Scientists have set threshold values for key environmental processes, which if we exceed them, the processes may threaten the very existence of life on Earth. Worryingly, three limits have already been crossed
By Jonathan Foley
For the last 10,000 years, since the dawn of humanity and the beginning of the Holocene era, it seemed to us that our world was immeasurably large. Vast horizons of land and sea promised unlimited resources. Humans could pollute freely and not witness the effects of pollution on their immediate environment, simply because they moved to another place. People have built entire empires and economic systems, relying on their ability to exploit what appears to be infinite wealth, never imagining that this ability will one day disappear.
But thanks to the improvement in public health, the industrial revolution and later the green revolution, the world's population grew from about a billion people in 1800 to almost 7 billion today. In the last 50 years alone, the number has more than doubled. Abundance has also brought our use of resources to incredible heights: in 50 years, the consumption of food and water in the world has more than tripled, and the consumption of mineral fuels has quadrupled. Today we use about a third to about a half of all the products of photosynthesis on Earth.
This promiscuous growth also turned environmental pollution from a local problem into an attack on the whole world. The depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer and the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases are prominent examples of this entanglement, but many other destructive effects are increasing.
The sudden acceleration of world population growth, resource consumption and environmental damage has changed the planet. Today we live in a "full" world, characterized by limited resources and a limited capacity to absorb waste. The rules of the game for living in such a world are also different. We must take steps to limit our actions only to the "safe operating area" of our environmental systems. If we do not change our ways, we will cause terrible changes that will leave the human race with disastrous results.
What might cause such changes? And how can we avoid them? A team of scientists from all over the world, led by Johan Rockström from the Sustainability Center in Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, and colleagues from Europe, the United States (including me) and Australia recently searched for the answers through a broader question: are we approaching "tipping points" in the history of the Earth, That their crossing will bring the global environment into new and dangerous territory, different from anything we have seen in human history?
After examining many multidisciplinary studies that dealt with physical and biological systems, we came to the conclusion that there are nine environmental processes that could threaten the Earth's ability to support the existence of the human species. Then we set extreme values for these processes, limits that mark an area where humans can operate safely. Seven of the processes have clear boundaries, the scientific examination oil is defined by a single number (which is of course subject to some uncertainty). Three of them, the safe limits for climate change, the increase in ocean acidity and the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere, indicate turning points, while the other four limits indicate the point at which the process of deterioration will become irreversible. Two other processes, the pollution of the atmosphere with aerosols and the global chemical pollution, have been studied in a less in-depth manner, and therefore have not yet been marked with sector boundaries.
The analysis conducted by our group indicates that three processes have already exceeded the boundaries of the sector: the loss of biodiversity, nitrogen pollution and climate change. All other processes are moving towards the limits of their sector. It is possible that in the future some of the borders will be designated and others will be added, but the set of borders presented here offers a "first-order" summary of the most dangerous environmental conditions in the world, and serves as a framework for dealing with the threats.
Complications involving mineral fuels
Understanding the causes of our most serious environmental problems also provides clues to their solution. In two processes, climate change and the increase in ocean acidity, one of the factors is very well known: the use of fossil fuels, which release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere.
Climate change. Although our planet has already gone through, and will surely go through, appreciable warming due to human activity, scientists and policy makers are looking for ways to prevent the most devastating results: the loss of the ice sheet at the poles, the collapse of drinking water supplies and disruptions in regional weather systems. The concentration of CO2 is now 387 parts per million (ppm) of the volume of the atmosphere, and there are disagreements about the concentration of greenhouse gases that will cause dangerous climate change. The range of suggested values is between 350 and 550 bcm of CO2. In our report, we propose a conservative target value of 350 KM for the long term to prevent the Earth from approaching climatic tipping points. To achieve this goal, humanity must act immediately to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them considerably in the next decades.
