Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
So friends, we are going to start a new topic today, and this relates to world population
growth. In the last module, we have discussed mathematical and statistical models, which
are commonly used in population studies. And in this module, we will deal with more more
of substantive issues like, what is happening to population growth of the whole world. Later
on in subsequent modules, we will talk about population of India and specific populations
of certain sub categories. So, in this I am going to tell what is the
size of world population, this is the first question any student of population studies,
who wants to know about world would like to ask first, what is the size of world population?
What is the rate of growth at which world population is increasing? What is the history
of world population growth? How did population growth increase or decrease? What is happening
to world population right now, if there any pattern can we have a kind of theory in terms
of which rise or fall in world population growth can we explained, this is all that
we are going to do. And today, we will specifically be talking about population in ancient societies.
Now, the history of world population growth and its impact for society, its its impact
on different dimensions of society is an important topic. This study of history of world population
growth, and its impact on society helps in analyzing the causes of population growth
and explore the emergent population problems in the developing countries, including India.
It also teaches some important lessons regarding formulation of policy. What I mean is, that
when we talk about population of India, you know we students of population in India are
certainly more concerned about population of India. But history of population of India
cannot be seen in isolation. It has to be placed in the context of world population
growth. There are many countries in the world, which
have actually passed through the kind of growth we are experiencing today. Why did that growth
occur in those countries in certain historical periods? What were its social correlates?
What was its impact on society at large? And how was population growth in those countries
controlled? Now, these are some things, if in if we have answers to these questions,
we can also apply solutions learned from on the experience of world population growth
to our own country. So learning about world population growth
will help us that way in explaining, what is happening in population of India? What
are its causes? And what is likely to happen in the future, if history of world population
growth is a guide and this also will tell us, what can be done to check population growth
in India with which actually we are all concerned. The most important question of population
traditionally in India has been, how to control excessive rate of growth of population and
therefore, we can draw lessons from how was population growth controlled in western countries
or in other less developed countries, in which historical periods and related issues.
Population in ancient times and middle ages. In this lecture, we will particularly talk
about population in ancient times and in this next lecture then, we will talk about population
in middle ages and then, third lecture of this module will be devoted to population
in contemporary world. The the present population of the world is
close to 6.8 billion. You know, in 2010 we are 2010 and the population of the world is
close to 6.8 billion and it is growing at the rate of 1.2 percent per year, means birth
rate minus death rate expressed in percentage form per year is 1.2. So, this population
of 6.8 billion is growing at the rate of 1.2 percent.
In the first very first lecture, I had talked about doubling time. If a population is growing
at a rate r, then its doubling time is 70 divided by r. So, if r is 1.2, every year
on every 100 percents there is an increase of 1.2 percents, then it means the population
will double in 60 years time. That means population of 6.8 billion in 2010 is likely to become
13.6 billion in year 2070, provided the rate of growth does not change.
The rate of growth of population is however not a fixed quantity. For a long time world
population remained stable. You know, in the last lecture, I mentioned that man appeared
on this planet Earth about 5 lakh years ago and for 5 lakh years ago, the world population
remained more or less stable or stationary. It was only during last couple of centuries
that world population started increasing. So, it is not that human population was always
growing at rate 1.2 percent, it is an interesting history, that the population of world remained
stationary for a very, very long period of time.
It was mostly in the second part of the 18th century, say 1750 that the world population
started growing with an increasing rate. So, 750 around 750 population started increasing
and not only started increasing but the rate of growth of population also started increasing,
which reached a peak sometime in the second part of the 20th century. Say, let us call
it 1950. So, there population started growing around 1750 and it started increasing at faster
and faster rate and then in the second part of the 20th century, rate of growth reached
the peak and after that rate of growth starts declining, population is growing; rate of
growth is declining, population is growing. So, the present rate of growth of population
1.2 is not the peak rate experienced by world population. It is much below the peak rate.
Now, rate of growth is declining and we can expect that the rate of growth will decline
further. Since then, although the population size is
growing; means since 1950, although the population size is growing, the rate of growth has been
declined. The forecast are that the rate of growth will decline further and despite this
United Nations projections are that the world population would reach a level of 9.1 bllion
in 2050.
So, earlier I said that population grows at rate of 1.2 percent per year, then in 60 years
time means by year 2070 we would become become double the present size 13.6 billion. No,
much before 13.6 we will we will stop somewhere around say 10 billion. In 2050, world population
is going to reach a level of 9.1, because the rate of growth of world population is
declining. Now, this module focuses on the historical rise and fall of population growth
in the world and its major reasons.
