News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

He is 100% correct about India well mostly middle class Indian.


Instead of couples siting inside their beds with nothing to do at night.

Many couples now watch shows on their tvs way late into the night and just fall asleep.


Really having been to India, the only places that have an average of 3 kids or more are the poorer states of India's like Bihar, UP, Bengal and such...

Actually most or almost all of the growth in the North of India is due to people coming from poor states and then having 5-10 children. They are used to as back home having 5-10 children and 3-4 dying by 5. However in the North, living standards are high and well most of their children live.

Even the native poor populations in the villages have at most 3 children and the average is two.

So yeah in India even some of the poor are having far less children. Its those damn people from Central Eastern India who are reproducing like bunnies. :D
 
^ Exactly my point. In the parts of India that are developing, the Total Fertility Rates have come down. The only way to bring it down elsewhere, is to bring those areas development so that having so many kids is not imperative.
 
well those places in Eastern India used to be economic powerhouses during the time of the British Raj...
 
In India, they've done this and more. The government even had a program once, of handing out free TVs because they wanted to address the boredom issue you've raise here. They actually found that TV reduced the fertility rate so they started handing out free TVs.

LOL. I know I can't be the only person in the world who prefers a little luvin' over watching a game show, serial drama or singing competition. Do the Indian authorities seriously believe that people are going to have sex less often to the point that they can control population growth because every village has a TV set? I find the whole idea that people would prefer TV over sex hard to believe. Also, lack of electrification in rural areas and frequent power outages would make TV a pretty unreliable method of birth control. Moreover, some of the suggestive stuff on TV could make viewers a little horny and it would defeat the purpose of handing out TVs in the first place.
 
Do the Indian authorities seriously believe that people are going to have sex less often to the point that they can control population growth because every village has a TV set?

They believe it because it's true. Obviously, though, there's more to population control than TVs.
 
First of all the power almost 90% of the time stays on at night or after 8pm even in the summer time.


Plus I have been in India and they are glued on, everyone is!!!

Here a great deal of us have stooped watching TV daily, while there TV is the big huge thing now...
 
I think all countries like can do more to control population as well. Like sterilizing all criminals (especially young criminals) and bring back capital punishment for more serious crimes.
 
If you think that the death penalty can help control population, then you probably would be applying it to things like people who steal fruit at a store.

The death penalty should never be used as an excuse for population control.

As for sterilizing young criminals, how would that stop them from being a criminal? Are you suggesting that criminality is genetic? You might be in for a surprise.
 
Very interesting, re: TVs in India.

However, sex > TV.


What kind of TVs are they giving out?
Would giving out birth control cost a whole lot more?
 
Well Indian is a very much reserved nation, giving out condom's would only work for the urban young...
 
Speaking of India's birth control TV's, Foreign Policy has a big article on how TV's are a positive force for development, for everything from education to corruption.

Revolution in a Box
...Ghulam Nabi Azad, India's health and family welfare minister, has even taken to promoting TV as a form of birth control. "In olden days people had no other entertainment but sex, which is why they produced so many children," he mused publicly in July. "Today, TV is the biggest source of entertainment. Hence, it is important that there is electricity in every village so that people watch TV till late in the night. By the time the serials are over, they'll be too tired to have sex and will fall asleep." Azad is certainly right that television helps slow birthrates, though experience from his own country and elsewhere suggests that it is by example, not exhaustion, that TV programs manage such a dramatic effect.

Since the 1970s, Brazil's Rede Globo network has been providing a steady diet of locally produced soaps, some of which are watched by as many as 80 million people. The programs are no more tales of everyday life in Brazil than Desperate Housewives is an accurate representation of a typical U.S. suburb. In a country where divorce was only legalized in 1977, nearly a fifth of the main female characters were divorced (and about a quarter were unfaithful). What's more, 72 percent of the main female characters on the Globo soaps had no kids, and only 7 percent had more than one. In 1970, the average Brazilian woman, in contrast, had given birth nearly six times.

But the soaps clearly resonated with viewers. As the Globo network expanded to new areas in the 1970s and 1980s, according to researchers at the Inter-American Development Bank, parents began naming their kids after soap-opera characters. And women in those parts of the country -- especially poor women -- started having fewer babies. Being in an area covered by the Globo network had the same effect on a woman's fertility as two additional years of education. This wasn't the result of what was shown during commercial breaks -- for most of the time, contraceptive advertising was banned, and there was no government population-control policy at all. The portrayal of plausible female characters with few children, apparently, was an important social cue.

Cable and satellite television may be having an even bigger impact on fertility in rural India. As in Brazil, popular programming there includes soaps that focus on urban life. Many women on these serials work outside the home, run businesses, and control money. In addition, soap characters are typically well-educated and have few children. And they prove to be extraordinarily powerful role models: Simply giving a village access to cable TV, research by scholars Robert Jensen and Emily Oster has found, has the same effect on fertility rates as increasing by five years the length of time girls stay in school.

The soaps in Brazil and India provided images of women who were empowered to make decisions affecting not only childbirth, but a range of household activities. The introduction of cable or satellite services in a village, Jensen and Oster found, goes along with higher girls' school enrollment rates and increased female autonomy. Within two years of getting cable or satellite, between 45 and 70 percent of the difference between urban and rural areas on these measures disappears. In Brazil, it wasn't just birthrates that changed as Globo's signal spread -- divorce rates went up, too. There may be something to the boast of one of the directors of the company that owns Afghan Star. When a woman reached the final five this year, the director suggested it would "do more for women's rights than all the millions of dollars we have spent on public service announcements for women's rights on TV."...
 

Back
Top