The increase in ocean acidity. The ongoing increase in ocean acidity is climate change's lesser-known relative. When the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so does the amount of CO2 that dissolves in water and forms carbonic acid. This process makes the surface water in the oceans more acidic. Naturally, sea water is alkaline, with a pH value of about 8.2, but the data shows that the pH has decreased and is approaching 8.0 and that the decrease continues. To quantify the damage caused by such a change, our group used a measure of the decrease in concentration of the mineral aragonite (a type of calcium carbonate), which formed on the surface. Many creatures, from corals to many types of phytoplankton, found at the bottom of the marine food chain, need aragonite to build skeletons or shells. The increase in acidity could severely damage marine ecosystems and the food web, and this is another reason to strive for a low-carbon energy future.
Effects of food production
Humans have already expropriated 35% of the earth's land surface for the purposes of growing crops and grazing. The expansion of agricultural areas is the main driver for creating new land areas and the resulting destruction of natural ecosystems. We are facing the danger of crossing several global boundaries due to the way man uses the land:
Loss of biodiversity. Land development is causing one of the biggest extinctions in Earth's history. According to geological evidence, we are losing species at a rate 100 to 1,000 times faster than the natural rate. The rate of this loss is recorded worldwide, both on land and in marine ecosystems, and it may harm ecological processes on a regional and global scale. Much more attention should be paid to the preservation of biological diversity, especially in the sensitive tropical forests. Various initiatives - such as the UN's REDD program to reduce emissions due to deforestation and the decrease in soil fertility, which develops resources to slow down the deforestation of tropical forests - may contribute not only to addressing the issue of the loss of species diversity, but also to effectively reducing carbon emissions.
Environmental pollution with nitrogen and phosphorus. Wide-scale use of chemical fertilizers has disturbed the chemical balance of the earth. The use of fertilizers increased the flow of nitrogen and phosphorus into the environment more than twice, and today it stands at 133 million tons of nitrogen and 10 million tons of phosphorus per year. Both phenomena result in large-scale water pollution that affects many lakes and rivers and creates "dead areas" in coastal areas that suffer from a lack of oxygen (hypoxia). We are required to change agricultural work habits that will allow us to increase food production while maintaining the sustainability of the environment.
Depletion of fresh water reserves. We pump water from rivers, lakes and aquifers on Earth in a huge amount of 2,600 cubic kilometers per year and use it for agriculture (70%), industry (20%) and domestic use (10%). Therefore, the flow of water in many rivers is small, and some of them are on the verge of drying up. Prominent examples of this are the Colorado River, which no longer flows into the ocean, and the Aral Sea in Central Asia, which today is mostly a desert. Future consumption may be enormous. Radical streamlining of global water use, especially for agricultural needs, may help avoid greater depletion.
take distance
The publication of our group's original paper in the journal Nature a few months ago generated a healthy scientific debate. Most scientists accepted the work well and took it for what it is: a thought experiment that tries to define for the world dangerous lines that should not be crossed. However, some scientists harshly criticized her for trying to set limits. Others do not receive the numbers we have determined.
Perhaps the most important note is that by actually setting boundaries we may be encouraging people to think that it is okay to put up with the destruction of the environment as long as we stay within the safe zone. For the record, this is not our position! Society must not allow the world to drift towards a certain limit before taking action. Progressing from a third of the threshold value to two thirds of it, for example, will also cause serious damage. We call on people to be wise and altruistic (to future generations) enough to stay as far as possible from the borders because each of them represents an environmental crisis.
Most of the criticism was quite reasonable, and we watched much of it. We knew that the very concept of borders would require more in-depth research and especially a more accurate determination of the numbers, which we continue to engage in. But we felt that the idea was strong and could influence collective thinking on the subject of environmental limits for the existence of humanity. We hoped that the results would provoke a wide-ranging discussion among the scientific community, and it seems that we succeeded in doing so.
