The threat of overpopulation of the planet. Overpopulation of the Earth: what awaits humanity? Reason for optimism
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%.
Causes
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.
Have you noticed that the air is becoming rarer and dirtier, and there are more, more, more people?
Today we will talk about the problem of overpopulation of the Earth.
Only in Russia there are a lot of people - they are building 25-storey new buildings, which are infinitely few ... the boundaries of cities are expanding: where no human has set foot before, a residential complex already sparkles, these brand new houses are like mushrooms after rain in the mushroom forest itself.
It already comes to the point that the windows of one house overlook the windows of another, there is not a single tree on the site and a nearby kilometer from the house, and the swings and the slide for five high-rise buildings at once ...
Traffic jams are not eliminated by any of the currently possible measures, and even in cities with millions of people (that is, not as large as the capital), the problem of traffic congestion is one of the main ones. Almost everyone, according to statistics, has a car. If in past years about half of the population of Russian cities had cars, today this figure is approaching a larger number.
The air is smoky and full of chemical emissions, the industry is working in an enhanced mode, we are already used to living in such dirt ... And this is only in Russia, a country where there is a square kilometer of territory per 10 people (we have a lot of forests), and what can we say, for example, about Singapore, where there are about 7.5 thousand people per sq. km, or about Monaco, where the population density is more than 18 thousand people per sq. km.
The fact that there are more people is undeniable. But not everyone notices this... In addition, an increase in the population entails a number of other problems - an increase in demands, vital products, the construction of new houses, the activation of heavy industry, the depletion of natural reserves, etc. That is, each person is, in fact, the consequences for the Earth, and since people have not managed to learn how to live harmlessly, they are often negative.
Do all of us know the population of the earth today? Asking my friends, I received answers from “a couple of hundred million, the population is dying out .. there are so many disabled people .. yes, those who ruin their own lives”, “well, somewhere around a few billion .. probably” to more or less accurate digits.
What do you think: is humanity still dying out or multiplying exponentially?
A lot of people believe that the world population is inevitably declining, people are degrading, drinking too much, getting weaker, living less, becoming soulless, cruel, but to name specific facts (not rumors), to give statistics, to give exact numbers of the population yesterday and today is not can.
Some of both are myths and some of them are true. Humanity is indeed both dying out and multiplying… no matter how paradoxical it may sound. Let's take a closer look at these "myths".
The population of the Earth today (May 2017) is 7,505,816,555 people. The site www.worldometers.info has a current population counter, and the data is constantly changing. Below is a screenshot from the site with current population figures.
The population will reach the mark of 8 billion, according to the most undaring forecasts, by 2024, according to other forecasts, we will become 8.5 billion by 2030 .. Well, whatever it was, it is clear that we are multiplying.
If someone thinks that this is not enough, let's look into the past and compare the numbers.
In 1820 there were only 1 billion people on the planet! That is, in just two centuries, the population has increased by 8 times!!!
Prior to that, this 1 billion “multiplied” as a result of 18 centuries of our era and (at least) 8 thousand years before our era. For such a huge period, humanity has acquired only one billion of its own kind. And only in the last two centuries it has increased in eight!!
Well, what is the population reduction here?
I sincerely cannot understand people who, like a mantra, repeat that everyone is dying out, there are fewer people ... On what do they base their opinions? As practice shows - on information from the media, gossip, echoes of someone's opinions. There are specific statistics, according to which the number of us is already over the top in terms of values.
And Russia is not dying out. At least in terms of population. However, for the sake of truth, it is worth noting important facts: in 1897, the population of Russia was 67,473,000 people, in 1897 (before the war) - more than 110 million people, then after the war there is a decline in numbers, again 110 million are restored only by the 55th year , 147 million were in the 89th year, and in 2002 as many as 48.5 million people, after there is a decline in numbers to 141-142 million in 2009, and now, by 2017, the population of Russia has almost restored its maximum indicators. But if we take the global trend towards an increase in the population, then there should be 4 times more Russians today than at the end of the 19th century, that is, at least 200 million people.
But we are not a dying nation, by no means, for example, there are only 6 million Jews in Israel (which by quality, not quantity) in Israel, in total there are about 13.5 million of them around the world.
And now in Russia, the population is slowly growing.
The population of China and India is growing exponentially, almost 3 billion people now live in these countries.
That is, the third (even more than a third) part of the population of the whole world is the Chinese and Indians.
Only here is the big question - why, if the population of our country is now equal to the population of 1989 (and plus we have a lot of visitors) - why do we need so many new buildings, cars and all sorts of goods, products, chemicals that were not needed at all before? In the 89th, everything somehow fit in a minimum of new buildings and a couple of million cars were enough for the whole of Russia.
But back to the population of the whole world. The number of people on the planet is growing even ahead of the forecast. But, as specialists “measured” and established a long time ago, the maximum possible number of people on earth when they can exist without a particularly obvious anthropogenic effect on each other is 6 billion people. Today, this figure has already been exceeded by far.
How, then, can we talk about the extinction of mankind if the maximum number of people in history now lives on Earth?
