Six billion of anything is very difficult to imagine. But even without much imagination, one can understand that the number of people on the planet is simply colossal. If on live weight it is about 300 million tons. And if we take and divide the area of the earth's land by the population of the planet, then for each person there will be only two and a half hectares of territory - any territory, including mountains, glaciers, deserts, swamps and other inconveniences. Hmmm, sparsely, it will take some more time and generally there will be nowhere to turn. Could this happen? Is it realistic to calculate how many of us there will be in "some time" - for example, in the 21st century? And how much SHOULD there be on planet Earth?
It is very possible that at the very moment when you begin to read this essay, a very significant event will occur on Earth: a six-billionth inhabitant will be born (if not already born). According to the calculations of demographers, it was in 1999 that the population of the Earth should pass through a round and very solid figure: 6,000,000,000. Is it a lot or a little?
Two and a half hectaresn
Before trying to answer these difficult questions, let's figure out how many of us were there so far.
According to some estimates, over the entire history of civilization, 100 billion people have managed to live on Earth. Purely chronologically, the situation was as follows. In the thousandth year BC, the number of intelligent inhabitants of planet Earth was about 100 million people (this is the population of present-day Nigeria). By the beginning of the era, the planet's population doubled (now about the same number of people live in Indonesia alone), but, of course, it did not rest on its laurels and moved further into the future at the same unhurried speed - a little more than ten people per hour. For the first millennium of the new era, the increase was again one hundred million. In the second millennium, the pace is gradually accelerating. By the middle of the 17th century, 500 million people had already accumulated on Earth (this is about half of today's India), and around 1804, earthlings "printed" their first billion. Note:civilization has been moving towards this figure for many millennia. About the further process you can no longer say: "went". In the twentieth century, the history of population rushed leaps and bounds. 1927 - the second billion. 1960 is the third. Only 14 years pass - and there are already four billion people on Earth. 13 years later - in 1987 - five billion. And 12 years later - this is our time, the year 1999 - welcome to the planet, the six billionth inhabitant!
Have you noticed? Not only has the world's population doubled in less than forty years, but the growth period of each new billion is shrinking: each time it decreases by a year. Is it really going to continue this way: the seventh billion - in 11 years, the eighth - in 10 … Remaining within the framework of this linear logic, it is easy to calculate that, starting from 2064, humanity, becoming sixteen billion, will add a billion a year, and then more. Horror!
I just want to reassure the readers. Nothing of the kind, I suppose, will happen. Population dynamics is not an easy thing, it obeys very complex mathematics (and, of course, not only mathematics), and you cannot approach it with a linear measure.
The ghost of disaster
In past centuries, demographic problems have not received much attention from scientists and the general public. The very word "demography" was introduced into circulation by the Frenchman Ashile Guillard only in 1855.
And yet, let's give the people of the past justice: they have been engaged in "practical demography" since ancient times. Population censuses were carried out in ancient Babylon - the corresponding clay tablets have been preserved on this score. And in ancient Rome "sensus" - as the Latin was called statistical accounting in general and population censuses in particular - were an indispensable part of state office work. After all, you need to know how many where a person lives and what taxes to collect from them. History has preserved many Roman records - with such, for example, records: Helvetiorum censu habito, repertus est numerus milium CX, which means "the number of Helvetians, according to the census, was 110 thousand."
In modern times, the first census took place in the colony of New France (Quebec) in 1665. The United States conducted its first census in 1790. Thirty years later, the time has come for censuses in Italy, Spain, England, Ireland, Austria, France. In 1851, a population census took place in China, and ten years later - in Russia. Speaking about demography - especially in the Year of the Sixth Billion - one cannot but recall the pioneer of this field of science - the English economist and priest Thomas Robert Malthus. Just as the world's population was approaching the first billion - namely in 1798 - the thirty-two-year-old scientist anonymously published his famous "Essay on the Law of Population", in which he made the following statement:
“The population, if not controlled, grows exponentially. Livelihoods increase only in arithmetic progression. Even a superficial acquaintance with numbers will show that the first sequence is incommensurable with the second."
Malthus's theory has gained considerable popularity. For two centuries now, it has been causing serious controversy. For many decades, Soviet propaganda branded this theory as an "anti-scientific system of views on population", and called Malthus himself only a "reactionary economist."
