Bitcoin Forum

We have had different analyses about the implication of population on the economy of a nation. Some economists will argue that the reason for the underdevelopment of most countries is because of overpopulation. Hence they are advised to cut down the population through diverse means like birth control and so on. In other countries, economists are also predicting economic woes because of underpopulation. These nations have been advised to increase the birth rate through diverse means. Some nations are giving citizens diverse welfare packages to increase the number of children they have. Some are encouraging immigration to fill the gaps created by the labor shortages.

A close look at this situation shows that many of these overpopulated nations mostly in Africa and Asia are underdeveloped. While these underpopulated nations are economically buoyant. I think the reason for the poverty of these developing nations is not the population but bad governance and the inability to maximize and distribute available resources equally.  We cannot deny the fact that these overpopulated nations are economically important to these developed nations in terms of human resources. And they contribute immensely to the development of these first-world nations in terms of cheap labour.

How do you think these developed nations will fill vacancies in their nations and get cheap labor if the population of these developing nations is reduced?

The population could be a blessing or a curse. This depends on the leaders of the country we are talking about and the people therein.

If policies are not good enough, the higher the population, the more devasting it would be. Another thing about the population is about those people that form the population (the masses), if they are nonentities, then there is nothing much positive that would come out of it.

Forget about increasing or reducing the population, it doesn't work, they are just litmus test as far as I'm concerned and it has different results per country. Once the foundation/system is wrong, it's a problem, the country can't get it right with either increased or reduced population.

China and India are most populous countries in the world and are one of big global powers. Clearly they both have utilised there population as there strength rather then a weakness. Also there are countries like Switzerland,  who have very small population still they are very much developed. So population alone is not a criteria for success or failure. You need to have a road map about how to proceed in right direction.

What is needed is to create Attraction by itself, many will come. Admittedly, more or less the population has an influence because there you can see how many potential births there are with the number of people who will adopt them.

There is one big factor that can change everything about the theory mentioned above. The reason why you see differences between the nations as per their population and economic growth success or unsuccess lies within the "literacy" rate of that particular nation.

Some nations are highly developed, they have 100% literacy rate and also they have thin population but they would always contribute more to the economy. Yes this is true because all of the literate people know value of contributing to the society or how to overcome the so called poverty line.

However, if you increase the population but not the literacy rate within the country then it could be disastrous. For example, country where literacy is less, but population is too much then they will have more debts than contribution. Since they will have less employment, thus it will contribute to unskilled workers and hence cheap wagers, cheap economy. That is how I look at the current economic ratio as compared to the population of that country.

The term "overpopulation" is used wrongly sometimes.
If the country has enough resources and enough fertile land to feed the huge population, then I wouldn't say that such country is overpopulated.
The problem is the lack of good healthcare and education systems. Education is necessary for creating a disciplined working class and small business. Creating good healthcare and education systems require big investments and most of the underdeveloped countries don't have enough capital. The lack of capital is a bigger problem than the big population. Having lots of young people is good for the future of the country, but those young people have to be educated.

Though I think it will depends on so many factors like the nutrition and education level of the people, population is more of strength rather than weakness, the top 2 of the largest economy in the world is USA and China, based on this site (https://wisevoter.com/country-rankings/largest-economies-in-the-world/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20latest%20available,over%20%2423%20trillion%20in%202021.). Both country is also on the top 3 most populated country. based on this site (https://www.census.gov/popclock/print.php?component=counter). That shouldn't be a coincident.

In short I think more population meaning more worker to produce more goods, and more consumers to attract investors.

I believe some people tend to look at one point of view and believe that is true, and then ignore or try to build arguments to prove the other point of view is wrong, hence why the debate that you saw happened. There is generally no right answer since context will always matter. At the end of the day, I guess most of us know that the country/government/community itself is the one who will likely decide whether their population is going to be a problem or not.

Are you talking about countries like Japan? Maybe they can change their work culture, encourage people to get married, accept immigration from other countries as long as they are skillful, and so on. The point is they can always think of a solution based on their condition. You can't just copy and paste what works in one country to another one, especially if they are culturally different.

The answer is short, quality over quantity.

Most of citizen in overpopulated country is no brainer because they're not competitive people and think making a baby is an investment. Most of them earn low or average salary and they're always lack of money, that's why the government force them to reduce the population.

However most of citizen in underpopulated country is educated because they're very competitive people and worried if their wealth aren't enough to cover their baby needs. Most of them earn at least minimum to high salary, since many company lack of workers and they willing to pay high, the government force them to increase the population.

It depends on its Government.

A big population could generate a lot of money if the Government will give them a lot of opportunities to earn money. Manpower plays a huge role on developing a certain country, china for example. On the other side, if the government would just neglect those people that are poor and only earning a little money on side hustle, population would only increase in a rapid phase because they'll just focus on making babies since they have nothing to do in their home.

From my own point of view on this discussion, over population starts from when the government is corrupt and cares less about the citizens. The government will only create a means to steal and divert public funds that is suppose to be used to enhance the educational sector and the health sector into his pocket. Not treating the important issues that can tackle poverty. Before, you will know it,when government is not handling his responsibilities, citizens will have no hope as they will be giving birth in poverty and suffering and their will be no money to take care of their families. There are so many countries in Africa that has rich abundant resources but their leaders are daft and don't have any view of using this resource to upgrade the country economy status. Such country is Nigeria. Wrong leaders is a barrier to a good and a stable economy.

The factors that caused this to happen, were definitely due to the unorganized government system in various sectors. Such is the case in the education sector and in the employment sector. These sectors are a problem in every country that has a large population or a small population. Because every year there are many school children or students who have graduated from their university or school and surely all these students will be looking for work. But the problem is, vacancies or jobs do not increase significantly every year. Coupled with the scientific quality or skills of the graduating students, most of them have less qualified scientific quality.
So automatically unemployment every year will increase and continue to increase. In fact, if the government can create jobs and can manage all the education systems well, surely these student graduates will be good for the economy of every citizen and the country's economy.

So in essence, whether it's a small population or a large population, if the government can manage and maximize the potential of its population, and can maximize the natural resources of the country well. Of course it can produce a developed and prosperous country.

I wouldn't agree that it doesn't work if it can be implemented exactly as intended, and China's One-child policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy) is a prime example that such a thing is possible. Despite all the controversy surrounding the policy, it is estimated that from 1979 to 2015, about 400 million less children were born in China due to the measure.

I think some African countries should definitely do something about curbing the growth of their population, because it is no longer just their problem, but also a problem of other countries that are facing an increasing number of migrants from these countries. Of course, some other countries such as India have the same problem, and they are trying to solve this by exporting their cheap labor force to Western markets, where this same labor force brings down labor prices and forces the local population to migrate.

However, it is difficult to understand people who can not feed even two children, and at the same time have three times more, which is again a consequence of not using contraceptives and preventing unwanted pregnancies.

The government plays a crucial role in maximizing a country's population to ensure optimal productivity. When comparing countries like China and Indonesia, both of which have large populations, the stark differences in their types of governance have a significant impact.

Indonesia ranks as the 30th most corrupt country, while China boasts an exceptionally low corruption rate. This disparity can be attributed to the respective government systems in each country. We are aware that both nations have high populations, with Indonesia having a population of 273.8 million and China reaching 1.412 billion (as of 2021).

In China, the anti-corruption movement began in 2013, with the implementation of the death penalty for anyone found guilty of corruption. In contrast, in Indonesia, even the lowest-ranking government officials can engage in corruption without consequences, to the point where it has become normalized. The disparity in the severity of punishments significantly influences the human resources of each country. A government's lack of firmness in tackling corruption, which leads to high corruption rates, hinders a nation's progress.

I believe that population is not the primary determinant of a country's advancement. It truly depends on the governance of the respective nation.

Developed countries import labor from outside the country for what they think is cheap, but for migrants who find it difficult to get a job in their country, this is a blessing. when a country with a large population suppresses the birth rate, I think there are still many ways to get workers, of course if there are labor difficulties then they will increase wages, and I think this will not be a problem, because not all countries will become developed countries, and of course the development of robotic machines will reduce the need for human labor

I was also going to mention China and India, the two most populous countries in the world, but they also have economies that outperform many other countries. The population is not the main determinant of a country's economy. To be more precise, the economy will depend entirely on the direction and policies of the government, who decide everything. If it is a government that is not corrupt and always seeks to improve its people's lives, then that country's economy will surely grow no matter how large or small the population is.

I think the two thing in population which is overpopulation and under population has pros and cons depends on the country. Well the country I know that have an underpopulation situation is Japan, we all know that Japan is advanced in technologies and considered has many intelligent people living in the country. Maybe these people wouldn't even bother to have a child due to they know the consequences of having a child which is actually good. The thing is under population could be a bad thing for the country itself as there's no even new generation coming to take the place of retiring people.

While in overpopulation case is just simply many people in needs of supply which is ain't enough to provide to all people due to huge amount of number to those in need. Plus the economic rate as there's a lot of unemployed people coming every year after they graduated. Well it might be an advantage to have a lot of labors or workers but the supply in your country wouldn't even be enough to support all of those people. Just have a proper family planning to educate every people about it. Population is one of the major factor that could affect the country.

A part of economic situation is dependent on the over-population but governmental norms and their involvement in upbringing of the economy also plays a vital role in the economy of a country. China is one under one such situation where the country being one of the most populated countries of the world but on the other hand, the government is helpful in building various businesses and reducing corruption thereby creating multiple jobs for the Chinese citizens.

Most of the popular software applications of the United States are banned in China and they have been having their own alternative to tackle the shortcomings and through this approach they are cutting their ties with US in terms of data breach and creating a more powerful economy to become a possible candidate for the super-power. But India TBH is highly dependent on US in terms of software and through this approach, companies such as Meta & Google have been secretly learning about various happenings in the country.

On top of that, India has a mix of rich and poor population where one extreme is intelligent and literate while the other extreme is entirely the opposite being the poorest people on the planet with sub par knowledge. While comparing this situation with another populated country like Nigeria, majority of the population is not really literate and they can never contribute to the growing workforce of the first world nations. Countries such as United States have taken this opportunity and they have been using countries like India to fulfil their workforce needs by paying 1/10 of the pay scales.

Poverty in African countries/ Indian states has been associated with poor political instability and corruption rather than overpopulation. In India, the tax collected is being utilized by politicians and they are indeed getting richer and richer thereby making the citizens poorer. The same situation prevails in Africa which boasts one of the greatest natural reserves on the planet. To tackle such instances, the ruling party should be able to reduce the corruption, create opportunities for businesses to thrive and develop so that the citizens would be coming up with various alternatives thereby decreasing the domination and data theft being conducted by first world countries.

Population growth may be bad for nature and circumstances, but good for business. I mean in general population growth means more households, more customers for all their needs from small to large and to own a house or apartment and other needs and also an increase in population means an increase in the demand for goods and services.
However, if uncontrolled population growth will lead to poverty and unemployment, excessive exploitation of natural resources, overcrowded cities, pollution and so on.
but it all depends on the government because it's not an easy job for them but they have to be able to handle it from top to bottom.

I think it's difficult to give a concrete answer in this case, it's not that there is no solution at all. Because a country must have a far-reaching mission to make its people more advanced and able to compete on various opportunities at the international level. If you look at the comparison between developed countries having problems with population numbers, developing countries have problems with employment. At first glance the problem looks simple, but it will be more complex if dissected objectively and thoroughly.

I can say that developed countries can take advantage of technological advances in the form of robots to help with daily work or office work. But the emphasis here is that developed countries want their citizens to increase birth rates, they do not depend on the supply of labor from developing countries. I think the problem of developing countries becoming developed countries is not a problem for them. It should be noted that this is only my personal opinion and of course each has its own opinion and solution.

Population are not a reason for the poverty or progress of countries, as there is China and India with a population density of more than 2 billion people. However, one of the two countries is significantly ahead of the other, despite the similar circumstances between them.
Resource management, politics, population management, economic plans, and the approach taken by governments is what transforms a people to be productive, for example in South Korea, and a people suffering from high levels of poverty, as is the case in North Korea.

I am not a supporter of the conspiracy theory or that there are countries that deliberately impoverish countries to get cheap labor, but cheap labor is in itself an economic force if it is properly exploited.

For the price of Bitcoin, the more people the better.

That is an interesting question. How many people are too many people and how few people are too few for an optimal economy, given the fact that we have only planet earth to live our lives on? People think we can terraform mars or populate the moon but that those are all dreams. People would rather live underground before having to live in radioactive deserts with no atmosphere. So we definitely have a limited amount of room for human beings. Some say 10 billion but thats a crass underestimate, if you ask me. I am sure we can easily get to a hundred billion people, but everyone would have living conditions like the poorest people in China. So, they would not have a very good life. So economically, that would be everyone being driven by a need to survive, not thrive. The difference between rich and poor would be hopelessly, extremely far apart. Basically like in the movie "In Time".

Although anyone with a single Bitcoin would be a Trillionaire. So feel free to save Bitcoin ahead of time and your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren can be rich. If nobody spends or sells the BTC before... ::)

You have drawn an interesting perspective of relationship between population and prosperity of the people living in any specific country. It highlights an important  aspect of how the number of people in a nation can impact their overall prosperity and economic success.

China is a good example for debate on this topic, as it is most populous country with persistent highest GDP growth rate. The key factor to understand this phenomenon  lies in the wisdom and visionary approach of the leadership, effectively harnessing its population to enhance agricultural and industrial production that results in overall well being of the general public.

Agreed. China and India both use a form of government that is centralized to the leader since both this country use parliament and communist that allows the government to use all the country resources without giving much consideration what's the opinion of everyone unlike democracy which sometimes slow the process of implementing law because there's always a different party to opposed on every law because of their self interest motives.

I really like democracy if there's no corrupt politicians but on the current status of most democratic country. I think communism is very good to improve the economy of a developing country.

When we talking of over population or over populated nation those people are somehow facing difficulty in terms of work and job opportunities. Most times it could be very hard for the government of the nation to satisfy everyone's need due to the over population whereby causing lack of employment, we can use Chinese as an example.

Sometimes population are being controlled by the government and also they creates job opportunities, but what I understand mostly is that any nation that is creative and not depending on the government for working opportunity or to get employed in white-collar job. With the much population the inhabitants creates jobs for them selves without waiting for the government just as you have said earlier. Lemme use Nigeria as a case study, there is a much population in our country Nigeria and there's no employment opportunities but what her citizens does is to create work and chances for themselves by so doing they have one way or the other contributed to the strength and growth of the nation.

So alternatively, population doesn't hider the growth of a nation except such the inhabitants are too weak and are solely depending on the government for works. With the rate at which some countries are being populated they must not wait for a government or their country rather they should think of what they could do for their country to grow economically and scientifically.

The dilema of a growing population, yes. This problem has many layers. Its as if we've taken the standard Malthusian idea and blindly applied it to all countries without taking into account their unique circumstances. However, blaming overpopulation for economic stagnation or stagnation for population growth is a reductionist view.

There may be underlying issues with governance and resource management rather than population density that need to be addressed first. Utilzing one's workforce efficiently is the key. It would appear that poor leadership and unfair allocation of resources are the main culprits in the economic woes experienced by developing countries.

