(Sub-titled - Where Are You Keeping Them All?)
The population of India at 1.2B is second only to China at 1.35B with the US in distance third at 317M, Japan stands in 10th with 127M and Canada is sitting a comfortable 37th at 35M. To me, population is more like a game of Golf than a Horse Race, the lower the number the better. Population is not the whole story though, I believe population DENSITY is a more important measure. India comes in at 31st with 390 people per square kilometer, Japan is 39th with 337p/km2, China is 83rd with 141p/km2, the USA is 179th with 35p/km2, and Canada eagle putts for the win in 228th position with 3.5p/km2. Just so you don't need to look it up, the number one country is Macao at over 20,000p/km2 (ouch!) and bringing up the rear is Greenland 243rd at .3p/km2 (probably the only time that 'bringing up the rear' is a compliment).
Why do I think population density is more important than gross population, simple! where are you going to keep all your people if you do not have the space for them. Manhattan (also over 20,000 p/km2) has a recognizable solution, build upwards, use sky space and stack people on top of one another. Japan uses sky space but they also will use less space or multi-use space. Most Indians (those who live indoors) live in multi-dwelling units but not typically sky-scrapers, six to eight floors is typical which seems low for the density but with the number of power outages, I would not want to live on a particularly high floor. They also learn to manage with less space. A 1BHK (one bedroom, hall, kitchen) measures about 600sq feet will house a small family of three to four for the lower middle class, mom and dad in the bedroom, kids in the hall (living room). For the children to get their own (shared) room, both parents are probably working and would be middle middle class living in a 2BHK of 800 to 900 square feet.
Having never lived in a Metropolitan Area, I may not have the proper perspective but when I was single, I usually preferred to live alone, so I would live in a 1 bedroom which measured about 525 square feet. When I was married, we moved into a large 1 bedroom at about 900 square feet. After our first child we had a two bedroom house of about 1200 square feet on a 1/4 acre and now with two children we are in 1800 square feet with three bedrooms on about a third of an acre. We are finding this a little small and I am in the process of designing my next home at between 2200 and 2400 square feet on 80 acres.
Whenever possible a NA will move outwards which I am not suggesting is better. Outside the city is where the corn is growing and if you put a house there, then where will you plant the corn. I have assuaged my own conscience by learning to grow vegetables and using as much space as possible to do that. When I move next to a much larger property, I will grow vegetables that other people can eat, thus further lessening my guilt of living in a comparatively large home.
I asked one of my hosts why with two incomes they would not move outside the city onto a plot of land. He told me land is very expensive and although he could not give me an exact price, he said that actual land cannot be bought by the average family. Farmland, fortunately, is estated so it cannot be sold to be developed. I suppose that is not so good for the farmer but it benefits everyone else so I wish we had a similar law here in Canada.
Population density has other benefits, a municipality can afford infrastructure because it can spread costs over a larger group of people. New York and Toronto have Subways which is not affordable to a smaller city. Mumbai (and most Indian cities use rail to move people around. The cost of roadways is lower for a Metro Area because there are more people per linear mile than in a smaller 'lower' city. If 300 people live in an apartment building they use up 1 block of city space but put the same 300 people into homes at 2 people per home, 1/4 acre per lot, it takes up about 15 blocks of city space.
Usually, I just present the facts and compare and contrast the the world of the West and the World of the East but today, I am going to offer an opinion. Neither one of us is getting it right. NA's continue to spread out using up arable land and increasing the cost of services, while Indians continue to increase density putting pressure on service providing. I must say I like the Cuban model and I recommend my readers look into it but if you have suggestions, I would very much like to look at them. Land management is going to be, if it is not already, the key to the future.
No thank you, I couldn't eat another bite!
The population of India at 1.2B is second only to China at 1.35B with the US in distance third at 317M, Japan stands in 10th with 127M and Canada is sitting a comfortable 37th at 35M. To me, population is more like a game of Golf than a Horse Race, the lower the number the better. Population is not the whole story though, I believe population DENSITY is a more important measure. India comes in at 31st with 390 people per square kilometer, Japan is 39th with 337p/km2, China is 83rd with 141p/km2, the USA is 179th with 35p/km2, and Canada eagle putts for the win in 228th position with 3.5p/km2. Just so you don't need to look it up, the number one country is Macao at over 20,000p/km2 (ouch!) and bringing up the rear is Greenland 243rd at .3p/km2 (probably the only time that 'bringing up the rear' is a compliment).
Why do I think population density is more important than gross population, simple! where are you going to keep all your people if you do not have the space for them. Manhattan (also over 20,000 p/km2) has a recognizable solution, build upwards, use sky space and stack people on top of one another. Japan uses sky space but they also will use less space or multi-use space. Most Indians (those who live indoors) live in multi-dwelling units but not typically sky-scrapers, six to eight floors is typical which seems low for the density but with the number of power outages, I would not want to live on a particularly high floor. They also learn to manage with less space. A 1BHK (one bedroom, hall, kitchen) measures about 600sq feet will house a small family of three to four for the lower middle class, mom and dad in the bedroom, kids in the hall (living room). For the children to get their own (shared) room, both parents are probably working and would be middle middle class living in a 2BHK of 800 to 900 square feet.
Having never lived in a Metropolitan Area, I may not have the proper perspective but when I was single, I usually preferred to live alone, so I would live in a 1 bedroom which measured about 525 square feet. When I was married, we moved into a large 1 bedroom at about 900 square feet. After our first child we had a two bedroom house of about 1200 square feet on a 1/4 acre and now with two children we are in 1800 square feet with three bedrooms on about a third of an acre. We are finding this a little small and I am in the process of designing my next home at between 2200 and 2400 square feet on 80 acres.
