Approximately 8 of the world's population. The population of the earth proves the bible

MOSCOW, July 25 - RIA Novosti. The global population will reach 10 billion in 2053, but the number of residents in Russia and Ukraine will decrease by 7.9 and 9 million, and in Japan by a “record” 24.7 million, reports the Washington Population Bureau (PRB). ).

“Despite the general decline in birth rates across the planet, the rate of growth of the Earth’s population will remain at a high level, which will be enough to “reach” the 10 billion mark. Of course, the picture in different regions will be strikingly different - for example, the number of inhabitants Europe will continue to decline, while Africa's population will double by 2050," said Jeffrey Jordan, president and director of the Bureau.

The non-profit organization is now one of the world's leading global population forecasters, publishing annual reports and estimates of global population growth since 1962. This year, Jordan reports, the forecasts were improved by adding six new demographic indicators that take into account how the availability of different resources affects population growth.

According to new PRB forecasts, the world's population will approach 9.9 billion by 2050, and in 2053 it will cross the 10 billion mark. Much of this growth will occur in Africa, with its population expected to reach 2.5 billion by this date. At the same time, the number of inhabitants of America will increase by only 223 million, Asia - by 900 million, and the number of inhabitants of Europe will decrease by approximately 12 million.

The world's population will exceed 10 billion people by 2100The world's population will exceed 10 billion by 2100, and perhaps approach 15 billion if the world's birth rate increases slightly, according to a report by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), presented on Wednesday in London.

The main socio-demographic problem of this growth will be that almost all of this growth will occur in the most underdeveloped countries on Earth. PRB estimates that the population of the world's 48 least developed countries will double by 2050 to almost two billion people. At the same time, in 29 countries on this list, almost all of which are in Africa, the population will more than double. Niger's population, for example, will triple by mid-century.

On the other side of the “table of ranks” the situation is the opposite - the population will decrease mainly in all developed countries except the United States, in a total of 42 countries of the world. The traditional “leader” in this regard will be Japan, where the number of inhabitants will decrease by almost 25 million, and its close competitors will be Russia, Ukraine and Romania.

The world population on January 1, 2016 will be almost 7.3 billion peopleThe most populated country, according to statistics, is China, followed by India and the United States. Russia, with 142.423 million inhabitants, ranks ninth.

With all this, the top three “ten” countries in terms of population will remain the same - India, China and the USA. There will be a series of reshuffles below, with Nigeria moving up to fourth, Indonesia down to fifth and Brazil down to seventh.

Such population growth in the poorest and most deprived countries of the world, according to PRB experts, speaks to the urgent need for a speedy transition to a sustainable development economy to provide this mass of people with the necessary resources and basic necessities without causing critical harm to the planet.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock

Does the Earth have enough resources to support its rapidly growing human population? Now it is more than 7 billion. What is the maximum number of inhabitants, beyond which the sustainable development of our planet will no longer be possible? The correspondent set out to find out what researchers think about this.

Overpopulation. Modern politicians wince at this word; It is often referred to as the "elephant in the room" in discussions about the future of planet Earth.

The growing population is often spoken of as the greatest threat to the existence of the Earth. But is it correct to consider this problem in isolation from other modern global challenges? And is there really such an alarming number of people living on our planet now?

What ails giant cities
Seva Novgorodtsev about the overpopulation of the Earth
Obesity is more dangerous than overpopulation

It is clear that the Earth is not increasing in size. Its space is limited, and the resources necessary to support life are finite. There may simply not be enough food, water and energy for everyone.

It turns out that demographic growth poses a real threat to the well-being of our planet? Not at all necessary.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is not rubbery!

"The problem is not the number of people on the planet, but the number of consumers and the scale and pattern of consumption," says David Satterthwaite, senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.

In support of his thesis, he cites the consonant statement of the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that “there are enough [resources] in the world to satisfy the needs of every person, but not everyone’s greed.”

The global effect of increasing the urban population by several billion may be much smaller than we think

Until recently, the number of representatives of the modern human species (Homo sapiens) living on Earth was relatively small. Just 10 thousand years ago, no more than several million people lived on our planet.

It wasn't until the early 1800s that the human population reached a billion. And two billion - only in the 20s of the twentieth century.

