Based on the data set out in the UN projections for the population of the world

Around 8000 BC, the world's population was approximately 5 million people. For the 8000-year period up to 1 AD. it has grown to 200 million people (300 million or even 600 million according to some estimates), with a growth rate of 0.05% per year. A huge change in population occurred with the advent of the industrial revolution:

• In 1800, the world population reached one billion.
• The second billion in population was reached in just 130 years in 1930.
• The third billion was reached in less than 30 years in 1959.
• Over the next 15 years, the fourth billion will be reached in 1974.
• In just 13 years, in 1987 - the fifth billion.

During the 20th century alone, the world's population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.

In 1970, the population was half what it is now. Due to declining population growth, it would take more than 200 years to double the population from today's data.

Table with population data by years and dynamics of population growth in the world by years until 2017

The world population is currently (2017) growing at a rate of about 1.11% per year (up from 1.13% in 2016).

Currently, the average population growth per year is estimated at about 80 million people. The annual growth rate peaked in the late 1960s at 2% or more. The population growth rate peaked at 2.19 percent per year in 1963.

The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue declining in the coming years. Population growth is projected to be less than 1% per year by 2020 and less than 0.5% per year by 2050. This means that the world population will continue to grow in the 21st century, but at a slower rate than in the recent past.

The world population doubled (100% increase) within 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is currently predicted that in 39 years the world's population will increase by another 50%, to 9 billion by 2038.

Forecast of the population of the Earth (all countries of the world) and demographic data for the period up to 2050:

The main stages of the growth of the world's population

10 billion (2056)

The United Nations projects a world population of 10 billion by 2056.

8 billion (2023)

The world population is expected to reach 8 billion in 2023 according to the United Nations (and in 2026 according to the US Census Bureau).

7.5 billion (2017)

The current world population is 7.5 billion as of January 2017, according to United Nations estimates.

7 billion (2011)

According to the United Nations, the world's population reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011. The US Census Bureau made a lower estimate - 7 billion was reached on March 12, 2012.

6 billion (1999)

According to the United Nations, on October 12, 1999, the world population was 6 billion. According to the US Census Bureau, this value was reached on July 22, 1999, at approximately 3:49 am GMT.

Data on the number of countries of the world on the planet can be found on official resources via the Internet, and they are provided by leading analysts of specialized world organizations. Given this nuance, it is worth noting that this information is quite accurate and with their help you can see the whole picture of the population on the globe.

A natural question arises: how is the analysis of this kind of data carried out. Statistics are compiled by means of a population census, taking into account registration information and using other available information sources. They can be used as civil and legal acts. The maximum accuracy and reliability of the data is achieved by mathematical calculation of the average life expectancy for each individual state. This indicator is also estimated.

Among other things, one should not miss the fact that the population on earth is constantly undergoing transformation: countries can appear, disappear or unite. In some territories, it is simply not possible to carry out an accurate count of citizens. And this is due to the process of their growth and migration of the population. Until now, such a phenomenon as the emergence and disappearance of new uncontrolled territories has been observed on the globe.

For example, in Brazil there are entire settlements of unregistered citizens. The same can be said about Bhutan.

About the population density of the countries of the world

An equally important indicator is population density. This value represents the number of inhabitants per 1 sq. km. km. The calculation of the population density of each country in the world is made with the exception of uninhabited territories, as well as minus vast expanses of water. In addition to the general population density, its individual indicators can be used, both for rural and urban residents.

Given the above facts, it should be borne in mind that the population on the globe is unevenly distributed. The average density of each country differs quite significantly from each other. In addition, within the states themselves there are many deserted territories, or densely populated cities, in which one square. km may account for several hundred people.

The most densely populated territories of South and East Asia, as well as the countries of Western Europe, while in the Arctic, in deserts, tropics and highlands, it is not at all dense. absolutely independent of their population density. Exploring the uneven distribution of the population, it is advisable to highlight the following statistics: 7% of the globe occupies 70% of the total number of people on the planet.

At the same time, the eastern part of the globe is occupied by 80% of the world's population.

The main criterion that acts as an indicator of the distribution of people is population density. The average value of this indicator is currently 40 million people per square meter. km. This indicator can vary and is directly dependent on the location of the area. In some areas, its value may be 2 thousand people per square meter. km, and on others - 1 person per sq. km.

It is advisable to single out countries with the lowest population density:

• Australia;
• Namibia;
• Libya;
• Mongolia;

Greenland is one of the countries with the lowest population density

As well as countries with low density:

• Belgium;
• Great Britain;
• Korea;
• Lebanon;
• Netherlands;
• El Salvador and a number of other countries.

There are countries with an average population density, among them are:

• Iraq;
• Malaysia;
• Tunisia;
• Mexico;
• Morocco;
• Ireland.

In addition, there are areas on the globe that are classified as territories unsuitable for life.

As a rule, they represent an area with extreme conditions. These lands account for approximately 15% of all land.

