Overpopulation of a developing country is one of its major problem

[Ahmd2020]

Yes, it causes a problem for these countries, if the policy of these countries is not desirable by the people and there is a lot of corruption in them

[Luqueasaur]

There seems to be an ongoing misconception between what is, in practical terms, actual overpopulation and what is more aptly dubbed overabundance. If we're talking about a situation where there are far more people than an environment/the physical space can satisfactorily sustain, cases in point Hong Kong/Singapore/megalopolises, it certainly can be framed as overpopulation, which isn't the case for countries with low GDP & life quality conditions and a lot of inhabitants.

An important step for fast & efficient development is a demographic window. That essentially means a country will have a lot of young people, and therefore a prominent workforce, capable of providing for the "dependents" (children and elderly). Assuming 2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain stable population levels, to achieve the demographic window a nation would require some good 3 - 4 children per woman which is the case, as of now, in Africa. (Also, many of you

Also, in regards to poor people having a lot of children,

Coale's Three Preconditions for Decline in Fertility comes from the saying, “ready, willing and able”. Societal changes may induce fertility declines, but they will do so only if three preconditions are met: ready, willing and able. A person and the population must have a reason to want to limit fertility. If people have economic and social opportunities that make it advantageous to limit fertility they will be more willing to limit it. There must be economic and psychosocial costs involved such as the cost of birth control or abortions.

It is hypothesized that the observed trend in many countries of having fewer children has come about as a response to increased life expectancy, reduced childhood mortality, improved female literacy and independence, and urbanization that all result from increased GDP per capita, consistent with the demographic transition model. The increase in GDP in Eastern Europe after 1990 has been correlated with childbearing postponement and a sharp decline in fertility.

In advanced countries where birth control is the norm, increased income is likewise associated with decreased fertility. Theories behind this include:

• People earning more have a higher opportunity cost if they focus on childbirth and parenting rather than their continued career
• Women who can economically sustain themselves have less incentive to become married.
• Higher-income parents value quality over quantity and so spend their resources on fewer children.

Missing that demographic window has some costs, and so does inorganically (and carelessly) decreasing fertility rates.

My argument here isn't advocating poor people having a lot of children, as such behaviour does have perverse effects (birth mortality & criminality rates & overpopulation in urban areas & some others) but instead that overabundance of people isn't a burden to development (in fact, as I pointed, it's the opposite of that). An underdeveloped country with stable population (for instance, Brazil) will still have terrible life conditions due to its underdevelopment, and said underdevelopment is produced by a multitude of factors, especially those related to productive capacity & institutional strength. Those two things are strongly tied to long-term goals or, as we Brazilians call, a "nation project", a set of cross-generational development projects, which is often the opposite on what happens in underdeveloped/developing countries (where populist, short term measures to alleviate the immediate misery are the norm).

Lastly - and that may trigger a lot of people, but it's undeniable - historical inheritance is another heavy factor for underdevelopment. The constant meddling of world powers (the three largest culprits are always US/UK/USSR) in internal affairs has delayed a political interest in developing a "nation project" in several, SEVERAL countries.

[BADecker]

^^^ But all people should have more children... not only poor people. Outside of not eating the fruit, more population was the next command that God gave Adam and Eve. He also gave the command to Noah and his family after the flood.

Yipee. I can go out and have lots more kids, just to obey God. What fun!

[Subbir]

Yes, it causes a problem for these countries, if the policy of these countries is not desirable by the people and there is a lot of corruption in them

You are right in saying that the views of every one of our countries are different and that they don't suit the policies of the govt at present corruption may be a common incontrovertible fact that thanks to this corruption everyone in society is bereft of various privileges. Corruption is one of the foremost obstacles to being a developing country.

[NoobRichard]

Well, I believe the population won't be a problem anymore if they are being useful for the society by doing something meaningful using their skills and talents. The problem is there are lot of people who do nothing for the country rather wasting its resources without giving anything back to the society and to the country itself.

[Negotiation]

I agree with you but if the government takes adequate measures to prevent the population without corruption it is possible to prevent the population. Most people in our country are illiterate. Due to the lack of adequate education they have no idea about the birth control system It will not be a hindrance to the development of education by educating them.

[KingScorpio]

  If the available resources can be fair shared amongst available inhabitants this would greatly spore a happy community, state, and even nation.
 The birth of a child, the first cry of a baby, a new life should most likely bring joy and happiness but no being able to take care of the child because of low income and resources can become a night mare and very frustrating. This is a circumstance experienced by developing countries.
With few economical developments going on the level of over population in developing countries is worrisome not only to the country but to the world at large, we get to see on a daily occurrence immigrant try to legally or illegally get into a country with more prospect than theirs. Some get them self killed and to those that manages to get in "any thing to survive" becomes there watch word which can increase crime rate.