Solutions in diapers
When we come to address the economic, social and environmental impacts of global sustainability, we must try to limit ourselves to the domain of the sector marked by a whole set of boundaries. Although the company has begun to face some challenges, but still in a limiting way: each limit is his own. But the boundaries are largely interrelated. When one border is crossed, pressure is also created in the direction of the other borders and the risk of crossing them increases. For example, crossing the boundary of climate change could increase the rate of species extinction. Also, pollution with nitrogen and phosphorus may reduce the flexibility of marine ecosystems, and greatly accelerate the loss of biodiversity in them. Therefore, despite the good intentions, the attempt to solve each problem separately seems doomed to failure.
In the critical period in which we live, scientists cannot be satisfied with just defining the problems. We must also offer solutions. Here are some ideas to start with:
Switch to efficient energy systems that emit little carbon. The burning issues of climate change and the increasing acidity of the oceans require us to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentration as quickly as possible. We must strive to stabilize it at a concentration lower than 350 ppm. The transition will require significant improvements in energy efficiency, and then a rapid expansion of the use of energy sources that emit little carbon.
Quickly reduce land deforestation, slow down the rate of soil fertility decline, and especially reduce tropical deforestation. We have already crossed some of the limits, especially the limit of the loss of biological diversity, due to the incessant expansion of human settlement.
Invest in revolutionary agricultural methods. Several limits, including those concerning fertilizer pollution and water consumption, are affected by the industrialization of agricultural systems. New approaches can be taken, such as using new plant varieties or more precise farming techniques, as well as using water and fertilizers more efficiently.
When we come to implement solutions we must understand that there is no simple set of rules for achieving a sustainable future. Over time we will surely develop new working principles for our economic systems, political institutions and social actions in recognition of the limitations of our understanding of environmental and human processes. Each performance tester or new work principle should allow us to respond to changes in environmental health indicators and social needs and at the same time improve the ability of natural and human systems to withstand sudden shocks, which will surely occur. In order to create such fitness we will have to do everything we can to live within the bounds of a shrinking planet.
key concepts
Despite the much attention that climate change receives, species extinctions and nitrogen pollution of the environment have already exceeded safe values. Other environmental processes are also approaching dangerous levels.
A quick transition to low-carbon energy sources, a reduction in land deforestation and a transformation in agricultural work methods are essential to improving the ability of the human race to live a sustainable life on Earth.
And more on the subject
A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Johan Rockström et al. in Nature, Vol. 461, pages 472-475; September 24, 2009.
Commentaries: Planetary Boundaries. Nature Reports Climate Change, Vol. 3, pages 112-119; October 2009. http://blogs.nature.com/
climatefeedback/2009/09/
planetary_boundaries
.html
Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Johan Rockström et al. in Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, no. 2, Article 32; 2009. www.stockholmresilience
.org/planetary-boundaries
About the author
Jonathan Foley (Foley) is the director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Minnesota. He is an atmospheric scientist who mainly deals with the connection between land use, agriculture and the global environment.
24 תגובות
The savior:
You are too angry, too confident, and too little listening.
You treat a substantive discussion as if it were irrelevant only due to the fact that they explained to you why there was a reason to discuss with you in a non-substantive manner and without any relation to any irrelevant thing that was said in it.
In short - I don't like the discussion with you and I'm stopping it.
I'm trying to aim for a substantive discussion. If two words I said make it so hard for you to take me seriously, then please, let's stop it now and be done with it. If it helps you to have a discussion, I take back what I said. If it bothers you that much, I'm ready to change my nickname. I honestly never thought it would bother anyone in the three seconds I thought about it.
I have never claimed communism, but the fact is that today there are huge amounts of food that are thrown away every day by developed countries. Communism has nothing to do with it. Communism failed the reality test, and I have no reason to argue in favor of it.
If you succeed in developing more agriculture, you will continue to fuel the population explosion, and in addition, no one guarantees you that this will solve the problem of hunger and will not increase it further (because as we have already said, a hungry population is a population that reproduces). If you look at the last hundred years or since the beginning of the industrial revolution - every year we increased the amount of food we produced, and we never solved the problem of hunger, we only increased it. I'm starting to think that no one really listened to Einstein who said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting different results. Why precisely if you now produce more food will it solve the problem of hunger, as opposed to the last hundred years when we did exactly the same thing?
