<You presume that the women in poor countries with high fertility do not have access to contraception, but this is circular logic.>

No presumption needed. According to UN research there are about 200 million women world wide who would use contraception but do not have access to it. The estimate is that its provision would prevent about 70-80 million pregnancies each year. So the provision of contraception on a voluntary basis would greatly reduce the World's population growth.

http://www.unfoundation.org/global-issues/women-and-population/sexual-repro-health.html

Fester, I'd say again that infrastructure isn't China's problem. It's less difficult to build it there given the lax approvals process and one-party rule.
I recall being driven along a highway in Henan province, which until recently was China's poorest and most populated. The highway was new, long and as smooth as any in Australia.

Regarding India, you're right, their infrastructure is terrible. By other measures India's future is brighter: Young demographics, free press, democratic institutions, add up to more stability and a booming economy, but they're constrained by their lack of infrastructure.

Despite this, China's growth has been more impressive. It's because their infrastructure is impressive.

Here's a paper from a director from the Asian Development Bank and a researcher from the Rand corporation. I can provide other links, but this says it well:

http://www.pbrc.soka.edu/Resources/Documents/KimNangia.pdf

"China has followed the path of these fast growing economies, building impressive infrastructure at lightning speed. China’s unparalleled growth and poverty reduction in the last two decades has gone hand in hand with development of infrastructure stemming from its export-led strategy. India, the other “giant” in Asia, did not follow the suit of the successful Asian infrastructure model in building ahead of
demand. Its development strategy from time to time focused on redistribution of wealth rather than growth."

China and India are different economies. Its unwise to assume because they're developing countries with large populations they can be lumped together. China's problem definitely isn't infrastructure, even in poorer provinces.

As the ultimate example, observe the Tibet railway. Often poorer provinces get even better infrastructure as the government attempts to gloss over human rights violations by building shiny facilities to distract observers.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/china-tibet/

"Around half of the Golmud to Lhasa section was laid on barely permanent permafrost with winter temperatures that plummet to -35ºC, while the summer's 30+º sees the upper layers thawing to mud. The engineers approached this problem by constructing elevated tracks and causeways over some of the most difficult terrain, while in other areas, pipes have been installed to circulate liquid nitrogen below the rail bed to keep the ground frozen."

Cont'd

Cont'd.

In addition, local governments often get ridiculous sums of money that they have to spend on 'growth' projects, but the money is administered by officials who have no idea what they're doing and no oversight.
The result is idiocy like this, in poverty stricken provinces.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010expo/2010-05/05/content_9809469.htm

It feels strange to be in poor areas driving past huge sculptures, ostentatious bridges or abandoned amusement parks shaped like castles, but head out into the countryside and you'll spot all kinds of wackiness.

@ rstuart:
"...they have also made far sighted investments. Well one at least - their fast rail networks. I imagine they will come in real handy soon. And although spending too much on public infrastructure is a problem, not spending money on infrastructure can waste even more money. Those images of the 5 day traffic jam into Beijing spring to mind. And then there is what would happen if they didn't spend money on water ..."

On water, I agree, but I'm not sure about fast-rail. China has a tendency to build infrastructure 'Ferraris' when a stationwagon would be more practical.

This is my favourite blogger when it comes to Chinese economics. He's the head of economics and management at Tsinghua university and he gets plenty of leeway to be critical because he's got an impressive resume stretching to noted figures in the white house.

In this article he dissects the fast rail. This point is the most salient:

http://chovanec.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/chinas-high-speed-rail-dilemma/

"The problem is that high-speed rail is expensive both to build and to operate, requiring high ticket prices to break even. The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low. Even if they could afford a high-speed train ticket — which is doubtful given their limited incomes — they would probably prefer to conserve their cash and take a slower, cheaper train. If that proves true, the new high-speed lines will only incur losses while providing little or no relief to the existing transportation network."

TRTL

I dont doubt that China is good at building infrastructure, but I again point out that it has a lot to build to give its population a high living standard. And I wonder how the environment will cope with the development, given the damage that has occurred in providing a high standard of living to only a few thus far. In contrast, Japan has already built its infrastructure. So I find it odd to think of the prospects for countries like India as bright, and the prospects for countries like Japan as poor. It is bit like looking at a suburb of well built housing, educated residents, and superb services, compare it with a slum of destitute and uneducated people living in shanties with the most basic amenities, and conclude that the prospects for the slum dwellers was much brighter.

It doesnt make much sense to me.

@TRTL "By other measures India's future is brighter: Young demographics..."

A young demographic profile is the hallmark of poor countries, not rich ones. Although India's population is smaller than China's, China is much further advanced in reigning in its population growth. India's fertility rate is around 2.8 compared to China's of around 1.8, and assuming famine doesn't kick in first, India's population will exceed China's within 20 years. http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm
As global resources diminish and extinction rates rise, the need for all nations to stabilise and reduce their populations is a no-brainer. We are already in ecological overshoot: the question is how hard the inevitable landing is going to be - not just for us but for the species we are wiping out.

1. 4.1 million babies between 1946 and 1964 and now 5.27 million boomers due to immigration.
2. The state looks after the old and parents pay for kids. Aged cost way more than kids. Typical boomer bs to push this argument.
3. Demographic swelling or momentum is 1/3 of our real population growth. More people living longer...der.....
4. As the pig enters the bowel of the snake, food and water must be brought to it as it can no longer move. Our death rates double in the next 25 years and our natural growth will reduce to zero if we remain below replacement fertility.
5. We have less 0-15 year olds as a percentage of our population than we did 10 years ago.
6. Emigration is peaking and trending up as approx 100,000 australian residents leave permanently. And do not believe the bs from the abs about most returning within one year,. They do not. 1000 skilled people leaving permanently per week...shite!