Ancient societies were small in size and for them population was an asset. While, the number
of people in a tribal band or a community was small, the resources of nature. So, let
us first look at what was the situation in ancient society. Ancient societies were small
in size and for them population was an asset. While, the number of people in a tribal band
or a community was small, the resources of nature were plenty. So, there was no population
pressure, density of population was very small. They had rich forest, pure rivers, large species
of various types of animals, mountains and oceans formed the, which formed the outside
environment of human society. We do not know what the natural death rate in ancient society
was; but it must have been a small death rate. Though, periodically death rate must have
risen because of epidemics and related issues that is.
As for as natural environment is concerned concerned, it was pure and the density of
population was very low. Therefore, many types of infectious diseases would not be prevailing.
Today, when somebody discusses birth and death rates in ancient society, there is a tendency
to say that in ancient society death rate must have been high because of infectious
diseases; but there are many demographers, who think that because a pure environment,
low density of population and plentiful resources, tree, pure rivers mountains; infectious diseases
were less, malnutrition was less and if a year is free from epidemics or natural catastrophe,
then the death rate must have been small. This implies that longevity or the average
time for which a new born child could live, longevity could have been higher and those
who survive the hardships of natural life during childhood may have lived longer.
Yet, due to attack by wild animals, violence between different human groups, excessive
or short rainfalls, floods, famines and attack of epidemics, the long term death rate was
high. So, death rate was high, not because of infectious diseases, not because of malnutrition.
It was high because of some other sudden and periodic reasons, wild animals, violence between
different groups, wars conflicts or sometimes shortage of rain falls, floods, famines and
attack of epidemics. This means that even with natural fertility,
means absence of birth control the long term rate of growth of population was extremely
low. So, although there was no family planning, no contraception, no government policies,
perhaps no strong governments either but because death rate fluctuated and increased from time
to time. There must have been some periods in which birth and death rates were low or
birth rate was high, death rate was low. But periodically because of wars, conflicts, violence,
shortage or excessive rainfall, flood, famine and epidemics death rate increased to very
high levels and the long run tendency therefore, was to remain long term tendency for the population
growth was to remain at an extremely low level.
Now, going by calculations assuming that if a man and a woman appeared on this planet
Earth about 5 lakh years ago, it is believed that man separated of from the animal kingdom
a million years ago and their progeny grew at an extremely low rate, such as 0.0001.
I sort of calculated what would happen if I assume that 2 persons appeared on this planet
Earth 5 lakh years ago and they grow at a very very small rate of growth like 0.0001
percent per year, then the world population growth would have been around 10 to power
22. In a such a large number, which is unimaginable and unsustainable.
That means even in very low rate of growth of 0.0001 would not have been possible for
lakhs of years, that means population was stable stationary. As I said that in normal
years death rates must have been lower but because of periodic nature of violence, wars
epidemics and floods and famines from time to time death rates increased and therefore,
long run tendency of population was to remain at the same level.
So, is this size of 10 raised to power 22, not just unimaginable. Even today with population
of 6.8 billion, we are nowhere near this. Actually, even a much lower growth rate as
0.00001 percent on sustained basis would yield an unsustainable figure for today, a rate
of growth of 0.001 produces a population of 1.03 into 10 raised to power 22, in just 50
thousand years. You can calculate these numbers by using that exponential formula p t equal
to p 0 e raised power r t, which I gave you in the very first lecture. So, that means
the rate of growth of population was almost 0, it was not even 0.0003 or something of
that order, which I assumed in calculating figure for today.
Population growth depends on three factors, as you know fertility, mortality and migration.
When we are discussing the world population trends, we may ignore the component of migration.
This imply that in the past when population grew at extremely slow rate, either the long
term death rate was very high or the fertility could not keep pace with the mortality. Reproduction
rate was only as high as death rate.
