According to the United Nations, by 2050 the world will have 9 billion inhabitants. A population explosion will intensify a problem that already exists, that is, many countries where hunger prevails and at the same time the prices of basic food products have risen
Even those who do not read the environmental columns are aware of the rise in food prices worldwide. Part of the increase can be "blamed" on the conversion of agricultural areas from which food is created to grow biodiesel, andYou are La Niña But the main blame falls on the "explosion" of the human population, an explosion that occurs mainly in the poor countries, especially in Africa and South Asia. In the words of one of the researchers, "adding sin to crime".
According to the United Nations, by 2050 the world will have 9 billion inhabitants. Population explosion will intensify a problem that already exists, namely many countries where hunger prevails and at the same time the prices of basic food products have risen.
In order to feed the human population in the next 40 years, it will be necessary to produce an amount of food equal to the amount of food that was produced in the 8000 years until today. This is what a researcher from the World Wildlife Fund claimed at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
According to him, if the current process continues, in 2050 the world will be completely different. Because at the same time and together with the population explosion there is a decrease in resources. Another parallel process is the increase in (personal) income in developed countries, which means that despite the increase in food prices, citizens of developed countries will be able to consume more resources.
Previous studies have shown that to produce one kg of meat (beef) 7 kg of grains are needed. To produce one kg of eggs or cheese, 4 kg of seeds are needed.
Residents whose income level rises consume more meat, meaning: more people, more money, more consumption... From the same sphere, from the same source where resources are limited. The speakers continue and demand governments to use scientists and plan changes that will allow food production for the growing population, at the same time as funding programs for "family planning", that is, to stop the population explosion.
According to experts, in the last twenty years, too little has been done on the subject of family size planning, a subject that, when dealt with, turns out to have a direct impact on many environmental problems on a global scale.
It has already been said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment!
13 תגובות
Most of the countries where there is significant hunger are non-democratic countries or countries that have a young democracy of less than 30 years...the more democracy there is, the less hunger there will be.
Daniel, the increase in the number of same-sex marriages does not change the number of same-sex people, but only regulates their status - and therefore does not change the situation, because a certain percentage of the population has always had these tendencies.
And besides, in the era of a surrogate mother, even men can give birth to children (see the case of the father of two babies who got stuck in India because of the insanity of our Ministry of the Interior and of a judge whose religion prevailed in his judgment). So this really doesn't matter for the population explosion.
With the increase in the number of same-sex marriages, I don't think there will be a population explosion.
For Ami Bachar:
'Eugenics'?? For the time being, the main 'culprit' for the current increase in the world's population is the West and its technology, if there will be a severe lack of resources in the third world, this is just a consequence of natural growth, where is there any 'eugenic' planning here? As far as I know, eugenics is a definition for planning and genetic improvement and not a natural process.
It's not so bad to be vegan.
I switched from vegetarian to vegan two years ago, and it wasn't that hard. I agree that steak and omelette are tastier than any of the soy substitutes, but the difference is not such that it makes veganism an impossible task. I suggest that everyone just try to go vegan for a month only, to get an impression.
Oh,
Birth control?
It sounds to me like a solution to the problem of population explosion.
Well done. Finally talking about the most serious problem. Population explosion. There is also a place of honor for our country that distributes child allowances in abundance and thus we are the western country with the highest population density in the world. Add to this salad the fact that we are poor in resources, and the stupid demographic race that Jews and Arabs alike are engaged in. There is no chance to take advantage - it's going to explode unless we apply hard brakes now.
I forgot to mention that this will also solve the problem of hunger and significantly reduce violence and wars.
As a vegan I can only recommend this longevity.
Energy is available throughout the day while protecting the environment and the animals.
There is nothing better you can do for yourself and the environment than a vegetarian or vegan diet.
This is the future, friends, in 20 years meat will be outlawed.
The process that will occur in the next forty years is a classic evolutionary process with competition for resources and the carrying capacity of land while thinning out the less adapted. This is economic eugenics (I will claim copyright on the language) and it is at least as horrible as Nazi eugenics. What is going to happen in this gruesome competition is constant starvation and gnawing at the resources of the Third World to the point of depletion where the adapted few will be the only survivors. A loss in human capital that humanity will pay dearly for in the next hundreds of years. At the same time, it is worth noting that all of these processes - as Pitah implies in response No. XNUMX - are natural processes and there is no reason, value or meaning to "preach" against them or in favor of them as the doctor does.
Besides, my gut tells me that overcoming the issue of hunger will be fast with the biotechnological development of producing protein from algae. The sea is big and you can grow an unlimited amount of algae in it and from them you can produce cheap protein with which you can feed our whole world. Those who want to eat juicy pork and have the fat drip on their beard - will have to pay for it with a gold coin.
To Mr. "Pita"?
A - The data presented here are taken from the AAAS report and the WWF data
This is indicated in the list!
The UN uses these data and refines them with data obtained by its researchers.
B - If you would like a personal conversation to check my "piety" for the topics I write about... you are welcome,
And... yes I avoid eating meat (also because of my environmental "piety").
C - Today humanity controls the natural environment and destroys it, also because of the lack of understanding
That "mankind and the environment are one", I do not make a separation but "preach" to change the relationship!
Your arguments stand in stark contrast to the findings of the UN Food Program
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes
Isn't it simpler at all to switch to a vegetarian diet and solve the problem if it even exists?
Are you a vegetarian Dr. Rosenthal or are you just willing to rule over others?
And humanity and the environment are one. How do you separate? On what basis?