The quantity has increased, but not, sorry for the inappropriateness, the quality ... not even of people, but of people's health, environmental conditions ... Our products have become with a lot of additives that affect not only the current generation, but also change the DNA codes of subsequent generations. Additives and processed substances are designed to preserve food (in order to convey everything not rancid to such a large population, of course, preservatives are needed), enhance taste (and you think it’s easy to feed almost 8 billion hordes with natural flavors - there won’t be enough opportunities), increase raw materials in volume (for more profitable sales, and for, as the distributors mask the first goal, for an antibacterial effect), stabilize a shape that does not hold mass well, color unattractive raw materials, etc.
The ecological situation leaves much to be desired not only in every Russian region, but throughout the world, except that in the remote taiga we have good air, but most of the world's population lives either in a city or in an ecologically polluted area.
The atmospheric layer is destroyed due to various emissions, gases generated by human life, for example, exhaust gases from cars, gases from the use of aerosols, deodorants, air fresheners destroy the Earth's shell ... deforestation for construction, road construction destroys the protective layer of the Earth, winds blow more often , global warming is coming more actively, the weather is starting to “go crazy” ...
And all why? In addition to the fact that there are more people, there are more human needs, the standards of happiness and understanding of spiritual comfort have shifted towards selfishness, lack of spirituality, greed.
A number of sociologists of the 20th century said that for mankind, the understanding of happiness is the possession of goods, values, satisfaction of needs. Today, the manipulation of consciousness is mainly due to the media, we were taught to love branded and pseudo-branded things, we were made to believe that we need a lot of unnecessary things for us.
But the main thing is that we were inspired by the idea that without wealth, success, material achievements, beauty and youth made, our life is dust. Therefore, today a person so wants to possess everything more, because he is happy precisely when he has a large number of status things, he is handsome, and even if he strives for spiritual fulfillment, then it cannot be fully perceived if he does not have a material platform.
Therefore, traffic jams are waiting for us on the street, everyone wants to have a car, even if at the same time he will stand in many hours of traffic jams every day, everyone wants three deodorants and five air fresheners (which destroy the atmosphere), because the media and advertising have convinced us that life without this is not the case, everyone wants an expensive phone, and even children are already screaming that if they do not have the latest iPhone, they are not people .. etc.
“Impregnated” with chemicals, exhaust gases, radiation from cell phones and computers, greed, selfishness and emptiness, a new generation is born that perceives the current state of the planet as the norm. All of the above affects people's health, the DNA code changes, a lot of children with disabilities, children with various disabilities, have been born.
Among other things, the "quality" of the population is greatly undermined by widespread alcoholism, smoking, drug addiction ... the same vaccinations are generally a separate issue - with the help of them, the immunity of generations sits down, which makes society weak both physically and mentally.
In general, people become weaker, although more numerous, a war will begin - they will not be able to resist those who are even a little stronger.
In addition to undermining physical potentials, after all, the psychological attitudes of the people are now too simple: to survive in spite of, while not creating lawlessness, to be principled, and not going with the flow, to strive for higher goals, and not be content with lower needs, to believe in God - few people really decided.
Such a society is plasticine in the hands of manipulators. And therefore the assertion that humanity is dying out is not entirely unfounded. It grows but dies out.
Forecasts of specialists about what will happen in the future at the current rate of population growth
So, what will happen to our planet if humanity continues to multiply?
This question was raised some 45 years ago, when the world population was well below 6 billion people. And today this question, as you understand, has risen very sharply.
Limits to growth. The report on the project of the Club of Rome "Problems of Humanity" has already outlined the program of human life by the year 2100.
"The Limits to Growth - Report to the Club of Rome, published in 1972 (ISBN 0-87663-165-0). Contains simulation results of human population growth and natural resource depletion. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Behrens III contributed to the report.
Back in 1972, 12 scenarios for the development of the life of the planet were presented after exceeding the population of 10-12 billion, most of the scenarios were unfavorable, after reaching the mark of 10-12 billion people, humanity will begin to sharply reduce its population to 1-3 billion with a sharp decrease standard of living, the options presented to some extent implied an unfavorable development of events, since the application of measures leading to a positive outcome is almost impossible.
“Model World3 (English) Russian. 1972 calculated 9 main variables:
Non-renewable resources
Industrial capital
agricultural capital
Service capital
Free land
farmland
Urban and industrial land
Non-removable contaminants
Population
The main variables were interconnected by 16 non-linear differential equations, and more than 30 auxiliary variables and external parameters were involved in the calculations.
The photo shows a screenshot from an article on 12 scenarios
“Of the twelve scenarios considered, five (including the base one) led to a peak in the population of the Earth at the level of 10-12 billion people, followed by a catastrophic collapse of the population to 1-3 billion with a sharp decline in living standards. The remaining 7 scenarios are conditionally divided into "favorable" (10 and 11) and "less favorable" (4, 6, 8, 9, 12).
