Is the earth in danger of overpopulation? Overpopulation of the planet: myths and reality Overpopulation of the planet is a myth of scientists' opinions.

The demographic problems of humanity are associated with exponential growth in numbers and increased migration of the population. For most of human history, population growth has been subtle. However, during the 19th century this process began to gain momentum and accelerated extremely sharply in the first half of the 20th century. (Figure 5.2, Table 5.2). This gave analysts a reason to talk about a "population explosion".

The first people at the time when they began to master fire and populate the planet were a population of no more than 1 million people. This was even before the transition to agriculture, i.e. before man got out of the influence of natural selection. With the beginning of agriculture and cattle breeding, the human population increased to about 100 million people.

The average life expectancy in the ancient world was small: for example, in ancient Greece it did not exceed 20-25 years. In the XVII-XIX centuries, living conditions began to improve, medicine stepped forward. At the end of the XIX and especially in the XX century. there have been dramatic changes in this area, due to which child mortality has decreased, life expectancy has crossed the 25-30-year mark (the border of reaching reproductive age) and a very rapid, exponential growth in the human population has begun. All these reasons were the beginning of the modern population explosion.

After the Second World War, 2.5 billion people lived on Earth in 1950. In 1982, the total population of the planet exceeded 5 billion, and in 2000 it already amounted to more than 6 billion people, i.e. almost 2.5 times higher than in 1950. Recently, the population of China, Indonesia, India, African and Latin American countries has grown especially rapidly. By 2011, the world's population reached seven billion.

Development of mankind on a logarithmic time scale (according to the calculations of the UN and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (NASA)

Table 5.2

				Cultural		History, culture, technology
				Stabilization		Going to the limit
				population
						Change in age distribution
						Globalization
				demography.		Urbanization
						Computers
				The newest		Nuclear power World wars Electricity
				New story		Nuclear power World wars Electricity
				Middle Ages		Industrial Revolution Printing
				Ancient World Neolithic		Geographical discoveries Fall of Rome, Mohammed
				Ancient World Neolithic		Geographical discoveries Fall of Rome, Mohammed
						Christ, Axial Time
						Christ, Axial Time
						Greek civilization
						India, China, Buddha, Confucius Mesopotamia,

						Writing, domestication cities, villages / households.
						Ceramics, Bronze Microliths Settlement of America
						Languages, Shamanism Homo sapiens
						speech, fire Settlement of Europe and Asia Pebble culture, Homo habilis chopper
				Anthropogenesis		Separation of hominids from hominoids

Rice. 5.2.

1 - Ancient Stone Age; 2 - the beginning of the New Stone Age; 3 - New Stone Age; 4 - Bronze Age;
5 - Iron Age; 6 - Middle Ages; 7 - our time

The population density in different areas is not the same. In many developed countries of Europe and North America, according to data provided by V.M. Galushin, the annual population growth is approximately 1% and continues to decline. A different situation is emerging in most developing countries, where rapid population growth makes it difficult to improve their well-being and gives rise to complex socio-economic problems. This manifests itself even within individual countries, where, as a rule, most of the population is concentrated in cities. According to the data given by K.M. Petrov, the world population is increasing today by about 90 million people a year. The main increase in the world's population occurs in developing countries (Fig. 5.3).

The rapid population growth in them provokes an aggravation of environmental and social problems, such as food shortages, the emergence and spread of epidemics of infectious diseases, intermittent inter-ethnic, religious and caste conflicts that arise as a result of increased competition for territories and resources located there, as well as an ever-increasing lag behind in the level of cultural development.

The demographic capacity of our planet is estimated by most ecologists at 1.0-1.5 billion people (under ideal social environmental conditions). Today, the Earth, according to experts, is overpopulated by at least 3 times. Population growth, as noted by P. Agess, will apparently continue, since food resources, despite regional hunger and malnutrition, are sufficient for more than 15 billion people.

Rice. 5.3.

The social stratification of people at the end of the second millennium is accompanied by an equally sharp division of states into two large groups that develop and grow according to different laws - these are economically developed and developing countries, conventionally called countries of the North and South in UN documents.

There is also an economic inequality of people on the planet. The income of the entire population of the Earth can be grouped according to the amount of income and divided into five equal parts. So, 20% of the richest people have 82.7% of the world's wealth, and 20% of the poorest people - only 1.4% of the world's wealth. The difference is significant, and it continues to grow exponentially.

Life expectancy is also an important characteristic that indirectly reflects the very quality of life. Age characteristics by countries of the world are given in Table. 5.3.

The period of exponential population growth is now over in advanced economies (Figure 5.4).

Analysis of age pyramids, i.e. The population distributions for 10-year age groups show that they sometimes have a slightly broadened base due to small infant mortality. A noticeable narrowing of the pyramid (that is, a decrease in the population) begins at the level older than 50-60 years, and an active increase in mortality occurs only after 70-80 years.

Table 5.3

Age characteristics of the population by country (Levi, Boucher, 1995)

	Average life expectancy, years Men Women	Infant mortality per 1 thousand newborns per year	Gross domestic product, USD US/person






Brazil

Rice. 5.4.

The decline in the birth rate in developed countries is due to the fact that people have reached a high level of well-being, and in their minds there is a change in the value system. The values associated with a large family and kinship are being replaced by the ideals of comfort, a cozy, quiet personal life, which require large expenditures to provide for them. Thus, for developed countries, the limiting development factor is environmental pollution associated with a high level of consumption. The higher the level of consumption, the higher the consumption of energy, natural resources, and the more intense its pollution with production, consumption and household waste. In developed countries, a crisis of consciousness has clearly emerged today, leading to a higher level of consumption and hindering the growth of the birth rate of the population.