Its worth exploring the alternative viewpoint, though. In a very real way, industrialized countries need the labor force of overpopulated ones. Reduced population growth in these countries could lead to a lack of workers in industrialized nations. Its like a chain reaction, but on a global scale. We need to pause and deliberate about equitable, long-term population strategies that take into account the effects on both the domestic and international levels

I noticed that Japan also seems to be trying to improve its human resource management system which they themselves are in danger of becoming extinct. Some cities there find it difficult to find permanent residents, the declining birth rate is due to the perception of marriage that is being implemented recently. Switching to India with the largest population in the world also does not always seem ideal, the government finds it difficult to strike a balance between economic distribution plus the special structure which is an obstacle.

Here, both high and low population, even if the government is able to balance it with the resources it has, it will not be a big problem. Asian and African countries are in the spotlight because their government systems are corrupt, access to the job industry prioritizes foreign workers, increased unemployment while the dependents per head of family are above 2 or 3 or even more.

Still in the Asian region we have a family planning program where one family is enough for 2 children, the aim is to slow down the unstable population rate. Even though the program is not mandatory for all citizens to follow, so far it can be said to be a temporary solution that is quite ideal.

That's right, if population rates were an indicator of economic well-being, China might deny it.
My government has some good policies and programs that I think will bring about significant economic changes during the 5 year period of leadership. Unfortunately, corruption is a default problem of the governance system that is difficult to get rid of, the effects of policies are not distributed effectively. While there is big financing in every policy that requires increasing the national debt, from here you know how the story goes.

China and India supports your position also. For them, their population is a blessing and not a curse. They have used their population for an advantage rather than disadvantage like African countries. Population should be an advantage if properly planned because countries need market where they can export their manufactured products, so such is an advantage to countries who have large population as they have already existing market for themselves and others, trade is important. There are other advantages, like human resources apart from welfare, they are also involved as expatriate which generate foreign income to them.

The more the population does not mean the stronger the economy of a country, for example Nigeria and Singapore, you can see that Nigeria is 1.284 times bigger than Singapore, but at an economic level Singapore is much higher than Nigeria. From this we can conclude that with population density, it does not guarantee that a country is big in terms of economy.
But Nigeria's advantage compared to Singapore is the availability of a workforce and young people who are ready to defend the country and develop its economy. Even though in the future technology such as Artificial Intelligence will become more massive and the military will become more sophisticated, the need for young people is still needed so that a country is not filled with the majority of "old" people.

Moreover, third countries will not always be "modern slaves" of developed countries, of course they also have the desire to become developed countries. And now many countries have woken up from their long sleep and are trying to fight against the world order that has long been established by America and Europe. Countries in Asia have started to rise up and advance their economies to become developed countries, the point is that it only takes time for them to get there and of course developed countries don't want that to happen because it will have a massive impact on their countries and they don't want to be on par with these "third" countries.

If the country has a very large population, then it can create its own separate economic zone.  To do this, it needs to develop its industry and agriculture as much as possible, as well as stimulate domestic demand.  Over time, it will become a regional power (and possibly a leading world power).  

A country with a small population should enter, on mutually beneficial terms, into an economic zone centered on a country with a large population.  Such a country should fit into the chain of cooperation with other countries.  

No country can exist alone.  

At the same time, countries with large populations have a chance to become the center of the economic zone.  

Countries with small populations have no such chance.

Access to education and free/fair markets are what's required to sustain an economy on a fundamental level. Government corruption usually affects the latter. African countries are overpopulated relative to their GDP which accentuates poverty. Given the lack of education, there's no economic activity. India had problems with this too, but they were able to grow their economy to overcome their population growth by educating their population and having a capitalistic economy with emphasis of free enterprise.

Population reduction (not overpopulation) is catastrophic: https://apnews.com/article/japan-birth-rate-record-low-population-aging-ade0c8a5bb52442f4365db1597530ee4

Japan will eventually run out of healthy young workers to subsidize the older and retired workers. You need population growth in order for an economy to survive, just not overpopulation of an educated populace.

If a state pursues the right economic policy, it does not matter how much population it has. Of course, the larger the population, the greater the economic and military potential. If the population is small, such a state can be swallowed up by a larger one at any time. Although Switzerland is small, its economic potential is quite large

Western developed countries suffer from underpopulation and reduced births in general, as newer generations tend to have fewer children than older ones used to, which is going to hurt their economies in the long run due to the increase in the aging population. Underdeveloped countries in Africa or Asia, on the other hand, suffer from overpopulation, which isn't helping their state and is happening due to a lack of education and protective measures. Even though India and China, which previous users mentioned, are supposedly two of the largest superpowers, the majority of their people are suffering from poverty and poor living conditions. There needs to be some balance in terms of birth control. The earth is overpopulated, but at the same time, the Western world is suffering from underpopulation and a decreasing number of births.

In a way population has an impact regarding the economic status of a country. However, it mostly comes down to the way government officials handles the overpopulation or underpopulation state of a nation. For example, countries like China and India shows that despite their known overpopulated country they are still able to boost their economic status, whereas other countries that are reaching peek overpopulation are simultaneously facing the problem of poverty.

I think population is not a sole factor to determine economic outcome of a country, there are other factors that play crucial role in shaping up the  economic trajectory of a country irrespective of population size, such as good governance, consistent and efficient economic management. Politicians often sell dream of prosperity to win elections, but achieving it requires more than just a large population. It is important for people to work hard with clear goals in mind, develop necessary skills and produce goods those not only meet local demand but also sellable in international markets to earn foreign exchange for the country. China and India serve as good examples that have mastered this strategy, earing foreign exchange through their export oriented  approaches. Achieving prosperity through exportable surplus is a successful economic model that other countries can follow in achieving their economic milestones for sustained growth and development.

The strength of each nation depends on many reasons. If we take into account the population, then its contribution to the development of the economic power of the state will determine not the number of the population as a whole, but the number of able-bodied population compared to the disabled. Then the development of industry in the country and the education of the population are of great importance. Indeed, in countries where the majority of the population is employed in agriculture with a predominance of manual labor, even their enormous efforts will be generally ineffective. Therefore, everything in the state must be balanced, depending on the location of the state, climate, soil conditions, historical employment of the population, and many other reasons.

Here we go again, when policy is inside policies, people tend to be confused about what worked. I thought of China while posting, and if anyone says that it's population control that helped China then the person misrepresents it. Any country that gets it right has nothing to fear about population, the management of the situation to their advantage through the right leadership and policies is the answer. This can only explain why countries like Canada are looking for more immigrants, you should know that an increase in population is never a problem, but the system the increased population would meet. If the system is positive, the increased population will help, if it's negative, then it becomes an issue.

As for China, this was what they tried to curb as they weren't getting the system right then while the population was becoming alarming, they averted a disaster. As of today, their big number even helps more since their system is working fine, the population increase would only have been an issue if they follow suit their former bad economic path, and now experts are concerned about looming issues if their population drops much (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/18/china/china-population-drop-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html) as too much ageing population is never good for an economy.

Finally, what helped China to achieve their present status is mainly attributed to "good leadership and human resources." Also, their weaker currency compared to top countries aids further in the good trade balance which helps their GDP. Their ability to produce substandard products and render services cheaper than many top world countries goes a long way in helping their economy, this is even as their huge number contributed to this success, not otherwise as you indicated.

Your solution of exporting worker isn't a viable long-term solution because of brain drain in the developing nation which in turn causes their economy to suffer because there's not enough workforce there that can do specific roles. I don't have much knowledge about nations that are underpopulated, the only one that I know of is Japan and the only solution that I can see in their current situation is for the politicians to stop creating policies that cater more to the aging population and make their immigration more relaxed for people that want to live there.

To my best understanding of this topic, I think that the only way that we can combat the problem of overpopulation or underpopulation is a combination of creating a comprehensive and effective reproductive health, economic and labor policies, I believe that with this 3 factors being focused on, we might be able to alleviate if not solve the pressing concerns of both an overpopulated and underpopulated country. My other solution would be that of promoting works that aren't popular with the current generation which in my country is agriculture sector, putting some workforce in that area and making sure that it's a worthy endeavor getting in that sector will probably help with immigration and labor.

 Overpopulation is consider as both beneficial as well as disadvantage but it will be due to the circumstances and how the government handle the situations whether he is handling properly or don't provide equal opportunity to them.

 This can be true that larger population can be weakness because those countries which possess over population are underdeveloped while developed countries has controlled population. I think it is something difficult to control population as its not in our hands.

 If population is under control then providing facilities for them is easy and one cannot provide equal opportunities to over population. On other hand overpopulation is also good in term of needs when there is need of young individuals in war or anything other so population is the only way who plays an important role in country's success.

I everything we do, we should always clamour for a balance. Under us not good and neither is over good. But the irony is the question of the yardstick used to measure the under population and the over population.

• Is there a standard set by WHO, which should be regarded as the standard population?
• Do we neasure the population of a country in relative to that of the neighbouring country?
•   Do we measure the population of a country base on the land mass?
• Or we measure based on the percentage annual increase in population

If we have a standard, we can now judge if a country is over populated or under populated.

The large population does not necessarily have to do with economic backwardness, as we can take China as an example of the opposite case, China has the second largest population in the world and despite that it has good economic progress. On the other hand, there are countries that have a very small population and are very developed.

With regard to the question, there can be two ways: the first is good by encouraging citizens to increase offspring and reproduction, and the second is evil by trying to keep poor countries backward and spread wars and chaos so that young people in these countries are forced to emigrate and work in developed countries.

It is true that in countries with excessive population, if governments fail to effectively create employments for their youths because of short-sighted economic policies and corrupted autocratic system. Un-employed people may involve in criminal activities, a concerning situation may arise resulting in wide-spread hunger and country becomes unliveable. Consequently compelling people to migrate to developed countries for their survival and better prospects.

Agree with you,  population is not the factor to determine country growth. If country has lot of opportunities for labours and country has big resources then I think population play important role in progress of country. India and China are top populated country and both have very good economics status. China is well devolped while India is still in devolping stage.

Any country which government loyals with their citizens and have a broad vision in global trading, technology, Education , resource management and other factor which is beneficial for citizens could devolp their country in advance level. Economic crisis may hit them for some time but it will not last for long time

A country's population has no negative impact on its economy unless the administration of that country does not know how to handle such a population and put it to good use for the country. As you stated above, how would developed nations fill vacancies and obtain inexpensive labour if they do not have people from other countries to fill such positions?
 
The world is changing, and we have seen that computers can now accomplish many things, but this does not negate the need for humans in such sectors.  Many undeveloped countries cannot stop population growth, hence the population will continue to expand. It is now up to each country's government to make good use of its people in order to attain cheap labour.

This is quite an interesting matter and it is that the impact that the population of a nation can have on its economy, goes even far beyond the number of people who inhabit it or their demographic relationship. Factors such as the social culture and the level of training of the citizens of a country are highly influential, of course they are aspects that have been forged throughout history and extremely difficult to change, since the collective psychology of habits in the masses is something extremely difficult to control. Beyond this, as you mention, the amount of population is still relevant at an economic level and various predictions point to scenarios that are not very favorable for countries with either overpopulation or, in the opposite scenario, with low population growth. In my opinion, this particular problem can be solved with adequate distribution and fair treatment for the common interests of the nations that have this type of problem through agreements or treaties of a similar nature, which is not an idea very far from what you you expose here.

Honestly speaking, a population of a country is its strength, but at the same time if you can't pull off the perfect strategy for caring, educating, and empowering the people, they'd become a liability. Look at Iceland and countries with low population for example, they are prospering not because their resources aren't getting dried up easily, for one Iceland is living in the far north which I didn't have to tell you, is comparably shitty when it comes to resources. They succeed because they know how to care for the people and educate them, so when they actually go out there and find work they don't go to other countries to enhance their economy, they work straight for their homeland where they become powerful tools of the workforce and the economy.

Compare that to a country like the Philippines, who's one of the most populated countries in Southeast Asia, they aren't flourishing no matter what, even though resource-wise they are the most rich out of all countries arguably. They stay stuck in the third-world due to poor governance and stone-age outlook at looking out for people. I kid you not when I tell you that they still don't have a concrete subject for Sex education which further increases their rate of teenage pregnancy and HIV cases.

Population is the important one for the country,it can be used in both positive and negative ways.China is the most populated country in this world,but the Chinese government using the population for their economic development.Some of the under developed countries think the population as the largest burden to them.Because the undeveloped country economy will be worst one compared to the developed countries economy.It’s very important one to use the population to help the country economy development.

Even if that's not entirely true - but I believe part of it is. Countries with high populations will find it difficult to develop due to limited employment opportunities. The government cannot create jobs for its people so that this country will become a country with a lower economic status compared to others.

Most of them choose to work in other countries regardless of educational background - but it has become a good trend to rid the population of the unemployment rate. Such a country will exist as a third world country among the global community - but the government will not escape its responsibility to provide jobs. For most of the unemployed who are still having trouble finding work.

That means that the Chinese state has an unusual way of developing its economy through the number of population they have had for a long time in this world, due to the fact that not all countries in the world have been able to do the way that the Chinese state has done in developing their economy within the country. So it must be admitted that China has had a very unique way of developing their economy for a long time and I am also not surprised by this because I see Chinese people with simple appearances but they have more assets in this world.

Maybe they (Chinese citizens) always save 80% of their income to arrange a better future for their children and grandchildren in the future so they will always be stingy on things that are not important in order to be able to save more and not afraid to invest in valuable assets that are well known in this world so that Chinese citizens always look more prosperous when compared to citizens of other countries whose population is not as large as China's. In your opinion, what other influences can affect the country's economy besides the population of the population in the country?

One of the major reasons why these overly populated countries are underdeveloped is because of the economic limitation these developed countries implemented. Like even when a country is capable of creating weapons, they are sanctioned not to do so because developed countries reserve the right to create these weapons.  There are lots of things that normal people do not know, even if the country wanted to do things that can help their country progress, the limitations implemented by powerful countries deprived them of these rights.  So instead underdeveloped country can only serve as laborer while developed country takes the joy of utilizing natural resources and technologies for their own benefit.

A large population will make a country better, although a large population will create other problems. If you look at the Covid 19 pandemic, countries with large populations have better economic stability during the pandemic. The large number of population forces economic activities to continue even during a pandemic and when international markets are almost dead, they can rotate economic activities in their own country.

I think it is difficult for developing countries in Asia to get out of poverty not only because of population problems. This is something more complex and closely related to developed countries. For us Indonesians, it is difficult for our country to progress because there used to be an agreement that did not benefit us and benefited America and the European Union. Our country has many natural resources, but most of them are controlled by overseas company, such as: British Petroleum (BP), Chevron, ExxonMobile, and Petronas. Then the largest gold mine in the world that belongs to us (Freeport) has been controlled by America since the 1960s with a very cheap contract value, and according to Lisa Pease's article published in Probe Magazine, that there is a big conspiracy behind the Freeport agreement: http://www.thesecrettruth.com/freeport-indonesia.htm

And many more. The population problem is a small part of economic power. Economic power is more influenced by developed countries, political stability, security stability, and there are always conspiracies within countries created by invisible forces.