None of the scenarios led to the "end of civilization" or the "extinction of mankind." Even the most pessimistic scenario showed an increase in the material standard of living until 2015. According to calculations, the decline in the average standard of living may begin from 2020-2025, due to exceeding the environmental and economic limits of population growth and industrial production, the depletion of readily available reserves of non-renewable resources, the degradation of farmland, progressive social inequality, and rising prices for resources and food.
The authors emphasized that the implementation of each of the 7 favorable scenarios requires not so much technological breakthroughs as political and social changes, including strict birth control at the level of natural loss:
- If the current trends of growth in the Earth's population, industrialization, pollution and depletion of natural resources remain unchanged, the limits of civilizational growth on this planet will be reached in about a century. The most likely outcome in this case is a rapid and uncontrolled decline in population and industrial production.
- Mankind is quite capable of controlling growth trends in order to create conditions for ecological and economic balance in the very distant future. The conditions of balance with nature may well provide each inhabitant of the planet Earth with both the necessary civilized standard of living and unlimited possibilities for the spiritual development of the individual.
- If humanity wants to achieve the second outcome, and not the first, the sooner we begin to control the growth trends, the better our chances.”
The view on population growth was updated in 1992 and 2004.
“The last updated version of the report was published as a book in 2004 called The Limits to Growth: 30 Years Later. It is indicated that over 50 years, from 1950 to 2000, the annual consumption of fossil energy resources by mankind has increased by about 10 times (oil - by 7, and natural gas - by 14 times), despite the fact that the population of the planet over the same period has grown by 2.5 times. Two new variables have been added to the model: an indicator of the well-being of an average inhabitant of the planet and an environmental load, an indicator of the total human impact on the environment.
According to the Meadows group, since the 1990s, humanity has already exceeded the limits of self-sustaining Earth's ecosystems. The favorable scenarios of the 1972 model (with high or medium consumption) became unattainable as the world population in 2000 (6 billion), natural resource consumption and environmental destruction corresponded to the worst-case (baseline) scenario. Time for the implementation of favorable scenarios was lost. In the book, Meadows comes to the conclusion that if a "serious correction" in the consumption of natural resources by mankind is not made in the near future, then the collapse of mankind in one form or another (socio-economic, environmental, in the form of many local conflicts) will be inevitable, and "there will come he is still alive in the present generation.”
In the 2004 model, the optimal (equilibrium) scenario is scenario No. 9 (“Limiting growth + improved technologies”), for which the following measures are required:
birth control (no more than two children per family since 2002), in order to smoothly stabilize the world's population by 2050 at the level of 8 billion people,
improving technologies to reduce the consumption of non-renewable resources per unit of industrial output by 80%, and pollution emissions to it by 90% by 2100,
containment of growth in the production of goods and services per capita, with a smooth stabilization of production volumes by 2020
increasing productivity in agriculture, with a gradual transition to more environmentally friendly technologies.
Even if this scenario 9 is applied, the most favorable outcome that can be achieved is a sustainable medium-low level of consumption (at the level of citizens of low-income European countries).
However, given the lack of application of such measures to curb population growth as birth control, the implementation of all positive scenarios is no longer possible.
By the way, the forecasts are too pessimistic - all the data, including those predicted, given in the report in 1972, coincided with the real data of the last 45 years.
Countries that participated in the birth control program - China, India, Singapore, Iran. In China, the policy was carried out from 1978 to 2016. During this time, about 400 million births were officially prevented. In general, no more than 1 billion births were prevented during the period of these programs.
These are fairly average numbers on the scale of the planet, but how much cruelty and degradation we saw in the process of applying measures to reduce the birth rate is incomparable with the result, especially since despite all the measures, there are still a lot of Chinese and Indians.
In connection with the forecasts, movements such as VHEMT (Movement for the Voluntary Extinction of Humanity) have become popular, in addition, there have long been organizations (masquerading as charitable foundations) whose goal is to reduce the population, one of them is the Bill Gates Foundation, which sponsors experimental vaccination programs population of Africa, harmful contraceptives (this is only from known actions).
In general, the command of the higher powers "be fruitful and multiply" somehow did not fit into the framework of our sinful world ..
However! There are opinions that the overpopulation of the Earth is a fake, part of a secret conspiracy ... that is, either the statistics are overestimated, or they exaggerate over the fact that the planet cannot survive a large number of people. There are different opinions, for example, that this mark of 10-12 billion people and what follows later is the beginning of the Apocalypse .. but these are completely different topics.
We are waiting for the year 2020-2025 (or reaching the mark of 10-12 billion people), perhaps a decline in living standards, a reduction in the birth rate, poverty, disease ... but still we hope for the best ..
Why should the most important problem of humanity be recognized as the problem of overpopulation, and not the problem of wars and atomic weapons, not the problem of ecology, not technology, not social problems? Because overpopulation is the prerequisite for all other problems. Overpopulation is partly to blame for the problems, partly for their transformation from local to global. Those who do not want to notice the problem of overpopulation are trying to reduce it to a certain number of the human race, moreover, they claim that the Earth can feed even 10 billion, we have not reached the limit, and given the current demographic dynamics, we will never reach it. But things are completely different. Overpopulation is not waiting for us in the future, it has been taking place for a long time, affecting all social processes. First of all, overpopulation is not the achievement of some absolute value, any overpopulation is relative. Such recognition does not weaken, but strengthens the position of attaching the most important importance to the demographic factor.
