Image copyright Thinkstock
Does the Earth have enough resources to support a rapidly growing human population? Now it is over 7 billion. What is the maximum number of inhabitants, above which the sustainable development of our planet will no longer be possible? The correspondent undertook to find out what the researchers think about this.
Overpopulation. At this word, modern politicians wince; in discussions about the future of planet Earth, he is often referred to as the "elephant in the room."
Often, a growing population is spoken of as the biggest threat to the existence of the Earth. But is it right to consider this problem in isolation from other contemporary global challenges? And is it really so threateningly many people live on our planet now?
- What do giant cities suffer from?
- Seva Novgorodtsev about overpopulation of the Earth
- Obesity is more dangerous than overcrowding
It is clear that the Earth does not increase in size. Its space is limited, and the resources necessary to sustain life are finite. Food, water and energy may simply not be enough for everyone.
It turns out that demographic growth is a real threat to the well-being of our planet? Not at all necessary.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is not rubber!"The problem is not the number of people living on the planet, but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of consumption," says David Satterthwaite, senior fellow at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development.
In support of his thesis, he cites a consonant statement by the Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, who believed that "there are enough [resources] in the world to satisfy the needs of every person, but not universal greed."
The global effect of a multi-billion increase in urban population could be much smaller than we think
Until recently, the number of representatives of the modern human species (Homo sapiens) living on Earth was relatively small. Just 10 thousand years ago, no more than a few 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 base our predictions on the possible consequences of this growth in the future.
In other words, if it is true that more than 11 billion people will live on our planet by the end of the century, our current level of knowledge does not allow us to say whether sustainable development is possible with such a population - simply because there has not yet been precedents in history.
However, we can get a better picture of the future if we analyze where the most significant 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 at the current stage is assessed as low or medium.
At first glance, an increase in the number of inhabitants of such cities, even if by several billion, should not have serious consequences on a global scale. This is due to historically low levels of urban consumption in low- and middle-income countries.
Emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are a good indication of how high a city's consumption can be. “We know about cities in low-income countries that emissions of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide) and its equivalents are less than a tonne per person per year,” says David Satterthwaite. “In high-income countries, the values of this indicator fluctuate 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.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption Copenhagen: high standard of living, but low greenhouse gas emissionsHowever, there are exceptions. Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark, a high-income country, while Porto Allegre is in Brazil, an upper-middle income country. Both cities have a high standard of living, but emissions (on a per capita basis) are relatively low in volume.
According to the scientist, if we look at the lifestyle of one single person, the difference between rich and poor categories of the population will be even more significant.
There are many low-income urban dwellers whose consumption is so low that it has little to no effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
When 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 entirely possible that low-income megacities will see carbon emissions rise soon.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable with a growing populationThere is also concern about the desire of people in poor countries to live and consume at levels that are now considered normal for high-income countries (many would say that this would be some kind of 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 at the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian State University, says this is in line with a general trend that has emerged over the past century.
According to him, the problem is not population growth, but the growth - even more rapid - of world consumption (which, of course, is unevenly distributed around the world).
If so, then humanity may find itself in an even more predicament.
People living in high-income countries must do their part to keep the Earth sustainable with a growing population.
Only if richer communities are willing to reduce their consumption levels and allow their governments to support unpopular measures can the world as a whole reduce the negative human impact on the global climate and more effectively address issues such as resource conservation and recycling.
In a 2015 study, the Journal of Industrial Ecology tried to look at environmental issues from the perspective of a household, where the focus is on consumption.
If we adopt smarter consumer habits, the state of the environment can improve dramatically
The study showed that private consumers account for more than 60% of greenhouse gas emissions, and in the use of land, water and other raw materials, their share is up to 80%.
Moreover, the researchers concluded that the pressure on the environment differs from region to region and that, per household, it is highest in economically prosperous countries.
Diana Ivanova of the University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, Norway, who developed the concept for this study, explains that it changes the traditional view of who should be responsible for industrial emissions associated with the production of consumer goods.