If you increase the amount of food, the population will increase, and the hungry population will increase along with it.
Increasing food production is the number one cause of species extinction, because it usually comes together with deforestation and habitat destruction. Even if we produce more food on less land, like any other species, we will adapt ourselves according to the available food and therefore our population will spread geographically, and this also in many cases leads to a situation of clearing forests and destroying habitats.
"Increasing food production does not increase the birth rate because this rate is largely the result of culture and therefore what you are proposing is actually letting those who have already been born starve." - Absolutely not. If we continue to produce an amount of food that is enough for seven billion people, seven billion people will continue to exist, people who already exist will not perish, because it is a fact that the amount of food that exists today is enough to finance the people who already exist now. It is also true that the birth rate *individually* is affected by culture, but the birth rate of the *species as a whole*, like any other species, is directly affected by the availability of food. Want proof? Look at the amount of people that existed before the agricultural revolution, which were several tens of thousands. During the thousands (and some would say millions) of years of existence of the human race then, the amount of population adjusted itself to the amount of food that was available. From the moment we started producing food ourselves in the agricultural revolution, the amount of food available increased - and with it the amount of the population. The amount of food available determines the amount of population. This is true in every species and every culture, regardless of the birth rate.
Regarding your moral question-
According to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), the state in which the star will no longer be suitable for human life is in about 3 billion years, when the sun will begin to die. Let's strike for a moment a hypothetical situation where we only allow a hundred people to live, and suppose that every 25 years a generation changes. At this rate, 120 billion generations will pass until the end of the earth. If there are 100 people in each generation, then until the end of the earth there will be 1.2E10 people. And this is in the hypothetical situation where we only let a hundred people live, and not several billions. If we continue to grow at our current rate, how many people can we hold until we collapse? 15 billion? 20 billion? 100 billion? That's not even remotely close to the amount of people that would exist if only XNUMX people lived for the entire life of the planet.
The savior:
I admit that it is a bit difficult for me to return to a balanced discussion with a man who suggested to the whole world and his wife to get out of the fantasies.
This is not exactly what I would expect from a person who wants a substantive discussion.
I understood you completely and the fact remains that I do not agree with you.
Limiting food production is not the solution because, as you said, it will actually harm populations that are already hungry today.
Another distribution of the food is a dream in Asfamia. It doesn't seem to me that you will suddenly be able to bring the whole planet back into the warm bosom of communism.
The only way to feed the hungry is to increase the yield of agriculture per unit area and increase the resistance of agricultural plants to the hostile conditions in some of the environments.
You have to think about the genetic diversity and try to preserve it, but an increased production of food, achieved through proper means, does not harm the genetic diversity.
Beyond that, increasing food production does not increase the birth rate because this rate is largely the result of culture, so what you are proposing is basically letting those who have already been born starve.
There is also a question of values of a completely different kind here, a question that many people tend to ignore - and that is the question "What is the 'good' that we should strive for?"
There is a time in the distant future when conditions on Earth will not allow human life at all.
Should we strive to reach this period at any cost - even if this means that from this moment on we will only allow the simultaneous existence of a hundred people, or do we wish to extract from the earth the maximum amount of human happiness (an amount that will be calculated by integrating along the timeline of a sum The happiness levels of all people - a number that is positively affected the greater the number of people at any given moment) - even if this means that we will use up the Earth's resources before it becomes uninhabitable for some other reason?
You did not understand me. I am not claiming that because of the unavailability of food people limit their fertility. Definately not. There is no reason to think that societies whose food is limited, such as tribal societies, consciously think to limit birth. I argue that they adapt themselves to the availability of food naturally. They don't have to "plan" it, just like mice or lions or elk or bears will adapt to the availability of food without planning it at all.