On the contrary, in developing countries such as Africa, India, Indonesia, Malaysia and others, the growth of the human population is still extremely active. At the same time, both the birth rate and infant mortality are very high there, with a relatively low life expectancy. The age pyramid of developing countries looks completely different than that of developed countries. It has a very broad base, reflecting a high birth rate, and illustrates a high death rate in each ten-year group. Average life expectancy in many developing countries is only 40-50 years, which is about 30 years less than in economically developed countries. For developing countries, the main limiting factor is demographic. High birth rates are accompanied by high death rates, and the population of these countries is growing exponentially. In these countries, as in any agrarian society, family management uses working hands, including children. With high mortality, in order to have 2-3 adult workers left on the farm, the family needs to have at least 8-9 children. In many developing countries, children make up almost half of the population (Figure 5.5).

Due to the social and economic crisis that began in the 90s. 20th century the state of the human population in Russia at the end of the 20th century. turned out to be in a critical situation, because by this time the death rate had increased greatly, and the average life expectancy, together with the birth rate, had decreased. Countries in crisis (such as Russia) are the first to be threatened by the wave of extinction.

Measures to maintain the population balance of mankind include a number of international agreements adopted within the framework of the UN, in particular, the agreement on population. On the basis of UN programs to reduce the birth rate and death rate, a policy of assistance to developing countries has been developed, including the provision of contraceptives and health care, as well as economic measures designed to raise the standard of living and education of the population. In addition, international projects were developed under which modern technologies were transferred to developing countries, focused not on large industrial or agricultural production, but on small family enterprises and farms. Mostly these are environmentally optimal technologies that ensure high labor productivity.

Recently, we often hear that our planet is threatened by overpopulation. From here there are a lot of notorious theories about the "golden billion", about Masonic conspiracies against humanity, and so on. We are told that soon the population of the Earth may increase by 1.5 times, and the amount of food and water will decrease proportionally. Humanity is threatened by the depletion of natural resources, which will lead to a fall in the economy. In some countries, laws are being passed on birth control, sterilization of married couples who already have children. How dangerous is all this? And how true is all this?

Scientists are sounding the alarm: in 2050, the world's population may be from 9 to 13 billion people (7.3 billion - 2015, compared with 2014, the increase in the world's population this year is 1.15%). However, is there any reason for concern? Even now, the entire population of our planet occupies only about 5% of its surface. For comparison: this is approximately the territory of Austria or the Moscow region. If all people are collected in Australia, there will be approximately 1000 m2 for each person. According to the calculations of the Romanian physicist Viorel Badescu, the limit figure for the world's population could be approximately 1.3 quadrillion people. And this is not the only such calculation.

A reasonable question arises: let's assume that this is so. What about resources? How to be with them? Indeed, the problem with natural resources is quite serious. They are depleted, but depleted where? In those places where they have been mined for a long time. We have explored only a small part of the deposits of various natural resources - especially since we have the Arctic and Antarctic, the potential of which is still completely unknown. On our planet, there are regularly new deposits of various natural resources that can provide the population of the Earth for a long time to come.

Many researchers note an interesting fact: the world's population is really growing. But for what? Oddly enough - at the expense of the countries of Africa and Asia. The American continents and Europe are seeing declining birth rates. And there is such an incident: in Russia, the state pays families with many children, and in China, parents are forced to pay a fee of $ 3,500 for the second child. Moreover, even in the countries of Africa and Asia, population growth is declining. And over us there will be a threat of extinction of people. Wars, epidemics, cataclysms, plus the sterilization of people and birth control - all this may soon lead to the fact that there will be very few of us left.

So the problem is not that there are more of us, but that we are killing ourselves. Of course, it is beneficial to someone. Throughout the history of our planet, there have always been people who profited from the misfortune of others. This kind of propaganda still exists today. The economic component is always the most important. And, unfortunately, today we see how some people destroy physically and morally other people who also have the right to live on this planet.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus, speaking of the end times, said these words: “And then many will be offended, and they will betray one another, and they will hate one another…and because of the increase of iniquity, the love of many will grow cold” (Matthew 24:10, 12). We are living in the last days of the earth's history. The words that Jesus spoke 2,000 years ago are as relevant today as ever. Our planet is in crisis - and not from overpopulation or a lack of natural resources. Our planet is in a moral crisis. It is this crisis that will be the one that will kill our planet. But Jesus promised that before that happens, He would return to save those who, despite this crisis, were not indifferent to His words.

According to the UN, there are 795 million hungry people in the world.

25 years ago, the number of hungry people was one billion. On the one hand, there seems to be a reduction in the number of people suffering from malnutrition, on the other hand, there are questions about the methodology of counting. And if we take into account that over the same period the world's population has grown by 1.9 billion, then how to relate to apocalyptic scenarios that provide for the impossibility of providing the ever-increasing population of the Earth with good nutrition in the very near future?

I have long been interested in the question of the notorious overpopulation of the Earth and the difficulties associated with this in providing people with food, when entire regions of the planet periodically literally die of hunger. Arguing on this topic, I came to the conclusion that this is the same problem sucked from the finger, like global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer and other horror stories, behind which ominous shadows of beneficiaries loomed.

To at least slightly appreciate the scale of the problem (including the scale in the literal sense), all you need is a calculator, a map of the Earth (at least paper, even a computer one) or a globe, as well as a little common sense.

So, there are currently 7.5 billion people on the planet - is that a lot or a little? And 10 billion? And what, in principle, the population can feed the Earth?