Promotional video:
Meanwhile, it is quite simple to understand Malthus's fears in a purely human way. He was worried about the following speculative conclusion: the world's population is growing faster than it produces food. Another thing is that two centuries ago (and indeed now) practice did not really confirm this idea, and Malthus's reasoning was rather theoretical.
According to the logic of the British scientist, the population of England was to double every 25 years, and by 1950 this country should have had 704 million inhabitants, while its territory could only feed 77 million. Consequently, it is necessary to take some decisive measures to contain the number, "control" population growth. However, history has shown that not everything is so simple with the notorious arithmetic and geometric progressions. By 1950, the population of the United Kingdom had just reached 50 million. And in our time, the number of Great Britain - less than 59 million - quite allows this country to feed itself.
But as for the future … What if Malthus is right - in the long run? Suddenly these progressions will indeed become “incommensurable” (No matter how much the Marxists denounced the “reactionary economist,” by the way, Friedrich Engels, almost a century after the appearance of Malthus's work, also paid tribute to the problem of the demographic crisis. In 1881, he noted: “The abstract possibility of such the numerical growth of humanity, which will cause the need to put a limit to this growth, of course, exists."
Let us remember the expression “growth limit” and fast forward to the 60s of our century - in order to understand the current situation, it is very important to understand the demographic sentiments of that time. It was in the 60s that people with particular acuteness noticed the danger of overpopulation and, as it were, read Malthus anew. The fact is that humanity has thrown out a focus. Neither on the eve of World War II, nor even more so in the first decade after it, there were no particularly dire demographic forecasts. On the contrary, in most developed countries it was believed that the rate of population growth was decreasing.
And suddenly it was perceived precisely as "suddenly" - a sharp leap: still "yesterday" (in 1930) there were two billion people on the planet, and "today" (in 1960) - after the Great Depression, a terrible world war and a whole a series of local wars - a billion more. The term "population explosion" has become one of the most popular.
Of course, explanations were found: the birth rate on the planet was steadily growing (at a particularly fast pace in developing countries), the progress of medicine and health care led to a decrease in infant mortality and an increase in life expectancy, many deadly diseases retreated to antibiotics. However, the explanations - for all their optimistic coloring - were not very reassuring. The logic was simple: if high rates of population growth persist, neither medicine nor health care will save, humanity will double a few more times, deplete natural resources, finally pollute the environment with its waste, and - Malthus, of course, big hello - a catastrophe will break out.
“Move over! Move over! "
Kurt Vonnegut's "black comedy" The Great Journey Up and Beyond, released in 1954, was perhaps the first work in fiction on the topic of the demographic crisis. It really was about the overpopulation of the planet, only the reason for it was not the unrestrained growth in the number of people, but the revolutionary advances in biology, which led to a sharp increase in life expectancy.
In 1966, Harry Harrison's famous demographic thriller Move Up! Move over!”Depicting the dire future of crowded New York at the end of the century. It is curious that the author was almost not mistaken in the quantitative forecast: we are now, even if not seven, as Garrison assumed, but still six billion; however, something is not visible that America absorbs one hundred percent of the planet's resources, which - in connection with the rapid population growth - feared the science fiction writer. And the terrible overpopulation of large cities is somehow not very felt.
