How many people can planet Earth support? The world's population will grow, age, live longer and migrate less. We are aging and multiplying.

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 a large number 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 decrease.

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 fears 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 care,” 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.

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 overall decline in birth rates across the planet, the rate of growth of the Earth's population will remain at high level, which is enough to “reach” the 10 billion mark. Of course, the picture will be very different in different regions - for example, the population of Europe will continue to fall, while the population of Africa 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.

This spring, American demographers calculated the growth rate of the earth's population, starting with the first representative of Homo Sapiens. The figure turned out to be impressive: 108 billion.

Journalist and director Paul Ratner made a short video about the study and described its results in the portal "Big Think ".

Many take it for granted that we live in a unique time - at the cutting edge of history. But you just have to think how many people have already lived on the planet, and not a trace remains of our arrogance. And the main question is not even how many people lived, but how many died.

As of 2015, the total global population throughout history is 108.2 billion, according to demographers at the Population Data Bureau, a Washington, D.C.-based NGO. If we subtract the approximately 7.4 billion who trample the planet today, we get 100.8 billion earthlings who died before us.

So, there are almost 14 times more dead than alive! The result would be an impressive army of zombies, ghosts or White Walkers from Game of Thrones. If you consider yourself an optimist, then you can assume that your contemporaries are approximately 6.8% of everyone who has ever lived in the world. For the sake of simplicity (and to take into account people born in the last year), we will round the figure to 7%. We are 7%. Let's not lose face!

How did scientists get this result? There is a demographers' report on the Washington Bureau's website. It says that the starting point was the year fifty thousand before the birth of Christ. It was then that modern Homo Sapiens are believed to have appeared. The dating may be disputed: early hominids walked the Earth millions of years ago. But 50,000 BC is the date that the UN uses when calculating demographic trends.

Of course, no one knows exactly how many people have been born since then. The estimate is based on "informed speculation." Experts take into account many factors, such as high mortality in the early stages of the evolution of our species (during the Iron Age, the average life expectancy was 10 years), lack of medicine and food, climate change and much more. When you take all this into account, it is no wonder that the world's population has grown so slowly. Among our ancestors, infant mortality could reach 500 cases per 1000 births.

The organization's specialists have collected all their data on population growth rates in one table.

Population growth rate from 50,000 BC to 2011; the number of births per thousand people and the total number of births between each two marks are also shown

Interestingly, the growth rate slows down between the beginning of our era and 1650. In the Middle Ages, a plague epidemic raged in Europe - the Black Death. There is also a noticeable population explosion after the industrial revolution. In the century and a half since 1850, the world's population has increased approximately 6 times!

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 living on Earth modern look there were relatively few people (Homo sapiens). 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 possible consequences 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, Professor Emeritus, Fenner School environment and Society at the Australian State University, 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 vary from region to region and that, on a per-household basis, they are highest in economically prosperous countries.

Diana Ivanova from the University of Science and Technology of the Norwegian city of Trondheim, who developed the concept for this study, explains that it changed the traditional view of who should be 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 core 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 search alternative ways fertility reduction, and seek urgently.

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—increased our consumption, the upper limit on the sustainable (sustainable) population size of the Earth would 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 solar system, 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.

Read on English possible on the website.

“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.