Whenever possible a NA will move outwards which I am not suggesting is better. Outside the city is where the corn is growing and if you put a house there, then where will you plant the corn. I have assuaged my own conscience by learning to grow vegetables and using as much space as possible to do that. When I move next to a much larger property, I will grow vegetables that other people can eat, thus further lessening my guilt of living in a comparatively large home.
I asked one of my hosts why with two incomes they would not move outside the city onto a plot of land. He told me land is very expensive and although he could not give me an exact price, he said that actual land cannot be bought by the average family. Farmland, fortunately, is estated so it cannot be sold to be developed. I suppose that is not so good for the farmer but it benefits everyone else so I wish we had a similar law here in Canada.
Population density has other benefits, a municipality can afford infrastructure because it can spread costs over a larger group of people. New York and Toronto have Subways which is not affordable to a smaller city. Mumbai (and most Indian cities use rail to move people around. The cost of roadways is lower for a Metro Area because there are more people per linear mile than in a smaller 'lower' city. If 300 people live in an apartment building they use up 1 block of city space but put the same 300 people into homes at 2 people per home, 1/4 acre per lot, it takes up about 15 blocks of city space.Usually, I just present the facts and compare and contrast the the world of the West and the World of the East but today, I am going to offer an opinion. Neither one of us is getting it right. NA's continue to spread out using up arable land and increasing the cost of services, while Indians continue to increase density putting pressure on service providing. I must say I like the Cuban model and I recommend my readers look into it but if you have suggestions, I would very much like to look at them. Land management is going to be, if it is not already, the key to the future.
No thank you, I couldn't eat another bite!
I would have to research to get specifics before I could comment in depth & intelligently on the issue of urban sprawl vs arable land specifically and food production in general.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have a few 'from the gut' comments....In every other area of economics, free markets are more efficient than central planning (government regulation). Thus my gut tells me that land use allocation should also be left to free market forces.
Free markets allocate resources in the most efficient manor available or at the very least a more efficient way has not been found. There are a couple offsetting factors that delay (avoid) crisis. 1) The arable land (talking US/Canada) left is being used much more efficiently with innovation/technology...1 acre today produces what 100 acres used to. 2) Land that was once non-arable becomes arable with innovation...various homestead projects are one small example. 3) In the longer term Hydroponic technology continues to evolve and I suspect will relieve the demand for arable land.
If there is an arable land shortage, why does Canada / US have so much food that just what is wasted could feed ~200 million people each year?
I realize I am brushing some broad strokes here...like I say, I would need to do much more in depth research to get into specific cases.
My next 'gut' reaction is that a socialist state like Cuba can't produce food (or anything) near as efficiently as free markets...they are on a rationing system there...I don't consider a 'rationing' system to be efficient or a good model to follow....instead of awaiting my 16 oz ration of rice, I want to be able to have a bagel, steak (or chicken in India), or cheesecake whenever I want AND have the choice of buying them at any grocery store or any number of restaurants. Free markets are what allow this.
As to the solution in India? Not sure...I don't know specifically what's holding India back. Is it the catch 22 of needing infra structure before they can climb the economic ladder but they can't AFFORD the infra structure UNTIL they climb the economic ladder? I realize there are social/cultural issues too.
ASIDE: Origin of the phrase 'Catch 22": Joseph Heller coined the term in his 1961 novel Catch-22, which describes absurd bureaucratic constraints on soldiers in World War II. The term is introduced by the character Doc Daneeka, an army psychiatrist who invokes "Catch 22" to explain why any pilot requesting mental evaluation for insanity—hoping to be found not sane enough to fly and thereby escape dangerous missions—demonstrates his own sanity in making the request and thus cannot be declared insane!
But getting back to the question of food production, the sad truth is that the planet does NOT have a shortage of food...what there is, is a shortage of people who can afford to PAY for food..whenever there is a willing paying market, sufficient food is produced. Thus countries that face a significant part of their populations starving, face the problem because there is not a sufficiently developed economy that brings wealth (or at least livable subsistence) to the masses....even in NA we have hungry people..but this is not due to a shortage of food but rather an inability of these people to BUY enough food.
A blatant example illustrating this is Korea...In free, democratic (and capitalist) SOUTH Korea, people live at a high standard of living and hunger is rare. In NORTH Korea, starvation is rampant because their 'economy' is non-existent!
These countries are identical in every way except with the form of gov/economic systems they have, and the results of those economies are stark opposites.
But back to India...Some might say the problem is an economic one (which I believe it is, and not a shortage of arable land). Some might say the economy is being held back by a lack of infrastructure (that is one factor but there are other factors as well I believe) and that the lack of infrastructure is because so few of East Indians pay taxes...I don't agree with this assessment.
ReplyDeleteThe US and Canada never had income tax early on and yet they thrived economically...so I still don't understand the problem in India...at least not completely so.
But at least we can say this....we can't begin to address the issue of hunger (in any country) until we identify the true underlying problem(s) causing people to not be able to buy/grow food. The 1st step is to not assume "the obvious" (arable land shortage) and look to their true underlying economic/political factors.
My uninformed opinion is India must continue to develop its economy to bring more and more people into the fold of being able to afford more food.
However, I fully realize that typing here with a full belly, it's all too easy to theorize while children continue to go hungry...the sad truth is I have no definitive immediate solutions to suggest, and this lacking inspires me (actually despairs me) to prayer...