"We are all trying to shift the blame to someone else, to the state or to enterprises," she notes.
In the West, for example, consumers often express the opinion that China and other countries that produce consumer goods in industrial quantities should also be responsible for emissions associated with production.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption Modern society depends on industrial productionBut Diana and her colleagues believe that an equal share of the responsibility lies with the consumers themselves: "If we begin to follow smarter consumer habits, the state of the environment can significantly improve." According to this logic, radical changes are needed in the basic values of developed countries: the emphasis should move from material wealth to a model where the most important thing is personal and social well-being.
But even if favorable changes take place in mass consumer behavior, it is unlikely that our planet will be able to sustain a population of 11 billion people for a long time.
Therefore, Will Steffen proposes to stabilize the population somewhere in the region of nine billion, and then begin to gradually reduce it by reducing the birth rate.
Stabilization of the Earth's population implies both a reduction in resource consumption and the expansion of women's rights.
In fact, there are signs that some stabilization is already underway, even if the population continues to grow statistically.
Population growth has been slowing since the 1960s, and surveys of fertility rates by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs indicate that, worldwide, the birth rate per woman has fallen from 4.7 children in 1970-75 to 2.6 in 2005-10.
However, it will take centuries for any really significant changes to take place in this area, according to Corey Bradshaw of the University of Adelaide in Australia.
The trend towards an increase in the birth rate is so deeply rooted that even a major catastrophe will not be able to radically change the situation, the scientist believes.
According to a 2014 study, Corey concluded that even if the world's population were reduced by two billion tomorrow due to increased mortality, or if governments of all countries, like China, passed unpopular laws that limit the number of children, then by 2100 the number of people on our planet would at best remain at its current level.
Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative ways to reduce the birth rate, and look for it without delay.
If some or all of us increase our consumption, then the upper limit for sustainable (sustainable) population of the Earth will decrease
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) estimated that 350 million women in the poorest countries were not going to have their last child, but they 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, the stabilization of the population of our planet implies both a reduction in resource consumption and the expansion of women's rights.
But if a population of 11 billion is unsustainable, how many people - in theory - can our Earth support?
Corey Bradshaw thinks it's nearly impossible to give a specific number as it will depend on technology in areas like agriculture, energy and transportation, and how many people we're willing to condemn to a life of deprivation and limitation, including and in food.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption Slums in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay)It is a fairly common belief that humanity has already exceeded the permissible limit, given the wasteful lifestyle that many of its representatives lead and which they are unlikely to want to give up.
As arguments in favor of this point of view, such environmental trends as global warming, the reduction of biospecies diversity and pollution of the world's oceans are given.
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 20th century, the problem of population was associated equally with female fertility and soil fertility.
The most common option is 8 billion, i.e. a little more than the current level. The lowest figure is 2 billion. The highest is 1024 billion.
And since assumptions about the allowable demographic maximum depend on a number of assumptions, it is difficult to say which of the above estimates is closest to reality.
But ultimately the determining factor will be how society organizes its consumption.
If some of us - or all of us - increase our consumption, then the upper limit on the acceptable (in terms of sustainable development) population of the Earth will decrease.
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 1928 book The Shadow of the World to Come, George Knibbs suggested that if the world's population reaches 7.8 billion, humanity will need to be much more efficient in cultivating and using land.
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption With the invention of chemical fertilizers began a rapid population growthAnd three years later, Carl Bosch received the Nobel Prize for his contribution to the development of chemical fertilizers, the production of which was, presumably, the most important factor in the population boom that occurred in the twentieth century.
In the distant future, scientific and technological progress can significantly raise the upper limit of the permissible population of the Earth.
Ever since people first traveled into space, mankind is no longer content with observing stars from the Earth, but is seriously discussing the possibility of resettlement to other planets.
Many prominent scientists and thinkers, including the physicist Stephen Hawking, even state that the colonization of other worlds will be crucial for the survival of humans and other biological species present on Earth.