The two rates may have fluctuated. When mortality rate was high, fertility rate was also high
and when mortality was less, fertility was also less or this may have happened with a
small time lag. So, in normal years when mortality is low, fertility could have been higher but
in the following years mortality when reverses its direction, then fertility also reverse
its direction. Alternatively, fertility was high and in short
terms population would rise but periodically epidemics and wars would destroy a great proportion
of population and the population size would come down to initial levels. We have written
records bubonic plague in Europe in cities, you know record show that when plague breaks
out, then in a few days time, in a few weeks time as much as 50 percent of the whole population
can wipe out. So, it may have been the case that for some
time for 10 years, for 20 years or for 50 years population grew but then because of
epidemics or other natural catastrophe pestilences, then the population come backs to original
size due to high death rate. In both cases, the result is that for a long time the world
population was stationary or growing at a very very slow rate.
More on causes of slow growth, we do not have exact demographic information on ancient society,
there are only projections and conjectural estimates. There are mere speculations about
the rate of growth and fertility and mortality paleodemographers means demographers dealing
with old societies. Assume that ancient society had a long run tendency to remain stationary
for various reasons.
Hume suggested three reasons, why ancient societies could not be more populated. One,
the ancient societies were almost in perpetual war and the war in its small state is more
devastating, more destructive than in a big state. As most inhabitants of a small state
must serve in the army. War could be cause by martial spirit, love of liberty, mutual
emulation and hatred for neighbor. All great saints, philosophers, religious
reformers like Gautama Buddha, who lived 2005 years ago, you know talk about hatred and
conflicts and jealousy and wars, violence and these are actually the factors, which
may have produce high death rate. Not only in war time but even in peace time, the condition
of ancient society was unfavorable to growth. There was no law, no trial, no pardon and
the novels, novels kings, rulers, landlords, masters, kshatriyas; they would butcher the
opposite party at slightest provocation, this could have been another reason.
There is an interesting theory, when we talk about demographic connection theory, there
is an idea that actually in developments in medical science have played a lesser role
in long term reduction in mortality rates. A greater role has been played by rise of
nation states. Rise of nation states, development of a strong political nation leading to a
reduced violence between different sub national groups, could have been a major factor in
mortality improvement.
Ancient society had subsistence agriculture without support of flourishing trade manufactures
and industry as in modern society. So, that means people were constantly dependant on
rainfalls or natural produce. Sometime there are good years, sometime there are bad years.
Since, there is no trade, no manufacturing, no storage facilities. So, in good years people
will be happy and fertility can also rise and in bad years death rate is high, fertility
is low and there are more diseases and death.
To quote valentey, there is good reason to assume that on the whole mortality levels
in the primeval period were very high. Many of these people would perish from hunger or
disease or after being attacked by wild animals or after encounters with hostile tribes or
natural disasters. Life was particularly hard for people inhabiting lands in the temperate
or cold belts, where food shortages in winter probably took a heavy toll of lives each year.
Mortality was particularly high among young children and old people, the weakest members
of the groups, who must have been the first to suffer from deteriorating conditions.
When finding themselves exposed to unexpected dangers, these clan or tribal groups often
abandoned the old and the children to the mercy of fate. China is particularly known
for child exposure and traditional practices of infanticide. India too had infanticide,
female infanticide we call. Traditional practices of infanticide as well as the killing of old
people in times of hunger that have been discovered in some tribal societies such as those of
Australians or the Eskimos are more likely to have been widespread in this primitive
period. Most students of sociology must have seen
haralambos’s book sociology themes and perspective, in which he say that in several tribes when
there is a shortage of food you know they will just abandon the old people and at times
they will kill infants, especially female infants and there are also instances when
they not only kill female infant but also eat them up. So, this was ancient society.
So, that to some extent explains why death rates were high.
The birth rate in this age of primitive community must also have been high. This is normally
what when death rates are high, then for survival of human society it is natural that birth
rate is also high. On average a little in excess of the death rate. Otherwise, those
primitive people would have died out, and we would not be existing today. Our birth
rate birth rates must have been slightly higher than the death rates. No wonder it took a
long period of time for the world population to reach the first billion mark in 1820 AD.
So, first billion in the history of world population was reached in 1820 AD. *** arts
argued that in the high fertility societies, birth rate too was not as high as could have
been under sheer biological reproductive efficiency.
To quote, typically the birth interval in a natural fertility population was 30 months,
which was divided as follows. 12 months postpartum amenorrhea, you know *** arts is explained.