This is exactly as only gives what you have and you don't give what you do not have.

A scenero of an overpopulated nation, an economy can still be balanced depending on its governing system with the contributions of it's individuals such as creativities and being productive.

As for the lower rate of population in a developed country, they would only have to create vacancies according to the population. This is why I said a balanced economy and vacancies can still be fixed in an undeveloped overpopulated nation but depending on its governing system and its individual creatives and productions.

If not to be used after production then it's a waste.

I think it's not really population per se that's the real problem. Those huge economies that lack manpower could import them. Those poor countries with so much labor surplus could export them.

To those who have a small labor force, they could provide incentives to families so that they'll be encouraged to produce offspring. In this way, they will grow less and less dependent on imported labor.

To those who have an oversupply of labor, they could promote policies and programs to attract investors to make potential workers productive. At the same time, they could also prepare them properly so that they have higher value as exports.

I can say under-development, late development, economic struggle, poverty, and anything like that wasn't caused by over population. It's more of a bad governance. I mean pretty bad governance. Corruption is the leading reason for this. The huge number of population the more progressing the country should be, but it turns out to be the other way around. That's what happens when politics becomes a business rather than it's true purpose "public service".
Big business men paying these political leaders straight to their pocket to prevent more investors/business competitors from entering the city, thus preventing employment opportunities as well. That's where massive unemployment was created.


Well, most of the developed countries hired workers from overpopulated nation to do the job that produces more for their country that contributes to their good economic state as well, for a cheaper salary.  While these foreign workers pay taxes to their country which does not translate into something really good economically for many years now. Therefore, these type of countries are really hopeless.

Yes, this has become a good trend to rid the population of the unemployment rate, but unfortunately governments in third world countries encourage such a trend, directly or indirectly. In order to reduce unemployment on the one hand and on the other hand to get an increase in "foreign exchange" or dollars for the government treasury through the remittances that these young immigrants send to their families.

For example, here in my country, the government provides jobs for the unemployed with a salary ranging between 10-30$ per month!!!! Do you think that this salary will meet the minimum living requirements? Of course not. Therefore, most young people will eventually have to migrate to get a higher-paying job. The government is happy with that and is making no attempt to raise salaries and provide better opportunities for young people.

People are the new oil.

From all indications developed nations will continue to depend on underdeveloped nations for manpower until they can solve their problem of underdevelopment. And I guess it will be a herculean task to increase the population in these first-world nations because the current generation of these countries doesn't want to have more children. In China, the years of the implementation of the one-child policy have affected the social structure. People are no longer interested in having children for different reasons. So the overpopulation in most third world nations is a blessing to these developed nations.

I also share your thoughts on the development of modern technology that can mimic human intelligence and abilities. The introduction of artificial intelligence tools, modern machines, and robots can reduce the need for humans in the workplace. It is estimated that AI will take over about 85 million jobs by 2025. But I doubt if these modern technologies will reduce the need for humans because new jobs will also emerge from these innovations.

This is what I was saying! It's how you will utilize what you have for it to be a strength. Granted that it wouldn't be easy for overpopulated countries to answer to the demands of its people, it can still be solved by finding a way for the people to boost the country by manpower and that will honestly do most of the work for the country's economy.

Your comment is very short but I agree with you. Analysts predict the growth of densely populated countries will dominate the global economy in the next few years. In the following I quote the DGP forecast for countries in the world in 2030

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/07/21/nC2uq.jpeg

Screenshot from : https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/future-resources/economic-size-2030/gdp-2030/

At first the country has problems with a large population, especially the problem of poverty, but countries with a large population will become potential, they have a lot of workforce so many companies will move their factories to countries with a large population to reduce production costs and their products will be widely used in the country with a large population. So, countries that have large populations that were previously a problem, will learn to take advantage of their population as a potential and advantage. In addition, a country with a large population will also make its economy rotate faster in its own country without having to depend on international trade.

I particularly don’t agree that underdevelopment in certain countries are caused by overpopulation although overpopulation seems to be a common factor in underdeveloped and developing countries.
While bad governance from the government would always top the list on reasons on why those countries remain underdeveloped, literacy rate also is a key indicator on why any country would remain underdeveloped and overpopulated.

In a lot of places where there is little or no government intervention, unemployed people who go idle all day tend to mostly find the time to procreate with no little thought of the aftermath. Babies would be born into poverty and the cycle continues further increasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor.
Overpopulation could be a blessing to a nation as well as a major problem. It falls down to the government and also the people on how best to make use of the potential in Human Resources.

 Peasants usually have many children - someone has to work in the fields. But today's children don't want to work in the fields, they want to go to the city. There are not so many jobs in the city, and entrepreneurs like to use cheap migrants. So there is a situation where a large population is a big problem. There are jobs, but few indigenous people want to work in hard jobs, and the easy jobs quickly run out

Big population is only a problem if the government can't fulfill its duty to provide good paying jobs for their citizen.  But if the government is able to utilize its resources properly and able to provide jobs to his people, thei huge population can be an asset to the government.  Imaging if all its citizen has jobs and they are able to get taxes from their salaries, it will be a huge source of funds for the government.

Whether a population is a strenth or weakness depends on the government and how it utilize its resources to make these huge population an asset.

Honestly I don't agree with you. From the forecast data, countries with the highest DGP in 2030 are filled by countries with large populations. Large companies will move their business when there is a country with a large population because workers' wages are usually cheaper so they can reduce production costs.

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/07/21/nC2uq.jpeg
Source: https://power.lowyinstitute.org/data/future-resources/economic-size-2030/gdp-2030/

https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/07/22/nMN83.jpeg
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

Maybe at first a country with a large population experiences poverty problems, but a country with a large population enables the country's economic turnover to be faster, so it is not dependent on world trade. In addition, more investment started going into countries with large populations, creating more jobs.

Why is so much investment going to countries with large populations? because the population is the market, instead of large companies having to ship finished goods, they prefer to move their factories to densely populated countries, where wages are cheaper and their products are in high demand by residents.

Those pushing for reduction in population growth are doing it for their selfish agenda, it is very stupid to consider high population as a threat to economic growth, this is why I pity nations in the west, especially Europe, they have been brainwashed to think this is good, you don't want to give birth to more children, but you keep brining in strangers to your country, and these strangers are very prolific, soon you will become a minority in their own country. The money your government is supposed to be spending on you, they are spending it on strangers, if you have a father that behaves this way, you will call him out but most people just keep quiet. If this trend continues in the next 50 years most of the European countries would have lost their identity, but the like of Asians and Africans population would have increased significantly and will dominate because democracy is a game of number. 

Of course, if you look at it from your point of view from here, assuming population is a weakness is absolutely wrong. I also noticed that their European countries have few generations of their nation, for example in Japan, which has a low population level. On the other hand, I also think that what will be the future of their nation if they continue to be entered by foreign nationals, which have been built by the nation and then its generations have shrunk and been filled by foreigners, the struggles of their predecessors have become futile and the infrastructure that has been built so far is enjoyed by foreigners.

But too much in printing that generation is the same as making the government overwhelmed in managing and preparing for its future in stabilizing the economy, but in comparison it is better to have a large population than a shortage, because the consumer market will be much higher.

That is not apparently the solution needed for an economy to flourish and grow, we needed to make use of a capacity development strategy to make opportunities available for everyone to get onboard and involved in all aspects of the economy, this will result into a massive increase on the production level and workforce and there will be decrease in dependency, lack and poverty among the people when they all have activities they do that keeps the busy to earn a living, except for those who chose not to work may not have enough to eat and leave below standard, if the world population is reduced and there's no capacity building to help position the people in other of labour there won't be changes at all.

Many problems arise as a result of the excessive enrichment of some segments of the population. Lack of equal distribution or people not getting what they deserve disrupts the general order.

It is difficult to provide for a surplus population. This requires production and the financial power to ensure this production. In the examples you give where these elements are not available, overpopulation makes things even more difficult.

The labor force needed by developed countries has turned towards qualified personnel over time. It is no longer as high as it used to be to look for workers with physical power alone or to receive immigration. So population is a big problem in terms of economic power.

Population is just a factor that could drive the economy of a country towards the progressive path as well as downwards. It all depends upon the person in power. The population being productive is in the hands of the government. The government should engage into development and creating more opportunities. When the government fails, then the young population gets deviated from the track. This is where more crimes takes place and the same population turns to be weakness. Right now China and India stands high on population. Both are at the good position in terms economic strength, however the policies India government hold at the moment to divide and rule can anytime be a threat to the country as well as upliftment of economy.

Shrinking populations in developed nations is the main argument for open door immigration policies. Many politicians argue that we need to take in people from all around the world to keep our population constant. Maybe that sounds like a convincing argument for some people, but I don't think it's true. Technological advances, production efficency growth and the development of AI is going to transform the work landscape in the near future and less people will be required. The problem I see is that in developed nations everybody is going to university. A university diploma today is what the high-school diploma was 20 years ago. But there aren't enough jobs for all these highly educated people, which then take on jobs in the service industry. Instead of trying to find the workforce abroad for less skilled jobs, the government could try promote these sectors and offer benefits. There isn't much planning being done on what kind of qualifications people should have for the future. Spending 3-5 years studying in a university only to work in a Callcenter or restaurant seems like a bad investment for the individual and the state that pays the education.

For example in China, which has the largest population in the world, but they have an economy that counts for the world, there are almost no countries that do not use products from China. it's different in India which also has the largest population after China, from a developing country to finally being able to move to a developed country where the government can take advantage of the advantages of existing human resources, but what needs to be watched out for is the political role that feels like it wants to rule

They will be unable to fill those voids, thereby impacting their economic performance. Many economists have recognised and acknowledged population over the years for its contribution to increased manpower and productivity in the economy. We also cannot dispute that major countries are constantly looking for ways to hire more unskilled labourers and pay them pennies for their efforts in order to reduce costs.


You make an excellent point here, and while I agree with you on this point, I'd like to point out that a country with a high literacy rate but no government intervention to open doors for skilled labour to practise their skill will still have a difficult time controlling its population if literacy is a determinant of population growth.

The population is added strength when they contribute economically to nation building in individual quota. It becomes a weakness if hunger, unemployment, and other vices has become upheld.

With this current technological innovations in crypto, AI, Web3 worldwide, we are already witnesses to a population rise and a generation of android/smartphone babies who live more online and with earning skills online too.

I think it counts for the weakness of an economy. Having the work force with no work to do simply means, an over competition on the available and over exploitation of the available resource. This often becomes the case for over populated nations hence the need for policies to help put population in check. China instilled one and its been working good for them, this was out of a necessity and not as though the economy.

When we look at the essential needs of a human, we talk about food, cloth and shelter. Not technology, not social media and the host of them you could think of. Over population puts stress on all that and makes conditions for living much difficult. That has a negative effect on the economy as it could lead to unlawful acts.

Population is a strength to the country's economy, but the population needs to be the younger generation. The governments participation is much needed in creating jobs and fulfilling the basic needs of the population. When the government isn't able to do the needful automatically people will look for opportunities away from the country and settles down.

The dependence on online is much, however without the manufacturing sector we can't make an economy more stronger. The usage of online services were just to manage things in a better way whereas the manufacturing industry is the economy uplifting framework.

China implemented strict population control policies from 1970s onward and as a result they were able to put more resources into education and healthcare. This is the difference between India and China. China has eradicated extreme poverty, and the per capita income is at least 3 times higher than that of India. And in India, the population still depends on freebies and only around 1.2% of the population pays income tax. With one-third of the area of China, India still has more people living on its land compared to its Northern neighbor.

As the population increases, the demand for goods and services will increase and the market size will continue to increase in the days to come. An open environment exists in today's world to benefit from overpopulation or to accept the ill effects of overpopulation. The government has to pay attention to its policies and activities if it wants to make a profit. Careless vision will bring the evil of overpopulation a large part of the production comes from micro and small and medium industries. The government should emphasize on investment in this industry. Increasing investment here can be a good option for domestic employment generation in the future.

The magnitude of market demand is indeed substantial, but it all hinges on the prevailing conditions of governance and politics at that time. Can the supply adequately meet all existing demands at the most favorable price? Or will scarcity ensue, driving up prices and inflicting hardship upon the populace?

Therefore, there is no definite guarantee that a large population will automatically translate into a promising market. If a significant portion of the population possesses strong human capital, I believe that the country would find it easier to progress, and poverty could be alleviated through the equitable development of human resources.

This is a very interesting and complex issue...

I am lucky enough to work in both worlds as part of my job, so I see the consequences of over and under population on a daily basis. I think over population can be managed, if you have a good government ....but in most 3rd world countries, that is not the case.

Take China for example and compare them to India..... In China you have a country with the second largest population in the world and their government are strict and less corrupt than other governments in third world countries. India have a typical third world government, where corruption and mismanagement are part of their daily lives...and with the world's biggest population... poverty and suffering are part of their lives.  :( :( :(

I think populations is not a problem for country which has a lot natural resources. country like Japan or Korea maybe need to reduce their population because their country natural resources is not so much, the price of food there also expensive. but as long as the people is productive and contribute to the GDP I think big population is not a problem. Today we have internet, bitcoin, youtube, tiktok, microstock and etc that ease people to earn money from internet. by this way their purchasing power will increase so they can import some goods that they need.

The developed nations may have to rely more on AI, automation, innovation and immigration to meet their labor demands. They may also have to offer more incentives and benefits to attract and retain workers from other countries. They may also have to reconsider their trade policies and partnerships with these developing nations to ensure fair and mutually beneficial exchanges.

China is the most populated country in the world, is it underdeveloped? No, but it is one of the most developed countries in the world as of today, so the argument of a country being underdeveloped because of its population is totally baseless because we have a lot of examples of places that are overly populated but are still very much developed and are developing even more as the time goes, so economists that believe in this need to understand that this isn't correct.

I totally agree that the reason why a country stays underdeveloped is because of a lack of proper governance and usage of available resources, when a country struggles to develop at a good pace even if it has enough resources and minerals and stuff, it is only because there is corruption and the government isn't up to the task.

Yes, population affects economics. However, blaming population for economic issues is like painting a masterpiece with one hue. Its complex. Imagine improving governance, economic diversity, and resource allocation in poor nations. Overpopulation becomes beneficial. These nations could lead global innovation and growth.

Reducing population in underdeveloped nations may motivate rich nations to invest in sustainable solutions. Better automation, population upskilling, and immigration policy are options. A win-win.

Having a large population can be both a strength and weakness, depending on the quality of the same. If the population is highly skilled and educated, then it can be an advantage to the country to have such a large population. However, if the population is of low quality, then it can be a burden to have a huge population as the government needs to spend a lot of resources on education, employment and medical care. African nations do have a rapidly growing population, but they are in poverty because the population is not sufficiently skilled.

That’s a crude way to put it but you’ve got a point there. A lot of cases, people with low to zero income levels usually end up having more children they could possibly cater for.
There are not many jobs around for unskilled workers and a whole bunch of those peasants you mentioned haven’t got those relevant skills needed by employers.

