all our success, development, aspirations are facilitated through the collective (at various scales from such as national or international). This doesn't mean everyone needs to have the same perspective of everything or do the same thing but the collective refers to the resources and institutions available that serves to expands individual capacity. Pure focus on the individual is unsustainable and eventually destructive as it degrades the fundamental pillars of the "system" which provides people the "freedoms" in the first place. The system facilitates the functions and aspirations of a nation (made up of individuals) and that system exists within a global system with other players which you need to react to. Depending on internal and external conditions and needs that system will evolve.

Pure ideological focus can erode the "system" that facilitate these collective functions for individual development. Strategic development and long term vision in my opinion needs to be maintained. In addition I don't just view "democracy" as one person one vote, it is too simple and misleading. The process is facilitated by a multitude of institutions, social conditions, etc some visible some not so visible. I think a nation needs to develop its institutions through an organic process but protected and guided by strategic development.

There is really no pure focus on the individual. Nobody is really interested in talking about isolation from human society. Anyone who talks about that will be regarded as nonsense by others. But individualism is not pure focus on the individual. It is to state that the individual is the end and others are the means to this end, including collective. In another word, nation serves for the well beings of individuals. If individuals are suffering, the nation fails its purpose. It is derived from a common sense that only the individual can enjoy or suffer. It is an emphasis on the individual, not a pure focus that excludes the rest.

In contrast, collectivism, like socialism and communism, creates a mystery identity to a collective, being a nation or a group, as if the collective can enjoy and suffer like an individual human being. It states that the collective is the end and others are the means to this end, including individuals. This often leads to corrupt leaders to masquerade his ideology or private interest as the interests of the collective and use coercive force to compel people to achieve it, hence the brutality in many of those regimes.

 

[Cybernetics]

There is really no pure focus on the individual. Nobody is really interested in talking about isolation from human society. Anyone who talks about that will be regarded as nonsense by others. But individualism is not pure focus on the individual. It is to state that the individual is the end and others are the means to this end, including collective. In another word, nation serves for the well beings of individuals. If individuals are suffering, the nation fails its purpose. It is derived from a common sense that only the individual can enjoy or suffer. It is an emphasis on the individual, not a pure focus that excludes the rest.

In contrast, collectivism, like socialism and communism, creates a mystery identity to a collective, being a nation or a group, as if the collective can enjoy and suffer like an individual human being. It states that the collective is the end and others are the means to this end, including individuals. This often leads to corrupt leaders to masquerade his ideology or private interest as the interests of the collective and use coercive force to compel people to achieve it, hence the brutality in many of those regimes.

Not all those who are categorised in the same "ism" operate in the same way thus it is hard to analyse a nation's system based on that categorisation. I see short term "suffering" as sometimes necessary. If I want to build a house, I will suffer a bit by saving up and lower my consumption that would otherwise bring me less "suffering". Strategic development would require some degree of "suffering" but it isn't as terrible as it sounds. Entrepreneurs sometimes go through a lot of suffering for a period of time to build the foundations of the business/system. If a person is suffering because they are bad at managing resources without sound strategy then that is truly hopeless.

Some elements that facilitate the well being of individuals are often over looked. Collective identity is also important, but this doesn't mean everyone follows the same thing, it is just symbolism which derives from hard power. This symbolism is vital in the status and arrangement of nations which trickles down to individual dynamics. Symbols for the symbol minded but the world operates in this way thus logical players would play according to the rules.

Many socialist nations don't properly carryout the development of hard power or collective interests. Markets often do a better job because it is closer to the scientific method but this process needs to be guided and protected by national efforts. China's current system might be able to be categorised by a certain "ism" by political scientists but what matters in my opinion is what happens at the fringes of the core system. At the fringes are experiments being played out.