In 1968, another novel on the demographic crisis that quickly became a classic of the genre came out - among many others - "Standing in Zanzibar" by John Brunner. It described a more distant future - 2020, by what time there were so many people on the planet (just a nightmare - almost nine billion people!) That if each were given two square feet of land, then all of humanity would have filled the island of Zanzibar. The image is vivid, but if you think about it, it doesn't say anything special. Let us take our time and the current population of mankind and allocate about the same amount to everyone living on Earth as Brunner allotted (well, a little less - a square with a side of forty centimeters, it is quite convenient to stand), - then the entire population of the world will "calmly" settle in Moscow. The result will be "Standing in Moscow". So what? It's a pity for Muscovites …
In our, domestic science fiction of that time, there were practically no works about the "overproduction of the population" that threatened the world. Soviet ideological thought decided that the threat of overpopulation is an invention of bourgeois futurology, no demographic cataclysms are foreseen in the future (and if it is foreseen, then not here), and in general all global problems will be solved through the triumph of socialism and the subsequent transition to communism, under which “all sources of social wealth will flow in full flow,”and finally, harmonious interaction between man and nature will be ensured. Even in the works of the Strugatsky brothers, in my opinion, the best of Russian science fiction writers, there is not even a trace of overpopulation. The story "Trainees", which dates back to about the end of the 21st century, simply and clearly states: there are four billion people on Earth,half - people of the communist tomorrow, half - the Western world. The story was published in 1962. The world will overcome the four billion milestone in just 12 years …
But let's leave the fantasy and return to the real world. By the end of the turbulent decade of the 60s, the concern of scientists about the future of the planet - primarily demographic - reached a high level, which is clearly seen in the example of the Club of Rome. This international public organization, created in 1968, set itself the goal of conducting large-scale socio-economic research and mobilizing the efforts of mankind to solve global problems. This was followed by the reports of scientists from different countries to the Club of Rome, the first of which - "The Limits of Growth" (1972), written by a group of American scientists under the leadership of D. Meadows, "Humanity at the Crossroads" M. Mesarovich and E. Pestel (1974), "Revision of the international order "J. Tinbergena (1976), - made a lot of noise,outlining the very gloomy prospects for the further development of civilization and putting forward rather tough recommendations to curb growth.
What is at least an epigraph to one of the chapters of the report "Humanity at a Crossroads": "The world is sick with cancer, and this cancer is a man."
The authors of the reports proposed to solve the demographic problem in a distinctly Malthusian way - by controlling population growth. However, if industrial production continues to grow uncontrollably, then tight birth control will still not eliminate the crisis, since there is no escape from the threat of depletion of non-renewable resources and environmental pollution. Where is the exit? Maybe a global catastrophe is inevitable and nothing can be done? D. Meadows's group believed that the catastrophe can still be prevented, but for this it is necessary to radically change the current trends in human development: to move from the unrestrained growth of population and capital to "zero growth" and achieve "global equilibrium" - such a state of civilization when " basic material needs of every person living on earth,will be satisfied and everyone will receive equal opportunities to realize their individual human potential”.
Of course, the theory of "zero growth" was immediately taken up by science fiction writers, in many works it is found to this day, however, in fact, this idea did not last so long. Already Jan Tinbergen, the author of the third report to the Club of Rome, came to the conclusion that mankind will successfully cope with the troubles that threaten him, by no means resorting to such an extreme measure as inhibition and even more arresting growth.
In the 70s, the horror pictures that await humanity were innumerable. The population explosion continued, the world's population grew alarmingly fast, and this alone, it seemed to many, deprived the people of the planet of any hope for a normal future. One can recall the works of the West German futurologist G. Schneider, who talked a lot about the explosive situation in international relations generated by the demographic revolution. Two hundred thousand people adding to the world every day, he wrote, is the population of an entire city. Every week a new city the size of Munich, Warsaw or Kiev appears on the earth, every month - a country like Denmark, Ecuador or Guatemala, every three years - countries like the USA or the USSR, every five years - another South America, Western Europe or Africa.
It was in the 70s that the expression “golden billion” flashed across the pages of various publications. As many ecologists believed then, the planet Earth can withstand about a billion intelligent creatures, but if there are more earthlings, this is a direct path to resource depletion, irreversible changes in ecology and, thus, to disaster. Well, okay, "golden billion", for example. But even then there were four times as many people on Earth. What to do with the three billion "non-gold" intelligent inhabitants who suddenly became superfluous? And who will decide - these "golden" ones (at ease, you can smoke), but these extra ones (p-r-swarm-sya! Go out with things)?..
Not a disaster, but a transition
It's time to finally introduce readers to the concept of "demographic transition". This concept reflects the fact that at a certain stage in the development of a country, region or all of humanity as a whole, there is a sharp increase in the rate of population growth, then the rate drops just as sharply, and the population goes into a stabilized regime. The most important thing here is to determine the beginning and extent of a "certain stage", to realize the quantitative parameters of stabilization and, if possible, to express all this with a consistent mathematical model.
According to the American scientist Stephen Gillett, the demographic transition began in the 18th century, and it happened first in France, then spread throughout Europe, and in our century it covered the whole world. At the same time, the number of people on Earth does not strongly depend on political will or economic circumstances - it is subordinated to natural regulators. Culture and technology also act as regulators; moreover, the demographic transition itself encourages people to create new economic and social structures that require birth control.