Of course, the availability of food should not be limited in order not to create hunger, and I never claimed that, it should be limited in order not to create a population explosion (and consequently, extinction of species at the expense of the growing human population). It is clear that hunger is caused by a lack of food and not by an excess of food, but anyone who understands the problem of hunger will tell you that hunger is not caused because there is not enough food today, but because the food is not distributed among the entire planet correctly. If we continue to increase food production and at the same time continue to not distribute it correctly, hunger will continue, and not only that, it will also grow and expand. If you want to solve the problem of hunger, increasing food production is a bad solution, because as we said, the hungry will multiply again, and the population will also increase and hunger will continue to exist. If you want to deal with the problem of hunger effectively, you will learn to distribute the food that already exists on earth correctly, and do not increase the amount of food, because again - you will fuel the population explosion.
I have no problem with producing food more efficiently, I have a problem with increasing food production. It is possible to produce food in a more efficient way, but in exactly the same amount as we produce now. Now we produce exactly enough food for seven billion people to survive. If we continue to produce exactly the same amount - seven billion people will remain on the planet. Will we increase food production to enough food for eight billion people? In a short time we will reach eight billion people, it's a simple formula. Will we continue to increase food production? We will reach nine billion, ten billion, eleven billion, and so on. At this rate, it won't take many generations for the system to collapse.
And please, if you want to have a discussion, let's have a normal discussion, without descending to personal and demagogic levels.
Lord Savior:
You must decide what logic you use.
If people limit the birth rate due to the unavailability of food, then even if the availability of food is increased they will still continue to limit the birth rate according to the new availability and obviously this will not create any hunger.
It may not be understood by you, but those who are starving, are hungry because of a lack of food and not because of an excess of food.
Don't get me wrong.
I am also against harming the variety of species on the planet, but this is not necessarily in conflict with more efficient food production.
Sorry, the previous message was sent too quickly.
My point is that I don't "let" people starve to death, this is something that is happening even now while we are producing huge amounts of food and increasing production every year. Can they eat more food? They will multiply again, and there will be famine again. A hungry population is also a breeding population. To think that the restriction of food will create hunger, while hunger is a phenomenon that exists today while there is *no* restriction of food, this is a bit... demagoguery.
If you increase the efficiency of food production and produce more food, then you will simply have more people starving. As soon as you limit the production of food, neither hunger nor riots will be created - want proof? Go today to a tribal population, which has maintained the same number of people for thousands and even millions of years. Why do they keep the same number? No, they don't control the birth, they don't think about the planet and a "green" future, they just have a limited amount of food. And no, there is no hunger there.
True, I don't live in fantasies. As soon as we limit the production of food, it will harm the populations, and mainly (or only) the hungry and weak populations of third world countries. But if we don't do that, more and more species will continue to go extinct. Once we hit enough strains and completely destroy the system that supports our existence, we will go along with them.
Of course, it is theoretically possible to restrict births, but this is an attempt to change the results, not the circumstances. As soon as you have some magic way to convince a billion and a half Muslims, all of Africa, India, and every other third world country to limit their births - talk to me and I will change my position.
So you suggest making it a method?
Today people are dying of hunger. This is today's reality, not something futuristic and distant that will "maybe" happen."
Not to limit reproduction and not to increase the effectiveness of food production, but to let people reproduce as much as they want and to stop producing "too much food" so that people will simply die of hunger.
Interesting idea!
Especially when it comes from a person telling others to get out of their fantasies.
It's a bit silly to think that we need more people on earth, the very fact that the more people there are, the more species become extinct. There is no place in this world for infinite living beings. If humans spread, they will spread at the expense of other species and exterminate them. As soon as we reach a critical point of species extinction - the system that supports our life will collapse, and we along with it. We are biologically the same as any other species and we are as completely dependent on the biological population as any other species. Once too many species disappear, we will disappear with them.
Is space expansion a good way to deal with population growth?