Talking about migrants and cheap labor; sure, employers like to use migrants cause they’re majorly skilled at the job and are willing to accept less payment for their work.
Having the relevant skills is key here. Indigenous people should also know that.

In a poor country, overpopulation is a big problem, but for a rich country, it is more beneficial. If population can be converted into manpower then surely more population is the wealth of the country. I think the population in developing countries is not decreasing but it is increasing exponentially. On the other hand, the population growth rate in developed countries is decreasing drastically. Due to which developed countries are able to fulfill their needs in underdeveloped countries. I think there is no chance of population reduction in underdeveloped countries because they don't have proper idea about birth control. They do not get better idea about family planning. Due to various reasons, the population in the underdeveloped countries increases drastically.

It seems to me that in the article the author confuses cause and effect. In countries with poor living conditions (such as Africa or Pakistan, or in some areas of large countries (India or China), a large population is a consequence of a poor standard of living, and not vice versa. By nature, this is a law that makes it so that at least someone survives in bad conditions, it is necessary that many children are born. Unfortunately, not everyone will survive, but there will be living ones who will continue the race.

Concerning the fact that such countries have an impact on large countries: in poor countries, cheap labor is available. This is probably the only way they affect developing countries.

I don't want to make an excuse because I am from a country that I believe is overpopulated although families are starting to limit their number of children, especially in the mid-level and the professionals.

The government has the biggest role in terms of overpopulation and sparsely populated countries. It would be easier to manage underpopulated rather than overpopulated. In an underpopulated country, resources are too much which means employment is not a problem and people will be earning bigger since their demand is higher. Higher income means high the government will also have more funds from taxation and less problem of poverty. This also means the ability to get better deals from overpopulated countries that do not have a lot to offer rather than manpower and cheap labor. 

limiting the birth rate will only worsen the situation of the country's population in the future, just look at how Japan and Singapore have suppressed birth rates, currently their country lacks productive age, this is what encourages developed countries that are underpopulated to make it easier for citizens of productive age who come from other countries to enter their country and provide decent and well-paid jobs.

Instead of reducing birth rates, what governments in developed countries should do is spread their population evenly and encourage productive-age citizens to rebuild cities that have begun to be abandoned, large populations never destroy a country, instead it adds to the strength of the country.

Bro, you got it right. That enormous population thing hasn't favoured Africa because of selfish leadership. In China, the reverse is the case. The Chinese can produce and consume what they've and still survive. Corruption is at its lowest ebb in China and that has helped them to effectively manage themselves. Africa is cursed (yes, I make bold to say that) with bad leadership. The enormous population, especially in my country has continually made things deplorable as the scarce infrastructure is getting more scarce by each passing day.


Finding my country on the number 6 spot makes me feel bad. Sadly, there's nothing anyone can do. That's how things are. Nigeria has enormous resources, both in manpower and natural endowment. Regrettably, disastrous leadership has perpetually kept the country backwards.

One of the reason while some of the over populated countries are under developed is as result of lack of management and unemployment to the nation, because they can not control the numbers of individuals living in their environment per say, so I believe that many people who have over population always have inflation and what means a country not have not developed is based on the economy of the country.

It could be a strength or a weakness . It is determined by the environment. China is one of the most populous countries on earth yet technologically they are ahead, they don suffer from hunger or starvation. They have a very low crime rate and have managed to fight off corruption in their country.  The same thing cannot be said of India for instance. India still struggles with systematic corruption, pollution and inability to Carter for the needs of her citizenry. I think that China is the model country for other countries who need to learn about population growth and expansion can take a lead from.

Instead of environment I'd say it's the government. Of course a lot of factors affects the outcome of whether or not population can affect a country positively or negatively. However, most of these factors are under the decision and leadership of the government.

I do not think we can use China as a model for the management of their population, their one child policy lead to tens of millions of forced abortions and sterilizations, there is also an imbalance of men and women as Chinese families traditionally prefer men over women, and finally now the Chinese government is realizing they may not have enough young workers to fuel their economic growth, this means the problems regarding its demographics are even bigger at China than in most western countries.

A big population can be a strength if it's managed properly, in a way that encourages the people in the workforce to be productive, to open businesses, to innovate, and to pay taxes. A small population can be a weakness if a country is in a politically unstable reagion/situation (because bigger neighbors can be a real threat to reckon with) and also, again, if it's not managed properly. There are prosperous nations with big and small populations, big and small territories.
I think overpopulation is a real problem in some countries, and so is underpopulation, but overall the amount of people does not determine the economic success.

A big population has advantage to create bigger wealth if the society is well functioned and can product good things which have value but if the society is malfunctioned, it will be a burden of the world with poverty, diseases and immoral activities.

A small population can be very wealth if it is excellently in operations but we rarely see such population. It is hard for Switzerland, Singapore to have big economy like the USA. or China.

You're right, population should be a major to how to quantify the strength of a nation and not that population should be it's counterfeit for development because countries with higher population should have more opportunities to get severed of equal rights since the numbers of the people will increase the domestic productivity of the country which be incentivise more internal generation revenue for the government and this same IGR will still be returned back to the society in helping the people and less privileged among them including community services government render for free such as road network, light and electricity.

Statistics says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population) the first 3 most populated countries of the world are China, India and then follow by United State and yet if we are to consider the development of those countries, they are biggest among the dominants, and by the numbers, they are developed countries that are doing fine; The first african country among the largest populated country is Nigeria and by resources, they are bless just that corruption has eaten them badly which has affected their devlopment including me that is typing, African countries are bless.

One of the main cause of over population is religion, illetracy and ignorance, people with religious believe will tell you that they will practice what they believe and that is why over population will be difficult to control, even those that don't practice religion are not taking measures but I think as inflation is hitting everyone and price of goods are increasing, it is becoming difficult for them to maintain 3 square meal, they don't have choice than to maintain because the poor are the major problem of this over population.

I agree, let's make our country as an example we have a lot of good resources and good things that will made our economy good and improve but due to the corruption and bad education system we cannot maximize this resources. We have a very poor economic strategy , so many people now migrated overseas even though the cost of living is costly too , they just want to escape this country.

You described 2 abnormal situation about the population, underpopulation and overpopulation. Of course, these situations will bring bad impacts on the economic status on the countries. Those country with underpopulation, they probably are difficult to have enough human resource. But they can deal this situation by importing the labors from other countries. Japan is one of the example of the country that import the labors because they have not enough human resource. While the country with overpopulation, they will be difficult to manage the issues about their society. Surely one of the solution is to let them spreading to other countries as the labors.

However, I can agree that the economic weakness is also caused by the bad management of the government. There are many corrupt governments, and they also can't utilize their natural resources due to their lack of knowledge and equipment.

Population in the case of Africa critically looking at it we can all agree that the demographic size is not the problem but it's bad leader and poor policy formulation and implementation to the letter. Russia is a European country with a population 4 times of some African countries but yet Russia is one of the developed countries of the world . Hence, we can't blame population for the underdevelopment of development in Africa but it's a result of the lack of walk the talk by the political and economic leaders highly being so corrupt without recourse to real development stride.

Am not dispute the reality that population can be a barrier to economic development of a country but not entirely in the case with African countries it's comparatively a corrupt practice. Africa as a continent each country is blessed with countless natural resources both mineral and agricultural resources but how many African countries are exporting agricultural produce to others nations rather they depend on grains from Russia and Ukraine while the  leaders sit at home and plunder the national cake.

True. Population has nothing to do with the present country’s economy status as everything lies down on its foundation and on how the country’s government enforce its laws and policies towards their citizens. Now, if the government is bias and does not offer equal opportunities to everyone, then expect that the whole country will be in a mess. Everything that has happened to the country does not reflect on what type of citizens they have, but what type of government that the country is taking its side.

Population have got its importance, but the major part is in the hands of the government. Well said, equal opportunity is a must and the governments itself have got discrimination which is the worst thing happening around in some countries. This surely have negative thoughts to emerge from the people who are suppressed. Population needs to be used in the right way and the same will surely strengthen the economy, but to manage a small population and a bigger population have got difference and more difficulty.

Depends on how you use it. Plus it also depends on how a nation grew as well, any nation in the world, even the smallest of nations, could make a great economic investment and put itself to the right place and with some growing pains could become one of the best nations. Just look at South Korea, sure they got a lot of help, but they didn't squander that help and became a terrible nation, they used that help and now one of the highest growing economies in the world for the past decades. It all depends on wanting it, and that's the key reason most nations fails. It doesn't depend on your population or not, it depends on how much you are willing or not to improve.

Then I can say the country is poor, not because of over population but because of bad governance. If the government was good and the state was well planned, there will be a high amount of skilled labour to make the country productive.
There are countries in Africa that are not very populated but they're still poor despite the fact that they have a lot of sought after natural resources.

Population is a good thing, if managed properly. "Two good heads are better than one", they say. Emphasis on "good". There's no point having many heads if they're not good. And they can only be good when they have been invested in.
If a vast majority of the population is educated and taught different skills and a favorable environment is created so they can do business and thrive, then that country won't have a problem of over population. Sadly, the leaders prefer to fill their pockets and forget about everything else.

Population should be an advantage if there would be a good leader which would utilize the manpower for the betterment of a country. But in most instances no organization of people is being made to make the advantage efficient. Ending is poverty as we all know. Unlike with big countries and regions, perhaps China who has a large population, they somehow managed to make use of the number in order for their country to be one of the biggest ones in the world. And unfortunately, many countries having large population did not manage to do the same thing as well. Before I was thinking it is all about the leader but nowadays individuals are weighing down ecobomic progress because of that number.

This is true and great example on that. At the end of the day the numbers do not matter, it will all come down to the willingness of the people to change and improve their lives and help the economy of their country. So what if you have a lot of people in your country, it would not matter if all (if not most) of them have the drive to work and improve their lives and contribute to society.

Depends on which place you are talking about. Manpower is a blessing but excess of anything is bad even if it is a good thing. Too much of it could make it bad. Having huge manpower but not being able to use it in every field will make it a weakness. In many countries, there aren't many opportunities. Thus the competition is high. The government is unable to provide its population with work. In cases like this, it will be a weakness for the economy.
On the other hand, if your country can provide you with good opportunities, overpopulation won't be a problem. Despite having competition, everyone will be able to contribute to the cause. That's how this will become a strength of the country's economy.

But if you want to talk about the whole world's economy, overpopulation helps a lot. Everyone alive needs to consume food. Poor, rich, middle class. All of us need food. So as we consume food on a daily basis, we are helping the economy.

Before you start agreeing or conceiving the idea that over population does help, you first and foremost have to wonder why, it’s advocated against? If it did truly helps, it would have been a welcomed idea and you won’t find many persons terminating pregnancies, government would have encouraged its citizens to go about making babies and the nation continues to grow in man power but, this ain’t the case. Over population is forth against everywhere across the globe and that means, it doesn’t help.
Should man power be the issue, you could always get external help to get the job done. It’s rather common.

Over population is a problem given that, it can not be matched with the available or needed resources and that would lead to chaos on different fronts. People ought to try and not to be selfish and practice birth control so we could save our world, over population is a problem.

Cheap labor is based on work experience and also certificates of expertise. The price of a job is cheap. because it does not require expertise to make policies and decisions. the thing that can be done to get to reduce the price of a job is to take advantage of technology.

if the workforce in question is related to the public, such as social services. it can not. It's different if the work in question is related to technology, it could be replaced with a machine. for example in agriculture. The country can make the concept of automatic irrigation for example.

Since I went to school and was taught about economics, I concluded that too large a population is a serious problem for the economy, but after many countries reported population shortages because many people did not want to have children, it now creates a more complicated problem, many places or cities now have to look for workers cheap labor from abroad thereby making production costs higher.

I think it also depends on the model of work, because if it's a job like agriculture or plantation, of course you can see a worker through the experience and knowledge he already has so that the determination of his salary can be very clear. But if it is a farm or plantation that already uses certain machines or technologies, what must be seen here is the manager of the machine or the one who runs the technology. Because certain machines or technologies also cannot run by themselves if there is no operator to operate them.

Technology-related workers are workers who have been previously trained in managing and operating existing technology, because workers who can manage machines are usually paid on a service basis. As for automatic irrigation, I think that there must be a special water reservoir in a reservoir which can also be used by many people for several areas.

From the beginning I have never thought that the human population is a problem, because in fact it has been seen that the number of human populations clearly has benefits for the country and also for the founders of factories or companies that require a large number of workers. So that certain countries are currently paying more attention to the human population in it so that those who have factories and companies can use them to work in companies or factories. Thus the level of economic turnover will also be better because the production of goods and services can always run without stopping.

Under population is not very good and that is what will make a country open their borders for foreigners out of need for labour force. I think there is a solution to this through government policy by giving rewards to couples who increase the numbers of children they give birth to depending on the number stipulated by government. Another point is to discourage abortion because people do that as final resort when they have no other option.

What if, rather than racing to the bottom with the automation route, we invest in improving worker skills? Upskilling and reskilling might sound like jargon, but they're genuine solutions for the future. This would not only improve job quality but also reduce the dependency on unskilled labor.

As for the public workforce, you're right; robots can't replace empathy, understanding, and human connection. However, in sectors such as agriculture, though tech can help, we need to consider the social ramifications. Farmers losing their jobs en masse to machines - sounds like a dystopian novel, doesn't it?

Limiting the number of children who have been actively campaigning in my country since more than 50 years ago is now starting to produce, many parents and most people in my country think that the maximum number of children 3 is ideal, if not immediately make a campaign to increase the number of children again it seems like 20 years from now the population of my country will decrease by more than 15% from now.

Population plays a major role to strengthen the economy. If education is given to children, they will become a good people of the country, in this way population or more children will be helpful for country. More children if they will work, they will earn more money by working. When I talk about education, it's not meaning a academic education, it means a financial education that will give your child a mindset of rich people. If a country want to progress, they should train their child for work. When they will reach to young age, they will play a vital role in country economy. They can do a lot of businesses and they can sell businesses, they can also purchase a profitable businesses, in young age they will have power to do every type of investment. They should have knowledge of Bitcoin, in early age, if they will be skilled in these things, they will double their income for a multiple of times. Increase in population is not an issue, the issue is illiteracy, because without education man I'm s nothing, he cannot take decisions for himself.

Yes sure that everything has some benefits as well as disadvantages now its up to the country that how they think? Will they take benefit out of higher population or they will it as a burden?

If there is larger population then resources should also be increased because if resources become limited then some will deprived of it.  Cost of thing will also increases because there will be little amount of materials to cover the needs of humans therefore government will rise the price of such materials.

While among its advantages one is the creation of new technologies if an individual of a country becomes creative and talented. Government income will also increases because larger the population larger will be tax cutting from their income which will be added in the income of government

I think that replacing everyone with robots or having many workers where everything needs to be automated is not rational. We need to find a balance between automation and employee development.

As for agriculture, I think this area is still poorly automated, if you look at the world average. I remembered an example of how in a country like Poland, which is quite strong in the agricultural sector, migrants still collect strawberries through hard manual labor and receive little pay. (I apologize to the residents of this country for such an example. I mention this without malicious intent.)