These questions are not new, however, I wanted to figure it out myself, despite the authorities, and get my own result.

We take a map of the planet in the usual room format or, for example, open Google Earth, where there is a convenient ruler in the “tools”. To begin with, we conditionally allocate 1 m² to each person, and on this, sufficiently free quadrature for one standing person, we place all the inhabitants of the Earth on an area of 10 thousand km² (a square with a side of 100 km or 10 billion m²). The most promising 10 billion people expected by the middle of the 21st century will fit exactly.

How will the indicated area look on the map-globe? Elementary: in the form of a small rectangle on an infinitely vast uninhabited space. A rectangle, not much larger than a large average metropolis, and much smaller than the largest Chinese city of Chongqing, covering an area of 82.3 thousand km². Actually, back in 1968, the English science fiction writer John Brunner wrote about the same thing in the novel “Standing on Zanzibar” - in his overpopulated world of the first half of the 21st century, the entire population of the Earth could fit elbow to elbow on one fairly small island of Zanzibar.

I agree: 1 m² per person is nothing. Then we allocate 20 m² to each, quite suitable for more or less comfortable living, and we settle everyone, for example, in densely standing residential buildings, the number of storeys of which is, for example, 10 floors. We get: 10 thousand km² x 20 (m²) / 10 (floor) = 20 thousand km², i.e. the area on the map will increase by only 2 times (rectangle 100 by 200 km), remaining several times smaller than the area of Chongqing.

And now persuade me, since I have begun to apply certain parameters of comfortable living, to move apart the conditional 10-story buildings, to arrange some kind of yards, parking lots, roads, sidewalks and a bunch of administrative and household institutions necessary for the life of the metropolis, up to treatment facilities. According to my estimates, the area will have to be increased by about 10 times - this is the minimum, without frills and various areas and wastelands there. Result: 200 thousand km² - a rectangle of 200 by 1000 km, which turns our conditional city into a kind of super-megalopolis, but exceeding in area, taking into account the relative low-rise, the largest city on Earth by only 2.5 times. That is, even in 2050, the entire population of the planet can be accommodated in one, only very large, city!

I’m not sure how comfortable the final indicator of 20 m² of citywide area per person, however, it is quite correlated, for example, with the Principality of Monaco, where there is only 50 m² per person, or with such an island metropolis as Singapore, where accounts for 125 m² with parks, squares, squares, office buildings and even a zoo, as well as other giant stores of "unnecessary things". So, my calculation, based on the minimum necessary needs for a full life in the city, is not so out of touch with reality.

Finally, we come to the end of the discussion.

Initial data:

- the area of the entire land area of \u200b\u200bthe Earth is almost 150 million km², of which about 70%, that is, about 100 million km², are suitable for farming and obtaining other types of products;

- all the inhabitants of the Earth (with a margin) can be comfortably (without frills) located on an area of 200 thousand km²;

Intermediate result:

- all earthlings are able to fit on an area of \u200b\u200babout 0.2% of the entire habitable land surface, which is at the level of statistical error, but in fact - beyond it. Even if this figure is increased 10 times - up to 2 million km² with already quite worthy 200 m² of citywide area per 1 person, then in this case the area of the super city will be only 2% of the entire land, i.e. slightly above the margin of error. In the future, if you like, I will use just this indicator.

Further, we are easily convinced of the ability of mother earth to feed both 50 and 100 billion people, for which we take, for example, a speculative indicator that for a full-fledged "feed" (vegetables, fruits, fish, poultry and cattle), one person needs about 10 acres of land suitable for ordinary (not super-hyper-technological) life. At the same time, we omit the natural question of specialization of farms and the possible exchange of products between them, since not every 10 acres can simultaneously breed fish, livestock and plant a garden with a garden. In the same way, we omit quite possible attempts to combine plots into larger farms, for example, for sowing grain, which is pointless to grow on 10 acres. But the most important thing is that we consider only one parameter - the ability of a person not only not to starve, but quite the opposite - to eat a variety of and environmentally friendly food, without the use of high-tech methods - from large equipment to chemical fertilizers, and even more so, GMOs. We just take and make the average temperature in the hospital: 10 acres and that’s it, and we don’t try to rely on scientific calculations (there are a lot of all sorts of attempts to calculate on the Internet, diverging by orders of magnitude), but take my word for it and my experience: in not the most favorable for agriculture and cattle breeding areas such as the Moscow region, 10 acres per person clearly form a surplus suitable for exchange.

So, in 1 km² there are 10 thousand acres, therefore, 1 km² is able to feed 1000 people, which means that an area of 10 million km² is needed to feed 10 billion people. We sum it up with the result of 2 million km² (based on 200 m² of citywide area per 1 person) and get 12 million km², that is, 12% of the entire habitable and usable area of the Earth. Then we can quite calmly, within reason (without compromising quality and environmental friendliness), start improving the efficiency of agriculture and animal husbandry, reducing the norm of acres per person, for example, by half, which is absolutely correct, and we will get a result of 7% by 2050 of all habitable land occupied to support the life of 10 billion people.

And if someone wants to reproach me for the absence in the calculations of factories, steamships, power plants and other candle factories and factories that also require a place for their placement, then he is ready to make concessions and allocate 3% for this percentage, attention! - from arable land, although I understand that there is no need for this, 1% would be more than enough, and not necessarily on agricultural land. Nevertheless, I am making concessions out of a penchant for conservative calculations and childish love for integers and especially round numbers in order to get, for example, the coveted 10% for 10 billion people. from all habitable earth.