Although the NASA exoplanet program launched in 2009 discovered a large number of Earth-like planets, they are all too distant from us and little studied. (As part of this program, the US space agency created the Kepler satellite equipped with an ultra-sensitive photometer to search for Earth-like planets outside the solar system, the so-called exoplanets.)
Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The earth is our only home and we need to learn how to live in it in a sustainable waySo moving people to another planet is not yet an option. For the foreseeable future, the Earth will be our only home, and we must learn to live in it in an environmentally friendly way.
This implies, of course, an overall reduction in consumption, in particular a transition to a lifestyle with low CO2 emissions, as well as an improvement in the status of women around the world.
Only by taking some steps in this direction, we will be able to roughly calculate how much the planet Earth can support the people.
- You can read it in English on the website.
One of the most scandalous topics of official "science" is the problem with the population of the planet, which no one really knows. According to data published in "encyclopedias", 7.6 billion people currently live on Earth, but there is no way to verify this figure.
The problem, let's say, is not in statistics, but in dynamics. Let us dwell only on the population of past eras. The official history presents the following estimates:
Vertically they are billions of k.ltq, horizontally millennia. According to the drawing, during the time of Ancient Egypt, the planet was deserted, like the Moon, so looking at the graph, even children ask the question: “Who built the pyramids then?” Anthropologists get out very easily: they shrug their shoulders and redirect to Egyptologists, who continue to tell fairy tales. However, in addition to Egypt, inexplicable by science, there is still such an interesting city in the world as Paris, under which it is not clear who built catacombs with a total length of 300 kilometers.
The length there, of course, is orders of magnitude greater, since the structure is multi-level, tourists are not allowed into the lower part of which, since there are huge, wide, stone-lined corridors leading from Paris to other cities in France and Europe. But we won’t argue either: three hundred or three hundred, at least 150, in this context it’s not so important.
The important thing here is that the dungeons of Paris are filled from floor to ceiling with human bones, which are officially counted as "6 million skeletons."
According to the official explanation for the appearance of these bones, in the region of 1780, Paris was once again flooded by the spilled Seine, destroying the local cemetery and throwing corpses on the bridges of the city. Then the wise King Louis XVI issued a decree to remove all the dead from the cemetery and put them in the catacombs of the city. The ravings of academics about how many people lived in Paris in 1780 were always too late for us to watch, but at one time, many years ago, we looked at the contour maps of the area of the sample of 1720, which detailed the plan of the city:
In a modern metropolis, where people live either on top of each other or in towers reaching far into the sky, the population density is about 10,000 (USA) - 30,000 (China) people per square kilometer. Since there were no Empire State buildings in Paris in the 1720s, the population density there must have been on the order of that of a modern European town of 50,000 people. People live there at a density of 2,000 to 4,000 people per square kilometer.
Based on these considerations and the size of the contour map, the population of Paris in 1720 was about 10-20,000 people. That's rough. About five years ago, a more accurate estimate flashed - 12,000 people. This begs the question: where did the six million come from in the quarries?
The quarries of Lutetia (that is, Paris) is only one, most likely familiar to our readers, example of the discrepancy between real statistics and scientific fiction. However, there are much more shocking examples that few people know about. Back in 2013, when Google Earth had just started working normally, millions of people rushed to look at all sorts of interesting places on the maps.
Among them was Gary Shuning, who found artifact structures in South Africa that are very incomprehensible to the uninitiated: However, unlike many YouTubers who look for star fortresses and traces of thermonuclear explosions on Google maps, he turned out to be a certified enlightened adept from agriculture. With a trained eye of a specialist, he immediately saw in this system a colossal irrigation complex, about which he made simple mathematical calculations: The entire complex covers an area approximately equal to the state of Arizona in the USA.
The system is about 350 miles wide and about 300 miles long, at least for the remnants that are still visible. This system represents approximately 67 million acres of sustainable agriculture. Given the complexity of the design, it is likely that the system fed at least 90 people per acre on an annual basis. Moreover: technically the system could provide sustainable aquaculture (i.e. marine).