     Why are developing countries getting over populated
Developing countries are getting over population via so many reasons like

Poor education~ developing countries are struggling with poor educational system, they lack adequate family planning orientation, a family who feeds on below1$ a day can get over 8-12 kids and they see it as a blessing

Early marriage~ this is also an urgent issue that should be tackled you girls as young as 9 get pushed into marriage and start as a very early stage to give birth and when the hit menopause they must have given birth to over a dozen of kids.

Sexual crimes~ sexual offense like rape, taking advantage of the poor for sex, child trafficking, sex trafficking can cause a rise in unwanted pregnancy and over population grows.


Overpopulation is dangerous for developing countries and the government has it as a priority to educate the people on this and also look into the issue.

 

#
if european colonialism would today still exist those people would have found homes all over the world, instead of getting rasterised and imprisioned by nationalists

[big_hercules]

This is all bad (about the negative points). This all happens while in many developed countries families often either have 1 child or not at all. Now it is inconspicuous, but imagine what will happen in 50 years. The population is going down a lot. Therefore it is not necessary to go to extremes. The problem is not overpopulation, but how it is organized. But I agree that on one territory there should be such a number of people who will be comfortable. There should be so much land that every person can be full when some kind of agro culture is grown on these lands

[Subbir]

This is all bad (about the negative points). This all happens while in many developed countries families often either have 1 child or not at all. Now it is inconspicuous, but imagine what will happen in 50 years. The population is going down a lot. Therefore it is not necessary to go to extremes. The problem is not overpopulation, but how it is organized. But I agree that on one territory there should be such a number of people who will be comfortable. There should be so much land that every person can be full when some kind of agro culture is grown on these lands

Yes if there's enough land  people can cultivate many crops by cultivating  Because the population is increasing at the speed of food production isn't increasing. People consider the population because the biggest problem which may be a major obstacle for developing countries when the population is above required that's why we all got to increase the quantity of cultivable land.

[KingScorpio]

There is no over population. There is lots of under population. Government needs lots of people to get ahead in life. People make government happen, because it's people - not machines or AI - that get things done. Does government want to go to the moon? People will do it. Does Government want to solve the energy crisis? People will do it. The only thing that government has to do is find the right incentive for the people. When they do, the people will bend over backwards to do the government's bidding. Ecclesiastes 5:9:

The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.

If the king/government wants more "stuff," they need more people to make it for them. GROW THE POPULATION! INCENTIVE!

population isn't actually the big problem, considering how big and ressourceful the world is, afrika, sahara, russia the americas are still extremely thin populated, but people from there still migrate to dense populated europe?

why?
because of better organisation of life.

overpopulation is a labour chance, the problem however is, not enough people want to be working class, everyone wants to be a banker or a capitalist.

[BADecker]

There is no over population. There is lots of under population. Government needs lots of people to get ahead in life. People make government happen, because it's people - not machines or AI - that get things done. Does government want to go to the moon? People will do it. Does Government want to solve the energy crisis? People will do it. The only thing that government has to do is find the right incentive for the people. When they do, the people will bend over backwards to do the government's bidding. Ecclesiastes 5:9:

The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.

If the king/government wants more "stuff," they need more people to make it for them. GROW THE POPULATION! INCENTIVE!

population isn't actually the big problem, considering how big and ressourceful the world is, afrika, sahara, russia the americas are still extremely thin populated, but people from there still migrate to dense populated europe?

why?
because of better organisation of life.

overpopulation is a labour chance, the problem however is, not enough people want to be working class, everyone wants to be a banker or a capitalist.

If people won't work, let them starve. That would be population reduction for those who want it.

Often minorities in America protest against government to give them MORE. Help them wak up by sending them to real 3rd world countries.

Better oranisation of life has to do with libertarian freedom - do unto others... - which is really less government.

[KingScorpio]

There is no over population. There is lots of under population. Government needs lots of people to get ahead in life. People make government happen, because it's people - not machines or AI - that get things done. Does government want to go to the moon? People will do it. Does Government want to solve the energy crisis? People will do it. The only thing that government has to do is find the right incentive for the people. When they do, the people will bend over backwards to do the government's bidding. Ecclesiastes 5:9:

The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.

If the king/government wants more "stuff," they need more people to make it for them. GROW THE POPULATION! INCENTIVE!

population isn't actually the big problem, considering how big and ressourceful the world is, afrika, sahara, russia the americas are still extremely thin populated, but people from there still migrate to dense populated europe?

why?
because of better organisation of life.

overpopulation is a labour chance, the problem however is, not enough people want to be working class, everyone wants to be a banker or a capitalist.

If people won't work, let them starve. That would be population reduction for those who want it.

Often minorities in America protest against government to give them MORE. Help them wak up by sending them to real 3rd world countries.