Thus, we get the final result: the resources of the entire planet are quite enough to support the prudent life of 100 billion people and without the need to cause irreversible damage to the Earth's ecology. At the same time, not only the existing forest areas will remain intact, but also vast reserves with all their inhabitants without any need to pretend to be the king of nature with the total destruction of nature, as was done long ago and successfully in Europe (http://alex-o-mire.blogspot.ru/2016/05/blog-post.html).

However, no 100 billion kings in the near future threaten the Earth: according to experts, taking into account natural demographic correlation, by the year 2100 no more than 13.3 billion will live on Earth, and according to the most probable forecast - only 11.2 billion people.

That, in fact, is all, then draw your own conclusions about the validity of various exotic theories about the optimal number of the Earth's population and the need for its forced regulation. And do not forget the main thing: it is assumed that the authors of theories and their supporters usually do not fall under the aforementioned regulation, but you and I: ordinary readers of theories and their opponents do. Especially, for some reason, if we are Russians, besides, not the most numerous, and not the fastest multiplying, but possessing the most extensive territories on the planet, inherited by the incredible efforts of our ancestors.

And if somewhere far away people are dying en masse from hunger, then the question is not overpopulation, but a monstrous paradigm that makes it possible to utilize millions of tons of food, because this is much more profitable than feeding the hungry.

Anything, including wars. But the main consequence will be hunger. Massive, terrible, hopeless. It has already begun.

Leningrad disease

Alimentary dystrophy (starvation disease) - this is the name of a violation of the general nutrition of the body due to prolonged malnutrition, when food contains an insufficient amount of calories compared to the energy expended. After the Great Patriotic War, dystrophy had another, unofficial name - "Leningrad disease".

Those who have experienced it know that there is nothing more terrible in the world. There is a feeling that you can hide from the bombing, but not from hunger. “Hunger is an incredible feeling that does not let go for a moment,” said Daniil Granin, author of The Blockade Book, in one of his interviews. “One mother fed her children with her blood by cutting her veins.”

Will all of us (or at least most of the inhabitants of the Earth) suffer the same fate? Many experts are sure that this is quite possible. There is a theory that predicts mass destruction of humanity in 50-100 years. There is a concept of some hypothetical Rubicon of 9-13 billion people (the specific figure is very vague), when overpopulation reaches critical limits and tends to naturally limit the birth rate.

The discussion of the problem began in 1972 with the famous report to the Club of Rome by a group of scientists headed by Professor Dennis Meadows. The report was called "The Limits to Growth". It included a number of ideas that the beginning of the 21st century will be marked by the inevitability of worldwide catastrophes associated with the depletion of natural resources, environmental pollution and a population explosion in developing countries.

Most experts today, however, do not consider overpopulation to be such an acute problem. Yes, and the data about him is very ambiguous. The lion's share of experts is sure that the growth of the population of the Earth is slowing down, although the number of people on the planet, of course, is growing. Where and when exactly this will lead is very difficult to say. But hunger is not only and not so much a consequence of overpopulation. It is also a consequence of wars, epidemics and mismanagement of resources. Water scarcity, climate change, desertification, deforestation and rising energy prices have already become a hindrance for many food producers.

In poor countries, families plan special days in which they will not eat anything.

Population explosion: to be or not to be?

Admittedly, the question is not correct. The population explosion had already begun long ago, and its peak came in the 1960s. But since the late 1980s, there has been a decrease in the absolute growth rate of the world population. Today, these rates are falling in almost all countries. Despite the fact that the world's population has already exceeded 7 billion, this number of "us" is just the consequences of the very population explosion that we talked about above. The number of people over 60 doubled between 1994 and 2014, according to the UN, and last year they outnumbered children under the age of five globally.

Therefore, demographers argue: we, on the contrary, live in an era of gradual decline in population growth. And although the number of people on Earth continues to increase rapidly, the increase has been reduced by almost half compared to 1963, when it peaked. According to experts, high rates of demographic growth (about 2% per year) will continue almost until the end of the 21st century - until 2090. Then they should decrease, and after the population of Homo Sapiens reaches 12-13 billion people, stabilization will come. True, in this situation, the degradation of natural systems that provide us with life is quite likely, and, of course, an acute food problem.

And in the near future, the threat of overpopulation is especially high in countries with uncontrolled births: first of all, we are talking about the states of Tropical Africa, such as Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola, etc.

Danish economist, environmentalist and public figure Bjorn Lomborg criticizes the theory of overpopulation. In his book The Skeptical Environmentalist, he concludes that the concept of a population explosion is dubious, the number of hungry people is falling, as are food prices, and the level of biodiversity necessary for the biosphere is too high, the development of technology and social responsibility lead to a reduction in environmental pollution.

Today, the largest state in terms of population is China, which after 2025 may overtake India. Until 1991, the USSR was the third largest in terms of population, after its collapse, the United States became the third. Russia occupies the ninth place in this list.

According to another specialist, candidate of sociological sciences, director of the Institute for Demographic Research Igor Beloborodov, the theory of overpopulation in many respects contradicts elementary statistics. This is especially true of the food crisis we are discussing.

So, in 1990, according to Beloborodov, about 1 billion people were starving in the world, and by 2013, after an increase in the population, this figure dropped to 842 million. In his opinion, the territory of Australia is enough to comfortably accommodate the entire population of the Earth, while each person will have one hectare of free space.

“According to all existing demographic forecasts, in the near future, the growth rate of the world population will constantly slow down, and then completely acquire a depopulation orientation,” the sociologist writes in his article “Symptoms of demographic degradation.”