First, we have seen that in ancient society population was stationary and death rate was
very high. Not necessarily every year but periodically. So, there are good years and
death rate is low but then there are periods of very high death rates, which bring down
population size to original or a small level. *** arts said that not only this in ancient
society, even fertility was not as high as it could have been. Certainly, they did not
practice family planning but absence of family planning does not mean that they produce to
their maximum capacity. *** arts said some very interesting arguments to make. You see
when we look for figure of maximum possible fertility around us, we find that the maximum
fertility ever observed in any population in the world is observed for hetrite tribe
in United States, living at the border of United States and Canada and in 1950 fertility
of hetrite’s was 8.9 children, means on the average 1 woman among hetrites produce
8.9 children in lifetime and this is despite the fact that the hetrites are the fastest
growing tribe in the world between 1870 and 1950.
That means in only 80 years time hetrites increase 24. This is 1 of the fastest growing
tribe and even there the average number of children is only 8.9. We do not have any instance
of population where a higher fertility rate was observed than this. So, in entire lifetime
a woman maximally produce 8.9. In India, in some writing some Gandhi was
a very careful writer and you must have observed this read about this some Gandhi said that
in India, in traditional India average fertility was 6.1. Among hetrites, it is 8.9. In India
6.1. May be Gandhi was wrong and it was 1 child or 2 children more than this. But then
average fertility in entire lifetime is about it.
We have some data in in IIT Kanpur in collaboration with Michigan university, conducted a large
scale study in and around Kanpur division, Kanpur, Allahabad divisions in 1972 and in
rural areas average fertility in entire life was found to be around 8. So, 8 or 9 seems
to be the upper limit of natural fertility even when no family planning methods were
used. What are the reasons? *** arts said that
the reasons are that although a woman can marry at age 15 and remain in reproductive
period up to 45, that means she spends around 30 years in reproductive period and assuming
that there is a pregnancy period of 9 months, the theoretical limit to number of children,
upper limit would be around 40. That a woman theoretically a woman can produce, say 40
children in lifetime but she produces only 8.9. What are the reasons? The reasons are
that first of all, due to cultural reasons not all women are entitled to produce children.
Married women produce children and not all women between 15 and 45 are married. ***
arts estimated that including unmarried women at the younger reproductive ages and widow,
divorced, separated. deserted at the older ages. He find that roughly 25 percent of the
time of women in reproductive period is not available for reproduction. So, not all women
are reproducing, 25 percent are not reproducing because they are not in marital unions.
Then then nearly 20 percent time goes in sterility. There are three types of sterility. Adolescence
sterility before menarche or during the early reproductive period, when menstrual cycles
are irregular, there is a period of adolescence sterility. Then there is a secondary sterility
that women become fertile but after a certain age different women at different ages become
sterile again and there are some women, who never produce a child in reproductive period.
They are called women, who are primarily sterile. So, if you consider adolescent sterility,
primary sterility, secondary sterility then you can say that 20 percent of the remaining
time, first 25 percent time is gone because they are not in marital union. 20 percent
time is gone because they are sterile. Then after child birth, there is some time during
which there is no chance of conception. We call it postpartum anovulis anovulatory period,
during which there is no chance of conception. A women does not release egg and after this
after this non ovulationary period then ovulation starts, but sometime there is fetal wastage.
A woman becomes pregnant, but in 1 week, 2 week, 3 weeks time there is abortion spontaneous
abortion, then again there is some non susceptible period and when a woman becomes pregnant then
it it takes about nine month. In all on the basis of all these, john ***
arts calculates that 12 months, there is a 12 months postpartum amenorrhea, 4 months
waiting time to conception before an intra uterine death, 1 month non susceptible period
associated with the intra uterine death, another 4 months conception waiting time before a
live birth and finally, a 9 month full term pregnancy. This all in summary the. So, what
he says that you see if you look at 30 years time, you know thirty fifteen suppose a woman
can produce a baby at 15 and can produce babies till 45, in 30 years time the break up could
be as follows.
Out of 30 years, on the average 7.5 years are spent as unmarried. Either she is unmarried
in the beginning or then she becomes widow or divorced or separated or deserted. 5 years
are wasted in sterility, on the average out of 30 years 5 years are spent as a sterile
period. 7.0 in postpartum anovulatory period, 4.75 years in ovulatory period, 0.5 non susceptive
intra uterine death and only 5.25 in pregnancy and because they they spent 5.25 in pregnancy,
so the outcome is about 7 children. So, in 15 to 45 they produce only about 7 children.