Great Britain provides a classic example of demographic transition. Over the 18th century, the population of this country doubled, by the middle of the 19th century it doubled again, and then the growth rate began to decline. In 1900, the United Kingdom had about 40 million people, in the first half of the century only ten million were added, and even less than ten million in the second. According to modern forecasts, by the middle of the 21st century, the number of people in Great Britain will not only not increase, but even decrease somewhat, so it can be argued that the demographic curve here has become a horizontal straight line, the population has stabilized and will remain at the level of 56-58 million for a long time.
It is not so easy to move from understanding the features of the demographic transition in individual countries to global characteristics: too many factors must be taken into account, a non-trivial mathematical model is required. Our famous scientist Sergei Petrovich Kapitsa managed to build such a model - readers know him well from the TV show "Obvious - Incredible". The theory of population growth by S. P. Kapitsa was published last year and immediately became a noticeable event in demographic science - it really explains what happened to the world's population in the past, gives a clear analysis of current trends and allows you to confidently predict demographic dynamics for a long time.
Here is what SP Kapitsa himself writes:
“The duration of the transition is only … 84 years, but during this time, which is 1/50 000 of the entire history of mankind, a radical change in the nature of its development will take place. Despite the shortness of the transition, this time will survive 1/10 of all people who have ever lived.
The conclusion about the stabilization of the world's population after the demographic transition is essential … The limit of population growth should be sought not in the global shortage of resources, but in the systemic laws of human development. The conclusion to which the model leads is the general independence of global growth from external conditions, a conclusion that is in every conflict with conventional wisdom. Moreover, until now and, apparently, in the foreseeable future, such resources will be available and will allow humanity to go through a demographic transition, in which the population will increase by only 2.5 times. This conclusion can be formulated as a principle of the demographic imperative, as a consequence of the immanence of the systemic growth of humanity."
We can say that in a sense we were lucky. Modern people have had to live in the midst of a short and very energetic demographic transition of all mankind. Apparently, the most acute phase is already behind us, and a steady decline in the rate of human growth awaits us, and in a few decades - by the middle of the XXI century - the Earth's population will stabilize at about 10, maximum 12 billion people. (This is completely in line with the demographic projection of the UN Population Division, which predicts that there will be 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion people worldwide by 2050.)
The conclusions of the theory are also confirmed by the practice of the last decade. The passions around the "inevitable" demographic catastrophe subsided. The population statistics look quite encouraging. The growth rate of the world's population, which in the 60s and early 70s was kept at the level of 2 percent a year (mainly due to developing countries, where it even reached 3.5 percent), decreased to 1.7 percent at the beginning of the decade, and in 1995 - 2000 it was even one percent and a third. We are moving into the future at a speed of 9000 people per hour, and this speed is decreasing.
"Old" new world
As we already know, there are objective natural reasons leading to the stabilization of the global population, but mankind itself has made considerable efforts - especially in Asian countries. (No wonder, no wonder the authors of the reports to the Club of Rome frightened the world with terrible pictures of overpopulation!) Japan back in 1948, without waiting for theories of demographic transition, announced a program of birth control. However, the overall decline in the rate of growth in Asia is largely due to the tough demographic policy of China, the most populous country in the world. After the slogan "There is one child in the family" was put forward in China and adopted as a guide to action, the growth rate dropped to 1.4 percent, and there is reason to believe that it will soon fall to zero. In India, the second largest country in the world, the gains are less visible. The population there continues to grow quite rapidly. According to modern forecasts, by the middle of the next century, India will overtake China by about 50 million people and become the world leader in population. All in all, more than three billion people will live in India and China (one third of the world's population!).
Generally speaking, the large-scale demographic future of the planet is seen quite clearly from ours today. The moderate forecast is as follows. In fifty years, the population of Asia will be more than five billion people, and Africa will more than double to nearly two billion. The populations of both Americas will well surpass a billion. But old Europe will add quite a bit in numbers: a little more than 600 million people will live in it.