He gives a “most probable” demographic projection scenario called the World Population Prospect, which shows how the population replacement rate will change between 2005 and 2050 compared to 1950-1975:

“All over the world, the population growth rate over the specified period will decrease by more than 5 times. The demographic trajectory will acquire a sharply negative direction in developed countries and European states,” Beloborodov points out. As you can see, the problem of overpopulation is extremely controversial, not only in itself, but also in relation to its consequences. Despite everything, many experts still believe that the threat of overpopulation is not so terrible, but mass starvation may turn out to be a very real problem. And it can happen for a variety of reasons.

Bread without spectacles!

“Using a well-known image, we can say that earthly civilization resembles a wizard who brought such powerful forces to life that he can no longer cope with them,” writes Doctor of Economics, Chief Researcher at IMEMO RAS, researcher in his article “Global Food Problem”. this question Evgeny Kovalev. - Mankind's pressure on the natural environment, in particular on resources, has reached such a limit beyond which nature can no longer (or almost cannot) restore itself to the same extent. In this sense, the growth of the world's population can be called a problem-forming factor. This seems to be true, but only in the final analysis. How else to explain the fact that in Africa, where food production is stagnating, the population is growing rapidly and the period of its doubling is a little more than 20 years.

Despite the growth in world population, Kovalev points out that food production has so far grown faster than the number of people. Yes, and technological shifts in the agricultural sector made it possible not only to increase production, but also to reduce its costs, and hence the prices of agricultural products.

And everything would be fine if, by the beginning of this century, observers had not alarmedly discovered two new trends emerging in the food sector. “Firstly, the growth of food production began to gradually slow down, and the reduction in the cost of production, and consequently, the price of a unit of production, also slowed down,” the researcher writes. “Secondly, although this did not immediately affect the direct cost of food products, the environmental price that humanity pays for the growth of agricultural production began to increase.”

As the German immunologist and bacteriologist Paul Ehrlich once said, “In trying to feed the growing number of our own kind, we endanger the very ability of the Earth to support any life at all.”

Between 50,000 and 100,000 people died from a massive mass famine in East Africa in 2011.

Yevgeny Kovalev says that today all the land suitable for cultivation is used. The plowing of new arable land can lead to higher prices for agricultural products and negative consequences for the environment, as has already happened in the zone of unstable agriculture, for example, in African countries. “According to the report of the American World Resources Institute, soil degradation and their water availability covers already 16% of the world's agricultural areas (according to 2004 data - NS). The increase in production is largely achieved by harming or even destroying agricultural resources. This means that the current population of the Earth in an ecological sense is increasing its food consumption at the expense of future generations,” writes Kovalev.

At the end of 1992, more than 1,500 well-known scientists from around the world signed an appeal that sounded like a vigorous warning to humanity about the ongoing environmental degradation, which is a threat to the existence of earthly civilization as such. It talked about the widespread decline in soil fertility as a consequence of existing methods of agriculture and animal husbandry. Among other things, the disappearance of forests was also named. Thus, since 1945, 11% (territories larger than India and China combined) of the Earth's vegetation cover have been degraded. Intensive irrigation of agricultural soils leads to the fact that even large rivers begin to shallow. Huanhe, for example, dries up every year for several months. The same problem with the shallowing of many large lakes and even inland seas, like the Aral in Central Asia or Lake Chapala in Mexico.

According to scientists, in 80 countries, where 40% of the world's population lives, there is a serious shortage of surface water. Completing the picture is the pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater, making them unusable.

An important factor was the mass disappearance of the lungs of the planet - forests, especially tropical ones. Evgeny Kovalev: “According to the World Bank, the annual rate of deforestation from 1990 to 1995 was 101.7 thousand square meters. km. The fact that in some places, for example in the US and some EU countries, forest area has increased in these years is by no means encouraging, as it means that the actual rate of deforestation in the most vulnerable areas, primarily in the tropics, was still higher than the WB data shows.”

In their appeal, scientists stressed that if such rates are maintained, most of the wet, tropical forests will disappear before the end of the 21st century, and with them a huge part of plants and animals will sink into oblivion.

WHO considers hunger the main threat to human health: it is the cause of a third of child deaths and 10% of all diseases.

Animal husbandry makes its own contribution - and much more than field cultivation - to the aggravation of the food problem. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, cited by Kovalev, in 2000 the total world population of all domestic animals was 1331 million cattle, 1060 million sheep, 905 million pigs, 235 million geese. But all this living creatures need space for grazing and feed. This need is a death sentence for much of the rainforest. “In Central America, for example, from 1950 to the present day, 6 million hectares of forests have been converted into pastures, and in the Amazon region, 50% of pastures reclaimed from tropical forests have been abandoned due to complete depletion,” the scientist cites statistics. Not to mention how much methane and ammonia all these animals emit into the atmosphere. There are also figures: it is estimated that the annual release of ammonia by domestic animals around the world is 23 million tons.

Yevgeny Kovalev refers to the conclusions of the World Bank, which claims that the world's population will not stabilize at a level below 12.4 billion people, but, according to UN calculations, it will probably reach 14 billion. poverty, not getting enough food, and one in ten suffers from chronic hunger. There are no more than a few decades left until the time when the chance to prevent the growing threats will be completely lost, ”the author makes a disappointing forecast.

And although he also speaks of a decrease in population growth (especially in developed countries, in Europe and the USA, as well as in Russia), referring to the numbers, the scientist notes that in some states this growth, on the contrary, is gaining speed. Among them are the countries of Africa, which we talked about. Added to this are India and Pakistan.

“The aggravation of the water problem is also fraught with a political threat, since it can lead to an aggravation of conflicts within countries and between states,” the economist concludes.