In summary, the highest observed death birth rates are much lower than biologically possible
because women in natural fertility are pregnant during only about one-sixth of their reproductive
years. Out of 30 years reproductive time, they are pregnant only for 5.25 years, the
rest of these potential child bearing years is spent in unmarried, sterile, postpartum,
anovulatory, non susceptible or a ovulatory states. As a result, birth rate rarely exceeded
50 in populations, in which there is no deliberate actions to effect biological process. We do
not have populations in which birth rate ever exceeded 50 per 1000 population.
Now, population in middle ages, it may be noted that in the beginning of our era the
world population is estimated to be around 326.5 million. Region wise break up shows
that 35 million lived in Europe, 220 in Asia, 21 in north and central America, 19 in south
America, 30 million in Africa and 15 million in Oceania. Thus nearly 21.8 percent of the
world population lived in what may be called developed countries and 78.2 percent in the
developing countries. Now, the share of developing countries is increasing. It is already about
30 percent and it is increasing further, because today developed countries are not growing
or growing at a slow pace, while developing countries are growing faster. This was not
the situation earlier.
Bennett estimated that the approximate population of the world in 1000 AD was 275 and 6 zeroes.
In 500 years time, from AD 1000 to 1500, it grew by 171 millions only. This gives an average
annual growth rate of 0.00096 and doubling time of 729 years. Look at the world population
growth. So, world population in millions, today we are in billions.
World population in millions in 1000 AD were 275, eleven hundred 306, by 1500 million by
1500 AD the world population in millions reached only 446.
And that explains why there was a lack of interesting population theory. The slow rate
of population growth, you find in much writings during renaissances or you know in writings
of economist, philosophers, intellectuals. In 17th century, 18th century there there
is very little discussion of population. Even in 19th century, very few intellectuals, philosophers,
economist talked about population factors explicitly. The first essay which created
any sensation and which made population an issue was published first time in 1798 by
Malthus, an essay on the principle of population. So, this slow that means what i have said
today that the rate of growth of population in ancient society was extremely slow. The
reasons were high death rates. Not necessarily every year, but periodic high death rate due
to war, violence, conflicts, lack of means of transport and communication, lack of political
organization and birth rates were also low. Birth rates did not reach the maximum limit.
The maximum limits as *** arts said that the maximum limit could be if a woman marries
at 15 and remains married and productive till 45, there is 30 years time and the theoretical
upper limit of every number of children should be 40, but the maximum fertility ever observed
in a tribal population was found in hetrite population and that was hardly eight 8.9 children
in 1950 and this is in the population, which grew at the fastest rate between 1870 and
1950, hetrites grew by 20 times. So, in India we believe that the total fertility
rate must have been between 6 and 8. Despite the fact, there are many social reasons, cultural
reasons, one can a socialist can look into social, cultural reasons why fertility was
not at its peak and the reasons were unmarried status, sterility, postpartum, anovulatory
period, ovulatory period, then non susceptible, intra uterine death and only out of 30 years
5 years were available for pregnancy. And since, population was not growing at all
or growing at extremely slow rate, there was no need for intellectual, philosophers, economists,
sociologists to talk about population growth as a a serious variable in their systems and
if for the philosophers and population planners population is more or less a constant, it
cannot be part of their theory of change or progress.
Economists of development would find little interest in a constant. You do not you do
not use constants in your theories. Constant in the sense that variables if there is something
which has a constant value, then you do not require to pay attention to that in building
your theory. So, population was a constant kind only. It was an exogenous variable for
systems, not endogenous variable. Sir, I have this question that I heard your
lecture lecture regarding world population growth as you have said that and I found that
you are concentrating a lot on ancient societies. May be in the first lecture and subsequently
we move on to other periods of world history but what is my concern here is that even if
number 1 is that this is first is a comment that I would like to make that when we were
discussing world population growth, the the whole idea that there is growth in population
is but a known ubiquitous fact but what is interesting for us would be the patterns of
growth with respect to geographical areas and hence, area of interest.
So, maybe I could have been you done better could have related something on that, but
then what I am asking is if with even take into consideration the fact that you have
discussed only ancient societies, then in ancient societies as you very well mentioned
that it was a state of what says about this state of nature and all of mankind and if
it was the state of nature and hence, the propensity to which events like political
warfare could impact population growth, then it has a not to do with an era of theodicy
that prevailed in that situation. So, may be a comparative study of different civilizations
hence present like Indus valley, Greek or Babylonian something of that sort. I think
that they had could definitely give us some clues just to what in the ancient society,
where reasons for the rise of population growth in different ways in different areas. May
be if could some you could have effect something on that.
