Major problems in India - Population related! What do you say?

[chiron]

Re: Major problems in India - Polulation related! What do you say?

Show how its a hindrance. The case has never been made.

.......

I neve said India was under-populated. I'm asking ppl who think its over-populated to explain the basis of that assertion.

How much is over-populated ? What is correct population. What is under-populated ?

How do you know the present population is unsustainable ?

Its not about how many kids you want its about how many kids SOMEBODY ELSE thinks you should have. WTF are they to tell anyone that.

Why is Govt intruding into personal life. What is the basis for govt to intrude into this aspect of personal life.

The basis has not been explained, it just gets asserted.

I wonder if there is way to show such is unconstitutional to begin with. That would settle this once and for all

If its an aim of the country to ensure that its entire population gets access to basic amenities(housing, power, medical care etc) then I'm sure India would struggle in doing so with its current resources. Not really got any studies to support it, though it seems a like logical conclusion; reason why countries like UK or Japan etc are developed yet have high population density is because of international trade while the advantage US has over India/China is less population. Is it just a conicidence that the countries with the worst development indices are also the countries with greatest population growth? And remember Bush's controversial statements about rising food prices.

Anyway if you have anything that makes a case for the opposite then please do share it; in fact the govt should have some gameplan regarding how to provide for the increasing population as India is the major contributor to the world population.

You have got to be frickin kidding me. entering into a body and permanently, adversely affecting its function has no ethical issues ??

I do not support govt killing its own citizens except for self-defence or in times of emergency or war. I am an advocate for the abolition of the death penalty.

There is a HUGE difference between death penalty & holding captive.

There are plenty of forms of contraception that are reversible. In my mind the issue is about preventing pregnancies rather than terminating it.

Lol, if they make it a crime to have more than 2 kids they will have problems, nobody will ever vote for them. The religous fundies of all stripes will tell them to piss off. Let alone the civil liberties folk.

Of course, and further the govt imo should not enact legislations it cannot properly enforce(and it definitely can't enforce something like this).

Govt does not curb many freedoms, it does so in states that have insurgency problems.

There are rules of what you can cultivate in your own fields, what pesticides/fertilizer you can use, what business you can run, when you can cross a road etc. Why is having kids with no means to provide for them an act that a citizen doesn't need to be accountable for?

I guess there are two issues;

- overpopulation

- whether people who have demonstrated a clear inability to be proper parents should be allowed to be parents without consequence

As far as overpopulation goes a better approach might be to have better education and other such means as more developed a region is the lower the growth rate seems to be. Forced sterilization and such acts are a bit extreme and would only end up having a backlash. And putting financial burden on people with more children is counterproductive as the intention is to let the kids have a better life, not penalize them. Maybe giving people money for adopting long acting contraceptives might be a good way to approach things; is there something along those lines already?

The second is actually where I am completely in support of forcing contraception on people though I guess the implementation aspect in this case too may be pretty much impossible. If we had a social services thing like developed countries have then we could have done something about it I guess.

 

[adi_vastava]

Re: Major problems in India - Polulation related! What do you say?

Corruption starts at home; a very small example.

In NCR they took; 2-3 Kgs of Gas from cyllinder before delivery.
In Hyderabd they charge 5 Rs for gas cyllinder delivery.
In Bangalore they charge 15 rs for gas cyllinder delivery.

The delivery man told me; I'll not give you cyllinder; without money (on a legal connection). I said than your agency BOSS will come to deliver.
He never came; but his assistant did

Sometimes all it takes is a firm NO.

 

[blr_p]

Re: Major problems in India - Polulation related! What do you say?

If its an aim of the country to ensure that its entire population gets access to basic amenities(housing, power, medical care etc) then I'm sure India would struggle in doing so with its current resources.

The reason for this is poor delivery in a nutshell, leakages, lack of accountabilty. Lack of power is down mostly to environmental lobbying.

Not really got any studies to support it, though it seems a like logical conclusion; reason why countries like UK or Japan etc are developed yet have high population density is because of international trade while the advantage US has over India/China is less population.

Do you forget that the US is 5 times larger as well, and has had a deomcratic govt functioning for over 200+ years. How you could put it down to just population escapes me.