Peter Grunwald, a statistician at the Dutch Center for Mathematics and Informatics, has calculated that over 107 billion people have been born on Earth in the entire history of mankind (assuming that it began 162,000 years ago).

Rescue of the drowning

According to the same World Bank for 2012, the growth of world food prices in the CIS countries has already turned 44 million people into the poor.

"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" dated March 16, 2012 in the material "Let's feed everyone!" wrote: “According to scientists, 925 million people are starving or malnourished today. Another 1 billion suffer from so-called hidden hunger, lacking enough vitamins and minerals in their diets. On the other hand, 1 billion of the most prosperous earthlings significantly "overconsume", spreading a new type of epidemic - overeating, ending in type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

And how many once-usable foods end up in the trash every day? There are no such statistics anywhere.

The same publication in the same material writes: “The chief government scientist of the United Kingdom, Sir John Beddington, believes that genetically modified foods will become a key factor in the survival of the population of the sample of 2050. And people should accept them and put up with them. Moral and ethical counterarguments to GM crops are no longer acceptable. Indeed, how else to feed the population of the Earth, which today is growing by 6 million every month, despite the fact that by 2030 more than 60 percent of earthlings will live in cities, having ceased to be engaged in cattle breeding and agriculture?

According to British experts, by 2050 the world's population, which has reached more than 9 billion people, will need 40% more food, 30% more water and 50% more energy than today. Therefore, Professor Beddington predicts: without modern biotechnology, including genetic modification and nanotechnology, we will not see enough food from now on. Only genetically modified crops are able to withstand pests and insects that today devour up to 30% of crops, and only GM plants will be viable in the face of water shortage and salinity.

The philosophy of food itself must also change. This means that food should become valuable already today. “Today, the irresponsible average British consumer throws away £500 to £700 ($800-$1,120) worth of groceries in the bin every year, which is about a quarter of all the food a family buys,” the newspaper writes.

Better management of the global food system is another hope for escaping planetary hunger and artificial meat. This requires reducing subsidies and grants, as well as removing trade barriers that put the poorest countries at a disadvantage. "RG": "When grain burns due to drought in one single country, bread prices around the world soar, which proves the need for flexible food cooperation on a global scale."

As we have already said, most demographers agree that the growth of the Earth's population will naturally stop in the second half of the 21st century, when the number of inhabitants of the planet will reach approximately 9-13 billion people. But how to feed these 9 billion? “This is a very difficult task,” the newspaper quoted British professor Charles Godfrey as saying. - If all these 9.5 billion have the same appetites and the same menu that we have today in Europe - not to mention the United States! - that will be another problem. If we can somehow change the demand, then, I believe, the task of feeding the population will be achievable.

Outraged that humanity is recklessly using resources and throwing away about a third of food, German students looked into the garbage cans. In the photo: one of the students demonstrates the "waste" found in the trash can of a Berlin supermarket

A bit of optimism and... bugs

I must say that global organizations are working on the problem with might and main. And looking for ways out. At least some. So, in May 2013, the UN suggested that the inhabitants of the planet gradually switch to ... insects in their diet. “Insects are one of the most accessible types of protein food. They make up 50% of the known species of the fauna, the report says. “About 2,000 different insects are part of the traditional diet of 2 billion people.”

The report emphasizes that the concentration of proteins, healthy fats, calcium, iron and zinc in insects is sometimes even higher than in beef. At the same time, 2 kg of food is enough for growing 1 kg of insects, and 8 kg for cattle. However, one of the authors of the publication, Eva Muller, explains: “We do not encourage everyone to eat bugs. What we are trying to say is that insects are just one of the many resources that forests provide, although they are hardly considered as a potential source of food and especially animal feed.”

The aforementioned researcher of the food problem, Yevgeny Kovalev, also believes that “an encouraging trend in recent decades has been the development of mariculture - breeding oysters, mussels, and kelp on man-made marine plantations. Apparently, mariculture is the future,” he says.

But for the large-scale development of mariculture, large investments are needed, which will pay off only over time. In the meantime, you have to rely on the good old fish. And this despite the fact that scientists around the world have long been sounding the alarm about the growth of the destructive impact on the oceans, especially in its coastal areas, where the bulk of fish is caught. “The global marine catch is at its peak. Some fisheries are already showing signs of collapse. Rivers carry into the seas not only a heavy mass of washed soil, but also industrial, agricultural and livestock waste, some of which is toxic,” writes Kovalev.

Let's assume the worst and, hopefully, the most unlikely scenario: the extinction of mankind. What will happen in this case? Does our short-sighted, but still quite glorious kind in places have no chance of salvation? Fortunately, there is.

Suppose there are only 100 people left in the world. Is this enough to keep the population alive? “A hundred is enough, if they are not people of the same sex,” the famous anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky answers this question on the Anthropogenesis.ru portal. - For the successful survival of the population on Pitcairn Island, one man and several women were enough. The experience of preserving the Red Book animals shows that sometimes a couple of individuals are enough. Of course, evil recessives can spoil raspberries, but for capital spoilage, recessives must be very evil, and the selection is very severe. And in more or less adequate conditions (say, after a nuclear war), a dozen Bushmen (left out of big politics and far from the sphere of interests of the superpowers) will be enough for the eyes for a Homo reconquista.

Opinion

I am a supporter of the demographic concept of Sergei Petrovich Kapitsa, so I think that overpopulation does not threaten the planet, - says Vladimir Dergachev, a well-known geopolitician professor, creator of the Geopolitics Institute network project, editor and author of the Landscapes of Life magazine, Vladimir Dergachev. - This is also connected with the geopolitical transformation of the world, because the center of economic and technological development is shifting to Asia. And the two largest economies in Asia, the largest countries in terms of demographic power, are China and India. These two countries are also expected to remain the largest in terms of population in the future. But the standard of living in them is rising, so the problem of overpopulation will probably not be too acute. The Chinese government understands that it will not be able to achieve the standard of living of a Westerner with such a population, so China has taken a course towards creating a middle-class society.