Population growth and the unplanned occurrence of this increase is a big problem for states. If the education level of the increasing population is low and qualified individuals cannot be raised, poverty begins in that country. This is inevitable. The population wants to be fed and economic power is needed to feed these people. If a population without added value emerges, big problems will arise.

To prevent these, studies should be carried out under the name of population planning. Anything unplanned brings trouble. Therefore, a planned population ensures that the population contributes positively to the economy.

This is what makes a nation worry when most of its population are having lack of education as it is also giving them limited opportunity. And when they have limited opportunity, that's not good for a country's economy.

Family planning and as well as putting a lot of budget in the education sector which is what most rich countries are doing.

Education is still the best asset that a person will have and that's why governments are investing on their own people for their studies and educations.

Of course, under population is a problem. A country can face some problems in the future if they have under population. It happens in Japan, they are facing a problem of under population. The number of foreigners is increasing constantly to deal with the situation. If too many foreigners, I think it won't be good for Japan in the future.

Well, this problem is probably caused by the lifestyle, the economic situation, or lack of confidence from mature people to raise children. The government should make a special program to all people that they must be confident to grow children. The government must support with assistance programs, so there are no mature people who doubt to have children. Also, the idea to give rewards for the couples that have children seem good to apply as well.

---

- https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/13/asia/japan-population-decline-record-drop-intl-hnk/index.html
- https://www.dw.com/en/japan-can-anything-be-done-to-stop-population-decline/a-66432824#:~:text=Japan%20now%20has%20122.4%20million,and%20tried%20to%20offer%20solutions.

I don't think it's a bad idea to employ the skills and services of foreigners by countries that those manpower skills and services are lacking due to underpopulation, if a country fears for it's future by opening her boarder to foreigner with the needed skills to troop then the government of such country's would be doing a disservice to her people as they would have to work constant overtime and that can lead to a more breakdown in human capital.

Why can salvage the situation is just as you both agreed on the government to create a programme that will encourage couples and single matured people to increase their number of childbirth, cause where the necessary
social  amenities and welfare service are working fine people won't think twice before giving birth knowing fully it won't turn out to be a burden alas.

Excess population is mostly responsible for the underdevelopment of a country. As overpopulation is a major problem, the government has asked for some measures to be taken in taking children. According to the government, two children are enough. But if the government of a country can create employment for people, then the population is not a matter, the economic development of your country is calculated by per capita income. If the per capita income is high, then that country will develop. If employment opportunities are not created for the people of the country then instead of increasing the per capita income will decrease every year and the unemployment rate will increase after which the economic condition of a country will become very bad. In countries where there is not enough employment, the governments of those countries usually do various campaigns to have fewer children.

In my own observation every populated country are blessed with enough resources to take care of them, but in this regard assume they have good government the citizens will enjoy their wealth, but due to bad leaders we are experiencing that why we are suffering. It is the responsibility of government to take good care of her country, in time of health, education, housing, etc. If government provide good education to the citizens it make it easier for the government to rule because the people will be able to understand what the government want.

No nation will boldly said that they didn't plan for the population of the country in future.

All government parties in all countries certainly promise to continue to prosper their country when they nominate themselves as leader of the country. Even though the promises they made were not necessarily kept, they did this just to get votes from their own people. In general, the government's responsibility is large because they must be able to organize all aspects very well so that welfare figures can be seen enough in their country.

However, this often seems imperfect in some countries, so that up to now there are still countries that are densely populated and have sufficient resources, but the citizens cannot fully enjoy their own wealth. In fact, this could also be caused by the lack of human resources that the government can rely on, so it is true that the government should care more about education. And also health so that their human resources can develop well enough and in accordance with what is required by the state.

In many cases population may be more or less problem, but I think if population is converted into skilled manpower by education training technical knowledge etc. human resource development knowledge Then population will never be a burden to a country and will act as a measure of progress. Many countries are now taking various steps to increase population If the population of the underdeveloped and developing countries does not increase, how can the developed countries get everything cheaply, it is quite correct in one aspect because the population in my country is very high, that's why people of our country go abroad more.Jan Population is a problem in many cases and a boon in many cases like covid 19Due to the large population and high income, my country will survive fairly well.According to them, if the population can be made efficient through proper planning, it will act as a force, and India and China are examples.Their high population is working as a blessing many countries are developed despite low population, but you have to remember that small money divided by small number seems high per capita but high population If they are divided by few, the amount of income seems to be less but when considered as a whole, more population is more power of the state. Every populous country is more successful in coming out of any problem Because they succeed in working in the day of danger.
Finally, population will definitely add strength to more economic sectors if the political leaders have proper plan to run the country they consider population as a resource and plan accordingly Creating by technical know-how definitely works economically strong.

Managing resources is indeed the government's responsibility, but the government cannot do it without human resources capable of processing them and employing foreign workers who can process them is indeed a good choice but it would be better if the government provided good education for its people so they can manage existing resources themselves and this will help revive the economy of their own community. You are right that there is no country that doesn't think about the welfare of its people, but there are some governments that don't think about the welfare of their people, they are more concerned with themselves I think this is what can hinder economic growth in the area.

I think that overpopulation has its effects in terms of the economic status of a country, and it can go either way. As what you had mentioned, overpopulation might harm the development of a country if there are no enough employment that would suffice the whole population. In which I think, overpopulation wouldn't do any good for a developing country, as it might hinder them for developing. Another thing, overpopulation can lead to scarcity because the demand is higher than the availability of the resources.

Given all the reasons, I must say that population is an economic weakness. But, one of the ways that I can think of to make population as a strength, is to invest in producing functional and productive citizen. If a country has a huge population, but consists of effective and efficient citizen, it will positively contribute to the development and economic growth of the country. Simply, more productive citizen means more taxes, and more taxes means more funding for the government.

Overpopulation is good for the economy and development but overpopulation is the opposite. How a country manages its population determines its destiny. With the right economic and population management, a country can have both a strong economy and military power. The orthodox view is that overpopulation is bad for the economy. Revisionists, argue that a high growth rate contributes positively to economic growth by increasing human capital accumulation.

Attempts to reduce population growth are therefore unnecessary or harmful for economic growth. The most important point here is that my comments are not based on overpopulation but on the population that should be there. Otherwise, the richest, most developed and prosperous countries in the world would be China, India and Pakistan. There is no correct premise for population and economic development and every view has its rights and wrongs.

Although there are big countries that have handled overpopulation fairly well we cannot ignore that there are those who are not as fortunate. In the country I live in, there is no doubt that overpopulation is brewing as more and more children are being born every day, and based on statistics an average family here has 3-5 children. In this country, it is very much seen how the country is having much trouble handling the demand of people as food supplies and basic necessities are not being distributed fairly due to low supplies (the country is basically experiencing food shortage and agricultural issues for years now). There is also the issue of education wherein public academic institutions are overpopulated by students, having one classroom to cater to 50-60 students). Although the rich may not see the problem, it is certainly the less fortunate ones who feel the problem every day. Nevertheless, I agree with you regarding the responsibility of the government here and their failure (or lack of action) to attend to them problem brought by overpopulation.

Possible can be included with the management of the government sometimes, even a good developing country from the previous management can easily manage the growth of an economy but of course not all through years they are the ones who handle the community, and the next administration doesn't really care about the community just for the money itself this can be possible makes the people suffer because of this wrong decision made by them. The reason why getting wise to vote is ideal and just known only.

Too much population too can affect the economy and if the parents are not capable of supporting the basic needs of their children and this cycle as always happened and the government is not prepared with this case reason why they didn't give all the support needed by those people. AFAIK in some country there a restriction with the limit of possible children they have.

The answer is simple: everything needs a balance !
A large population is bad. A small population is bad. A poor population is bad. Uneducated population - bad. A spoiled population is bad. But this issue is not just on the government's side. The population itself should also understand about children - who and how many they raise ! Who it will be - educated, intelligent, with prospects ... Or poor, uneducated, with minimal interests in life....

According to me population does not affect economy much.  A country's development prospects depend on its system of governance.  The more industrious and creative the nation is, the more advanced the nation is.  A country can use more population as a tool for development.  China is a country with a large population. So why is China underdeveloped?  China has reached the pinnacle of development by harnessing the power of the people.  If the country's management system is correct, the country is bound to develop.  Some country is trying to reduce its population.  Some country is trying to increase its population . Instead of doing this, the head of state should use the manpower.

I think the poor population needs balancing and I don't think it's always bad, it's just that they need a helping hand to get some opportunities to improve their quality of life and standard of living.

That's right, it's definitely a shared responsibility and it's not just the government that is used as an excuse if it doesn't work, but also the smallest elements starting from the family and parents also play a role in raising and ensuring their growth and development and that requires good planning.

Population levels are often linked to the problem of a country's economic growth. And this is indeed true. Because population levels sometimes also affect the country's economy itself. It's just where the economy is moving. In a good direction or in a bad direction. So it all depends on how the government and society build the nation itself. If the large population is utilized well then it can indeed be a good economic force. Like a country will not experience a labor crisis. Because human resources are sufficient. But if the government cannot balance the population and the number of job opportunities or job vacancies then this will also create a lot of unemployment and there will be an imbalance in the economy of society in that country. so this problem is actually quite a dilemma.

But several developed countries are currently struggling to face the population crisis in their countries. For example, the latest news is that Singapore is also facing a baby crisis. because married couples in Singapore rarely seem to decide to have children in the near future after marriage. This has an impact on the baby crisis in the country.
(Sourch: https://health.detik.com/berita-detikhealth/d-6946870/singapura-krisis-bayi-ini-alasan-subsidi-tak-ngefek-bikin-warga-mau-punya-anak)

In countries with poor economies, there are problems with overpopulation, this is not the problem. The problem is a corrupt government that does not solve this problem well. Of course, as China, it is possible to strictly limit the number of children in the family, but why? It is better to create conditions under which all this large number of citizens will be involved in the economy, and this can give a strong jump in the economic vector of the country. It's just that the governments of such countries need to provide affordable schools and educational institutions, and then jobs.

I agree with you regarding this, of course, the government has a role in this--the problem of overpopulation and its effects. However, we should not be just focusing there, we cannot deny the fact that the people are also responsible. While the government lacks the support it should be giving to the people, the people are just being too reliant on the government. Both parties have responsibilities to take in order for the problem of overpopulation to be dealt with. No matter how many public schools that provide free education and job fares there are, if the people refuse to make a move then it will be all for nothing. The support should indeed come from the government, as that is the responsibility they have for the people they are governing, but the action of change should also come from the people themselves because if they do not choose to help themselves and continue with their lifestyle of producing kids without knowing what they will do in order to provide the needs of these kids in the future and just hold on to what the government should be doing, nothing will change.

You are right that both government and society have an important role in both of these matters. I think that every place has environmental conditions that are different from other places, so the impact of overpopulation will be different from one place to another. If a place has a good government system, it will certainly be able to provide jobs for the people so that they get a decent income and can meet their needs, but if the government system is not good then they don't think about the impact of overpopulation on the environment.

I really agree with you that the government must provide support to its people in terms of improving the welfare of the people they lead, and the people must be more independent if the government does not care about the impact of excess population on their environment.

While the government plays a pivotal role in the nation, citizens must also equip themselves to fill vacant job positions. At times, citizens may desire excessive freedom and autonomy, not realizing that job opportunities may remain unfilled for reasons that lack rationality.

We cannot perpetually rely on the government to support our entire lives. Governments will invariably prioritize their own interests, which is why corruption occurs. We, too, must consider our individual livelihoods and avoid placing excessively high expectations on the government.

In this case, to solve the problem of overpopulation, the citizens of the country themselves need motivation to change their situation. I mean the motivation to study in schools, institutes, and then the desire to work well, and not to serve time in the workplace. In general, that quality is called engagement. Parents should also impose it on their children, creating strong motivation and, of course, qualities such as good upbringing and kindness. Then the changes will be complete.

It's true that different places have different ecosystems. You mention the government's part in shaping things, and you're right: it's a big deal. They have the potential to make a significant impact if they are capable of doing so. Things like making sure people have work and an adequate standard of living. It's straightforward: a great government system can balance population and environment, making sure both are in harmony. A horrible system though, guy. In a word, it's anarchy. The environment and the people in it take the hit. I agree that action needs to be taken by the government. And the people? They can't sit around and do nothing. The people must take control if the government is dozing off. Do what they can for their environment, right? Every bit counts.

Even the most populated countries like China, India, and others have already developed, and they are still creating other things that will make their citizens enjoy their way of leaving. To me, overpopulation cannot affect the development of a country if the government in such a country is doing well, but in a situation where the government is corrupt, they don’t care about their citizens.

You can see that even if there are resources available, they don’t care to make use of these resources in such a way that they create job opportunities for the citizens, and I believe job opportunities are one of the ways that we can say a country is developing when everybody is working. And that is what the Chinese government is still doing. With their very large population, are we going to say they did not develop? Nah, mate, so if a government uses available resources in a nation to create other ways of earning, there will be no poverty.

You have a good point here regarding job opportunities. Big population means bigger manpower for a country. However, if the government of that country fails to see that and makes the best out of it then it is possible for them to only see overpopulation as a negative thing. Take this country I live in for example, there are a lot of people and yet we lack workers due to individuals choosing to move overseas for better job opportunities that offers higher salary, compensation, and benefits. If these workers were able to find that here in the country then we wouldn't be lacking educators, doctors, and other professionals. This example shows just how a lot of country's government fail to see how they could use overpopulation to their advantage if they can only focus on the needs of their people.

A lot of people do not want kids not because they don't like kids, but because they feel they're not financially ready to have kids and they are not wrong.
Having kids when you can't take care of them is not a good thing to do, so instead of the Government rewarding families that give birth to children, they should find ways to create opportunities for the people, especially young people.

I believe underpopulation is not as big an issue as they make it seem.  Don't get me wrong, I know it's an issue but how many countries can show proof that the economy is slow because of underpopulation? Worst case scenario they open their borders for skilled immigrants.

The biggest problem facing world right now is that intelligent people are having less number of children, while those with low IQ are having plenty of them. And in the long-run, this doesn't bode well for the human race. Look at the following maps:

IQ level by country:

https://new-iq-test.com/all-images/Articles/iq_by_country.png

Fertility rate by country:

https://img.ifunny.co/images/ddad16677db12ecd9699df0ff5ab9122c4c76022cfd800290038b2ddb9d75c69_1.jpg

It is very clear that overall IQ level of human race is going down, and that too at a rapid pace. In the long run, this is not going to bring anything positive for us. There will be more conflict and warfare, and less innovations and inventions.