Is it just a conicidence that the countries with the worst development indices are also the countries with greatest population growth?

Correlation is not causation.

And remember Bush's controversial statements about rising food prices.

Which he helped raise by diverting corn into ethanol and causing a price rise in the commodity market. The other factor was failed wheat harvest in Russia last year. This has the largest knock on effect worldwide on food prices.

Anyway if you have anything that makes a case for the opposite then please do share it; in fact the govt should have some gameplan regarding how to provide for the increasing population as India is the major contributor to the world population.

They do, the major problem is delivery. So they think UID is the panacea but it isn't. The Tamils have the best PDS in the country, why is that ? is anybody doing any case study or is it just false propaganda. Can the Tamil experience be replicated nationwide ?

If you notice i'm not making the case for the opposite, i'm asking ppl to justify the reason they want govt to impose population control. If they cannot satisify that simple requirement then it makes no sense to proceed with such actions.

There are plenty of forms of contraception that are reversible. In my mind the issue is about preventing pregnancies rather than terminating it.

Sure, so why not put more efforts into family planning & contraceptives. There is religious resistance to it, that is the problem. I recall seeing an telegu ad for contraception some time ago that was really fantastic. But there is still a long way to go here.

40 percent Indians embarrassed to ask for contraceptives

Of course, and further the govt imo should not enact legislations it cannot properly enforce(and it definitely can't enforce something like this).

yep, which begs the question why are they pushing this bill then, what is the motive ?

There are rules of what you can cultivate in your own fields, what pesticides/fertilizer you can use, what business you can run, when you can cross a road etc. Why is having kids with no means to provide for them an act that a citizen doesn't need to be accountable for?

They are accountable because they have to provide for those children in some form or another.

I guess there are two issues;
- overpopulation
- whether people who have demonstrated a clear inability to be proper parents should be allowed to be parents without consequence

Overpopulation remains yet to be defined. I ask what is the correct size because its only when there is some correct size that one can say there is overpopulation.
The second point depends on how you define 'inability to be proper parents'. My guess is they would be in the minority yet this legislation will target everybody regardless.

As far as overpopulation goes a better approach might be to have better education and other such means as more developed a region is the lower the growth rate seems to be. Forced sterilization and such acts are a bit extreme and would only end up having a backlash. And putting financial burden on people with more children is counterproductive as the intention is to let the kids have a better life, not penalize them. Maybe giving people money for adopting long acting contraceptives might be a good way to approach things; is there something along those lines already?

The second is actually where I am completely in support of forcing contraception on people though I guess the implementation aspect in this case too may be pretty much impossible. If we had a social services thing like developed countries have then we could have done something about it I guess.

Promoting contraception is a good way forward but there are too many soical & religious objections to it. How do you tackle them.

 

[chiron]

I'm sure there are studies that are pro and con population growth but I doubt either side has conclusive answers. Still, I don't get why you are so fixated on the "corelation is not causation" bit. From what I've seen for complex interconnected issues(population, energy and resource availability, gdp, technology, trade etc) empirical conclusions aren't all that far from the answer.

As far as embarassment for asking for contraceptives goes I'm guessing asking the doctor for birth control is probably less embarassing than buying condoms. No point in debating the so called "religious" objections when it goes against common sense (and in many cases whether the religion says something itself is dependent on a persons interpretation).

 

[TEUser2K1]

^^chiron, just because religion came in to picture.

This bill is on table in Kerala, where in fact religion should be a point to be noted.

For e.g., let us be open about it, Kerala Christians (this is not politics, just religion) happened to be most successful in education, careers and other interests in Kerala, or so it is believed.

The population which were highly educated have least children. Now, most houses you may find one or maximum two child. Above three children will be a one in a thousand (even fewer) possibility. The same goes for few upper class Hindus.

The issue is that their community is in collapse now and they find their voices are not being heard (compared earlier). Educated people does not listen to their community leaders to have more children. It is out in open and public that their community leaders want more community members and no one cares a hoot about them. Now, extensive statistical calculations are done, giving dire predictions in long term.

This report by Krishna Iyyer, is a direct insult to such people. There are already frictional opinions from Krishna Iyer and Christian religious leaders.