I have no reason to suspect that this is not the case. Considering the size and scale of this complex, (the canals are spaced about 1 mile apart on average) and together add up to approximately 350 X 300 miles in a rough rectangular format. (At least the observable parts). The complex may actually have been much larger, but it is now approximately 105,000 square miles. One square mile = 27,878,400 sq. feet or 640 acres, so the entire complex had a sustainable production area (640 acres x 105,000 square miles) or over 67,200,000 acres (67 million acres).
One linear mile of the canal had 47,520,000 cubic feet of water per linear mile. Multiplying this by the number of canals in the structure gives you 5 trillion cubic feet of water in the canals, which is just too much to irrigate this area. Therefore, it is possible that the system was used not only for irrigation, but also for the production of marine food, which increases its productivity at least twice.
However, even if we do not take into account the possibility of aquaculture parallel to irrigation, we will calculate the crop yields from this area. Depending on the management and choice of cultivated crops, they vary widely, but the minimum figure is able to provide an annual diet of anywhere from 60 to 120 people per acre. Since the area (visible remains) of the system is 67 million acres, the the complex produced the amount of food needed to feed 5 billion people during the year.
This is how simple statistics turn out, so it’s not at all surprising that a scientific discovery is not trumpeted from morning to evening on TV. We do not even ask a stupid question about who built and processed all this. The more important question is: who did this system feed? How many people were on planet Earth? Was this system alone? If there were several systems, then what was the population of the Earth in those days?
How many people have lived on earth or even been born at all is an intriguing question that can be justified, at least in part, on a scientific basis.
In order to evaluate and for it to be true, one must understand that childbirth, the survival of infants both at the beginning of the 20th century and now in the 21st century are not the same as they were in the past.
It is known that a large number of elderly people born in the middle of the last century are now living.
However, the number of prehistoric people or how many people lived on earth with a high degree of probability can be determined.
How many people have ever lived on earth?
| Number of people on Earth | Births per 1000 people | Estimated births | |
| 50,000 BC | 2000 | – | – |
| 8000 BC | 5 000 000 | 80 | 1137 789769 |
| 1 AD | 300 000 000 | 80 | 46025332354 |
| 1200 | 450 000 000 | 60 | 26591343000 |
| 1650 | 500 000 000 | 60 | 12782002453 |
| 1750 | 795 000 000 | 50 | 3171931513 |
| 1850 | 1 265 000 000 | 40 | 4046240009 |
| 1900 | 1 656 000 000 | 40 | 2900237856 |
| 1950 | 2 516 000 000 | 31-38 | 3390198215 |
| 1995 | 5 760 000 000 | 31 | 5427305000 |
| 2011 | 7 000 000 000 | 20 | 2143327599 |
| How many people were | 107 615 707,768 | ||
| October 31, 2011 The UN announced: the population of the Earth | |||
| Percentage of those ever born who live in 2019 | 6,5 % | ||
Any estimate of the total number of people who have ever been born will mainly depend on two factors: the length of time people have lived on Earth and the average size of the human population at different periods.
Fixing the time when humanity actually came into existence is not a simple matter. Various ancestors of Homo sapiens ( Homo sapiens) appear to have appeared at least 700,000 years ago with brains as large as 900 cm 3 . Of course, great apes walked the earth already several million years ago.
Growth rate of world population
According to the United Nations, the determinants for the consequences of demographic trends in modern Homo sapiens appeared around 50,000 BC. This long period of 50,000 years is the key to the question of how many people have lived on earth.
At the dawn of agriculture around 8000 BC, the world's population was somewhere in the order of 5 million. Slow population growth over a period from about 5 million to 300 million per year. 8000 years have been very low growth - only 0.0512 percent per year. In different regions, the number was different and deviated as a reaction to the vagaries of nature, military operations, changes in weather and climatic conditions, hunger.
In any case, people's lives were short and probably average life expectancy has been around 10 years for most of human history. An estimate of the average life expectancy in Iron Age France was, for example, according to scientists, only 10-12 years. Under these conditions, a birth rate of about 80 per 1000 people is determined just to survive. Today, a high birth rate of about 45-50 per 1000 population is observed only in a few countries in Africa and in a few countries in the Middle East with a young population.