Of course, when you fly by plane over the Great Plain of China, overcrowding is clearly visible. Because of the boiler houses operating everywhere, there is literally smog over the plain. But, since I have been to China more than once, I can say that the authorities of the Celestial Empire are well aware of the severity of this environmental problem and will probably find a solution to it.

In the demilitarized zone, on the territory of the Svalbard archipelago, where there is not a single military facility, a storage facility for seeds has been built in the permafrost, to which those who can survive in the event of a global catastrophe will come. Today, there are about half a million samples of various types of food crop seeds from around the world.

There are theories that wars can stabilize population growth. But this, of course, is not the case. Currently, the world's population exceeds 7 billion people. And what kind of war is needed to stop population growth? According to my forecasts, there will be no world (nuclear) war in the foreseeable future, but regional conflicts will persist in the coming decades - precisely in connection with the global geopolitical transformation that I spoke about.

Not only that, the West, or the "golden billion", is actually a consumer society. At the same time, the problems of providing the population with food and fresh water are becoming more acute in many developing countries. For example, many of the conflicts in the Middle East over the past hundred years have been rooted in control over fresh water sources. Yes, you can cite the example of the United Arab Emirates, which turned the Arabian desert into a flowering garden by desalination with sea water, but in other regions, the shortage of fresh water remains extremely acute. For example, in the African Sahel zone, between the Sahara and Central Africa, total desertification is taking place. All these problems lead not to the fact that the population will increase, but to the fact that mass deaths of people from lack of water, food and lack of normal medicine will continue.

According to the World Health Organization, every day 24,000 people in the world die of hunger or diseases directly related to hunger. While you were reading this article, about 400-500 people have died in the world. Of these, slightly less than half are children.

Demographers are sounding the alarm: overpopulation of the planet is becoming an increasingly pressing problem for our planet every year. An increase in the number of people threatens a social and environmental catastrophe. Dangerous trends force specialists to look for ways to solve this problem.

Is there a threat?

The generalized explanation of the threat posed by the overpopulation of the planet is that in the event of a demographic crisis on Earth, resources will run out, and part of the population will face the fact of a lack of food, water or other important means of subsistence. This process is closely related to economic growth. If the development of human infrastructure does not keep pace with the rate of population growth, someone will inevitably find themselves in unfavorable conditions for life.

Degradation of forests, pastures, wildlife, soils - this is just an incomplete list of what threatens the overpopulation of the planet. According to scientists, already today, due to overcrowding and lack of resources in the poorest countries of the world, about 30 million people die prematurely every year.

Overconsumption

The multifaceted problem of overpopulation of the planet lies not only in the impoverishment of natural resources (this situation is more typical for poor countries). In the case of economics, another difficulty arises - overconsumption. It leads to the fact that not the largest society in its size uses the resources provided to it too wastefully, polluting the environment. Also plays a role In large industrial cities, it is so high that it cannot but harm the environment.

Background

The modern problem of overpopulation of the planet arose by the end of the 20th century. At the beginning of our era, about 100 million people lived on Earth. Regular wars, epidemics, archaic medicine - all this did not allow the population to grow rapidly. The mark of 1 billion was overcome only in 1820. But already in the 20th century, overpopulation of the planet became an increasingly possible fact, as the number of people grew exponentially (which was facilitated by progress and rising living standards).

About 7 billion people live on Earth today (the seventh billion was "recruited" in just the last fifteen years). The annual growth is 90 million. Scientists call this situation a population explosion. A direct consequence of this phenomenon is the overpopulation of the planet. The main increase is in the countries of the second and third world, including Africa, where the increase in the birth rate of significance overtakes economic and social development.

Costs of urbanization

Of all types of settlements, cities are growing the fastest (both the area occupied by them and the number of citizens are growing). This process is called urbanization. The role of the city in the life of society is consistently increasing, the urban way of life is spreading to new territories. This is due to the fact that agriculture has ceased to be a key sector of the world economy, as it has been for many centuries.

In the 20th century, a “quiet revolution” took place, which resulted in the emergence of many megacities in various parts of the globe. In science, the modern era is also called the "epoch of large cities", which clearly reflects the fundamental changes that have occurred to humanity over the past few generations.

What do the dry numbers say about this? In the 20th century, the urban population increased by about half a percent annually. This figure is even higher than the demographic growth itself. If in 1900 13% of the world's population lived in cities, then in 2010 - already 52%. This indicator is not going to stop.

Cities do the most harm to the environment. In addition, they are overgrown with huge slums with many environmental and social problems. As with the general increase in population, the largest increase in the urban population today is in Africa. There rates are about 4%.

The reasons

The traditional reasons for the overpopulation of the planet lie in the religious and cultural traditions of some societies in Asia and Africa, where a large family is the norm for the overwhelming number of inhabitants. Many countries ban contraception and abortion. A large number of children does not bother the inhabitants of those states where poverty and poverty remain commonplace. All this leads to the fact that in the countries of Central Africa there are on average 4-6 newborns per family, even though parents often cannot support them.

Harm from overpopulation

The key threat of overpopulation of the planet comes down to pressure on the environment. The main blow to nature comes from cities. Occupying only 2% of the earth's land, they are the source of 80% of emissions of harmful substances into the atmosphere. They also account for 6/10 of fresh water consumption. Landfills poison the soil. The more people live in cities, the stronger the effects of overpopulation on the planet.