I am afraid people will go in defense mode now...

Whether religion does matter or not is a different case, but people ask what is the benefit for behaving and listening better to Govt. in a country ?

They say more resources will be better allocated, but is there a guarantee for that ? For eg., Govt. make a law guaranteeing for them, that there will be less population. How, people get an assurance that once population is reduced they will be in so and so benefit than a statistical calculation or presumption ? As it is Govts. world wide are becoming less trustworthy.

Human Life Quality in Kerala is reported to be highest in India, somewhere read that it is comparable to EU levels. Think why such laws are still being created there, but not in places where it is exactly required.

 

[blr_p]

I'm sure there are studies that are pro and con population growth but I doubt either side has conclusive answers.

This isn't what i had in mind. Think a step before this. To answer the question WHY do it. What is the basis ? the thinking that leads to writing such a bill.

Is it rational ? because i see nobody seems to be able to answer the most basic of questions underneath this bill.

The basic question here is over liberty & freedom and if the state wants to trample over those then it better have very good defendable reasons to do so.

Still, I don't get why you are so fixated on the "corelation is not causation" bit.

Fixated ? no, if you advocate in favour of this bill then its your job to make a strong case and not beat around the bush.

From what I've seen for complex interconnected issues(population, energy and resource availability, gdp, technology, trade etc) empirical conclusions aren't all that far from the answer.

Yes, but do they involve getting this personal ?

You or anybody have yet to make their argument in favour and explain its basis.

State bills are a pain to get hold off, all i know is this is contained in Kerela's womens code bill 2011 & Kerela children's code bill 2011

I cannot find any analysis on this bill other than articles that bring its salient points to our notice.

See this Niyamsabha - Business click on 13th KLA bills, its all in malyalam, anything on this bill there ?

As far as embarassment for asking for contraceptives goes I'm guessing asking the doctor for birth control is probably less embarassing than buying condoms. No point in debating the so called "religious" objections when it goes against common sense (and in many cases whether the religion says something itself is dependent on a persons interpretation).

Not debating the religious objections, saying this is something that has to be overcome with understanding.

Think about it, if you cannot convince ppl to have less children by using contraception then why will they obey a law that mandates it. Who is going to police this ? i think even the most illiterate of ppl will be intelligent enough to drive these inspectors away or outright refuse to pay any fines.

They will raise hell over it. You want to avoid that and the only way is through understanding. There will always be the hardcore but once there is better understanding you get the majority behaving out of their own choice rather than being imposed on.

Treat citizens as adults instead of children. We live in a free country.

Holding authoritarian China as the paragon of success in this contxt to immitate is misguided at best and downright ignorant at worst.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

Now, extensive statistical calculations are done, giving dire predictions in long term.

You can say anything you want with statistics.

This report by Krishna Iyyer, is a direct insult to such people.

This report by Iyer is EXACTLY what we need to see and discuss but i've been unable to find that 94-page report anywhere.

 

[chiron]

I've never said anything about the practicality of the bill or even anything specifically justifying Iyyer's bill (and I don't know exactly what its various terms are either). I agree with prole73 in wondering about such a bill being introduced in Kerala of all places. I was only talking about my stance on this issue in general wrt the OP's question. My argument simply put is; less population = more resources per person. And, I would have no problem with state sanctioned birth control (not to be equated to abortions) just as I've no problem obeying traffic laws. Why is freedom and liberty such an issue only when it comes to having children?

As far as China goes I'm sure they've come up with extensive studies as well as statistics supporting their policy regarding this issue as well as ones proving their success; as you said "you can say anthing you want with statistics".

 

[blr_p]

My argument simply put is; less population = more resources per person.

So why fine the 3th kid instead of the 5th kid ?

Or if the fine cannot be paid then father goes to jail for three months. If he happens to be the sole breadwinner then that family just got into trouble. The other point lets say hypothetically this law gets enacted today. How long will it be until you actually notice a difference / 10 years, 20 years or 50 years. This is only a state legislation, other states have no restictions. So whatever 'benefit' will be negated.

The other argument is if there aren't enough resources then what is stopping the develoment of more resources. I've already explained why i think power has nothing to do with population and everything to do with environmentalists getting in the way of the construction of new plants. Thankfully they will not have much impact when it comes to building more nuclear plants.