Better oranisation of life has to do with libertarian freedom - do unto others... - which is really less government.

exactly however massive industrial productivity makes it possible to do socialism in limited ways's societies then thrive because people don't have to be constantly afraid of their social security people become relaxed and easygoing, and have time to orient themselves.

however radical capitalism removes the neverending mental destruction of people abusing a nation's welfare system.

[Negotiation]

This is all bad (about the negative points). This all happens while in many developed countries families often either have 1 child or not at all. Now it is inconspicuous, but imagine what will happen in 50 years. The population is going down a lot. Therefore it is not necessary to go to extremes. The problem is not overpopulation, but how it is organized. But I agree that on one territory there should be such a number of people who will be comfortable. There should be so much land that every person can be full when some kind of agro culture is grown on these lands

Yes if there's enough land  people can cultivate many crops by cultivating  Because the population is increasing at the speed of food production isn't increasing. People consider the population because the biggest problem which may be a major obstacle for developing countries when the population is above required that's why we all got to increase the quantity of cultivable land.

You are right but it will not only increase the amount of arable land but also control the population If the population is reduced then the amount of cultivable land will increase Due to the housing crisis, the amount of cultivable land is decreasing. In that case if the population is controlled the amount of cultivable land will increase.

[BADecker]

There is no over population. There is lots of under population. Government needs lots of people to get ahead in life. People make government happen, because it's people - not machines or AI - that get things done. Does government want to go to the moon? People will do it. Does Government want to solve the energy crisis? People will do it. The only thing that government has to do is find the right incentive for the people. When they do, the people will bend over backwards to do the government's bidding. Ecclesiastes 5:9:

The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields.

If the king/government wants more "stuff," they need more people to make it for them. GROW THE POPULATION! INCENTIVE!

population isn't actually the big problem, considering how big and ressourceful the world is, afrika, sahara, russia the americas are still extremely thin populated, but people from there still migrate to dense populated europe?

why?
because of better organisation of life.

overpopulation is a labour chance, the problem however is, not enough people want to be working class, everyone wants to be a banker or a capitalist.

If people won't work, let them starve. That would be population reduction for those who want it.

Often minorities in America protest against government to give them MORE. Help them wak up by sending them to real 3rd world countries.

Better oranisation of life has to do with libertarian freedom - do unto others... - which is really less government.

exactly however massive industrial productivity makes it possible to do socialism in limited ways's societies then thrive because people don't have to be constantly afraid of their social security people become relaxed and easygoing, and have time to orient themselves.

however radical capitalism removes the neverending mental destruction of people abusing a nation's welfare system.

Socialism is what families are all about. When you are enjoined to the socialism of big business or a country, you are considered part of their family. The great thing is, big business and government families always allow a man or woman to get out if they want. They essentially have no choice. Think of all the people who saw the NAZI dangers in Germany before WW2, and moved out. Those who wound up in concentration camps, moved out when they died.

[BADecker]

This is all bad (about the negative points). This all happens while in many developed countries families often either have 1 child or not at all. Now it is inconspicuous, but imagine what will happen in 50 years. The population is going down a lot. Therefore it is not necessary to go to extremes. The problem is not overpopulation, but how it is organized. But I agree that on one territory there should be such a number of people who will be comfortable. There should be so much land that every person can be full when some kind of agro culture is grown on these lands

Yes if there's enough land  people can cultivate many crops by cultivating  Because the population is increasing at the speed of food production isn't increasing. People consider the population because the biggest problem which may be a major obstacle for developing countries when the population is above required that's why we all got to increase the quantity of cultivable land.

You are right but it will not only increase the amount of arable land but also control the population If the population is reduced then the amount of cultivable land will increase Due to the housing crisis, the amount of cultivable land is decreasing. In that case if the population is controlled the amount of cultivable land will increase.

Even Bangladesh, probably the country that has more population per square mile than any other, is surviving and expanding. Properly organized, the population of the country is its wealth. The more population the better.

Are there any countries of the world that don't exist any longer? Look at history. Search on "Tartary." This is a nation that existed to some extent as recent as the early 1900s. It was bigger than most nations, and covered most of Siberia and Northern Europe into Northern Canada. Why are they gone (they aren't really gone)? Because they didn't have enough population for the land they were trying to hold.

[KingScorpio]

as soon as people in a society don't have to work,

then work makes fun for quite a huge portion in the society.

in societies in which people have to work, work is often considered horrible.

[Coolman4]

     Why are developing countries getting over populated
Developing countries are getting over population via so many reasons like

Poor education~ developing countries are struggling with poor educational system, they lack adequate family planning orientation, a family who feeds on below1$ a day can get over 8-12 kids and they see it as a blessing

Early marriage~ this is also an urgent issue that should be tackled you girls as young as 9 get pushed into marriage and start as a very early stage to give birth and when the hit menopause they must have given birth to over a dozen of kids.

