The full ship does not decrease?

The unrestrained multiplication of humanity seems to be reluctant

Only about 2 billion people can live on earth without considering their resources, so the estimation of scientists. This point was already reached in 1930 and it looked like the homo sapiens To the new grasshopper or karnickelplage of the planet ("The Revenge Gaias": Is the planet already in the fever?) became. But Paul honestly, who warned in 1968 that we multiply to death, looks now – unconcerted – country in sight.

In addition to the "Limits of growth" The Club of Rome is the "Population" from Paul R. Honestly, a classic who warned against the boundaries of the further propagation of man who had to drove to famine, wars, catastrophic pollution and robbery on the earth’s resources. Rethinking since then the resource consumption and above all the pollution of the pollution towards the original predictions quite clearly mitigated, although the problem is far from eliminated. And also the unrestrained multiplication of humanity has decreased, without doubt also by introducing new methods of birth control.

It is obviously the will of many people to put only a limited number of children into the world, because at least in Europe, the one-child household is usually not propagated, in the country with the highest population number, China, on the other hand. In Germany, children are still financially demanded, even if this can never cover the actual costs, but the decision for or against children will at least not be hit by the money. In France, women get an extra tax bonus of about 500 euros per month, when they raise a third child, in Poland, there is about 120 euros payable per child and in Singapore are about 4000 euros tax savings announced when the first child is born before The parents 28 are. In Australia, in addition to about 600 euros Baby Bonus, the patriotic slogan is now that young women "have a child for themselves, one for their husband and one for Australia". At least this is not meant as it was as soon as it was in Europe: the child "for Australia" is not provided as cannon food for militar.

Nevertheless, many also fired that Germans are extinct or overrun by other Volkers. But so extremely the numbers are no longer: The industrialized countries are the typical number of children per family now only in the US with 2.1 on the value required for low child mortality to keep the population constant. In this case, the value has risen even over the past 20 years, 1980 he was still at 1.8. High immigration Today, the US population will increase by 42% by the year 2050.

In all other industrialized states, however, the number of children per family has fallen continuously: in the EU from 2.6 in 1970 to 1.6 today, in the OECD countries from 2.4 to 1.6 in the same period and in the Scandinavian Rentals from 2.2 to 1.8. In Japan, the birth rate has fallen from 1.8 in 1980 to today 1.4. Specifically, the value at 1.28 in Italy and Spain and in Poland even at 1.25 – the richness of a country and the strong industrialization has no direct influence. In Japan lies the average number of children at 1.27, in Sudkorea at 1.25 and also in the case of potential population growth, Australia and Canada were only 1.76 and 1.61. And also in Russia, where poor nutrition, alcoholism and pollution drove that child mortality is three times as high as in Western Europe, the birth rate is only 1.28, which leads to a population prere between 20 and 35% by the year 2050. This is stronged by a low life expectancy of only 59 years – 20 years less than in Western Europe. Currently the population of Russia falls around 700 each year.000.

Good for nature, difficult for people

So pleasing the population relief for the earth is a problem, he represents a problem in the states that now have to fight with a changed age structure of their population: are the parents dependent on support by the children, as in poor countries, or find this As in the richer states over the pension system, which as a generation contract borges the money of the pensioners from the next generation, only something anonymous than with their own children, a change in the age structure could lead to significant problems. Resulting burdens for business, social and health systems. The part of the over 60 years will be global from today 600 million to 1.9 billion more than tripling and thus 20% of the world’s volunteer and in some countries 30 to 40% of the population.

The worldwide is amed that the population will increase by 2050 by 2.5 billion to 9 billion and also further growth, albeit braked. Most of the growth can be found in countries such as the African states adjacent to Sahara and some states in the Middle East. There, the population share is less than 15 years at 45 to 50%.

Paul honest, who was once viewed with his wife Anne once as a modern Kassandra and is still hated by certain, reactionar circles for his book today – you can recognize it at the comments to the English original edition at Amazon, in which systematically the book or. whose reprint is provided with the worst evidence and honestly rejected as "gruner Nazi" and "small Hitler" as well as again and again the book of another author, Julian Simon, is recommended with opposite orientation, so massive, which already already some other commentators have noticed unpleasant. A pretty meaningless action with a book that is now 40 years old and whose author is just too glad if his predictions are not arrived.

Pessimism gives way carefully optimus

In the current New Scientist, Paul was honestly asked for his opinion about the problem of population growth. He now sees significant opportunities to even reduce social unrest with the declining birth rate, as fewer schools are used and fewer crimes of unemployed or bored young people. Also, the typical, unatacted and easy-to-radical terrorists and suicide duters were consistently in the age group of 15 to 30 years, as honest.

Honest advice not to raise the birth rate in countries with age structure ies, but to change the pension schemes: today’s pensioners are often less dependent on support than the children and also healthy than before a generation. The retirement age of 65 he also challenges, especially since many pensioners are not even happy with it, now none of the fearing work more excursions to thirst. But it was difficult to sudden the retirement age suddenly and thus to make a generation too much work, which perhaps thought to have the placketing with a lot of overtime hours right now. But it’s naturally askwurrdig, when young people at the beginning of their working life, if they find a job of a job, must pay high taxes immediately to support pensioners who were still able to care for themselves.

It is almost aming that Paul honestly attracted last book even more aggressive comments than his classic when it was read as much as it was as much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.