Overpopulation already affects primitive society, perhaps even earlier than the Neolithic time, when individual groups begin to exceed natural numbers. Population growth leads to progress, social differentiation, the emergence and development of agriculture. Environmental problems can be considered a product of demographic problems. Overpopulation has been an almost constant companion of mankind in the last thousand years. In the 20th century, the process entered its final phase, when local overpopulation was replaced by planetary overpopulation. "Limits to Growth" is, first of all, an indication of the inadmissibility of the infinite growth of humanity.
First, overpopulation is, as ethologists have shown, a problem in itself. Habitual social ties and orders are broken, tension and hostility are growing, the society from a small unity becomes a large arbitrary conglomerate, the unity of which is ensured by the structure of vertical power and law enforcement agencies. Man (as well as animals) cannot live fully in a large community that has outgrown natural boundaries. But the problems do not end there. Overpopulation is one of the main causes of wars. Overpopulation increases the intensification of land cultivation and leads to soil depletion. From what would not die ancient civilizations, overpopulation lay at the heart. By the way, in the Babylonian version of the flood myth there is a clear indication of the multiplication of people, which caused the flood, angering the gods. Since the Paleolithic era, man began to conflict with the environment, but his pressure on nature began to lead to serious destruction only after the process of overpopulation entered a new stage and states began to form. Without overpopulation, civilization could never have arisen. All the individual problems that we now consider global are also mediated by population growth.
But is it enough to calculate how many people lived in a certain state or in a certain territory? Not at all. Equally important are the absolute number of people living, population density and population density. Plus, you need to remember and take into account the possibility of moving people. And that is not all. Economic and social factors are added to purely demographic factors. Even if demographic factors are not considered comprehensively, what can we say about other factors. The opponents of "neo-Malthusianism" (I put it in quotation marks, because any sane researcher comes to the conclusion about the danger of overpopulation, regardless of his acquaintance and agreement with the ideas of Malthus and his supporters) have only two possible strategies to defend their position: declare overpopulation an illusion, or try show that overpopulation is a temporary and solvable problem. However, the facts do not confirm either the first or the second version of the logical constructions of the "conservatives". As soon as silenced and bypassed factors and parameters are introduced into consideration, all constructions collapse.
The total population of individual countries and the Earth as a whole. Overcrowding can be identified by some obvious signs, even without resorting to scientific analysis. Crowds of people on the street, traffic jams, the loss of any social significance by an ordinary individual, the emergence of a nutrition problem. Often the consequences of overpopulation in some countries are solved by exploiting the nature (and population) of other countries, colonialism was the first form of such robbery. If we have figures for the population of each country and its parts, data on the total number of inhabitants, the density of inhabitants, the geographical distribution of the population, we can draw preliminary conclusions about overpopulation. But the full picture will be revealed only after taking into account the production and consumption in each country per individual (or groups of people). pressure on nature is not strictly proportional to the number of people. A city with a population of, say, 200,000 may be more overcrowded than a city with a million inhabitants. On the other hand, when it comes to food security and agriculture, one cannot simply take and expect that the area of all free land will be sown and bring food. If we take into account two sides - the calculation of pressure on the Earth (and social pressure) is not purely arithmetical, and the calculation of possible food production is not based on general data on free area, we will get a picture for today that leaves no room for optimism. Let's look briefly at the current situation and trends.
The earth is already overpopulated, we are facing the prospects of an ecological catastrophe, a food crisis, the depletion of non-renewable and even renewable resources. But demographers say growth is slowing. It would seem that you just need to wait for stabilization, and even a decrease in the population. But do we have time for this expectation and can we even wait for positive changes in the future? Stabilization would not mean the end of problems, but the end of the growth of the source of problems. But as the problems pile up, stopping growth will not prevent the catastrophe, but only postpone it a little - no more than a couple of decades. In the future, a drop in the birth rate is also dangerous, but this danger does not threaten us, since we still have to live to this stage of development. Humanity can, at best, survive, but civilization - definitely not. At the moment, with the stabilization of the population in some countries and some decrease in others, the total number of inhabitants of the planet continues to grow. We haven't even reached the stabilization point yet. Suppose everything goes well and in ten years we will achieve it. Will this solve the problem of overpopulation at least to some extent? Could at least weaken a little if it was only a matter of numbers. But! Defenders of progress sometimes trump with the fact that in highly developed countries population growth has stopped and the number is declining.