Sexual crimes~ sexual offense like rape, taking advantage of the poor for sex, child trafficking, sex trafficking can cause a rise in unwanted pregnancy and over population grows.


Overpopulation is dangerous for developing countries and the government has it as a priority to educate the people on this and also look into the issue.

 

Overpopulation is dangerous government should have policy for this , such that is maintains in normal way and every age people are equally be declining population is also bad and population whit over aged people like in china now is also bad , government should make rules so that it maintains steadily

[Subbir]

You have rightly said that if the govt has taken steps to regulate the population then it are often cured. i feel the standard of people's lives must be improved for social control. If there's adequate enforcement against rapists  social control is feasible and various health services got to be prepared for birth control then developing countries are possible.

[KingScorpio]

This is all bad (about the negative points). This all happens while in many developed countries families often either have 1 child or not at all. Now it is inconspicuous, but imagine what will happen in 50 years. The population is going down a lot. Therefore it is not necessary to go to extremes. The problem is not overpopulation, but how it is organized. But I agree that on one territory there should be such a number of people who will be comfortable. There should be so much land that every person can be full when some kind of agro culture is grown on these lands

Yes if there's enough land  people can cultivate many crops by cultivating  Because the population is increasing at the speed of food production isn't increasing. People consider the population because the biggest problem which may be a major obstacle for developing countries when the population is above required that's why we all got to increase the quantity of cultivable land.

You are right but it will not only increase the amount of arable land but also control the population If the population is reduced then the amount of cultivable land will increase Due to the housing crisis, the amount of cultivable land is decreasing. In that case if the population is controlled the amount of cultivable land will increase.

Even Bangladesh, probably the country that has more population per square mile than any other, is surviving and expanding. Properly organized, the population of the country is its wealth. The more population the better.

Are there any countries of the world that don't exist any longer? Look at history. Search on "Tartary." This is a nation that existed to some extent as recent as the early 1900s. It was bigger than most nations, and covered most of Siberia and Northern Europe into Northern Canada. Why are they gone (they aren't really gone)? Because they didn't have enough population for the land they were trying to hold.

jes but third world countries are dependent on the scientific development of the centuries old imperial powers,

without the scientific skills of the western and european powers and china, and also their massive landmasses and natural ressources a tiny country like bangladesh can't develop itself, it is then simply just a zergish mass of people full of extremists and not a potential labourforce.

the leftists and billionaires in the developed world completely have forgotten that without the so called "racist right wingers and deplorables" their labour force wouldn't work

[BADecker]

Even Bangladesh, probably the country that has more population per square mile than any other, is surviving and expanding. Properly organized, the population of the country is its wealth. The more population the better.

Are there any countries of the world that don't exist any longer? Look at history. Search on "Tartary." This is a nation that existed to some extent as recent as the early 1900s. It was bigger than most nations, and covered most of Siberia and Northern Europe into Northern Canada. Why are they gone (they aren't really gone)? Because they didn't have enough population for the land they were trying to hold.

jes but third world countries are dependent on the scientific development of the centuries old imperial powers,

without the scientific skills of the western and european powers and china, and also their massive landmasses and natural ressources a tiny country like bangladesh can't develop itself, it is then simply just a zergish mass of people full of extremists and not a potential labourforce.

the leftists and billionaires in the developed world completely have forgotten that without the so called "racist right wingers and deplorables" their labour force wouldn't work

Talking about science, one needs to know why science was developed. Among the reasons for science are, for people to improve their living conditions by using science, and to improve their living conditions by selling their science to other people. Yet, when you think about it, all science that people develop, is based on the science of nature, the place where all science knowledge and ideas ultimately comes from.

This means that the increase of population comes from nature, not from scientific advancements of man. In fact, because of the focus of of science into small areas rather than considerations of the whole, science produces tamporary imbalances in nature which ultimately destroy populations, not help them.

Labor forces that are based on the science of man rather than on the science of nature, are ultimately going to destroy themselves. Why? Because the science that exists in nature naturally will ultimately balance the imbalances that mankind uses to develop his own science.

In other words, bringing science to a nation to develop it and its labor force of people, ultimately will destroy the nation and its people. The more the people tend to incorporate their living with natural balances rather than the unbalanced science of man, the more their populations will grow. This is part of the natural operation of nature... big populations.

Nobody can tell for a fact what will happen worldwide with a big population worldwide. Why not> It has never happened, yet... at least not in recorded history. We can only guess.

In the past there was pangea... which also was an expansion of the earth... but nobody knows why this happened. There is no reason to suggest that it will not happen again when the population of the earth gets really big... like 150 billion.