Contents
Is the Earth really crowded with people and will we fight for resources? We deal with Irina Kalabikhina, Professor, Head of the Department of Population of the Faculty of Economics named after M.V. Lomonosov
The rush hour in the subway, the line at the checkout in the hypermarket, traffic jams – all this at least once, but made everyone think: “Why are there so many of us?” Surprisingly, people asked the same question in the 300rd century AD, when the world’s population barely reached 90 million people. Then the theologian and writer Tertullian, complaining about the problems of population, wrote: “Our population is so huge that the Earth can hardly support us.” In our time, the population of the Earth is increasing by more than 2022 million people a year, by the end of 8 the number of people on the planet will exceed XNUMX billion. Is such growth dangerous and is overpopulation threatened?
Where did the problem come from?
There have never been as many people on Earth as there are today, and there were natural reasons for this. The population was controlled by epidemics, famine and wars. The death rate was so high that it exceeded the high birth rate by today’s standards – it was economically unprofitable to have one child, so families had many children. In addition, the high risk of infant mortality encouraged the birth of “reserve” children – even in the middle of the 150th century in the most advanced European countries, 250-XNUMX newborns out of every thousand died before they reached the age of one. To everything else was added the lack of personal hygiene rules, the low level of medicine, the lack of doctors or the high cost of contacting them.
In 1798, the demographer and economist Thomas Malthus wrote: “In favor of the assumption of an increase in the duration of human life, we do not find one constant, reliable evidence from the creation of man to the present time.” The superiority of death over new life was perceived as a natural process that cannot be changed. Ironically, it was in 1798 that the English physician Edward Jenner published a study on cowpox inoculation, which was the first serious step in the fight to reduce mortality.
By 1804, the world’s population reached 1 billion for the first time. It took 123 years for humanity to double – in 1927, 2 billion people lived on Earth. After 33 years, the population reached 3 billion, and after another 14 years – 4 billion. Each new billion was given to the planet easier and faster, the pace of settling the Earth increased abruptly. The development of medical education, the invention of the first antibiotic, the general improvement in living conditions – all this finally made it possible to change the so-called “epidemiological model of mortality” and, despite the wars, to increase life expectancy.
In 1972, just on the eve of the appearance of the four billionth inhabitant of the planet, a work was published, no less famous than the book of Malthus – the report “The Limits to Growth”.
“Its authors were members of the oldest and most authoritative team of scientists, the Club of Rome. Donella Meadows, Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers and William Berens III contributed to the report. The study contains the results of modeling the growth of the human population and the depletion of natural resources. Simply put, scientists have calculated whether our planet has a “limit” in terms of the number of inhabitants,” says Irina Kalabikhina, Professor, Head of the Department of Population of the Faculty of Economics named after M.V. Lomonosov.
Scientists’ forecasts were disappointing: if the pace of industrialization, environmental pollution, and resource use remain the same, then a catastrophic collapse awaits the human population – civilization will reach its growth limits in just 100 years. And then people will expect a decline in living standards up to the struggle for food and hunger.
The Club of Rome provoked a public outcry – the overpopulation of the Earth, the harbinger of which some countries already felt, began to be considered as one of the priority problems of mankind.
Even Thomas Malthus in the XNUMXth century argued that overpopulation of the globe would lead to poverty, famine and social upheaval: if the number of people continues to double every quarter of a century, that is, grow exponentially, very soon we will have nothing to eat – the amount of food produced will not be able to increase just as quickly, because the resources of the planet are limited. Malthus’s views were quite radical: he believed that the propensity for rapid reproduction (and not exploitation by capitalists) led to poverty in the working class, so it is necessary to regulate the birth rate as much as possible and ignore the need of couples for children. Such statements were not linked to the declared family principles in most countries of the world. Despite the fact that the theory was criticized not only by contemporaries, but also by scientists of the XNUMXth century, for example, the English philosopher Alfred Whitehead, Malthusianism has found its followers today.
Perhaps we really need to be wary of a lack of resources? “We are already increasing the production of protein foods and grains in line with population growth. First of all, the volume of clean fresh water will decrease, ”says Irina Kalabikhina about the forecasts of scientists.” According to a UNESCO report, by 2030, humanity may face a shortage of fresh water, and up to $ 200 billion will need to be spent on sea water desalination every year.
Despite the fact that in connection with the calculations and forecasts, the demographic policy of many countries has been revised, the population of the Earth continues to increase. According to the UN forecast, the world population will reach 8,5 billion by 2030, 9,7 billion by 2050 and 11,2 billion by 2100.