Humanity is increasing its consumption. At the same time, earth's reserves do not have time to recover and simply disappear. This applies even to renewable resources (forests, fresh water, fish), as well as food. All new fertile lands are withdrawn from circulation. This is facilitated by open mining of fossil states. Pesticides and mineral fertilizers are used to increase agricultural productivity. They poison the soil, lead to its erosion.

Global crop growth is approximately 1% per year. This indicator lags far behind the indicator of the increase in the earth's population. The consequence of this gap is the danger of a food crisis (for example, in the event of droughts). Any increase in production also puts the planet in danger of a lack of energy.

"Upper threshold" of the planet

Scientists believe that at the current level of consumption, which is typical for rich countries, the Earth is able to feed about 2 billion more people, and with a noticeable decrease in the quality of life, the planet will be able to “accommodate” several billion more. For example, in India there are 1.5 hectares of land per inhabitant, while in Europe - 3.5 hectares.

These figures were announced by scientists Mathis Wackernagel and William Reese. In the 1990s, they created a concept they called the Ecological Footprint. The researchers calculated that the earth's habitable area is approximately 9 billion hectares, while the then population of the planet was 6 billion people, which means that there was an average of 1.5 hectares per person.

Increasing crowding and lack of resources will cause not only an environmental catastrophe. Already today, in some regions of the Earth, crowding of people leads to social, national and, finally, political crises. This pattern is proved by the situation in the Middle East. Most of this region is occupied by deserts. The population of narrow fertile valleys is characterized by high density. There are not enough resources for everyone. And in this regard, there are regular conflicts between different ethnic groups.

Indian incident

The most obvious example of overpopulation and its consequences is India. The birth rate in this country is 2.3 children per woman. This does not greatly exceed the level of natural reproduction. However, India is already experiencing overpopulation (1.2 billion people, 2/3 of whom are under 35). These figures speak of the inevitable (if the situation is not intervened).

According to the UN forecast, in 2100 there will be 2.6 billion people. If the situation really reaches such figures, then due to deforestation for fields and lack of water resources, the country will face environmental destruction. India is home to many ethnic groups, which threatens civil war and the collapse of the state. Such a scenario will certainly affect the whole world, if only because a massive flow of refugees will pour out of the country, and they will settle in completely different, more prosperous states.

Problem Solving Methods

There are several theories about how to deal with the demographic problem of the land. The fight against overpopulation of the planet can be carried out with the help of stimulating policies. It lies in social change that offers people goals and opportunities that can replace traditional family roles. Single people can be given benefits in the form of tax breaks, housing, etc. Such a policy will increase the number of people who refuse to marry early.

For women, a system of providing work and education is needed to increase interest in a career and, conversely, reduce interest in premature motherhood. It also needs to legalize abortion. This is how the overpopulation of the planet can be delayed. Ways to solve this problem include other concepts.

restrictive measures

Today, in some countries with high birth rates, restrictive demographic policies are being pursued. Somewhere within the framework of such a course, methods of coercion are used. For example, in India in the 1970s forced sterilization.

The most famous and successful example of a containment policy in the field of demography is China. In China, couples with two or more children paid fines. Pregnant women gave a fifth of their salary. Such a policy made it possible to reduce the demographic growth from 30% to 10% over 20 years (1970-1990).

With the restriction in China, 200 million fewer newborns were born than would have been born without sanctions. The problem of overpopulation of the planet and ways to solve it can create new difficulties. Thus, the restrictive policy of China has led to a noticeable one, which is why today the PRC is gradually waiving fines for large families. There were also attempts to introduce demographic restrictions in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

Caring for the environment

In order for overpopulation of the Earth not to become fatal for the entire planet, it is necessary not only to limit the birth rate, but also to use resources more rationally. Changes may include the use of alternative energy sources. They are less wasteful and more efficient. By 2020, Sweden will abandon fossil fuel sources (they will be replaced by energy from renewable sources). Iceland is following the same path.

Overpopulation of the planet, as a global problem, threatens the whole world. While Scandinavia is switching to alternative energy, Brazil is going to switch transport to ethanol extracted from sugar cane, a large amount of which is produced in this South American country.

In 2012, 10% of UK energy was already generated by wind power. In the US, the focus is on the nuclear industry. The European leaders in wind energy are Germany and Spain, where the sectoral annual growth is 25%. The opening of new nature reserves and national parks is excellent as an ecological measure for the protection of the biosphere.

All these examples show that policies aimed at alleviating the burden on the environment are not only possible, but also effective. Such measures will not rid the world of overpopulation, but at least mitigate its most negative consequences. To care for the environment, it is necessary to reduce the area of agricultural land used, while avoiding food shortages. The global distribution of resources must be fair. The well-to-do part of humanity can refuse surpluses of its own resources, providing them to those who need them more.

Changing attitudes towards family

The problem of overpopulation of the Earth is solved by the propaganda of the idea of family planning. This requires easy access for consumers to contraceptives. In developed countries, governments are trying to limit the birth rate through their own economic growth. Statistics show that there is a pattern: in a wealthy society, people start families later. According to experts, about a third of pregnancies today are unwanted.

For many ordinary people, the overpopulation of the planet is a myth that does not directly concern them, and national and religious traditions remain in the foreground, according to which a large family is the only way for a woman to fulfill herself in life. Until there is an understanding of the need for social change in North Africa, Southwest Asia and some other regions of the world, the demographic problem will remain a serious challenge for all mankind.

Women's Portal Flero