The birth rate assumption significantly affects the estimate of the number of people how many people lived in total on earth. Infant mortality in early human history is thought to have been very high - perhaps 500 deaths per 1,000 births or even higher. Children were probably a liability among hunter-gatherer societies and the fact that this most likely led to the practice of infanticide. Under these circumstances, a disproportionate number of births would be required to support the growth of the world's population, and this would raise the estimated number of "how many people lived on earth".
Until the 1st century BC, the world may have consisted of 300 million people. According to one estimate of the population of the Roman Empire from Spain to Asia Minor - 45 million.
In 1650, the world's population had grown to about 500 million, a slight increase since the 1st century BC. The average annual growth rate of the earth's population in the Middle Ages was actually lower than BC. One of the reasons for this abnormally slow growth was the Black Death. This terrible plague was not limited to 14th century Europe. The epidemic began around 542 in Western Asia and spread slowly from there. It is believed that half of the Byzantine Empire was destroyed in the 6th century, with a total of 100 million deaths. Such large fluctuations in population greatly exacerbate the difficulty of estimating the number of people who have ever lived. Diseases did not lead to natural.
By 1800, however, the world's population had passed the 1 billion mark and has continued to rise since then to the current UN number on October 31, 2011 of 7 billion.
How many people lived on earth in total requires choosing a time interval from antiquity to the present and applying the number of births for each period.
What determines the growth rate of the number of people on Earth
One of the complicating factors in the number of people is the growth rate of the world's population. Do they rise from a certain level and then change dramatically in response to hunger and climate change? Or do they grow at a constant rate from one point in time to another? Scientists cannot know the answers to these questions, although paleontologists have produced a number of theories. To support this hypothesis, constant growth was assumed to apply to every period up to the present. Birth rates were set at 80 per 1000 per year BC. and 60 per 1000 in the Middle Ages. The birth rate then declined in the middle of the last century to below 40 per 1,000 people and even lower in the modern period. The truth is growing.
This semi-scientific approach gives an estimate of about 108 billion births at the dawn of the human race.
Obviously, the period 8000 BC. BC. is the key to the extent of the definition, but unfortunately little is known about that era. Some aspects, or perhaps almost all aspects, are conjectures and one approach to this question is not achievable. The conditions of the constant growth of the earth's population in an earlier period may underestimate the number at that time. And, of course, timing the evolutionary consequences of humanity on the planet about 50,000 years ago is also probabilistic.
Thus, the estimate is determined that about 6.5% of all people ever born are alive today. This is actually quite a large percentage with such an "old" Earth.
The calculation of earthlings is not carried out out of simple curiosity. For a normal life, each of us needs a certain amount of water, air, minerals, food. In turn, each of the inhabitants of the Earth affects the environment. Therefore, it is very important to know how many people live on our planet.
In order to find out how many people live on Earth, you need to identify their number in individual countries and regions of the planet.
In most countries, the population is determined using a general population census. They are held regularly once every 5 or 10 years. But in some countries and regions of the world, censuses either did not take place at all, or were taken a very long time ago.
Therefore, the total population of the world is determined using special calculations.
How many people are there now?
Just under 7.4 billion people currently live on Earth.
For many millennia, the number of people on Earth was small and did not increase very quickly. But since the 19th century began a rapid population growth that continues to this day.
What influences population growth?
The growth of the human population depends on many reasons.
This is the level of development of the country, and the well-being of people, and national traditions. Until now, hunger, disease and war, as well as natural disasters, remain the reasons for the change in the number of inhabitants of the planet.
Population change is determined by the ratio of births and deaths.
Population in the world by years
There are currently 21 births and 18 deaths every second in the world. As a result, the world's population is growing by 250,000 people every day. But in different periods of human history and in different regions of the Earth, the magnitude of population growth is not the same.
The average age of the inhabitants of these countries also depends on the state of fertility and mortality in different countries. Countries with high population growth have many children and young people.