Take food, once the green revolution begain in the 60s both India & Pakistan went from famines to surplus within the same decade. So producing more food isn't a problem either. Better storage so it does not go to waste and infrastructure to transport it where ever. What is stopping all of this ?

You want more employment opportunities then loosen the labour laws so entrepreneurs can hire & fire as & when the market dictates rather than what idealogy dictates.

I think the MAIN reason you & others think there is a population problem in this country is because this country is woefully inefficient in a lot of things. You actually think we have reached some sort of ceiling and population is preventing any further development. So instead of making thing more efficent which is work its so much easier to pass legislation that interferes with the family isn't it. Its quite odd that Krela of all places would be the first to think of such a law. Maybe because industry wise that state lags behind others that the jobs situation is much more acute there than elsewhere. Most kerelaites have to seek employment elsewhere other than their own state.

Fix that first. Why should you have to go work elsewhere. Adopt policies that increase investment from outside, turn your back on your socialist-communist past. Twenty years on isn't it clear those old policies only lead to legislation that restricts your freedom because it was never a viable idealogy that scaled to look after the needs of the people in the first place. The USSR would never have gone bankrupt otherwise.

And, I would have no problem with state sanctioned birth control (not to be equated to abortions) just as I've no problem obeying traffic laws. Why is freedom and liberty such an issue only when it comes to having children?

Because having kids is not the same as traffic laws. That you would even equate the two defies comprehension.

 

[NinByChoice]

Because having kids is not the same as traffic laws. That you would even equate the two defies comprehension.

No it doesnt defy comprehension. Please provide statistics to support your case.

The govt. curbs these freedoms for good reason, I dont see any issue with limiting conception.

1) Freedom of speech
2) Growing, selling narcotics
3) Nudity in public
4) Making, selling guns/weapons
5) Freedom to choose my caste
6) Various land ceiling acts
Also, how is a child any different from a vehicle? Both increase congestion, pollution and consume resources. If not a curb on number of kids, there should a tax/charge for every kid. Also a license to make one.

Lots of studies have shown a healthy sustainable human population to be ~10B for the earth. Its obvious India is already way beyond this in terms of population density itself, without even accounting for the inefficiency. Even worse is the fact that India is still on the perpetual population increase path. Till there are major advances in harvesting natural resources, its better to keep population stable*.

Its surprising that Kerala should come up with this measure since its already averaging <2 kids/couple. I would have expected states like Bihar, MP, Uttranchal to come up with such a measure. I guess if they are stupid enough to make so many babies, I cant expect them to have such laws.

* - Indias population is growing due to increase in life expectancy too. Its obvious to keep the average kids at less than 2/couple to negate the effects of increasing life expectancy. Limiting it to 2 is a very good move towards this goal.

 

[chiron]

As far as overpopulation goes a better approach might be to have better education and other such means as more developed a region is the lower the growth rate seems to be. Forced sterilization and such acts are a bit extreme and would only end up having a backlash. And putting financial burden on people with more children is counterproductive as the intention is to let the kids have a better life, not penalize them. Maybe giving people money for adopting long acting contraceptives might be a good way to approach things; is there something along those lines already?

So why fine the 3th kid instead of the 5th kid ?

Or if the fine cannot be paid then father goes to jail for three months. If he happens to be the sole breadwinner then that family just got into trouble. The other point lets say hypothetically this law gets enacted today. How long will it be until you actually notice a difference / 10 years, 20 years or 50 years. This is only a state legislation, other states have no restictions. So whatever 'benefit' will be negated.

You are arguing against points I am not making. As far as having kids not being same as traffic laws; yeah having kids has way greater consequences.

 

[blr_p]

The govt. curbs these freedoms for good reason,

Freedoms are not absolute and the tests for govt to curb them should be stringent. That is how we continue to remain free.

I dont see any issue with limiting conception.

1) Freedom of speech
2) Growing, selling narcotics
3) Nudity in public
4) Making, selling guns/weapons
5) Freedom to choose my caste
6) Various land ceiling acts

What grounds does govt offer to interfere in family life ? to effectively dictate its constitution.