Let's look at other options. How much does an individual consume in developed and underdeveloped countries? How much trash does it leave behind? To what extent does it poison the environment and destroy living things? I am sure that the pressure on the nature of one European exceeds the pressure on the nature of ten Africans. No one will give exact figures, but the difference is not even 2 or 3 times, but an order of magnitude - at least. The inclusion of new countries in the orbit of civilization, accelerated urbanization and the development of industry make the problem of overpopulation not just relevant, but a priority. Even with a gradual decline in population pressure on nature, resource depletion and other global problems dependent on overpopulation will accelerate. We conclude: overpopulation is growing, population explosion is one side of overpopulation, consumer explosion is the other side of overpopulation. Every year the problems grow like a snowball, and it seems impossible to stop the process. Reducing the population by half in about 30-40 years could give some chance, but no one will heed sound advice. In the end, the problem of overpopulation was seriously discussed in the middle of the 20th century, when about 2.5 billion people lived on Earth, now there are about 7 billion, and the consciousness of people and their intentions have not changed significantly. Obviously, appeals will continue to be ignored, despite any evidence base. As long as civilization exists, overpopulation will increase. As long as overpopulation continues, civilization will deepen its dominance and increase its control over each individual.
Let me pose a speculative question - what number could express the maximum allowable population of the Earth? Some consider a billion to be the limit. I am convinced that a billion is more than permissible and 100 million should be considered the limit. The solution is abstract, but the gap between the present position and the proper position clearly shows the scale of the problem.
One of the reasons for the Second World War, unleashed by the German Nazis, was their belief that the population was multiplying too quickly. The leaders of the Third Reich seriously feared that, due to the population explosion, the Germans would fall into poverty, be unable to feed themselves, begin to starve and die out, which is why they planned an invasion of the East - to fertile lands. As we remember, their struggle for resources ended in colossal slaughter and the destruction of dozens of countries. Is this possible in the 21st century?
Mistakes of Malthus
In 1798, the English priest and scholar Thomas Malthus published an essay on the law of population. Without undue emotion, using city statistics, he argued that the population was increasing much faster than the livelihoods he created.
Malthus did not see this as a tragedy - on the contrary, he showed that the mechanism of self-regulation of numbers exists by itself, manifesting itself in wars and epidemics. However, his theory did not give grounds for optimism: it followed that humanity was not destined to break out of the eternal cycle of violence, because only it, according to Malthus, ensured a balance between the natural desire of a person to leave numerous offspring and the possibilities of nature to provide for human needs.
On this idea, a whole cultural and ideological trend has grown up, called "Malthusianism". Its essence is in an effort to limit the birth rate and thus prevent the growth of violence. In particular, it was proposed to promote sexual abstinence in every possible way, prohibit early and late marriages, and legally reduce the possibility of marriages among the poor, the disabled, and the deformed. Two decades later, neo-Malthusianism appeared, whose adherents did not suffer from an excess of humanism and proposed more radical measures - up to the total forced sterilization of entire sections of the population.
In particular, it was proposed to promote sexual abstinence in every possible way, prohibit early and late marriages, and legally reduce the possibility of marriages among the poor, the disabled, and the deformed. Two decades later, neo-Malthusianism appeared, whose adherents did not suffer from an excess of humanism and proposed more radical measures - up to the total forced sterilization of entire sections of the population.
Dictionaries characterize Malthusianism as an “anti-scientific system of views”, and this approach to the theory of Malthus and his followers is correct, since in their calculations they do not take into account a lot of factors: the redistribution of employment during the industrial revolution, the uneven structure of incomes in bourgeois society, qualitative leaps in development production and agriculture. Nevertheless, Malthusianism became extraordinarily popular in the first half of the 20th century, it was the basis of the theory of "living space" that the Nazis in Germany borrowed to justify their aggressive conquest plans.
All the calculations of Malthus were crossed out by the "green revolution" that began in Mexico in the mid-1940s. The latest agricultural technologies, wheat varieties resistant to pests and climate change, and prudent land use allowed Mexicans to quickly achieve food abundance and start exporting. Mexico's experience was intercepted by other countries, and by the early 1970s, the threat of famine that had plagued civilization for centuries receded. Today you can be sure that agriculture can feed everyone.
It would seem that Malthusianism should perish along with the theory of "living space". However, it is back in fashion. Why?
Global problems
Modern neo-Malthusians are well aware that the problems of the 19th century are a thing of the past. And yet they say that the threat of overpopulation remains, having changed only the content.
The following arguments are given. Western civilization managed to overcome the "sores" of the agrarian way of life due to strict social modernization: the abolition of serfdom, the imposition of the priority of property rights, the destruction of communal ethics in favor of individual labor, the emergence of universities that promote the rapid exchange of knowledge. Innovations pushed the growth of production efficiency, which was able to satisfy the basic needs of the population.
On the Chinese beach
Eastern civilization came to a similar result with a delay of half a century, but used identical methods. At the same time, billions of people are still not embraced by Western values, their countries remain agrarian and poor, surviving on foreign aid. The population is growing there, which means that a situation will soon arise when civilization will not be able to feed a useless horde. Food prices have already jumped, and it's still flowers!
To the problem of increasing the "excess" population is added the shortage of fresh water. After all, it goes not only to public utilities - water is required for sowing fields, steel giants, power plants, mining complexes. In some countries (for example, in Algeria, Japan, Hong Kong), fresh water has to be imported. Water is becoming an invaluable resource, and some futurologists write that bloody wars await us for access to moisture reserves: for example, to Lake Baikal.