Germany for example. They faced declining birth rate and aging population that's why their government implemented policies to encourage family growth and attract immigrants to address their problems. Non-Europians get to work and live in Germany, that makes them easier to get employed. I doubt it is a not a big issue.
Germany BLUE CARD (https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrOsI0Y3hNlKu4F5CJXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZANBREVOR1QyXzEEc2VjA3Nj/RV=2/RE=1695829656/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.bamf.de%2fSharedDocs%2fAnlagen%2fEN%2fMigrationAufenthalt%2fBlaueKarteEU%2fflyer-blaue-karte.pdf%3f__blob%3dpublicationFile%26v%3d10%23%3a~%3atext%3dThe%2520EU%2520Blue%2520Card%2520enables%2520third-country%2520nationals%2520with%2cof%2520skilled%2520workers%252C%2520particu-%2520larly%2520in%2520shortage%2520occcupations./RK=2/RS=VxO28GCU7nDFZxHMIOJlbzOjoJ0-)

Yeah. Huge population does not guarantee an economic success either. Governments need to tailor their policies to their unique economic status and social and cultural circumstances. They have to maximize and give importance to the country's natural resources like oil, minerals, farming, even manpower. Maybe each country may copy what other countries do but what works for one country might not work for another. In the end, economic strength or weakness lies beyond the population only.

Mismanagement is also a problem, causing welfare to fall far short of what society expects. A country that has abundant natural products should be able to get out of the poverty line and be able to make people live at a much more prosperous and sufficient level, especially if human resources are not properly trained to process the natural products they have themselves. In the end they look for workers from outside to do what the people in the country should be able to do and the local people actually become unemployed.

They can take workers from outside if the number of workers in their own country has decreased because there are many people who bet their luck in other countries to make money now. I think this problem will never become a burden for these countries because they can take shortcuts to overcome the decreasing number of workers in their countries.

I'm curious if North Korea is really included as one of the world's highest IQ populations. I'm also surprised that China is on the same IQ level as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore.

Anyways, the point really makes sense. Here in my country, people who live in the slums are just too quick to have children. I remember when I was renting near a slum during my college days so I am familiar with some people there. In rural areas, farm workers and other poor people are also the ones with numerous children compared to their employers.

I also quite understand why the IQ of people in my country is still below average. And this is none other than because the level of infrastructure and education development in my country is not evenly distributed and as we know, existing development and education is only focused on one area, namely urban areas. And what's more, the condition of the existing community has not received real social prosperity and there are still many people living below the poverty level, so this makes them pessimistic.

But in my opinion having many children is not a problem because this is fate. The problem is when they have many children but they are unable to increase their business and change their thinking on how to increase their income.

Everyone who wants to have children is of course truly ready to care for and educate them well and if they are not yet able to care for them and educate them well then it would be better to postpone their desire to have children and continue to improve their financial situation so that they can have children and be able to educate him well. I think having a large population and not being able to produce anything will of course be an opportunity for skilled immigrants to be able to work in that area, so there needs to be an effort from the government to train people to be skilled at work, of course this will create economic growth in that area.

The fact that nations rich in resources are nevertheless having difficulty providing basic necessities is both funny and depressing. Picture yourself in possession of a gold mine, but without the means or expertise to extract the precious metal. Indeed, it is what these nations are doing. It reminds me of how early Bitcoin critics also failed to recognise the currency's potential. They choose to go the "easy" road of outsourcing rather than investing in their own people. It's a sign of a failing economy if its residents are leaving in droves for other countries in search of better prospects


But relying on outsiders without investing in your own human capital is a dangerous game to play. It may be too late to fix things when these quick cuts eventually fail

I kind of agree with your line of thought, a high population if properly harnessed Will automatically lead to high productivity and efficiency.
Take a very good look at China, they are over a billion people, but they've been able to manage their economy properly, reducing crime and poverty, they one of the richest countries in the world with a high productive workforce.
There is hardly a country you will go today without seeing a Chinese company operating there. So population growth at some point is advantageous

On the other hand, population growth can be dangerous if not properly handled, like you rightly put it can lead to serious unemployment and poverty. Nations like that have a high percentage of crime rates and unproductive.

Manpower is a strength for a country if most of them are not old people and kids. We saw a country with a huge landscape with no manpower. They have the land and resources but no manpower to use it. With proper management and great manpower, a country's economy can be boosted. Vietnam can be a great example of that. Look at Chinese companies working all over the world for infrastructure development and other mega projects.

The population of the world is increasing drastically and if something is not done, it is going to lead to over population which could lead to insufficient supply of food and amenities. We need to take up birth control make sure that we don't keep borning without having any plans for them. Population without advancement I'm technology of a country is a total waste of time. There is need for a country to develop there economy just like we are seeing I'm China right now. The economy advancement of China is growing faster and in the nearest future  it might be the large economy in the world with no competition.

Labor will indeed have a big influence on opportunities for economic development but it must be directly proportional to their abilities, I think that a lot of labor but does not have the ability will never be effective, therefore there is a lack of utilization of available natural resources due to a lack of ability to process them, So the common thread in this case is that education and knowledge are needed so that abilities can be obtained in managing existing natural resources.

Many natural resources are actually utilized by foreigners rather than the country's own citizens. The quantity of labor but not having the quality will be very difficult which will have an impact on the results of what they do. What's great is that the Vietnamese and Chinese people really make their citizens have quite good qualities at work so that they can improve the economy.

And this is a problem in Japan now.

Despite that they're a super country and one of the most advanced and high GDP globally, they're suffering this problem. Japanese people, most of them don't want to marry.

They just wanna get stuck into their jobs until they get old and no plans of getting married. AFAIK, it's the same in South Korea as well while the issue there is people find it expensive to raise kids.

When it came to population control, I believe in what Elon musk has to say about it which is (population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming). While we think the world is getting overpopulated, we're neglecting the fact that the earth is capable of withstanding any population we humans can produced. There are so many lands that aren't occupied yet. We don't need birth control because popular is a economy strength instead of weakness. Looking at countries that's doing well has a lot of contributions from the population they have. Other nations with similar population are beginning to understand the strengthen they have in population like India also improving in their economical strength. Some countries in Africa are also begining to understand the strength they have in their population and with time they'll be able to utilized the man power they have and become a strong economical power nation.


This is because they understood the power of population, China embraced their population and also technology advancement but other countries in the third world countries haven't embraced technological advancement like Nigeria that has the population but lack the technological advancement. The world is going digital and if your country isn't adopting technology it will be difficult for them to advance in the digital world. I don't see a reason why population will be a country weakness unless they're still leaving with the mindset of the stone age like most third world countries. If your countries get the technological equipment that the European countries have they'll be better than most countries that we think are world power because they will now have the national resources and the human power to utilize them.

If we lay our focus on population, we might forget the common issue that is been shared by either the underdeveloped or developed nations here.
It’s almost impossible to have a balanced population in a nation as, nations are sure to take either side but, what is shared in common between either side having economic challenges is, production.

This is where the problem lies as it is the sole thing that boosts the economy of a people and in turn, state.
When a nation isn’t overly producing what it uses or consumes, it becomes an issue to their economic growth as, they tend to do more of import than export.
A producing state or nation is a rich nation and with good governance, it’s easy to have the state thrive but, the reverse is often the case with most leaders having selfish interest in seeking generational wealth and as such, makes life difficult for citizens.

Over population can bring harm to a country and in some cases can play an important role for the development of that country. But what we need to emphasize is that the population of a country that is educated and work oriented who acquire technical skills will turn into wealth even if the population of the country is large. But if the population growth alone is not used in production or any other activity then the population growth of the country can have a fatal effect. In China, over population is encouraged. They have been able to transform their population into manpower. More population is considered as a tool for their development.

I do not know if you mean a specific country in your statement, but I would like to answer you in general that countries such as China and India are not included in your conclusion. The increase in population can represent a tremendous force if the state's policy is able to contain the expanding population. Here I mean the ability to provide jobs through adopting free market policies that allow for job creation and increased rates of economic growth.
The population explosion in China is no longer a problem after the authorities were able to contain the matter, so that human energy became the state’s capital.
I would like to remind you that countries that suffer from an inflation in population do not suffer at the same time from population aging and always have a young group capable of more production and achievement.

What is happening in those developed nations is that the native populations of the countries are decreasing, while they are importing labor force from foreigner countries, especially from third world countries from Asia and Africa. The Europe like we have known along the centuries and decades doesn't exist anymore. Nowadays globalization and miscegenation have taken place with total strength and it seems the whole world will be prettt default, without any different characteristics among the people from different regions, countries and continents. If it's good or bad will depend on the point of view of each of us. The question is if such changes are functional or disfunctional for the respective societies where changes are taking place.

That is the reality of what happened and the government failed to carry out its power function in the country, so that even though they have abundant natural products they are unable to make their people prosperous. This is also a form of government that has failed constitutionally and they do not have a good vision at all to help their people. Human resources must be formed and trained in such a way, this aims to enable them to process their own natural products and government encouragement is also an inseparable part because with support from the government the people can more easily access these resources.

It is not too late if the government has the desire to train human resources, because natural products will still be available for some countries that are rich in nature. In-depth study is needed regarding this issue because depending on external work will increasingly make people in their own country lose the opportunity to work.

As per the international laws and criteria, both China and India are categorized as developing countries and aren't developed countries, although China's growth rate is way higher and it is more developed as a nation than India and there is also a difference in unemployment and literacy rate between the two countries. If we talk about population or overpopulation, it actually does make a difference when it comes to developing a country and providing the best services and amenities to the citizens.

A country with a popular of 63 Million people will be easier to manage and develop than a country with a population of 1.4 Billion. I know that natural resources and the abilities of the authorities to produce wealth and increase the GDP of the country matter in this but the population does have its effects.

Population greatly influences a country's economy, with the increasing development of technology, developed and developing countries that have a population shortage do not need to worry about labor, they can ask for productive labor from other countries, and also use technology. Apart from the two above, developed and developing countries can also employ women to fill the shortage of slots in each employment sector.

The importance of population to a country is well understood in countries where the birth rate is falling and the number of working people is decreasing. Then those countries have to bring in skilled manpower from other developing countries to keep their country running. In the coming days, countries with high skilled youth population will be able to benefit more economically, as countries with low youth population will have no option but to hire skilled manpower from other countries.

Therefore, all countries will want to hire skilled people in the employment sector, as a result of which the skilled people of a country will make that country important to other countries in various ways. So the population of a country affects many things including the economy of that country.

This can be because of the environmental conditions in there. I have heard that someplace on the earth people don't have much desire for sexual activity. There can be other reasons as well like for the Japanese. The cost for marriage and raising kids is expensive due to their economic stagnation. Also they have a culture of working equality for men and women and for the baby care part, most of the burden goes to women only. So many women want to avoid marriage as they think there will be too much pressure on them.

The ultimate question is,  will globalization truly unit the world and making it becoming a global village?

This have been the most questions that are frequently asked in many quarter and this question of the impact of. The globalization on the economic development of all nations around the world to cooperate and operate as one continual point is what make Globalization most suit after a developmental tool they have helped the world cooperate and operate within the same framework

The desire for intimacy is gone because of their work ethics and that's affecting most people there and that's why they're seeing the problem to keep on rising if nothing has happened to solve it.

I don't know about that part that burden only goes to the women. Although we're living in a society, it's a shared responsibility for both married couples.

But I don't know about much of their culture in terms of being in a family and how it goes but with that problem that many of them don't want to raise a child is also alarming.

This is the beauty of having a steady growth of population, the government is able to send people abroad to work without worrying about the shortage of manpower.  The country is able to make a profit from these laborers through taxes.

The population needs to be literate in order to see them as a potential help. So country with a booming population should not neglect the literacy of its constituents.

On the one hand, it can really help the economy if the population has the potential to work and if the population cannot work, of course this becomes a burden for the government because they need to train their people to be able to work so that people's purchasing power increases. I think this can help the country's economic growth.

I think they will have to pay for more labor and it will definitely be high quality and expensive. I think those in developed countries don't have a lot of population but technologically or progress in many aspects of their country they are always superior even with that small population. So there's no harm in paying more for better quality than paying cheap for mediocre quality. it would even damage the salaries of industrial employees.

Population will not be a source of economic strength or weakness if employment increases there is a risk of population explosion due to the changed situation due to the global corona pandemic. Therefore reproductive health related programs in the country should be strengthened and innovative activities should be included in the ongoing programs. Population growth is closely related to poverty by limiting the country's population growth rate and increasing the education rate and employment opportunities along with poverty alleviation, the large working population of the country should be turned into a public resource and the salary of each employee should be increased in the field of industry.

A lot of criteria affect the success of a country seeing how countries like Japan, and  Korea are developed with their small population and countries like China are also developed with their overpopulation. I think it all boils down to the activities of the citizens and not whether they are large or small.

Any good leader would be able to influence people whether they're plenty or little. The education of the masses and the distribution of resources also matter a lot. There are underpopulated countries as well as overpopulated countries that have high poverty rates. Of course, such countries, don't need any additions as their resources are already limited. They just have to work on the people, their education, and their effective productivity.

People who want to add to the pop of little countries through marriage, immigration, and so on should be people who are ready to add value. And another thing about this population thing is that it's very possible to have overpopulation and the labor force is still small. Maybe most of the citizens are children or aged people.
What would one do in a situation like this? Obviously, you can't reduce the population and you also can't increase the population, cause resources are limited already.

So this comes down to the government using efficiently their human resources efficiently.

I like your point regarding the people who are getting married, migrating and etc to have a plan or know what the value they can add to the country for its betterment. Although it is true that the government holds a responsibility in this context, we cannot take away the fact that we, as the people of our country we also have to take responsibility of our actions and decisions that results to various effects to others. If we continuously be mindless and disregard the effects of our actions and decisions, like getting married and having children, then no matter how much effort, resources, and opportunities the government provides for us then most of it will be nothing.

Governance in the country is still quite problematic and errors in managing many things may be one of the factors causing poverty to still be rampant. The large population factor could be one of the causes because it is impossible for the state to be able to reach many people for welfare issues. This problem cannot be used as an excuse for leaders because this is guaranteed by law and leaders have an obligation to ensure that poor people have a decent life. Leaders must have a poverty alleviation program by providing employment opportunities and must also provide education that expecting assistance from the government forever will not get them out of trouble.

Poor people cannot be made spoiled by being given life support forever by the government because it will make them lazy to work, on the contrary, it is the government's job to provide access to decent work so that they want to work.

The government must provide education regularly and consistently, so that people have the skills and train human resources to be better prepared to face life. Expecting foreign workers will not make society itself more independent and on the contrary it will actually increase unemployment more and more.

Population can be an economic weakness or strength it all depends on how they put those number into good use or how those high number can become a liability to the country.

In a country which have a high number of population and the country happens to be industrious and their citizens are entrepreneurs and they focus mainly on developing their self and don’t depends on what the government is bringing to the table rather they even create job opportunities for them self and make life easier, in situations like that you will see that the population is not in any way causing any damage to the country economy but instead they are going to boast it with their little effort.

But in situations where the more than half of the population is over dependent on what the government will bring to the table and don’t deem it necessary to make an establishment for them self you will see that in such a case those number have turn out to be a liability to the country which will cause damage to the economy strength.

In Japanese culture women took on the most responsibility for raising their kids. And I think this fact is true for most of the nation as well though we saw in some countries that husband and wife share this responsibility. Also men don't have the care and patience mentality of women to properly raise a child. Japanese women work as much as men do so it's logical to think this burden can be heavy on them after working equally outside of home.

exactly you can only realize the benefit when you don't have something but if you possess all the things then you cannot realize its advantage same is the case with population that if a country's population is increasing then they consider it as unfavourable but if they don't have much population then they desire to have more people to work for brightening the future of a country.

