At present, more than 7 billion people live in the world. According to the United Nations, in 2050, the population could reach almost 10 billion, and in 2100 – even 11 billion, the British daily said on the BBC.
The surplus of the population is a problem that leads not only to the pursuit of a policy. Unfortunately, the problem is very obvious, but it avoids talking and trying to solve it. Although often politicians, as well as the population themselves, see increasing numbers of people as the greatest damage to our land and the effects of globalization processes, it turns out that a great deal of people have nothing to do with this. “The number of non-residents is a problem, and the growing number of consumers and the huge amount of consumption we use,” says David Satterthwaite, a member of the London Institute for International Environment and Development.
Most likely human population will grow
“There is plenty of space in the world for all needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed,” Mr Ghandi cites D. Satterhwaite.
The biggest problem is the position of the tangible inhabitants. In the last millennium, there were only a few million people in the world. The population of the population grew to one billion only in 1800, and the limit of 2 billion was reached in 1920. Recently, the number of inhabitants is growing quite simply, therefore, it is very difficult for scientists to tell what the consequences of this growth will be for our planet and for all humanity, since humanity has never before encountered such an increase in the number of inhabitants. Thus, one can only think and figure out where, in the world, the human population will grow most likely and will be the largest in the near future.
According to D. Satterhwaite, the number of next two people will grow in cities in those areas where people receive only low or middle income. However, if the number of people in these people increased by several billion, this would not have a significant effect on the processes of globalization, because in those other people they simply use less automatically.
“In a country where the majority of the population is low-income, per capita has less than one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. In urban areas where people receive high incomes, the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent per person can be up to 30 tonnes a year, “says Satterhwaite.
According to him, more affluent peoples leave negative, harmful creatures in our world, than people living in poor countries. But there is also a catch.
— NPG (@npg_org) August 22, 2017
Amount of carbon dioxide per person is very low
Copenhagen is a very high-income city, and people living in the port city of Porto Alegre in Brazil receive an average income. And although living standards in both cities are very high, the amount of carbon dioxide per person is very low. Still need to reduce birth rates D. Stterthwaite claims to be a city in which the poor population has a low level of consumption that is virtually non-contributing to the proliferation of ghosts. The fact that the problem of the globalization problem is highlighted by the high-income countries and their populations is also a major factor.
Even though consumers in the west are likely to blame for excessive consumption, such as China, which produces large quantities of consumer goods. But, according to Professor Diana Ivanov, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, we need to change the point and stop blaming others.
“We are inclined to blame others, governments or businesses. However, if we change our consumption iprocy, it will positively affect not only us but also the environment in which we live, “says Ivanova.
Only when the rich will be prepared to change their consumer way of life in such a way as not to encourage high carbon ionization, and when, in a socialized society, the state will focus on the material and the welfare of the society, it will be possible to speak of a decrease in the quantity of natural resources Use, consumption and humanity are important for global development. But even after these changes, it’s unlikely that our country will be able to fit into 11 billion people. After all, so that the Earth does not spill, so will all of us really get the place in it? Trying to stop human population is the same as trying to stop casinos popularity all over the world. This link shows how this will not be possible because here are so many free spins! Nevertheless, Professor Willa Steffen of the Australian National University offered to stabilize the population of 9 billion by the people, and then start a long process of depopulation. This is a recipe for a greatly reduced birth rate. According to W. Seffen, the importance of women and employment, improving women’s participation in society can be very important, we can expect a lower fertility rate.
The United Nations Population Fund has estimated that 350 million women in poorer countries are reluctant to have a third child, but lack understanding and the ability to avoid being bullied. If such needs of women were to be met, it would be possible to reduce the trends of the world population. According to the United Nations, birth rates have been decreasing around the world since the 1960s. In 1975, one child had 4.7 births, and in 2005-2010, only 2.6 children.
Stopping the rising population will require an immitate
However, according to Professor Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide in Australia, stopping the rising population will require an immitate. In his view, the trend of human growth is so firmly established that even if tomorrow 2 billion people died, the population of the world population would still be very high, and it is expected that it will be higher than it is now. In the fall of last autumn, the demographic policy of one child has been abolished in China and two children are allowed to go to the Chinese. According to Bradshaw, such state changes in relation to demographic policies also have a large impact on population growth and, therefore, the world’s 11 billion people can be even earlier, even before 2100 years.