Just because they can does not automatically explain the merits of doing so nor is it a very good indicator of future compliance by the public with this law.

Also, how is a child any different from a vehicle? Both increase congestion, pollution and consume resources. If not a curb on number of kids, there should a tax/charge for every kid. Also a license to make one.

A vehicle isn't normally considered to be a part of the family. Its a material possession. You trade vehicles at a whim but not your kids.

I did not ask how different a child is to a vehicle and therefore find the suggestion of having kids equivalent to owning a vehicle ridiculous.

See, i'm of the view its not my business, your business or anybody else's business for that matter as to how many kids somebody else chooses to or not have

Lots of studies have shown a healthy sustainable human population to be ~10B for the earth.

Before the green revolution the figure was lower. Therefore this limit is a 'soft' one, subject to upward revision.

Its obvious India is already way beyond this in terms of population density itself, without even accounting for the inefficiency. Even worse is the fact that India is still on the perpetual population increase path. Till there are major advances in harvesting natural resources, its better to keep population stable*.

Here you go claiming credit for what has yet to be earned. NO it is not obvious to me that we are beyond some global arbitrary historically upwards fluctuating figure.

Its surprising that Kerala should come up with this measure since its already averaging <2 kids/couple. I would have expected states like Bihar, MP, Uttranchal to come up with such a measure. I guess if they are stupid enough to make so many babies, I cant expect them to have such laws.

As is said earlier the motives at the root of this legislation are not yet clear nor have they been defined anywhere.

When will Iyer's 94 page report be released to the public ?

* - Indias population is growing due to increase in life expectancy too. Its obvious to keep the average kids at less than 2/couple to negate the effects of increasing life expectancy. Limiting it to 2 is a very good move towards this goal.

All you've shown is 2 kids keeps population stable. You've not explained WHY impose a restriction.

 

[TEUser2K1]

Only thing this Iyyer should have done is giving better incentives to those with less than 3 kids and reduce /remove incentives to those with above 3 children. Almost all problems might have solved by themselves.

To cut a long story short; any creature will wish to have its gene to be passed on to next generation gene pool in most successful manner possible.

So, it may take chances by having more genes copies be passed along to its increase success rate.

Thats why many creatures live itself.

Humans are not much different and it is basic right of any human to decide on the hardship he have to take to care for his child and struggle with life. to an extend we need to understand and be realistic with such human emotions.

(ok, I am totally against people in some communities creating children just to add miseries to world and nothing else.)

In fact, I too thought on all these lines that one child should be a norm and we would a great country like that and all. Then I started reading books in wider range than that of Ayn Rand.

Now I am a parent and have seen state few other parents who lost their only child in unfortunates events in life. Few of them are deranged /insane. One can neither console or advice them. One need to learn their lessens in real life to be humanely sensitive.

 

[NinByChoice]

Freedoms are not absolute and the tests for govt to curb them should be stringent. That is how we continue to remain free.

Exactly, and thats why the 2 child limit instead of preventing any one from having children at all.

What grounds does govt offer to interfere in family life ? to effectively dictate its constitution.

Just because they can does not automatically explain the merits of doing so nor is it a very good indicator of future compliance by the public with this law.

The same right that allows them to take away my freedom to do the things I mentioned.

A vehicle isn't normally considered to be a part of the family. Its a material possession. You trade vehicles at a whim but not your kids.

I did not ask how different a child is to a vehicle and therefore find the suggestion of having kids equivalent to owning a vehicle ridiculous.

You absolutely do not wish to understand why I correlated them - they both cause congestion and pollution. Your claim that they are different because children arent born with internal combustion engines nor 4 wheels doesnt make any sense.

Besides trading vehicles doesnt decrease the congestion/pollution. You statements make no sense for any POV.

See, i'm of the view its not my business, your business or anybody else's business for that matter as to how many kids somebody else chooses to or not have

Are you of the same opinion for the freedoms I listed?

Before the green revolution the figure was lower. Therefore this limit is a 'soft' one, subject to upward revision.

No, these are more recent figures. The Govt. can allow an upward revision in population if there is an upward revision in estimates and technology.