Sir, I tried to look into the ways in which you have tried to explore the whole phenomenon,
world population growth and I found that what is important for us to understand is not the
fact that world population growth is, but a given fact because it is but it is but what
ubiquitous that world population growth had to happen by default. It is not by design
only. Hence, I would have been much more interested to see as to what is of importance for us
is the ways, in which world population growth varies from one to the other area or with
respect to the cultural ethos of that place and that becomes very important in our analysis
up till now, that is which has been with respect to world population growth in ancient societies
and if that is the question, then in ancient societies where there has been a predominance
and a major clout of political influence or what you said as the state of nature of man
of because they were all fighting beings and there was lot of dwels between them.
So, if that was the reason then I think there must have been some philosophical writing
because that is where that is how we know when we study Indian society we find indological
writings come to a rescue a lot to understand social phenomenon, because they were those
were the only authentic account, though not scientific. So, hence I think if you could
reflect something as to, if not in a statistical way, then what ideas do we form about world
population growth with respect to ancient societies. But taking into account, political
events through the writings of some philosophers. Aditya, you have asked a very interesting
question. Actually today, my focus was on nature of growth in ancient society. I said
two things. One, that man appeared, perhaps man appeared on this planet Earth 5 lakh years
ago, it may be 5 lakh, may be 6 lakh, that is not so important around that time and for
a greater part of human history, the population of the world remain almost stationary. That
it was first time in 1820, that the world population reached the first billion mark
and since, population was almost stationary in all parts of the world. So, it did not
attract the attention of philosophers, economists, intellectuals and and others, planners or
reformers. So, since population is stationary, it is
stationary for all, in Hindu world, in Christian world, in Islamic world, in Asia, in Africa
and Latin America, in developed countries, today's developed countries, today’s less
developed countries. Till the second part of 18th century, world population was stationary
everywhere and that is perhaps one reason, why the issue of population growth has not
been related much. Actually, not at all, to the kind of questions of theodicy or cultural
factors you are asking. Cultural factors became an important issue
only during last 50 years or so, when in certain countries death rates declined, actually in
in certain countries only birth rates declined, not in others, while death rates declined
in all the countries. That means decline in death rate does not require a cultural explanation,
death rates decline universally in all the countries of the world. There were, there
remain still remain, There still remain differences in life expectancy between different countries;
developed, developing, Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist there are differences but those differences
are not so significant, as the differences in birth rate.
So, the issue of culture or the role of anthropologist or role of sociologists, who are particularly
interested in religion, culture civilization becomes important in explaining why in second
part of 20th century some countries had high birth rate and some countries had lower birth
rates. Before this, in ancient society or till 1820, I mentioned that 1820 is the date
when world population reached the first billion. Since, everywhere condition was similar.
Two new points what I which I was making. We will come to cultural issue, when we talk
about medieval society because it is or more than medieval during last 200 years, when
death rates started declining but birth rate did not decline or they declined in some countries
not in others. That time culture comes to play some role but not before that.
Two points which I have, I think two fresh points which I have made today, that when
I was a student we were told that in ancient society birth rates were high, death rates
were high and we all believed that your birth that death rates were extremely high and to
counter extremely high death rates, birth rates were also extremely high. What I said
today is that death rates were not always high in ancient society. In in an in ancient
society, there were many good things also pure rivers, mountains, forest, good fruits,
good agriculture, highly fertile land, low density of population. So, as compared to
today ancient’s time was much better in dealing with infectious diseases or food production
or or the problem of malnutrition, perhaps there was no problem of malnutrition.
And as such life expectancy could have been better if there were no periods of epidemics,
wars, violence or natural catastrophe, this is one thing that death in an. In normal years
death rate of ancient society could have been as low as in modern times or may be even lower
but because of periodic nature of natural catastrophes and political violence the the
long term tendency of death rate was high level.