In some countries where there are lots of people have no extra seats for job and unemployment increases therefore individuals from such countries go towards others countries to earn passive income to make their life.

I realized and have experience that a country will be powerful if it has consumate people with creative mind but its also true that if a country possess larger population but all of them are lazy then such larger population will have no significant for country.

The main problem in this developing nation is not education because many of them are educated. In fact, most of the people that are migrating to Europe and America are professionals. Many of them are health and IT professionals. One of the reasons why people are migrating is because of a lack of employment opportunities. Others are due to security issues and natural disasters. I have spoken to some of my countrymen who left for some developed nations and they informed me that life is not easy in these countries. Some professionals who leave our shores have to work as laborers to survive because they can't find good jobs. If the government creates better employment opportunities and improves the security of the country many people will prefer to remain in their homeland.

If a large part of the population of a country is lazy then this population will be the biggest concern for that country, that country will have to go through many problems with this population. But if the population of a country is skilled, then their population will emerge as a blessing for that country. Now those who want to go to developed countries with the expectation of a job, if they are skilled, then they do not have much problem in getting a work permit in that country.

So being skilled is very important nowadays, if you don't have the skills then you will have a lot of problems to get a job. Therefore, if the population of a country is skilled and talented, then that country gets a lot of acceptance globally. So countries that currently have high birth rates should make their population a strength by making them skilled.

The two biggest populated countries of the world are China and India. Both are doing good in terms of growth with China leading and India trying to catch up. Moreover there are also cases where country is less populated like Switzerland but still one of most developed country of the world. I think population is not relevant, as long as you have plan to execute in right direction no one can stop you from going up.

The population had good impact in some country like China,the goods of China was in all the countries.All of us know the exact reason for this,the china using their population for the productive purpose.Even though the country economy was based on the communist based,the government satisfy their people by the good economic benefits.The china was the powerful economy next to the United States was the remarkable one.The china total strength is their population,the government used it in correct manner.

This is what I am saying, a country that can make its population efficient, that population will become the wealth of that country. India is currently trying its best to utilize its population properly and they have been quite successful. To keep a country in balance, youth is needed for which the birth rate is an important factor, if the birth rate of a developed country continues to decrease regularly, then at some point the number of old people in that country will increase and the working youth will decrease. So population and birth rate are very important in determining the future of a country.

There are developed countries (like Germany and Japan) where birth rate is very low and government is trying to increase birth rate by giving incentives to families. Skilled labor from developing countries find such countries ideal place for immigration. Birth rate is a real issue specially in developing countries of south Asia and Africa. The government can only afford a certain level of population based on its available resources. 

Not many countries with such a large human population can catch up with what China has done. It takes advanced thinking from a leader to get their country out of the pressure of decline. China is trying to control and dominate the world economy through trade routes and the products they create and currently they almost control the Asian market. India is far behind compared to China, but they are slowly trying to implement a strategy like China, by offering products and industry to several Asian markets in particular.

Population is not very relevant which can prevent any country from getting out of economic problems, but a large population can also hinder the country's economic growth because a large population can make it difficult for the government to increase the source of income for the country. If the leader has a concept in managing the country then population size may not be very relevant which can affect the decline of the country.

A large population for some countries is a positive thing because a large population can be used as a subject for development, the economy will develop if the number of workers is large. A large population, if accompanied by adequate population quality, will be a driver for economic growth. On the other hand, a large population combined with low quality makes that population a burden on national development.

So in my opinion it doesn't have a significant negative impact on the economy in a country with a large population, it's just that the government needs to increase its quality human resources with quality education evenly and be able to master technology so that it can help the country to achieve development targets.

However, if it is mismanaged it will really make the situation worse. The large population and its high growth rate have consequences for the difficulty of finding work, high food prices, education and health costs and many social problems due to the large number of unemployed and so on.

A large population can also prevent a country's economy and development from developing quickly because it will be difficult to develop competence human resources, especially if the country is a poor country. The quality of a country's population will be seen from the education they receive and the jobs available. For poor countries, this is far from expected because the government's focus must be on building human resources first.

Whether the is negative or not depends on the leaders of a country, whether they are able to develop human resources or not, the availability of job opportunities can also be seen to what extent the government can develop. Poor countries definitely have far fewer human resources and it is difficult for them to develop skills because the education rate there is very small.

Governance depends on the vision and mission of the leaders we have. If a leader comes from ideas and concepts, perhaps this will be easy for them to develop, but if leaders are born from the opposite, it will be very difficult for them to develop human resources. Many other problems will arise if the population is too large and the country is classified as poor, even worse if the country does not have natural resources that can help the government in building human character, development and a sustainable economy.

Yes. It cannot be denied that if we compare the impact of a large population on a country's economy, ranging from unemployment, mismanagement, gaps in access to basic services and lack of sustainable development of natural resources, this is a complex problem that has positive and negative aspects of course.

Well, I think what is needed is independent efforts from the community in terms of creating new jobs, let's say self-employed activities and of course don't expect too much to get a job from the government. I think this mainshet must exist and get a helping hand from the government to encourage it so that there are young cadres who after graduating from school do not have to become civil servants in their country.

Yes, but Switzerland is not well suited for comparison with average states, because there were no any wars there, and there are very few such states in the world. Plus, Switzerland has been making money throughout history without knowing crises. The same applies, for example, to the state of Liechtenstein. In general, if the state has a large population, then this is good, the main thing is that the government is engaged in education, and then the country will have a lot of working hands ready to move the economy forward.

Your reasoning is partially correct, but it ignores the complexity of current population management. A huge population doesn't guarantee a strong workforce or economy. More people don't necessarily mean more progress. Human resource quality is key, and that's the issue. It takes competent, educated people to innovate and produce, not just bodies. Don't even mention socioeconomic inequities from a mismanaged large nation. The government must “increase” quality human resources and distribute them fairly across industries. The problem of managing technical advances in a vast population is another issue. It's not enough to master technology; you must integrate it into numerous industries without furthering inequality. Thus, while your excitement about a huge population is encouraging, you must examine its many obstacles

Countries like China are developed countries and the system is working over there I won't dispute the fact the population is productive and has been of serious use to the country, because of that same population other countries go to China to establish their business in China because labor is cheap so its a point of attraction to many. and even the population being a blessing in disguise also has its own disadvantage because even now the china government have laid down polices to control birth. With that population, the government's ability to provide housing and other services will be made more challenging. They even had land issues, so the only thing they could do in terms of agriculture and housing was to start going vertical.


While I don't believe that China's population is a burden, it still needs to be controlled. One thing that surprises me the most is that despite having such a large population, they are among the most powerful nations in the world. Their functionality is extremely impressive when compared to other nations' talk of technology, and they are even among the top nations in terms of health, and herbs.

The problem is so complex and cannot be solved properly by the government, in the end the people have to find their own way to solve this problem and I agree that there is a need for independent efforts by the community to get out of this problem. Waiting for the government to solve it will be hopeless because it is impossible for government to reach a large population, especially for some people who live far from urban areas where the economic cycle is quite slow.

In developed countries, civil servants are not a dream job because working for the government does not make them free to reach a level of financial maturity. Building your own business is much more promising than hoping to work in the government. This mainshhet must be developed so that people do not expect too much help from the government.

It's simple really, people need to start understanding that although the government holds a responsibility to govern and protect the country and its people, we have our own individual responsibilities as well. No matter how many projects, help, and assistance the government provides, if an individual refuse to help themselves and take an action then it will always result back to where they started--nothing.

That is if people are not lazy and are not completely dependent on assistance provided by the government. Human characters are definitely different and there are many people who expect help because the job market is getting more difficult and there are some because they are lazy about working because a lot of help has been given, which makes them even lazier. We often see the character of people who do not have education and are lazy about working and are more likely to expect help from other people although though not all of them have the same character.

But if we ourselves don't want to change our fate by finding solutions, then no matter how much assistance from the government we get, it will never make them live independently and in the end they will also be the ones who live in difficulty. In today's life, if we don't change our fate ourselves, then there is no chance for us to get out of the economic crush.

overpopulation if not properly managed can lead to so many negative effects on the development of a nation as a result of using the limited available resources for a population that is more than such resources. But in reality, I think if we had good leaders, overpopulation wouldn't even become a subject to be bothered about,

The problem is that we concentrate on the development of a small fraction of our country leaving other part behind and you now find a situation where everybody want to congest the developed part while the local areas have a very small population of people.

If we diversity our developmental strategies and site companies in areas that is less crowded, it would bring development to those part and bring more people in the long run thereby reducing the population of people in urban areas.

I think most of these supposed over populated nations are not all that populated but rather, they are just congested at a particular area.

China and India, which are currently the first and second largest countries, have grown to become world economic powers. In my opinion, population is an economic power because business opportunities certainly require a long process from production to consumption, countries that have large populations are certainly a very useful resource and important for the economy.

China's population can be misleading. China has over 1.4 billion in population but due to its huge area, it only has 390 population per square miles. Meanwhile, India has 1,130 population per square mile which is nearly three times as many compared to China.

Huge or low population density has its cons and pros. Lower population density countries are less likely to fast-track their resources but unemployment might not be a concern. Whereas huge population density countries if utilized well can quickly exploit resources and drive their economy bigger. Failure to do so can lead to unemployment, very cheap labor, and other issues that reflect a lower GDP per capita.

China vs India is not exactly an apple to apple comparison. Most of India's land is suitable for agriculture, but in China that is not the case. More than half of the surface area is in the provinces of Xinjiang and Xizang, where the conditions are very arid and not suitable for agriculture. Provinces such as Qinghai, Inner Mongolia and Gansu also have similar climatic conditions. On the other hand, only around 10% of India is arid.

It feels like the institution, religious stance and general culture of a country can make a huge difference compared to population. Take for example certain countries that might take the religious viewpoint of everything being a byproduct of "God's will", which is basically an excuse and a cop out for lazy behavior or not questioning different alternatives to a failed action. Science is a leading force that drives forward a lot of innovation, but at times it can be in conflict with certain religious interpretations and stunt growth in such societies. Without science we would not have many of the medical marvels we see today, or things like GPS systems in space which satnav's rely on or even the internet which makes communication so much easier.

Your insights about human nature, work ethic, and government support raise a shared social and economic policy issue, no? Assistance vs self-initiative is a tricky balance. Is it appropriate to call someone “lazy” or blame their dependence on aid on a lack of willpower?

Automation, globalization, and other macroeconomic forces influence the employment market in the modern economy, therefore it is not a reflection of human will or character. Numerous, often hidden hurdles skew opportunities, education, and social mobility in this complicated system

When discussing independence and economic stability, shouldn't we also explore how we can remove these barriers as a society to ensure that support empowers and empowers? Not simply how much support is given, but how it's designed to uplift those who get it, right?

It is true that sometimes abundant human resources due to a large population in a country sometimes have a positive impact on a country's economy. Especially if the country is led by a government that is able to manage state finances and the country's natural resources well. Because economic problems actually more often arise as a result of governance that is wrong and not in accordance with what it should be.

Some of the positive things about a large population in a country are

✓ Abundance of Labor (Abundant human resources)
✓ Potential consumers. (There will be no shortage of consumers)
✓ Will trigger more diversity of innovation and creativity.
✓ Abundant human resources will also strengthen military strength because more people will enter the military field.
✓ And others.

The larger the population, the more complex the characteristics and traits of the society become. This, of course, presents a unique challenge for governments aiming to serve as a central authority for a cohesive citizenry. If a government fails to earn the respect and trust of its people, poverty rates are likely to remain high as a consequence.

China serves as a successful example of implementing a strong work ethic, and India seems to be progressing toward emulating what China has achieved. However, it's important to recognize that neither of these countries has been entirely successful in providing for all their citizens. Both nations still have significant pockets of severe poverty, so perfection cannot be claimed. Nevertheless, China and India serve as good examples for governing countries with high populations.

You are right. Because high poverty rates are still more common in countries that have high population levels. In essence, all countries have their own problems, whether they are countries that have the highest population levels or countries that have very small populations.

Even in Japan, where the rate of population increase is very low, it actually also has a poverty problem. It's just that it's not as much as in developing countries. There is an area in Japan that is inhabited by people who are not financially good. Many even sleep on the streets.
In fact, many Japanese people don't want to get married and have children because they are too worried about the economy. So a baby recession occurs there.

Population is inversely proportional to economic strength and literally rate is also depend on economic strength . American countries are economic strong and this strength is because of sexual knowledge.In European countries , people are highly  educated is this perspective and they know how to control our expenses . In these countries , live in relationship system is common and they enjoy their life without signing in paper after which male an female engage for the whole in Muslims.In Eastern Muslims ,this trend is common and they say that we are husband and wife after signing on this paper and we will live and die together.And in Muslim society , Women can't say no to sex after marriage .That's what there is more poverty in Eastern countries as comparison to Western countries.People should aware of sexual knowledge if any country want to be developed.

With the large population of these two countries, the economic chain will continue to run because everyone definitely needs the food they buy every day, so that food and clothing makers will continue to run more stably. Because each of them also has to work in order to earn money for their own needs, so the large number of people living in these two countries will certainly make the country's economic turnover continue to increase quite well. And it will also be easier for anyone to take advantage of jobs that can make more money.

In my view, this isn't about monetizing a large population's capacity to purchase items, but rather, it's about the mindset of the population. A smaller population with a strong human resource base can make a more significant and positive contribution compared to a larger population with lower human resource quality. We can actually discuss the productivity of the population more than their consumption patterns.

Let's reconsider the idea of monetizing the domestic population to buy goods or exporting products to bring money into the country. Upon closer examination, it's better to be a producer rather than focusing on being a consumer. In doing so, the national income will rise, and the welfare of the society will improve.

This situation has another option that can be considered - a population that is growing with migrants.
This problem, as it seems to me, is more complicated. And its essence is that, as the practice of the EU, which decided to play the game of "tolerance and loyalty", shows, most of these migrants are not productive and not useful to the economy. Most of them just receive benefits and do not produce anything.
And benefits do not come out of thin air, they are all TAXES of the local population. In fact, they support thousands and hundreds of thousands of migrants at their own expense. And this means that either the social and economic motivation of the local population decreases, or the tax pressure on the working part of the population increases, which is also negative. And if you look at some EU countries, migrants already make up a HUGE share of the population there, which means that the trends will only worsen. It seems to me that such countries should introduce legislation protecting the local population and remove ultra-loyal conditions for accepting migrants. For example, they are given 3-6 months to learn the laws and basic knowledge of the state language. Adult family members should be officially employed in jobs offered by social services. Children are obliged to attend public kindergartens/schools in compliance with local laws and regulations. Conditions are not met - glad to have met you, goodbye, and permanently banned from entering the country/EC.....
Otherwise the EU will soon burst from social burden, justified claims of the local population, social explosions and riots

Large countries with the largest human population even though they have been strong in all respects but poverty will never disappear but this figure is not large when the central government is able to carry out well as its duties but the country will be considered strong in the eyes of the world if they succeed in developing.