Countries with low growth have a high proportion of older people.
The age of the inhabitants of the country and population growth are largely determined by life expectancy, which, in turn, depends on the level of development of the country. In developed countries, life expectancy and average age are high, and population growth is generally low.
How many people live on Earth?
wikipedia
Site search:
Population growth
Population growth is very fast (Table 1).
Every year the world population is increasing by 60-80 million people.
human. It is estimated that by 2024 the population will reach 8 billion and 2100-11 billion.
Population density
Population density shows the average number of inhabitants per square kilometer. Km. km. To determine the world's population density, the population must be divided by the area occupied by land.
In 2013, every square kilometer of land averages 52 people.
In terms of the number of countries with the highest population density, South Asia leads the way, followed by Europe.
There are no permanent residents in Antarctica.
Planet acceleration
Some scientists study the death of humanity from overpopulation. “Such a large number of inhabitants,” they say, “will not be able to feed the earth.”
Among them there are those who believe that humanity will save wars from overpopulation, epidemics of various diseases, they can take millions of human lives in a few minutes. Of course, humanity does not want wars, it will not allow an epidemic of diseases in our time. Material from this site http://wikiwhat.ru
Modern scientists all over the world scientifically prove that the death of overgrowth is not endangered in the world, so that the earth can feed billions of people.
But in fact, at present, humanity processes only about 10% of the surface.
Population growth: from 10,000 years to our count. before 2100
But even if that 10% is now growing the area, if the increase in food supply has already been achieved in many developed countries, 9 billion worth of food can be obtained. Man, but if you change food and feed all vegetation, the annual yield of these crops can be stored for more than 50 billion people.
Even with modern technology, we can double the amount of land suitable for cultivation, and in the future, with the development of science and technology, there is practically no country suitable for agricultural use on our planet.
People leave the swamp, irrigate deserts, bring frost-resistant and fast-growing varieties of crops.
On this site you can find the following topics:
The population of the planet in 1300
World population in 2016 is always the answer
Relocation Summary
Number of country reports
world population
Questions for this article:
How to determine the average population density?
Will our country be able to provide food for such a rapidly growing population?
Material from the WikiWhat page
In the OGRANO GOLD business, you should take responsibility for the fact that your partners will copy the model of a successful business. In other words, it depends on you what and how well you copy, therefore, what exactly your partners will copy. There are mentors in your sponsorship line who have already achieved success and are carriers of the corporate culture. You have someone and something to copy. Of course, after you yourself become an example worthy of copying, you should teach others how to copy.
In the process, attention should be paid not only to verbal learning, but more to personal example, to do more on your own so that partners can watch and learn. In fact, by teaching others, you will learn yourself.
For the development of OGRANO GOLD business, information materials for training are created: literature, audio recordings, video materials, and events are held. Information materials are a support and help in the process of copying a successful business model and a tool for training other partners in copying techniques.
The OGRANO GOLD company holds conferences.
Attending these conferences is a prerequisite for the formation of a leader, and your
attitude towards conferences should be an example for copying.
It is difficult for partners who have just started working in business to create the right attitude in a short time, they still have a subjective opinion based on past experience.
How many people live on the planet?
With the help of training events, you can make their work efficient in the shortest possible time and in the most correct way, help you quickly enter the business process, avoid mistakes and waste of time.
It is important to respect your mentor.
Only when you have genuine respect for mentors can you be 100% confident in seeking advice and guidance, learning from them, and copying their successful business model.
In addition, only on the basis of this it is possible to attract new people to your team, who, having seen your respect for mentors, will be convinced of the cohesion of the team and the prospects for the OGRANO GOLD business as a whole.
The principle of our work is that we must strive with all our might for simplicity.
Learning consists in acquiring the skills to perform a connected and sequential chain of simple actions.
Modern society is permeated with competition, we are constantly faced with crises and challenges of the era. To counter them, you need to find the appropriate opportunities. If you can open up, learn and demonstrate by personal example the strength and power of the company you represent, you will succeed. As in any business, a successful leader gains financial independence and a comfortable lifestyle in accordance with their life values.