Second new point was that fertility was high, certainly high but high does not mean the
maximum or the upper limit of reproduction, no society, no ancient society ever had fertility
at the upper limit of reproduction and here we find that culture culture of all countries
culture, in all countries irrespective of religion Hindu, Muslim, Christianity all cultures
played a vital role in maintaining fertility at levels much much below the maximum possible
levels and that was by putting checks on marriages or or there like in India, there was a culture
that at least initially even after marriage, women will be spend lot of time, years at
the parental place and then there were religious restrictions on *** frequency. According
to one estimate of United Nations in India, there were more than 100 days there were more
than 100 days, when uh. Sir, I actually your discussion reminded me
of a very interesting line that we always we participate in always public speaking competition,
we get this line called are we happier than our grandfathers or not, so or is this present
generation better or not, so I mean but that is on a lighter thing but the question what
I am trying to what comes to my mind at this juncture is that, in the in your last slide
you mentioned something about that why economists where even if there were anyways no not a
lot of interest among economists but even if they were interested, they were trying
to see a strong cities are grew with respect to population and and with respect to variables
like employment and other economic variables. So, if the if we keep that in mind, because
we also know that cities not only a very modern phenomenon, we had ancient Hellenic cities
or the Greek cities and hence, it brings us it it makes us presume that the whole idea
of organized habitation in cities must be giving a filling to population growth or it
is nothing like that that or there or do we have any information as to there were any
variations of population growth in the country side and the city which is not necessary technological
city or a modern city. In that sense but the where the administrative head was there or
whether it is a ford city of something of that sort. So, is there something can we think
that there were some patterns in seen in those ways, which were responsible for population
growth in city and the country side in the ancient society itself.
This is a difficult question because and I do not know whether I can give satisfactory
answer to this or not. You see there are almost no studies on relationship between urbanization
and demographic transition. There are studies on demographic situation in cities, ford cities
or other cities you are mentioned in that respect also knowledge about demographic situation
of ford cities in almost nonexistent. This is an area in which new researchers can venture
and find very interesting facts in in Indian ford cities, in western ford cities.
What we know about cities is that, in western countries when urbanization started, when
industrialization, urbanization economic development, they started then at least in the initial
period, while the rate of growth of urban areas was very high that was mainly because
of migration of people from country side, because in urban area there were more job
opportunities in industries and rural areas due to inequality, exploitation, feudalism,
slavery people want to escape those situations and move towards urban areas.
So, rate of growth of urban population was high but in those days death rates of urban
areas were actually higher than death rates of rural areas. Today, urban areas have lower
death rates than rural areas and that is because of better health facilities, hospitals, awareness,
literacy, government facilities, more money, civil society factor but initially in in urban
cities, you know except employment there was nothing else, there was more poverty. This
is how sociology started. You know that one reason or one factor behind shaping sociology
is study of poverty and unemployment and inequality in urban areas in industrial industrial societies.
So, those those cities had high rate of growth of population, not because of lower mortality,
not because of lower death rate but despite higher death rate due to migration, rural
to urban migration they they had high growth rate.
Today’s cities have lower death rate and high growth rate partly because they have
lower death rates and partly because of migration. There some studies show that in countries
like India, today there is 50 percent contribution to urban growth of rural to urban migration
and 50 percent of natural increase in urban areas themselves. In in earlier times death
rates, high death rate played a negative role in urban increase and it was rural to urban
urban migration, which actually played more than 100 percent role in urban growth.
So, is that is that means as you as you are saying very properly that the nature of city
changing from one era to other and also had a change, similar change in the demographic
factor. I mean this basically what you are trying to put across that the nature of city
changes because city today refers to something else and that time it was only to employment,
education. It was more crude in its nature and hence, could not effect population growth
to that extent because today cities matter in much more that of other variables immediately.
This is, is this something that you are just saying.
You are right. Because all cities in all parts of the world are not of similar type with
respect to socioeconomic and demographic situation; demographics of ford cities, demographic of
industrial cities, demographic of religion or pilgrimage cities, demographics of administrative
towns or demographics of capital cities they are all different and when it comes to urbanization
actually, this study of urbanization and demographic transition is particularly difficult because
when you come to define urbanization conceptually, it is not only growth of cities, urbanization
as such is a process of population concentration. So, when population started settling down
in villages when nomads, tribals, moving bands started settling down in rural areas we say
that urbanization started. So, if you want to relate urbanization to
demographic transition, then the subject will become more complex but you are right it would
be an interesting study to see, if what we call city. There are different types of cities
they have their own functional specialization and are there are differences in demographics
of different types of cities having different functional types ford cities, pilgrimage,
administrative, capital cities, industrial or service cities there are in in context
of, in Indian context we also talked of rural type of cities or urban population different
types of cities but this is an interesting question. May be we need to pay attention
to this fact. Thank you.