Currently, the world's population is over 7.3 billion people. According to UN forecasts, by 2050 it could reach 9.7 billion, and by 2100 it is expected to exceed 11 billion.

Population has only begun to grow rapidly in the last few decades, so we do not yet have historical examples on which to make predictions about the possible consequences of this growth in the future.

In other words, if it is true that by the end of the century there will be more than 11 billion people living on our planet, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to say whether sustainable development is possible with such a population - simply because there are no precedents in history.

However, we can get a better picture of the future if we analyze where the largest population growth is expected in the coming years.

The problem is not the number of people living on Earth, but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption of non-renewable resources

David Satterthwaite says that most of the demographic growth in the next two decades will occur in the megacities of those countries where the level of income of the population is currently assessed as low or average.

At first glance, an increase in the number of inhabitants of such cities, even by several billion, should not have serious consequences on a global scale. This is due to historically low levels of consumption among urban residents in low- and middle-income countries.

Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are a good indicator of how high consumption may be in a given city. “What we know about cities in low-income countries is that they emit less than a tonne of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide equivalents per person per year,” says David Satterthwaite. “In high-income countries, this figure fluctuates ranging from 6 to 30 tons."

Residents of more economically prosperous countries pollute the environment to a much greater extent than people living in poor countries.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Copenhagen: high standard of living, but low greenhouse gas emissions

However, there are exceptions. Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, a high-income country, while Porto Allegre is in upper-middle-income Brazil. Both cities have a high standard of living, but emissions (per capita) are relatively low in volume.

According to the scientist, if we look at the lifestyle of one individual person, the difference between rich and poor categories of the population turns out to be even more significant.

There are many low-income urban residents whose consumption levels are so low that they have little effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

Once the Earth's population reaches 11 billion, the additional burden on its resources may be relatively small.

However, the world is changing. And it's possible that carbon dioxide emissions will soon begin to rise in low-income metropolitan areas.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable as populations grow

There is also concern about the desire of people in poor countries to live and consume at a level that is now considered normal for high-income countries (many would say that this would be in some way a restoration of social justice).

But in this case, the growth of the urban population will bring with it a more serious burden on the environment.

Will Steffen, emeritus professor at ASU's Fenner School of Environment and Society, says this is in line with a general trend over the last century.

According to him, the problem is not population growth, but the growth - even more rapid - of global consumption (which, of course, is unevenly distributed around the world).

If so, then humanity may find itself in an even more difficult situation.

People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable as populations grow.

Only if wealthier communities are willing to reduce their consumption levels and allow their governments to support unpopular policies will the world as a whole be able to reduce the negative human impact on the global climate and more effectively address challenges such as resource conservation and waste recycling.

In a 2015 study, the Journal of Industrial Ecology tried to look at environmental issues from a household perspective, with consumption as the focus.

If we adopt smarter consumer habits, the environment can improve dramatically

The study found that private consumers account for more than 60% of greenhouse gas emissions, and their share in the use of land, water and other raw materials is up to 80%.

Moreover, scientists have concluded that environmental pressures differ from region to region and that, on a per-household basis, they are highest in economically prosperous countries.

Diana Ivanova from Trondheim University of Science and Technology, Norway, who developed the concept for the study, explains that it changed the traditional view of who should be held responsible for industrial emissions associated with the production of consumer goods.

“We all want to shift the blame to someone else, to the government or to businesses,” she says.

In the West, for example, consumers often argue that China and other countries that produce consumer goods in industrial quantities should also be held accountable for the emissions associated with their production.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Modern society depends on industrial production

But Diana and her colleagues believe that an equal share of responsibility lies with consumers themselves: “If we adopt smarter consumer habits, the environment can significantly improve.” According to this logic, radical changes are needed in the basic values of developed countries: the emphasis must move from material wealth to a model where what is most important is personal and social well-being.

But even if favorable changes occur in mass consumer behavior, it is unlikely that our planet will be able to support a population of 11 billion people for long.

So Will Steffen proposes stabilizing the population somewhere around nine billion, and then starting to gradually reduce it by reducing the birth rate.