And FYI - India is dependent on importing food grains again. Not because food production is less, but because population growth has outpaced food production.

Here you go claiming credit for what has yet to be earned. NO it is not obvious to me that we are beyond some global arbitrary historically upwards fluctuating figure.

10B for all the livable land area in the world. Take the area of India as a percentage and divide, that will give a good estimate. So hard? Or so thick?

All you've shown is 2 kids keeps population stable. You've not explained WHY impose a restriction.

You absolutely do not wish to believe estimates by scientists. You asked for statistics. When presented - you dismiss them by saying "Statistics can be made to say what they want". When presented with other correlation - you extend it to irrational limits.

I feel you are just trolling. If you actually wished to understand something, you would have approached with an open mind instead of dismissing arguments.

 

[unni]

Only thing this Iyyer should have done is giving better incentives to those with less than 3 kids and reduce /remove incentives to those with above 3 children. Almost all problems might have solved by themselves.

Now I am a parent and have seen state few other parents who lost their only child in unfortunates events in life. Few of them are deranged /insane. One can neither console or advice them. One need to learn their lessens in real life to be humanely sensitive.

To add to the last point, another good thing of having two children is that he/she won't find herself alone in this world when the parents are gone.

 

[blr_p]

Exactly, and thats why the 2 child limit instead of preventing any one from having children at all.

But you have as yet not presented a compelling case for the govt to do so. Nobody has.

The same right that allows them to take away my freedom to do the things I mentioned.

And what will the compliance rate for this law be ? does that matter to you.

Actually its far from clear whether this bill will ever become a law.

And as to your earlier suggestion of why Bihar has not come up with such a law i trust they have enough sense not to interfere in the family unit. Good luck pulling this sort of stunt in the cow belt, they will reply to this bill in the fitting way it deserves by giving it the bird

You absolutely do not wish to understand why I correlated them - they both cause congestion and pollution. Your claim that they are different because children arent born with internal combustion engines nor 4 wheels doesnt make any sense.

Besides trading vehicles doesnt decrease the congestion/pollution. You statements make no sense for any POV.

Your comparison is a spurious one. I'm not interested in indirect justifications, just because it happens in the case of A then it should apply for B.

Tell me the reasons for B and let those reasons stand on their own merits, That you are incapable of doing so for so long makes me think the merits are not there to begin with.

Are you of the same opinion for the freedoms I listed?

Those are all different issues, and can be debated on their own terms. Neither of them intrudes into the family space or effects its constitution.

No, these are more recent figures. The Govt. can allow an upward revision in population if there is an upward revision in estimates and technology.

They are fluctuating is my point if you compare historically.

And FYI - India is dependent on importing food grains again. Not because food production is less, but because population growth has outpaced food production.

And exporting too (basmati).

Imports were to make up for failing harvests which are sporadic and in no way whatsoever indicative of population having outpaced food production.

10B for all the livable land area in the world. Take the area of India as a percentage and divide, that will give a good estimate. So hard? Or so thick?

I'd indulge you more in this and ask you to give me the figures but i place very little value in this sort of model. You can fiddle with it and present whatever results you want to. I've seen enough of this leftwing crap with the so called global warming nonsense.

You absolutely do not wish to believe estimates by scientists. You asked for statistics. When presented - you dismiss them by saying "Statistics can be made to say what they want". When presented with other correlation - you extend it to irrational limits.

Read what i said, i said 2 kids keeps the population stable, thats is what you have provided to this debate.

You have not explained WHY govt must enforce this. Why do you keep tap dancing around that question ?

I feel you are just trolling. If you actually wished to understand something, you would have approached with an open mind instead of dismissing arguments.

And i feel you've consistantly dodged the simple question of WHY asked many times so far.

WHY WHY WHY ?

That you would suggest i'm trolling because you cannot or continue to avoid answering that question needs to be noted here.

THis is the FUNDAMENTAL issue i have, how the heck do you justify or oppose something when you do not even know what the basis for it even is.

I can very easily oppose what has been mentioned so far on the basis of freedom and non-interference of the state in family matters but that is about as far as it goes.

Once the reasons are provided i can deliver a more fitting rebuttal.