What is happening now?
In the last century alone, the population has grown 3,7 times. Should this be considered a normal rate of reproduction or threatening? Is it time to “slow down”? Based on modern hypotheses, Irina Kalabikhina argues: “In the future, we will still grow more slowly.”
Why? Now we are all witnessing a major historical shift that has affected the process of resuming human generations – the so-called demographic transition. It began at the end of the XNUMXth century and in a global sense has not yet ended. The hyperbolic growth of the planet’s population is not eternal.
According to the theory of the American demographer Warren Thompson and the French demographer Adolphe Landry, there are three demographic stages in human history. The first – until the XNUMXth century – was distinguished by a high birth rate combined with a high mortality rate. The second stage was due to a decrease in mortality due to a reduction in epidemics and improved nutrition with a simultaneous increase in the birth rate. This led to a “fertility explosion” in the middle of the XNUMXth century. Now humanity is on the threshold of the third stage, when not only the death rate, but also the birth rate is decreasing.
“The growth of the human population will definitely stop. According to various estimates, either in the 2060s–2070s or in the 2100s. The demographic transition, which took the entire XNUMXth and early XNUMXst centuries, will end in all countries. Birth and death rates will be balanced at a low level,” explains Irina Kalabikhina. When the third demographic stage spreads to the entire planet, the reproduction of the population will be reduced to the replacement of generations, which, in turn, will lead to the stabilization of the population. What awaits us is a natural decline in the birth rate – not a dangerous loss of balance between life and death, but a new paradigm in which the next generations will live – less wasting human resources than the previous one.
“In miniature” this whole process can be clearly observed by referring to the history of Europe. She was the first to feel the results of a decrease in mortality and in the XNUMXth century experienced her own local demographic boom, which resulted in mass emigration overseas. “Intra-family birth control” helped to normalize the situation: it first decreased, and now it has completely fallen below the death rate.
Are we threatened by an aging population?
We began to live longer and stay healthy longer, which means that modern society has grown old. Irina Kalabikhina talks about the challenges that not only developed countries face in this regard: “Europe, for example, has already grown old, and the aging of the population in developing countries is gaining momentum. The main challenge of our time is aging in countries with fewer resources than in the developed world: where can such states get money for a “golden” old age?” Growth in budget spending on the pension system, health care, staff rotation, the double burden of the care economy on middle-aged women – this is what threatens the final change in the demographic paradigm.
But scientists do not sound the alarm about this, pointing out that society can cope with the pre-transitional burden (in the form of the elderly and children). Demographer Anatoly Vishnevsky believes that the primary problem today is the burden of children and youth, and not the elderly. That is, the baby boom that happened in the 1926th century looked more intimidating than the current situation, when there is a preponderance towards the elderly. our country faced such a problem in 1000, when, in its very young population, there were only 20 people over 59 for every 156 adults aged 60-XNUMX. Young people had to be actively taught and employed, which had a negative effect on the economy of the state, in which there were few representatives of the older generation.
How is our population regulated?
Previously, hunger and epidemics were the main regulators of fertility. Now humanity has learned to deal with them, and now people limit themselves, consciously refuse to have children or decide to have few children. Even the state can no longer influence this.
At the same time, in the 1960th century, many countries developed and successfully implemented new demographic programs. “Family planning programs (education, awareness, free modern contraception) in developing countries in the 1980s and 30s were very successful,” demographer Irina Kalabikhina lists them. “In Southeast Asia, the contribution to family planning programs has been significant. And this is not only a rapid decline in the birth rate, but also an improvement in the health and nutrition of infants, which, over the years, has had a good effect on their success in life. The most famous program is considered to be the Chinese policy “One family – one child.” It not only contributed to the decline in the birth rate (by about 13%), but also increased the country’s economic growth by about XNUMX%.
True, many critics of this policy believe that not a single state order from above can influence the population’s decision to have children. Influence on the behavior of people in their personal sphere have economic, social, cultural, religious factors.
Thus, today the problem of overpopulation, according to scientists, is not so acute – the situation is under control and is changing according to public expectations. “Today it is rather a matter of economic growth, sustainable development and quality of life,” sums up Irina Kalabikhina. Soon the rapid rate of reproduction will slow down and come to naught, so if we fight for fresh water in the future, then most likely it will not be due to the problem of overpopulation.