Stabilizing the Earth's population involves both reducing resource consumption and expanding women's rights

In fact, there are signs that some stabilization is already taking place, even if statistically the population continues to grow.

Population growth has been slowing since the 1960s, and fertility studies conducted by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs show that the global fertility rate per woman has fallen from 4.7 children in 1970-75. years to 2.6 in 2005-10.

However, for any truly significant changes to occur in this area, it will take centuries, says Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide in Australia.

The trend towards increasing birth rates is so deeply rooted that even a major catastrophe will not be able to radically change the situation, the scientist believes.

Based on the results of a study conducted in 2014, Corey concluded that even if the world's population were reduced by two billion tomorrow due to increased mortality, or if the governments of all countries, following the example of China, adopted unpopular laws limiting the number of children, by 2100 The number of people on our planet would, at best, remain at its current level.

Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative ways to reduce the birth rate, and to look for them without delay.

If some or all of us increase our consumption, the upper limit on the sustainable (sustainable) population of the world will fall

One relatively simple way is to raise the status of women, especially in terms of their educational and employment opportunities, says Will Steffen.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) estimates that 350 million women in the poorest countries did not intend to have their last child, but had no way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

If the basic needs of these women in terms of personal development were met, the problem of overpopulation of the Earth due to excessively high birth rates would not be so acute.

Following this logic, stabilizing the population of our planet involves both reducing resource consumption and expanding women's rights.

But if a population of 11 billion is unsustainable, how many people – theoretically – can our Earth support?

Corey Bradshaw believes it is almost impossible to put a specific number on the table because it will depend on technology in areas such as agriculture, energy and transport, and on how many people we are willing to condemn to a life of deprivation and restrictions, including and in food.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Slums in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay)

It is a fairly common belief that humanity has already exceeded the acceptable limit, given the wasteful lifestyle that many of its representatives lead and which they are unlikely to want to give up.

Environmental trends such as global warming, reduction in biodiversity and pollution of the world's oceans are cited as arguments in favor of this point of view.

Social statistics also come to the rescue, according to which currently one billion people in the world are actually starving, and another billion suffer from chronic malnutrition.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the population problem was associated equally with female fertility and soil fertility

The most common option is 8 billion, i.e. slightly more than the current level. The lowest figure is 2 billion. The highest is 1024 billion.

And since assumptions regarding the permissible demographic maximum depend on a number of assumptions, it is difficult to say which of the given calculations is closest to reality.

But ultimately the determining factor will be how society organizes its consumption.

If some of us - or all of us - increase our consumption, the upper limit on the sustainable (sustainable) population size of the Earth will fall.

If we find opportunities to consume less, ideally without giving up the benefits of civilization, then our planet will be able to support more people.

The acceptable population limit will also depend on the development of technology, an area in which it is difficult to predict anything.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the problem of population was associated equally with both female fertility and the fertility of agricultural land.

In his book The Shadow of the Future World, published in 1928, George Knibbs suggested that if the world's population reached 7.8 billion, humanity would be required to be much more efficient in cultivating and using land.

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption Rapid population growth began with the invention of chemical fertilizers

And three years later, Carl Bosch received the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of chemical fertilizers, the production of which became, presumably, the most important factor in the demographic boom that occurred in the twentieth century.

In the distant future, scientific and technological progress may significantly raise the upper limit of the permissible population of the Earth.

Since people first visited space, humanity is no longer content with observing the stars from Earth, but is seriously talking about the possibility of moving to other planets.

Many prominent scientific thinkers, including physicist Stephen Hawking, have even stated that the colonization of other worlds will be critical to the survival of humans and other species present on Earth.

Although NASA's exoplanet program, launched in 2009, has discovered a large number of Earth-like planets, they are all too distant from us and poorly studied. (As part of this program, the American space agency created the Kepler satellite, equipped with an ultra-sensitive photometer, to search for Earth-like planets outside the solar system, the so-called exoplanets.)

Illustration copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is our only home, and we need to learn to live in it eco-friendly

So relocating people to another planet is not a solution yet. For the foreseeable future, the Earth will be our only home, and we must learn to live in it environmentally.

This implies, of course, an overall reduction in consumption, in particular a shift to a low-CO2 lifestyle, as well as an improvement in the status of women around the world.