 

[chiron]

i can very easily oppose what has been mentioned so far on the basis of freedom and non-interference of the state in family matters but that is about as far as it goes.

why why why ?

 

[NinByChoice]

And what will the compliance rate for this law be ? does that matter to you.

Your comparison is a spurious one. I'm not interested in indirect justifications, just because it happens in the case of A then it should apply for B.

Tell me the reasons for B and let those reasons stand on their own merits, That you are incapable of doing so for so long makes me think the merits are not there to begin with.

Those are all different issues, and can be debated on their own terms. Neither of them intrudes into the family space or effects its constitution.

They are fluctuating is my point if you compare historically.

Imports were to make up for failing harvests which are sporadic and in no way whatsoever indicative of population having outpaced food production.

I'd indulge you more in this and ask you to give me the figures but i place very little value in this sort of model. You can fiddle with it and present whatever results you want to. I've seen enough of this leftwing crap with the so called global warming nonsense.

You have not explained WHY govt must enforce this. Why do you keep tap dancing around that question ?

Troll Troll Troll your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily Merrily Merrily

 

[TEUser2K1]

Prole73: "Now, extensive statistical calculations are done, giving dire predictions in long term.

blr_p: You can say anything you want with statistics."

At this point, I will have to differ with you.

No, you can't say 'anything' with real statistical information. In real, if number of people are less in a particular area, then number is less. That is plain reality, one have to live with it. You can misuse the outcome of statistics, but thats neither fault of statitics nor maths. Ultimately, truth only sustains.

Now, there is news that Indian government are proposing /working on much more stringent laws for population control. Thats there in local news in Kerala.

 

[blr_p]

why why why ?

Because we're supposed to live in a free country and its upto govt to justify themselves to the citizens.

Not the other way around

Troll Troll Troll your boat
Gently down the stream
Merrily Merrily Merrily

Thx Raghu, i'll take that as you having conceded, You certainly seem to have run out of ammo hyeah:

Prole73: "Now, extensive statistical calculations are done, giving dire predictions in long term.
blr_p: You can say anything you want with statistics."

At this point, I will have to differ with you.
No, you can't say 'anything' with real statistical information. In real, if number of people are less in a particular area, then number is less. That is plain reality, one have to live with it. You can misuse the outcome of statistics, but thats neither fault of statitics nor maths. Ultimately, truth only sustains.

The usual left wing bogeys are always to say dire things with statistics. We have too many people, we dont have enough resources, we need to limit ourselves in some way or another. All this limiting business led to our bankruptcy in 1991. So you can see that i tend to regard these so called predictions using statistics with the circumspection they deserve. This is why i told Raghu not to bother with the exercise.

With how much certainty can these statistics guarantee whatever it is they predict will come to pass ? exactly.

...but if this moronic bill passes the limitations it imposes are 100% certain with penatlies for infractions.

Now you see, how you can BS your way into anything with half an answer and a gullible audience will lap it up with gusto.

Have you never heard of the book 'Lies, damn lies & statistics'

Now, there is news that Indian government are proposing /working on much more stringent laws for population control. Thats there in local news in Kerala.

Same arguments apply. Lets see their reasoning.

 

[NinByChoice]

Because we're supposed to live in a free country and its upto govt to justify themselves to the citizens.

WAHAHAHAH!! I CANT UNDERSTAND IT!! ITS TOO COMPLICATED!!

The usual left wing bogeys are always to say dire things with statistics. We have too many people, we dont have enough resources, we need to limit ourselves in some way or another. All this limiting business led to our bankruptcy in 1991. So you can see that i tend to regard these so called predictions using statistics with the circumspection they deserve. This is why i told Raghu not to bother with the exercise.

With how much certainty can these statistics guarantee whatever it is they predict will come to pass ? exactly.

...but if this moronic bill passes the limitations it imposes are 100% certain with penatlies for infractions.

Now you see, how you can BS your way into anything with half an answer and a gullible audience will lap it up with gusto.

I JUST READ A BOOK, HENCE IM AWESOME!!

Have you never heard of the book 'Lies, damn lies & statistics'

Same arguments apply. Lets see their reasoning.

A book is different from a law. The book has binding and can be exchanged amongst people. So it doesnt apply to this argument.