In which we assume that seven billion inhabitants per planet is a maximum level of people (although I think seven billion is well above the maximum amount). Suppose we have instant access to every planet in the habitable universe. In today's data, the population doubles every 35 years or so, so within thirty-five years a second planet will be inhabited. After seventy years four planets will be full. After one hundred and five years eight planets will be full. And so on. At this rate, a billion planets will be full by the year 3000. By the year 3300, a hundred billion stars will be full, which is the number we could fill the entire galaxy if each system had one habitable star. A second galaxy will be full another 35 years later, after another 35 years a second galaxy and eight galaxies 35 years after that. By the year 5000 the planets of a trillion galaxies will be full - that is, every star in the universe. All this within three thousand years that we assume the improbable estimate that every system in the universe has one habitable planet.
How do you stop population expansion? Not with the help of birth control, that's for sure. Go convince Iran to limit births. Not through education and raising the standard of living, you will make billions of Chinese and Muslims and Africans break away from religion and live at the standard of living of Americans (there are not enough resources on this planet to finance everyone living such a long life). so how so? We need to understand a simple thing - every species, *every species* wherever it is, adapts itself to the amount of food available. As soon as there are more antelopes, there will be more lions hunting them. Once the antelope population is reduced, there will be fewer lions. As soon as there are more lions and less antelopes - the lion population will decrease again. Negative balance returns. All animals are made of food, and if there is no food to sustain them, they cannot reproduce beyond that.
We are, as much as we glorify ourselves, *just another species*. We increase ourselves according to the availability of food. What we did, we broke the recurring negative balance. Instead of having more people and less food, we would shrink, we simply created *more food*, and then the population grew again, and then so that it wouldn't decrease, we created more food once again - until in the industrial revolution we learned how to produce astronomical amounts of food, and together with the food, an amount The people grew up. And despite this, we hear again and again the erroneous attitude that because there were more people we created more food, even though the truth is that because there was *more food* more people could exist.
Want to stop the population explosion? Get out of your fantasies. Don't limit the people, limit the food creature.
There is no doubt that the human race is doomed. It is true because there are people who see the picture clearly and even know how to give us dates.
The global ecological problem could have been solved a long time ago. Do you think the Muslim world will cooperate with you? No!! I follow them closely, all their overt and covert purpose is the destruction of the infidels on earth. And the price is not important. By the time we realize it, it will be too late.
The answer to catastrophe is sociocannibalism.
There are too many people and too little food. Instead of destroying the world, the population should be reduced by proactive means. Wars don't do it fast enough.
You talk about the issue of population explosion as a proven scientific fact.
If you can also bring a reference to the matter? A study or two that I can read that supports the matter? Let me know.
In fact, in recent years the growth rate of the population has slowed down.
And here is an article I found by chance by the father of the site called:
Has the population explosion been stopped?
http://lib.cet.ac.il/Pages/item.asp?item=6182
And in my opinion, Roy is right when he once said that, in fact, according to Jared Diamond - a world-renowned expert, with more than thirty years of experience in protecting the environment - the Earth can support a population of the size that exists today. The two main problems are:
1. Each person in the western world consumes 32 times more resources than a person in the third world, and excretes 32 times more waste.
2. The developing countries - China and India in the lead - are trying to reach the standard of living of the Western world, and to that end they are consuming their environment, and through imports also the environment of other countries.
If the inhabitants of the Western world were to switch to a way of life that was more economical in resources (for example, consume less, throw away less, recycle more, etc.), then the situation would be much better. Most likely, the solution lies in assimilating the fact that the planet is not able to allow a western standard of living for all humans, or even for their minority, and agreeing on rules that will lower the level of consumption in a controlled manner.
Soup - soilent green - describes a situation that borders on the absurd, since long before such a situation food riots will break out and unfortunately the population will decrease significantly within a few years. People will not let them be picked up from the streets in the way the movie depicts.