Only by taking some steps in this direction will we be able to roughly calculate how many people planet Earth can support.

You can read it in English on the website.

If evolution is correct, then the population of the Earth would be 75,000 people per square centimeter in 3 million years (7500 people per 1 cm2), despite all the wars and natural disasters! Then the world would be overcrowded, but it is not.

From a biblical point of view, everything fits: The Bible says that in the days of Noah only 8 people survived the Flood and over 4400 years the population of 7.5 billion people is understandable.

Difficulties

Evolutionary communities o is definitely having difficulty coordinating the numbers to make this ridiculous scenario possible. If we assume, on the basis of biblical genealogies, that the flood occurred approximately 4300 years ago and also against evolution, the duration of a generation is 38 years, then it turns out that only 113 generations have passed since the Great Flood of the time of Noah.

According to these calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth - 6.7 × 109 . This is very close to the population size to that provided by the American Census Bureau - 6.9 × 109.

This evidence supports the young age of the Earth and humanity. Only a dishonest person, having examined such clear evidence, will not attach any importance to it.

Yet this attitude prevails in many scientific circles today. The same people who claim that they, unlike believers, are those who examine the evidence without prejudice and draw only those conclusions that are supported by that evidence - turn away from the evidence when it does not agree with their goals and plans.

This definitely reflects the mentality of many in the scientific community. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can... and does explain.

Human population growth. An annual increase of less than 0.5% of 8 people could provide today's population in 4,500 years. Where are all the people if we have been on Earth much longer?

If people, while on this planet, reproduced for one million years, then, even according to the most conservative estimates, more than 26,000 generations have passed. But currently there are about seven and a half billion people. However, according to the equation and statistics today there should be more 100 billion man on Earth, if, of course, reproduction began a million years ago. To visualize this number, think about this analogy.

Overpopulation of the planet is a MYTH based only on speculation, ignorance and active propaganda of interested organizations. At the moment, 7.5 billion people can be comfortably accommodated on territories Australia , which occupies only some 5% of the world's landmass + each person will have about a thousand square meters, and their living conditions will be very comfortable.

And if this is done theoretically, then it will still remain uninhabited about one million square kilometers.

Another reason. If people have lived on earth for tens of thousands of years, then the population of the earth should be larger and the number of burials should also be much larger. However, the world population is quite consistent with the fact that the world's population was once reduced to 8 people during the flood.

If over several decades, the number of people has increased by 1 billion, then how can about 7.5 billion people live on earth?

1 billion - 1820
2 billion - 1927
3 billion - 1960
4 billion - 1974
5 billion - July 1987
6 billion - October 1999
7 billion - October 31, 2011
7.5 billion - March 1, 2017

Length of documented history. Origin of various civilizations, writing, etc. at about the same time, several thousand years ago.

"Stone Age" human skeletons and artifacts. They are not enough even for 100 thousand years with a population of only 1 million, and what can we say about an even larger number (10 million?)

Common cultural "myths" talk about the recent division of the peoples of the world. An example of this is the frequency of stories about a flood destroying the earth. For example, Ancient Chinese hieroglyphs preserve the history of Genesis.

Origin of agriculture. It is believed that agriculture was founded 10 thousand years ago, while, according to the same chronology, it is believed that humans have been living on earth for more than 200 thousand years. Obviously, someone must have figured out how to plant plants and get their own food much earlier.

Languages. Similarities in languages that are said to be many tens of thousands of years apart argue against their supposed age.

Population growth. To determine population growth, it is necessary to know three values: the average number of children in a family, the average age of a generation and the average life expectancy. Using these generally accepted parameters, we will calculate, based on chapter 5 of the book of Genesis, the approximate number of inhabitants of the antediluvian world.

We get the following data: the average life expectancy is 500 years, the average age of a generation is 100 years, and if we assume that the average number of children in a family is six, it turns out that 235 million people lived on the planet before the flood. If we take into account that, according to the theory of evolution, man has existed on earth for a million years, and the average age of a generation is 35 years (taking into account epidemics, wars, and accidents), then it turns out that there have been 28,600 generations on earth.