Conclusion
Copying is the most important business development tool.
It can bring unlimited wealth. In the process of practical work, one should constantly improve the content and criteria for copying, make the complex simple, simple to perform, use the methods and techniques of copying to expand the market of one's business.
The best and most effective way to succeed is to copy.
By helping others achieve their dreams, you are laying a solid foundation for your own dreams to come true.
STEP 5
RULES OF ETIQUETTE
Etiquette is a form, demeanor, rules of courtesy and politeness adopted in a particular society. The practical significance of etiquette lies in the fact that it enables people to effortlessly use ready-made forms of generally accepted politeness to communicate with various groups of people and at various levels.
The basics of etiquette are quite simple.
Of great importance for the communication of people is their appearance, clothing, the ability to behave correctly in public places, in various situations.
A good impression is made by a well-dressed, polite person who knows how to behave in any circumstances, and always behaves accordingly.
The manner of speaking, the ability to maintain a conversation are also of no small importance when people treat each other. In order to be a good conversationalist, you need to know what you are talking about and be able to express your thoughts in such a way that they are of interest to others.
The ability to manage your negative emotions indicates good breeding and good manners.
According to etiquette, the best way to overcome irritation and discontent in yourself and others is a smile.
⇐ Previous567891011121314Next ⇒
More than 107 billion people were born on Earth in the entire history of mankind, which began 162,000 years ago, Peter Grunwald, a statistician at the Dutch Center for Mathematics and Informatics, calculated.
According to his calculations, commissioned by the monthly Quest magazine, the 6.7 billion people living on our planet make up 6% of all people who have ever lived on it.
Earth population
Grunwald admits that this figure (107.5 billion people) cannot be absolutely certain, because little or nothing is known about population and birth rates in ancient periods of history. At the same time, the researcher considers incorrect the assertion of some scientists that more people now live on Earth than in the entire history of mankind.
The question "How many people were born on Earth in the entire history of mankind?" was voted the most interesting question of 2008 out of 101 questions proposed by Quest magazine.
This opinion was reached by the jury formed by the magazine, which, in particular, included the Dutch cosmonaut Andre Kuipers, who flew to the International Space Station on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft, RIA Novosti reports.
Useful information
Many experts believe that at present there is a threat of overpopulation of the Earth, which will lead to mass starvation. It will be aggravated by a global ecological catastrophe. Therefore, urgent measures are needed, thanks to which it would be possible to regulate the number of people.
But before you do anything, you need to ask yourself: how many people can live on Earth?
For all living organisms inhabiting our planet, the same ecological law works. It consists of the following phases following one after another - explosion, crisis, collapse, stabilization. Any living species, once in a favorable environment, dramatically increase their numbers. This is the explosion. But a huge number of individuals begin to destroy the habitat.
Therefore, a crisis occurs, followed by a collapse. It is expressed in a catastrophic decline in the population to a lower level than it was originally. During the period of collapse, the environment is restored, and the population increases to a reasonable level.
This is followed by stabilization. Humanity is currently in a phase of crisis.
It should be noted that there are 3 periods of increase in the number of people. The first period refers to the end of the Pleistocene (2.6 million years ago).
years - 11.7 thousand years ago). It was characterized by the resettlement of tribes engaged in hunting throughout the globe. The second period was observed 9 thousand years ago, when mankind mastered agriculture. The population of the Earth then increased 20 times. And the third period is associated with the industrial revolution. This process has not died out today, but is only gaining momentum. At the same time, the population of the Earth increased by 30 times.
The area of cultivated land has increased by 3 times, and the yield by 7 times.
10 million people lived on our planet 10 thousand years ago. By the beginning of our era, there were already 200 million people. By the middle of the 17th century, when the industrial revolution began, the planet was inhabited by 500 million people.
human. At the beginning of the 19th century, there were already 1 billion, and at the beginning of the 20th century, 2 billion. At the beginning of 2016, 7.3 billion people lived on Earth. The population is growing by 2% every year. It took 200,000 years for humanity to reach the first billion. The second billion was achieved in 100 years, and the third in just 40. The fourth billion in 15 years, and the fifth in 10.