My intention is that the challenges facing humanity will require a lot of manpower. In an era when entire cities will be built to heights of a kilometer or more, man will no longer suffer from overcrowding which actually stems from over-expansion and not necessarily from population density. The only solution for the survival of the human race is to spread throughout the solar system - something that is technologically possible but insanely expensive. Because otherwise it's like Noam's description (response 9), all the eggs in one basket like dinosaurs waiting for a rock to fall on them.
Time will tell…
I agree with Daniel!
There are too few humans in the universe. The earth is really empty! There are a few people in the census. In the not too distant future we will stop using fossil fuels and start using geothermal energy. When humanity's energy consumption reaches the rate of its production by radioactive decay in the bowels of the earth, the movement of the continents, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes will stop. At the same time we will sit in space.
About 400 years ago we discovered America and today the world power resides in it. It will happen much faster in space.
Dear Friends!
If we are content to drag our tails in the mud like the dinosaurs, we will survive like them - until a large asteroid interrupts our celebration.
Grow and multiply and fill the earth applies to every land that our hands reach - today it is on Mars!
So come on-
Have children and promote science!
Friends, I want to present the real problem,
The problem is not border crossing or increased consumption or pollution or anything like that.
All these are just the results.
to the greed and selfishness that has gotten out of control in humanity.
I was taught that the root of the problem should be treated, and the truth is if we don't treat the root
Nature after expected heavy disasters will force us.
Imagine a human population that remains after a famine that wiped out half of humanity.
These will be different people who learned the hard way, what not to do.
I hope we will wait before and take control of the destructive passions and desires in us.
I believe that science and developments of one kind or another cannot solve the problems in the world,
Maybe slow them down but not solve them.
The rapid growth in the world's population will stop when it is certain
The question is what is the most plausible factor that will stop him.
Violent Plague 55%
World War 30%
natural disaster 15%
poverty and hunger 0%
population control 0%
It's like the bottom red line of the Sea of Galilee, when you reach it you just move it...
There is no doubt that human population growth is the world's number one problem!
Humanity has become a cancerous growth or like the algae that eats and suffocates every living thing, I liked Ra'anan's refreshing idea regarding ethnically cleansed peoples. The second is true!
Really interesting.
I believe in setting clear boundaries in order to know our situations and make an assessment.
In the above-mentioned specific case, I am forced to deviate from this custom, because the setting of the limits does cause a feeling of disability because it is possible to continue as usual until we reach the limit. This happens instinctively. Instead of setting boundaries, which is nice and all, maybe we should be more effective and find solutions?
I agree with Ra'anan, although I do not agree with the last puzzling sentence. I support forced restriction only as a last resort (although humanity seems to be getting closer to it). For example, canceling child allowances from here on out can be a loan. One of the parameters that affect birth control is women's education and I imagine sociologists can find a few more. Regarding the limitation of growth - not an easy challenge for economists. To Daniel - how many people do you think can exist on this planet without destroying it? 10 billion? 20, 70-just food for thought. Recommended movie for you - Soilent Green
fresh!!! - What a wonderful wording: ".. except for specific peoples who have undergone ethnic cleansing in the past..." – Fascism in an environmental guise? – – –
In my view, in light of the challenges facing man, such as the conquest of space and the flowering of deserts, there are not enough people on earth to create a sufficient reason to push humanity to do these things.
To those who support forced birth control, I would like to remind you that although the world is moved by a billion Chinese, it is not moved by a billion and a half Muslims or a billion Africans because of political correctness... Any preoccupation with the subject is fascism in its own right... Read the Winnowing - a short story by Asimov.
The only solution to the problem of overpopulation is the expansion and flourishing of the wilderness (in addition to providing food) - any other solution will lead to wars on a scale we have never known before.
Interesting article. Thanks.
There is a limit that is not politically correct to talk about, the size of the population and the rate of growth, we need to find a fair way to control this limit, and apply it all over the world, maybe except for specific peoples that have undergone ethnic cleansing in the past.