It's time to die
To cut the Gordian knot of accumulated problems, modern neo-Malthusians put forward the concept of the "golden billion", drawn from international environmental discussions of the late 1980s. It is curious that the concept itself was invented by Soviet scientists, among them Academician Nikita Moiseev, who at a meeting in Rio de Janeiro said that in order to maintain the ecological balance, the population of the Earth should be reduced to a billion people.
Soviet scientists hesitated to say how the reduction should be carried out, but neo-Malthusians are always ready to speak out instead of them. And the latter believe that developed countries should refuse to help developing countries, cut off their access to resources and knowledge, and also take a number of strict measures to limit the birth rate.
The prospect of imposing the concept of a "golden billion" looks daunting. In fact, it is proposed to arrange a high-tech genocide, and on a scale that even the leaders of the Third Reich could not imagine.
Fortunately, not all experts are inclined to believe in the "golden billion". Very indicative in this sense is the dispute that began between the biologist Paul Ehrlich, who considers it necessary to introduce radical measures to reduce the population, and the economist Julian Simon, who believes that the development of technology will in the future provide a decent standard of living for a population of any size: at least for a billion, at least for 100 billion.
To prove his case, Simon suggested that Erlich choose five types of raw materials, and if at least one of them rises in price in 10 years, the economist will pay 10 thousand dollars. Ehrlich accepted the bet with pleasure and chose five rare expensive metals: tungsten, copper, nickel, chromium and tin. After 10 years, he was forced to publicly give money to an economist, because the rise in prices for rare metals provoked a scientific search, engineers found substitutes, and the demand for the listed metals fell sharply, which ultimately led to a decrease in their value.
Reason for optimism
However, faith in technological progress is not enough. After all, the population is growing not in developed countries (in which it is declining, the only exception is the United States of America), but in the poorest, where, moreover, the level of education is close to zero. Qualitative leaps in technology will not help pull these countries out of poverty, and no one, thank God, is going to reduce their population with the help of carpet bombing or total sterilization.
So, we still can't get out of the "Malthusian trap"?
Our famous compatriot Academician Sergei Kapitsa built a multi-factor model of demographic growth and showed that humanity, like technology, is experiencing systemic qualitative leaps and, after growth that will continue for another 100 years, will stabilize at a population of 12-14 billion people.
The Earth is quite capable of feeding such a number of people. And if we do not have enough resources, then there is always space, which we have just begun to explore. The most active part of the population can be sent to colonize neighboring planets. And then a completely different story will begin - galactic humanity, the possibilities of which it is difficult for us to imagine today.
Anton PERVUSHIN
Periodically, the topic of overpopulation of the Earth pops up in the media: the number of mankind today has reached 7 billion and continues to grow, especially in Asia and developing countries. It is argued that the growth of the world's population has very dangerous consequences for the whole world, such as: severe environmental degradation, lack of resources for everyone, poverty, hunger. At the same time, independent journalistic investigations appear, which say that the topic of overpopulation is highly mythologized. For example, in 2013, the documentary film “Overpopulation” by the Austrian Werner But was released, substantiating the thesis that the development of the topic of overpopulation is beneficial for developed countries. What is your point of view on this matter?
The topic of overpopulation is quite clear to experts, and at the same time, it will reveal a lot of new things to the uninitiated. As a rule, it comes down to several aspects: 1) lack of space on the planet; 2) lack of resources; 3) lack of food; 4) global warming.
At the same time, it is overlooked that the demographic dynamics, in particular the birth rate, is downward. For the past six decades, there has been a decline in fertility around the world. And radical.
If we take the 10 most populous countries, which, as you know, include China, India, the USA, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and others, then none of them experienced a jump in fertility during this period. Moreover, in the two most densely populated countries - India and China - this collapse was catastrophic. If I am not mistaken, in China over the past four decades, the birth rate has decreased by 3 times, in India - by almost 2 times. As for Russia, we observe fluctuations in the birth rate, but in any case it remains below the generational replacement threshold. Currently, 60 percent of the world's population lives in the zone of the so-called explicit or latent depopulation. That is, the birth rate is below the notorious figure of 2.1 children, which is the minimum not even for growth, but for demographic stagnation. Thus, we are far from even stagnation.
Unfortunately, today the growth of the world's population (which really continues, this cannot be denied) is due to the created inertia. An apt analogy is the stopping distance: when we press the brake pedal at speed, it naturally takes some time to stop. This is happening now, and population growth is largely due to such a factor as the increase in life expectancy. The population is a little delayed on its way to inevitable depopulation due to the fact that people simply began to live longer. And everywhere. Now the average life expectancy in the world is 65 years.
This population growth on the planet is mainly due to 30 countries in Africa and Asia, but even there it is fading. I do not know of a single forecast, even for the medium term, that would promise an increase in the birth rate. Everywhere the birth rate continues to fall, unfortunately. In the most populous countries, this figure has reached historically unprecedented lows. I mean Macau and Hong Kong. Singapore is not far from them. Japan also has a very low birth rate.