Humanity is now doubling every 35 years. And the amount of food doubles every 30 years.
This is the main indicator of our existence. But it does not increase by itself, but due to the development of new lands. And every year it becomes more and more difficult to ensure the growth of the crop. We should also not forget about electricity and water, which are needed more and more.
As a result, resources are being depleted and the natural environment is being destroyed. Stocks of coal, oil, gas, mineral raw materials are used to the limit. But these stocks are not renewed in any way.
Therefore, the current unlimited well-being is finite in time.
It will end as habitats are destroyed, food production drops, and then the population is reduced to a level that the remaining resources can provide.
How many people can live on Earth?
Ecologists answer this question quite definitely, since the biosphere exists according to a simple law. He relates the size of organic food-consuming species to their abundance.
How many people can the planet Earth support?
The main role in the flows of energy and substances is assigned to small organisms. But the big ones play only a supporting role. Therefore, the main consumers in the biosphere are arthropods, molluscs, and worms.
Wild vertebrates, which include amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, consume only 1% of the biosphere's production.
A person with pets must be part of the group of wild vertebrates, that is, consume less than 1%. But modern humanity consumes 7% of the production of the biosphere. That is much more than it should be. As a result, all biospheric patterns are violated. And how many people can live on Earth?
Here we must understand that the biosphere is a self-regulating system. Therefore, it seeks to return the population to normal levels. It is 25 times lower than modern, that is, it is about 300 million people. And this is for the entire planet. A maximum of 500 million people can live on Earth, but not 7, 8 or 10 billion. That is why the productivity of valuable ecosystems is falling, animals that people need are dying out, and necessary plants are disappearing. All this is connected with the self-regulation of the biosphere, which seeks to limit the number of mankind.
The population of the Earth in million people
What will the collapse be like?
A decrease in the population of the Earth will certainly occur, since the biosphere will not allow its destruction. But this can happen in different scenarios. First scenario which is still working in some countries is hunger. Today, only 500 million people on the planet are well-nourished, and 2 billion are regularly undernourished.
Every year, 20 million people die of hunger, and the human population during the same time increases by an order of magnitude.
If there are 200 million people dying of hunger a year, then population growth will stop. And if the number of dying increases even more, then the population will begin to decline.
But this is a terrible and inhuman process. He will bring so much grief that it is even scary to think.
Second scenario purely political. It is connected with a nuclear catastrophe. There will be a world conflict over non-renewable resources, and a nuclear war will break out. It is capable of destroying all of humanity altogether, leaving only a few intelligent beings on Earth. And then civilization will begin to revive in a new way.
And this can take thousands of years.
Third scenario designed for human consciousness. The governments of the states will impose restrictions on the birth rate, which will lead to a decrease in the population.
However, this development of events raises serious doubts, since so far birth control in some countries has not led to the desired results.
Fourth scenario connected directly with our planet. To save herself, she can weaken the Earth's magnetic field. In this case, we will be defenseless against the solar plasma. It will burn everything, but nature will quickly recover, but humanity will be almost completely destroyed. This scenario is similar to a nuclear war, only the Earth itself is the initiator here.
There are also fifth scenario. In this case, the biosphere will begin to give people signals at a subconscious level. They will act on the mechanisms responsible for fertility, and humanity will begin to respond to them.
This will be expressed in a natural decrease in population growth, as occurs in many species of animals. But here it should be understood that a person has long been cut off from nature, and therefore may not perceive the corresponding signals entering the subconscious. Who knows, maybe they are already on the way, but only a few react to them.
In a word, the situation is not very rosy. We learned how many people can live on Earth, and also realized that the current population has long overcome all norms.
It remains to wait for further developments, since this situation cannot continue forever. Let's hope that humanity will painlessly get out of such a sensitive and critical situation.
Vitaly Zvonky