In 56 countries, there will be negative growth (that is, the death rate will exceed the birth rate) - these are all European countries, China and Japan. From a demographic point of view, there is nothing unusual here - it can be considered that the demographic transition in such countries has ended and they have entered a stable state. However, Russia stands alone here. Sadly, in recent years, our mortality rate has incredibly exceeded the birth rate: for every thousand inhabitants, 9 people are born, and 16 die. Minus 0.7 percent growth per year is not stability at all, but a demographic catastrophe in a single country. If the trend continues, then by 2050 Russia - in terms of population - will move from seventh to fourteenth in the world (leaving Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Congo, Mexico, Philippines and Vietnam ahead):120 million people will live in it.
It is safe to say that in the 21st century the majority of the world's population will live in cities: the urbanization process began long ago, and there is no reason to believe that it will end soon. Already now, at the end of the century, almost half of the world's population lives in cities, that is, slightly less than three billion people (!), Although half a century ago the share of urban residents was not even a third.
Of course, many factors will affect the growth of population and its distribution around the planet, and not everything can be guessed or correctly estimated in advance. Take climatic conditions, for example. It is possible that as a result of global warming, the level of the world ocean will begin to rise at least slightly. But almost two-thirds of the world's population lives on the coasts - well, if not quite near the sea-ocean, then at least within a 60-kilometer coastal strip. Moreover, huge numbers of people in Asia and Africa live in lowlands and river deltas. If the ocean begins to attack, it will lead to massive migrations, which will affect the demographic situation in the most unpredictable way. Already in our time, migrations due to wars, unfavorable economic conditions, natural disasters have led tothat 125 million people (more than two percent of the world's population) were forced to flee their countries and settle away from home. This is 1994 data - most likely very incomplete …
Another important process that is already outlined now and will become a serious factor in people's lives in the next century is the aging of the world, that is, an increase in the proportion of older people in the total population: a direct result of medical advances. There are now approximately 66 million people over eighty years of age on the planet (less than 1 percent). In fifty years their number will increase sixfold and, approaching 400 million, will amount to at least four percent. The number of the “oldest” - that is, those over a hundred - will even increase 16 times and amount to 2.2 million.
The world is still quite young - in the age sense. Today, the number of children on the planet (30 percent) is three times the number of elderly people (10 percent). In another fifty years, the situation - at least in developed countries - will change to the opposite: there will be twice as many elderly people as children. The "oldest" country will be Spain, and the "youngest" continent will continue to be Africa.
One must think that the concept of the duration of human life will change quite a lot. The average life expectancy will approach 90 years, and the maximum, quite possibly, will be 130 years.
Oh well. Demographic transition, urbanization, aging of the world … But what about the “golden billion”? We are now six times more than "supposed", and in half a century will be - ten times. The fact that there is enough space for everyone is understandable. But is there enough food? How many people can feed the Earth?
There are many different answers to this question. To begin with, the "golden billion" is still a sinister propaganda trick, nothing more. In addition to the "progressions" of Thomas Malthus, there is also such a thing as scientific and technological progress, and it includes the achievements of genetics and biotechnology, and the prevention of diseases of plants and animals, and the successes of agriculture (remember at least about the "green revolution"), and the fact that humanity is increasingly accepting the rules of environmental behavior. It may not be well known, but over the past 25 to 30 years, global food production has outpaced population growth by about 16 percent. It is another matter that the food produced in increasing quantities is far from being received by everyone: at least a quarter of earthlings live from hand to mouth, and almost half of them experience chronic hunger.from which millions of people die every year - but this sad problem, strictly speaking, has nothing to do with demography.
It has long been clear to serious scientists that the Earth will feed 6, 8, and 12 billion people. According to Sergei Petrovich Kapitsa, "under reasonable assumptions, the Earth can support up to 15 - 25 billion people for a long time."
Now there is every reason to believe that when the demographic transition is completed for all mankind, the world's population will stabilize at a level known to be below the critical level, no matter how this “criticality” is determined. So if we use the epithet “golden”, then we should talk about the “golden ten” of billions that will live on the planet in the 21st century and in subsequent centuries. (Note that the UN Population Division's “average” projection for 2150 is 10.8 billion.)
Did you look at your watch when you started this essay? How much did it take you to read? Twenty minutes, maybe thirty? During this time, four and a half thousand people have been added to the planet Earth - a whole village. Let's tell them: “You are welcome! Make yourself comfortable. There is enough room for everyone."