Accordingly, there can be no concerns about overpopulation, the situation is reversed. However, this topic is unprofitable, because it takes away the geopolitical trump card from the developed countries, which are very afraid of the strengthening of geopolitical competitors. They are not worried about population growth as such, but about population growth outside of developed countries, and the whole discussion, in general, boils down to a discussion of population growth in developing countries. Incidentally, this also includes Russia, which has been in a state of depopulation for the 25th year.
And now let's analyze the arguments of the supporters of the thesis about the danger of overpopulation. As for the first argument about the lack of space, it is certainly false. There are calculations of the maximum population of the planet, owned by the Romanian physicist Viorel Badescu, according to which it is equal to 1.3 quadrillion people. This is more than the current figure by 200 thousand times. Similar calculations were made by the British scientist John Fremlin back in the 1960s, he gave a figure of 60 quadrillion people, that is, even higher.
For example, I will say that in order to gather all the people of the planet in one place and at one time, a circle with a radius of 80 kilometers will be enough. That is, it can be done, for example, within the Moscow region. If we consider the territory of a particular state, then a country like Australia (its territory does not exceed 5% of the world's land area) or one of the 50 US states, such as Texas, is enough for a completely comfortable stay. If we talk about Australia, then for each person there will be over 1000 square meters.
As for food, here the facts are even more interesting. Up to 1.5 billion tons of perfectly usable food is thrown away every year in the world. This is the cost of our planetary abundance. Another thing is that this does not happen everywhere, but mainly in Europe and the USA. Therefore, all calls to reduce consumption should be addressed only to the super-developed countries. The discussion about overpopulation in general is largely due to the fact that developed countries do not want to deny themselves the usual standard of living. And he, to be honest, is predatory in relation to the environment. George W. Bush even once said that the American way of life is sacred and unchanging, and no one is going to change it. Yes, it is wasteful, costly, energy-intensive, but these are achievements of civilization that the United States will not give up.
There are calculations by Indian economists who say that in order to feed the entire population of the Earth, India alone, its food resources and climatic capabilities would be enough.
The point is also that the hungry are mainly concentrated in countries where there are wars. The most starving continent, as you know, is Africa, but not because of overpopulation, but solely because of wars, chaos, dictatorial regimes. You will not find a single country where there is famine, including episodic, that is not at war. Either disaster or war.
Therefore, the accusations of people that there are too many of them, and because of this, hunger begins, are absolutely untenable. With modern technological resources, it is possible to feed everyone and even produce a surplus.
In parallel, there is another process that prevents the satisfaction of food needs - this is the aggressive policy of large food companies. For example, they sow fertile lands with monocultures. For industrial purposes, they grow corn, which has long been used in the production of bioethanol. For comparison, I will say that in order to fill one sports car with this type of fuel, it will take a ton of corn. This amount of corn is enough to feed one starving person for a year. In general, the consumption of bioethanol is growing, mainly at the expense of the US, and if this misused food could be converted, about 300 million hungry people could be fed.
As for resources, there are also nuances. In the 1970s, the so-called Club of Rome in its reports frightened everyone with the depletion of world resources - oil, gas, tungsten, nickel, tin, etc. in some cases even less. However, these deadlines have passed, and during this time consumption has only increased, and the forecast for the use of these natural resources has only become higher. Why? Because over the past decades, new reserves have been explored, there have been many cases of switching to alternative technologies, and thus the period for which depletion will occur has been pushed back by another 300 years. Moreover, this was largely due to the discovery of a single field in Poland. And we, for example, only assume what resources the Arctic has. So these frightening forecasts are rather conditional.
In addition, it is possible to abandon oil long ago and, in some cases, switch to alternative sources. But, again, this is unprofitable for transnational corporations. There is also an economic background here, but in general there is no challenge in this area, because the possibilities of the Earth are much greater than we imagine.
Here is a sketch for this story. One well-known American economist, Julian Simon, made a bet with another well-known American, Paul Ehrlich, an alarmist and author of the book The Population Bomb. They argued over the forecast of changes in the value of some of the most common metals over the next 10 years. Erlich and his associates argued that the price would rise significantly, while Simon, laughing, argued that there would be no increase. As a result, after 10 years, Simon triumphantly won the bet, because all the metals over which they entered into a dispute decreased significantly in price. This was, of course, a complete disgrace, and since then, the supporters of population correction, the supporters of the position of demographic containment, have been arguing very carefully on these topics.
Another argument put forward in this controversy is the topic of global warming. However, as far as climate scientists can tell, global warming is a cyclical process. It has taken place in history and will take place in the future. It is indicative for me that back in the 70s, when panic moods were being whipped up, the leading American and British publications, including The Times, seriously published a warning that a new ice age was beginning on the planet. Quotes warning that we are all in danger of extinction due to freezing were published everywhere and with maniacal persistence. However, the same "Times" 30-40 years later publishes completely opposite statements.