And if we take into account that each family on average had two children (we are deliberately underestimating this figure), it turns out that by our time the population of the earth should have amounted to an immeasurable fantastic figure: ten to the power of five thousand people! According to the study of world population growth, our planet exists more than 4000 years after the flood, which exactly corresponds to the data of the Bible (H. M. Morris ed. Scientific Creationism (public school), San Diego, 1974, p. 149-157; 185-196.)

Can the Earth withstand overpopulation? The issue of the size of the world population is very acute. Its exponential and uneven growth could have catastrophic consequences if we do not prepare for it.

In 2013, humanity reached 7.9 billion people. It is expected to reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.6 billion by 2050. If that's not enough, consider 11.2 billion in 2100.

Most of the growth will be seen in nine specific countries: India, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria, the United States and Indonesia.

Population growth rates

It is not an increase in fertility that leads to growth. Rather, it will play a role in increasing life expectancy. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and has been declining steadily since the 70s. The figure of 1.24% is the growth rate recorded ten years ago and occurs annually. Today it is 1.18% per year.

Population growth in developed countries has slowed because it is too expensive for large parts of the population to have a child, especially since the Great Recession, when young people were forced to spend long periods of time on education and careers, spending their most productive years in lecture halls and office cubicles.

Although overall fertility is declining worldwide, the report said the researchers used a "low-variance" population growth scenario.

Meanwhile, families with large numbers of children are becoming a thing of the past, and public health officials are warning that a "silver tsunami" is coming. Globally, the number of people aged 60 or over is expected to double by 2050 and triple by 2100.

As young people do not replace adult residents, the number of taxpayers for Medicare and abroad for socialized medicine will decline.

Europe's population is forecast to fall by 14%. Society in European countries, like Japan, is in favor of adjusting the aging population. But a fertility deficit probably won't fix the problem.

In the US, the number of Alzheimer's patients is expected to bankrupt Medicare as no cure has been found. “Developed countries have pretty much painted themselves into a corner,” said Carl Haub. He is a senior demographer at the Population Reference Bureau.

Role of African countries

Most of the growth will occur in developing countries. Moreover, more than half is predicted in Africa, the financially poorest continent, whose resources are almost exhausted. The 15 high-income countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, are expected to increase the number of children per woman at a rate of just over 5% (five children per woman). Nigeria's population is likely to surpass that of the United States by 2050, becoming the third largest demographic.

The population in developed countries is expected to remain stable at 1.3 billion. In some developing countries, such as Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, India and China, the average number of children per woman is falling rapidly. This trend is expected to continue.

India's population expected to exceed China's by 2022

We often think of China as the most populous country in the world, but India is on track to overtake it by 2022. At this point, 1.45 billion citizens will live in both countries. Subsequently, India is expected to surpass China. As India's population grows, the number of Chinese citizens will decline.

Lifespan

In terms of life expectancy, there will be an increase in both developed and developing countries. Globally, life expectancy is likely to be 76 years between 2045 and 2050. If nothing changes, she will reach 82 years of age between 2095 and 2100.

Towards the end of the century, people in developing countries will be able to expect to live up to 81 years, while in developed countries 89 years will become the norm. However, there are concerns that this phenomenon will cause the developing world to suffer even more than it does today.

“The concentration of population growth in the poorest countries poses many challenges that will make it more difficult to eradicate poverty and inequality, fight hunger and malnutrition, and expand education and health services,” says John Wilmot. He is the Director of the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

Reducing resources

It will be very difficult for people to withstand the depletion of resources. Minerals, fossil fuels, wood and water may become scarce in several regions of the world.

Since wars are often resource-related and water use is expected to rise to 70-90% by mid-century, without improved agricultural practices and smarter use it could become as expensive as oil and drag countries into violent conflicts. Water supplies are already a big problem in some regions. India and China, for example, have already clashed twice over this resource.

Climate change

Climate change is also likely to reduce the amount of arable land, causing food shortages as well as loss of biodiversity. These processes are likely to occur at a rapid pace.

To help reduce the world's population, UN researchers suggest investing in reproductive health and family planning. These programs are especially relevant in developing countries.

This report is based on data from 233 countries providing demographic data, as well as the 2010 census.