China is undoubtedly capable of producing goods for export to the whole world so because of the many human resources, they are able to produce a good economy from strong hard work and are able to supply any goods to any country including my own country now many goods are imported from China.
I said about poverty will never disappear, every country must have it, it's just that maybe the numbers are small and not comparable to what they achieve from the results of all the people who are their resources.

The two countries were indeed well populated, but reducing the number of children being born is not the perfect solution to an economic development strategies, we need to plan ahead towards what we have and create enough capacity that cam accommodate everyone into participating in one or two economical activities that will lead to their sustainability, a good example is China, they are well populated and still yet one of the developed countries in the world.

The population of a country is not always a headache for a state rather it will give huge benefits. let's take the example of China, it's the most populated country in the world but still, its economy is stable not only stable but is in competition with the superpowers. The more the population the more will be the economic strength. This shows that population does not negatively affect a country's poverty. This population is not only beneficial for itself but for other country also like the developed country need labor from the developing country and in return these overpopulated or simply developing country needs technologies and much more if the developing country reduces the population then it consequences on the developed countries will be bad and they need to find another way like making robots, offering for the immigrants, increase the productivity of their workers. This will not increase their productivity but at the same time will create a headache like the immigrants create political and social issues, robots lead to job loss of humans and increasing productivity of their workers need huge investment in their training. So it is necessary to settle the things between these two classes developing and developed if they reduce the population it will create tension for them as well as for the developed one also.

What you've said is right, but in reality this isn't possible beyond certain limit. For that purpose limiting the population is the only choice. Right now India have got the highest number of young population, but the government isn't good enough to support or provide opportunities. When this is the reality better choice is to limit the population. China had been doing it for a long, the young population have got reduced and now it can't give the support to every person and for this reason they've come with different population control plans which is really good and India will soon follow it.

massive population is good for macroeconomic if taken advantage properly but hell for the citizens themselve, the abundance of laber like have been mentioned gonna results in lower salary, because there are many replacement for you in your jobs the company doesn't even need to sweat to find the workforce replacement.
such thing can only be prevented by having so many jobs like having good infrastructure to produce overseas goods from foreign countries, otherwise if there are job sufficient jobs for the population it will increase poverty and criminality.
certainly in my opinion it could be a double edged sword depends on the government to content against the challenge, whether they can successfully find some workaround or instead, make things worse.

The abundance of human resources or workers sometimes causes companies in a country to set salaries that are not too high or lower. Even though the government has set a minimum salary for a company for its employees. But it turns out that there are still many large companies that actually pay their employees quite low, below the minimum salary standard in that country. And the workers can't do anything. They cannot demand a salary increase. Because if they do, they will be expelled and replaced by other people who are already queuing to work at the company.

The problem of population and economic power is indeed a topic that looks easy, but this is a topic that is more difficult than it seems. Because the situation and conditions are different in every country in the world. Even in the Arabian plains, several countries with high population growth are still able to maintain their economies quite well and stable. But other countries that are still in the Arabian plains and have high population growth apparently have quite difficult economic problems. So I think the problem is not about how the population grows. But what about the way the government works? And this is actually also influenced by how honest a government is in managing the country.

The thing is, manpower is useless without fostering. That's why we have countries with overly-high population counts but when you look at them economically you'd realize that they are underdeveloped. People will work if they are taught how to work, and are given the opportunity to work without having to worry about anything else. Iceland is a good example of a country where the population is in complete harmony with the level of expertise that the people have, that's why they are one of the most economically-advanced country on the planet as we speak.

Population isn't the solution or the problem, with right care and fostering it could be the stepping stone to find the solution that we're looking for economically. Let it rot by itself and it will be your country's downfall.

A country's population and its resources should be balanced. Population size becomes a problem when these two cannot complement each other. A country with little resources and millions of people depending on that small resource will have issues. They'll have to struggle to meet up. This has nothing to do with the  leadership of the country. Public infrastructures will be affected because lots of people are depending on it, unemployment and underemployment, low standard of living, high cost of living and even pollution. The government is left with an option of controlling the population and of course diversify the economy to accept the massive population.


Being underpopulated too is not a blessing either. The country will still suffer especially in terms of manpower and national security.  The country will be too vulnerable to their enemies. An underpopulated country need immigrants to fill up the gap.

In all,  while population might be a blessing to a particular country,  it could also be a problem to another country.

Rightly said population is of immense importance for the economic development of a country. Skilled manpower in particular is an essential component of the country's economic development. A country is rich in natural resources but cannot use the accumulated resources due to lack of sufficient population. More people in a country can lead to a larger workforce and easier access to labor and population the country needs to develop. More labor will result in more goods being produced which will lead to economic growth population growth leads to an expansion of labor and goods that grow the economy.

Population is a blessing if there are more young people who can work and develop the economy. Population is a curse if the ratio of older people to younger people are high and of curse they cannot do any work thereby leaving the economy unproductive and undeveloped. For example China with its large population at some point had more older people than younger people who could work with their one child policy. After they looked at it and saw that it is unfavorable to have more older people than younger people they had to stop the one baby policy but still I've read that younger people are not interested in having babies anymore so this is a problem for an economy. Soon there would be more aged people who cannot work and the economy will grind to a stand still unless they get robots to help them  out.

I also think population is actually strength for a country. Although I disagree with the person you quoted because China and India don't compare.  China is ahead of India in almost all sectors starting from technology.  And I think the reason for this is that the population is considered weak and people's skills are not being developed.
So I want to say that population is the source of strength for those countries or nations who are not lazy who are always working and hard work is the source of population strength for those nations. If we look at India from this point of view, a large part of the population of India is still below the poverty line because they are not as skilled as other nations because they are lazy in terms of technical work.

Population has always been the strenght of economies except the people in power do not know how to utilise it. Even in battles, number speaks louder than strategy.

The economic strength of any nation or people is solely intertwined with their population, both in business and other areas of life. They can achieve more and produce more when they are more. Imagine producing a product to be bought by 1.4 billion people, even if the product is sold for $1 per unit, it simply means the economy just attracted $1.4bn on just one product, and that is a plus for the economy of that nation.

China is an example of a country that planned ahead for its population growth. They’ve got a strong economy simply cause they manufacture and export more than they import. Being trade partners with lots of countries, there is no shortage in demand for these goods.
There are lots of examples of countries having a considerable high population but poor economy with a low standard of living for most of its citizens. The more the population, the more the economic strength is wishful thinking as a growth in population in a country would overwhelm any government that fails to envisage and plan for the population growth.

as long as you can utilize the excess population, this can be used as a force to develop a country's economy, but it is not easy to coordinate the excess number of human resources, because if it is wrong, it will only result in an increase in the number of poverty rates, therefore infrastructure, Natural resources, human resources and other supporting facilities are the strength to create a country with a strong economy

It is possible that two things will happen if an area has a large population, it could also have a bad impact. This will really depend on the human resources in that place, because if the population in an area is dense and on average does not have enough income to meet their needs, of course this will being a very bad thing poverty will make everything more difficult. Yes, you are right, to be able to make a country's economy strong, it is really necessary for people to have productivity so that people have income to be able to meet their needs.

It can be correct, or it can be incorrect. At the very least, the illustration goes like this.
https://www.talkimg.com/images/2023/10/24/Tti2j.jpeg
A large population can indeed contribute to a nation's progress, but there are other critical parameters to consider, namely the quality of its citizens. We reference the prevailing mindset of the populace. If the population can be productive through effective and efficient work methods, this, of course, will have a favorable impact on all aspects of the nation. The role of education is pivotal here; when educational institutions provide high-quality knowledge to children, the nation is more likely to harness the advantages of its large population.

Conversely, if a substantial portion of the population consists of closed-minded individuals with below-average intelligence, any claims of that nation's success can be perceived as mere illusions.

As for marketing, remember that people don't exclusively reside within our borders. There are 8 billion people on this planet who can be potential targets if you genuinely want to sell something. In other words, savvy individuals can market their products through exports and need not fixate solely on their domestic market, even if the population is small.

Are you all envious of Singapore with its mere 5 million inhabitants? It's a far cry from India with its staggering 1.4 billion.

Excess human resources can have a positive or negative impact depending on how the processing of human resources can be balanced or not with the number of opportunities or the number of job opportunities provided. If the number of job opportunities is very minimal and is far from the abundance of human resources, this will clearly cause unemployment to increase rapidly. So it is not surprising that many workers are even willing to go to other countries to work because of the lack of job vacancies in their own country.

And the solution for countries that have excess worker resources is that they must be given the opportunity to work abroad. by way of government working together with countries that need workers. Because some developed countries sometimes lack workers and have to bring in workers from several developing countries. And yes, this can provide benefits to all parties. And this method has been widely used nowadays.

If a country has a larger population it depends on how the country makes use of it, some countries have large population resources and try to manage them well. If they are managed resources then the economy will have a balance, and this will only happen in countries where their system is working because some countries that have a large population find it very difficult to pay salaries even to care for their citizens becomes more difficult.  I noticed that the majority of these countries that have high population have a way of suffering from poverty like places like Nigeria and India etc. and the way the world is coming when everything is turning technological they only need very few people to work in companies the only thing I can suggest to other countries is for them to re-track back to farming agriculture, at least this could be one of the measures to utilize population and they don't take population as a concern now when it gets out of hand then it will become more difficult to handle.

Being a resident of India, I need to say that ours is a very large and diverse country. Population growth rate is not the same in all the regions. The TFR (children born per woman) ranges from 1.1 in Sikkim to 4.0 in Bihar. The state with maximum population growth (Bihar) is the state with lowest HDI. On the other hand, states with sub-replacement fertility such as Sikkim, Goa, Kerala, Himachal, Uttarakhand, TN, Punjab and Andhra do have much higher HDI. That said, a lot of migration occurs from the states with high population growth towards states with higher HDI.

In my opinion economy is strength and weakness both. Look if a nation has use amount of money. That is strength for the nation because the nation can buy anything for his public and country. Money help the nation to stay strong and full feel every demand of the public of a nation. Beside you can see those countries don't have enough amount of money they can feel they demand of their country and they leave under the property level. People of this country don't get enough food for leaving. They didn't feel there demand easily they have to suffer a lot because of economical problem of his country.

Beside if a person have huge amount of money he can do anything you want. He don't have any kind of problem he can do work as he want there is no problem of food living etc. On the other hand you can see those people who live under the provety line they can full fill their demand this suffer from food crisis and many kind of problem.

The population is a valuable resource. However, as with any resource, how you use and manage it matters greatly. Largely populated nations have full with possibilities. huge possibility. However, they must control and harness it. We witness the consequences if they don't. Take a peek at India and Nigeria

Technology, it's the future. It's a challenge, though. AI reduces the need for workers. reduced employment in a world where population growth is exponential. That is an issue. a massive issue. But you know the answer, my friend. You have it. Farming and cultivation. Although it's old, it's gold. It's a means of using the populace, providing jobs, and boosting productivity. Nations must witness this. They must be aware of this. And they must take action. Take immediate action. Because it will be too late if they wait to act otherwise. It is too late to rescue their people and their economies. Thus, let us return to our agricultural roots and rebuild the strength of our countries

Completely agree, whether a country's population is a boon or a bane depends on the country. It depends on the leaders and their policymakers whether the demographic dividend, or overall population, is useful or wasteful. China, to control population growth, implemented a one-child policy between 1979 and 2015, a period of nearly 35 years. But they later realize that the number of young people in China is drastically reduced, and later, after 2016, they drop the one-child policy. Population is a strength for a nation when it's controlled and the government uses its potential, but it's a curse when there's rapid population growth and it's a burden to the economy.

In the end, the best level of population depends on a country's economy and its ability to provide them with great services while at the same time good employment with standard compensations.

At the moment, the top 3 most densely populated countries are Monaco, Singapore, and Bahrain. These 3 countries are also very rich. Based on the IMF records of GDP (PPP) per capita, Singapore is 3rd, Monaco is 4th and Bahrain is 24th. But as we also noticed, these countries are just very small, especially Monaco and Singapore which looked like metro cities.

Bigger countries with a huge population density however are mostly developing and poor. Here in my country, millions are forced to seek jobs overseas due to the lack of opportunities and lower compensation.

It will depends on the country's resources that large population act as a curse or blessing but we should remember that we cannot minimize population but we can enhance resources for them. There is a solution for every problem so we should investigate about betterment that how we should enhance the quality production of our products.
If population are reduces then the number of young people will reduces which play a vital role by participating in our army and help in the elimination of criminal activities from country.

Population cannot be controlled and is not in the hand of government but they should realize their duty to provide a good job to each individual so if they have job they will work for country otherwise they will act as a burden instead of giving benefits to its country. Population should have firm believe that whenever country needs them they will be there because if large population cannot give advantages to a country then I think there will be no love in their heart for their countries.

In the war against Ukraine, Putin’s Russia wins individual battles only due to numerical superiority. Storming the small town of Bakhmut for nine months, the Russians lost about ten times more of their troops than the Ukrainians, but still captured it. Now they are trying to do the same with another settlement, Avdeevka, while suffering colossal losses in manpower and equipment.

At the same time, the Russian command understands perfectly well that regular, already poorly trained, reinforcements will survive until the second battle at most. Therefore, minimal attention is paid to medical and food supplies, as well as to the equipment of soldiers. Ukrainian drones sometimes record how Russians finish off their wounded on the battlefield and take away their weapons and even clothes. According to intercepted conversations, Russians complain that they have nothing to eat in the trenches and are forced to eat mice and rats, which are abundant in the fields in the fall.
If, for various reasons, soldiers refuse to go into senseless “meat” attacks, that is, without the support of armored vehicles and artillery, or leave their positions and retreat, they are simply killed by their own or barrage detachments.
Therefore, a large population in the hands of a dictator is strength and advantage.

https://nv.ua/amp/perehvaty-rossiyskih-voennyh-komandovanie-rasstrelivaet-dezertirov-zapisi-razgovorov-50369275.html

A well educated country with sizeable population would have a high purchasing power consequently the economy of that country would improve, China with their huge population had well utilized it, they have a large strength of military personnel which is a very big advantage, in technology many of their youths are trained to build and assembled electronic, electrical gadgets and other equipment and so on, though the country has put on policy to control their population yet the existing policies is developing the country, however countries where there is overpopulation especially in some African countries unfortunately hadn't utilize that opportunity due to high level of corruption by their rulers.

I agree with this, indeed it all depends on the governance of the government. Even though the population is stable, if the governance is not good it will cause problems for the economy, for example if there is a lot of corruption in the country, and so on.
It will definitely cause problems for the economy itself.
So in my opinion it depends on how the government can handle this related matter.

Sizeable population doesn't mean higher purchasing power for example India is the most populous country in the world and despite that Japan, with just Eight percent of that population of India is having a higher purchasing power. It depends on a lot of things other than population such as education, skillset and market condition. In some cases having a larger population can be a disadvantage. This can be true if the population is mostly uneducated and dependent on government subsidies and freebies also if the population is divided based on caste and quantity, because the government has given priority to those group, which has a larger quantity and there the priority may not be for economic development