In fact, the temperature on the planet has not risen and remains at the same level. One circumstantial piece of evidence is a 2009 sensational story called “Climategate”, when hackers, presumably from Russia, hacked into the archive of the Department of Climatology of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, which provides data for UN experts, containing emails about global warming. This correspondence was indicative of data falsification in an effort to make pseudo-studies fit pre-ordered results.
Of course, there is an anthropogenic impact on the environment. But there are no serious grounds for the currently observed hysteria about global warming. This topic also has a commercial background, because new production standards are constantly being proposed under the sauce of global warming, and the transition to these standards brings instant high profits to one or another company serving this transition. And that's a lot of money.
Is there any basis for asserting that the policy of developed countries is aimed at reducing the birth rate in developing countries? And if so, what specific steps are being taken to that end?
Of course, such a purposeful policy exists and has been implemented for a long time. There are many examples of this. Over the past 17 years alone, tens of billions of dollars have been spent to reduce the birth rate, including under the guise of providing social assistance through the United Nations Population Fund. These are official sources, what we can verify and confirm.
As for the unofficial ones, there were several striking episodes: for example, in Peru, during the presidency of the military dictator Alberto Fujimori, a mass sterilization campaign was carried out, in which hundreds of thousands of men and women became participants. In India, sterilization was on a crazy scale, that's a fact, and it's going on. True, with the advent of new authorities, the situation may change, because there are calls to the contrary. In Sri Lanka today, women are taken to an unknown destination and, under the threat of non-provision of medical care, are mass sterilized, and there have been cases of fatal outcomes all the time.
China is a textbook example. The number of abortions there has already exceeded 400 million, and many of them are done even at the last term. Sterilization is very widespread in China. Some Western companies that place production there have introduced such a practice: they pay salaries to employees of the organization only after they pass a pregnancy test.
In China, due to the huge scale of selective abortion (most families want their only child to be a boy), there is already a huge gender imbalance. Not to mention the narcissism of children who grow up as the only ones in the family.
There were similar examples in Russia too. In the 90s, some deputies proposed the sterilization of women from dysfunctional families - a kind of eugenic practice.
In the United States, the name Margaret Sanger is well-known, she introduced this practice back in the 30s in relation to racial and national minorities, as well as people who, in her opinion, are not rich enough to reproduce. This idea comes from there. Although, on the other hand, there is one paradox. At home, the United States, at least until the Obama presidency, supported the policy of supporting the birth rate, and the concepts of demographic containment were sent for export.
It turns out that the countries that are the objects of such a policy do not have the resources to resist it - except in cases where the state intervenes?
Unfortunately not, although some do. First, international law prevails over national law, that is, decisions made at the international level are a priority. Second, developing countries are often held hostage politically and economically. If you do not accept the policy of demographic containment, family planning, then we will arrange a revolution for you or turn off funding. Countries like Nigeria and Uganda have been made pariahs for this very reason.
In Hungary, it all started with the fact that right-wing patriots came to power - this happened partially in Austria, and in Switzerland, and in France - that is, in several European countries, but the peculiarity of Hungary was that the family was proclaimed at the constitutional level as the union of a man and a woman. And that's all, from that moment Hungary became a pariah, because it contradicts the policy of reducing the birth rate, a precedent is being created for other, non-European states. Hungary was immediately declared a bank boycott, there were many accusations of the dictatorial nature of power, and so on. But the reason was precisely in her resistance.
In general, the pressure at the political level is colossal. And now, when the UN Commissions on Population and Development meet, the delegations of many countries, including the Arab states, consider it good manners to declare that they adhere to the principles of this policy and strictly implement its decisions. First of all, we are talking about the Population Conference in Cairo in 1994. There were laid the rules for regulating the population: contraception, abortion and the so-called sex education. In this case, Russia compares favorably, because we announced that, for example, we will not have any sexual education that hurts demographic development. Belarus announced something similar at the last meeting. And so, in general, the UN has a certain ideological monopoly.
In order to influence the policy of individual countries, they do not disdain either blackmail or bribery. There is even a film in English called “Cultural imperialism” (“Cultural imperialism”) on Youtube, where former UN representatives who hold different positions talk about how they were exterminated from there. So, unfortunately, the possibilities for resistance in this case are limited.
And what about the population of developing countries? Do people resist values that are alien to them? Russia is a different story: 70 years of the Soviet state destroyed most of the existing traditions. But, for example, in India there was no such cultural vacuum...
You see, since the world has become global and the society is informational, Indians are consuming the same media products as we are. The Internet influences, the modernization of everything and everything (including moral norms) influences, an artificial fashion for behavioral models is created through opinion leaders. I mean famous politicians, stars, athletes. For example, Pele at one time publicly announced that he had undergone sterilization - and this was also no coincidence. Students from Asia en masse study at European and American universities, come to Western countries on cultural exchange programs. If you want - come to study with us, we will teach you a new worldview. This is also one of the channels.
Everything is quite simple. Tradition is not a thing that does not change. In a few decades, it may turn out that we will talk about "traditions that arose at the dawn of the new millennium." The new norms will be called tradition. And there are practically no defense mechanisms against them today.
Interviewed by Anastasia Khramuticheva