As for Russia, it belongs to the category of low-populated states, despite the fact that its territory is quite large. The average population density in Russia is 1 person per 1 sq. km. km.

It is worth noting that the world is constantly undergoing changes, in which there is a decrease in either the birth rate or the death rate. This state of affairs indicates that the density and size of the population will soon be kept at about the same level.

The largest and smallest countries by area and population

China is the largest country in the world by population.

The number of people currently in the state is 1.349 billion people.

Next comes India with a population of 1.22 billion, followed by the United States of America with 316.6 million people. The next place in terms of number belongs to Indonesia: today 251.1 million citizens live in the country.

Next comes Brazil with a population of 201 million, then Pakistan with 193.2 million citizens, Nigeria with 174.5 million, and Bangladesh with 163.6 million citizens. Then Russia, with a population of 146 million people, and finally Japan, whose population is 127.2 million.

For a more detailed understanding of the issue, it is advisable to study the statistics regarding the smallest countries in the world in terms of population. In this scenario, it will suffice to consider the gradation of several independent states, which also include associated countries. The number of people in countries, in descending order, is as follows:

• Saint Kitts and Nevis with a population of 49,898 people;
• Liechtenstein, with a population of 35 thousand 870 people;
• San Marino, the number of citizens of the country is 35 thousand 75 people;
• Palau, a state belonging to the association of the United States of America, with a population of 20,842;
• with a population of 19 thousand 569 people;
• Order of Malta, which consists of 19 thousand 569 people;
• Tuvalu with a population of 10,544 people;
• Nauru - the population of the country is 9 thousand 322 people;
• Niue is an island with a population of 1,398 people.

The smallest country in terms of population is considered to be the Vatican.

At the moment, only 836 people live in the country.

Table of population of all countries of the world

The world population table looks like this.

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.

"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.

However, 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.

There is also concern about the desire of people in poor countries to live and consume at the level that is now considered normal for high-income countries (many will 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 a household perspective, where consumption is at the center of attention.

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.

But 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.

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.

And 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 ultrasensitive photometer to search for Earth-like planets outside the solar system, the so-called exoplanets.)

So 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, a general 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.

While maintaining the rate of natural population growth under capitalism - predatory extraction and consumption of limited resources - the planet will be gnawed by the end of the 21st century, and life will become a problem by the middle of the century.

What to do?

Two scenarios:
1) Globalization - the capture of resources and the reduction of the human population by an order of magnitude;
2) Civilization - the natural growth of the human population up to 10 billion or more with the solution of resource supply problems.

According to the first scenario, everything is clear - if it was not possible to prevent the birth, then those who were born must be destroyed. Which, in fact, is already being done.

According to the second, all those born should be provided with the highest possible free education for each of them.

Why should everyone be taught? And why do we need at least 10 billion people?

Let's estimate. On average, each person needs about 10 kW of power (heating, food, transport, production). Compare with your electricity consumption according to the electricity meter - this is not much. We multiply 10 billion by 10 kW and get the required total capacity of power plants = 100 TW.

Nuclear power plants do not solve this problem. Not enough uranium. We need thermonuclear stations (TNS), which do not yet exist.

Let the power of one CHN be 10 GW. Consequently, it is necessary to build 10,000 TNFs on Earth.

How much money is needed for this?

From the experience of creating a nuclear power plant, the cost estimate for the creation of one TNF will be approximately $10 billion.

Then the total cost of transferring energy to new sources will be at least $100 trillion.

Everything about everything is given around 100 years. Those. investment rate must be at least 1 trillion. $ per year.

Now let's estimate how much it takes to build 10,000 TNF specialists.

Let's say that each specialist will master $10,000 per year. We share $1 trillion. capital investments per year by $10,000 and we get the need for 100 million specialists per year.

This is only some power engineers and their subcontractors. But in addition to them, it is necessary to train other equally trained specialists in solving problems with water, soil, oxygen, etc.

Of these two parameters, $1 trillion. investments and 100 million specialists per year for 100 years to create a new energy sector as a necessary condition for overcoming the global crisis, it follows that:

1. None of the existing state and supranational structures can cope with the task on its own.

2. Now there are no actions adequate to the importance and relevance of this task either in science or in governments; the globalization scenario is being implemented in relation to humanity.

3. In order to solve the problem, we must resolutely and urgently build up from the globalization scenario and begin to implement the civilizational scenario of building a new society united on qualitatively new principles, the main of which are collectivism, mutual assistance, selflessness.

Those. if we do not implement the civilizational scenario of overcoming the global crisis, we will perish.

The process of distribution and redistribution of the population and the forms of its territorial organization are called resettlement. The world's population is very unevenly distributed. More than 2/3 of it is concentrated on 8% of the land, about 85% lives in the Eastern Hemisphere, 60% in the temperate zone of the northern hemisphere, more than 50% in the lowlands and almost 1/3 in the coastal strip. The distribution of the population is influenced by natural conditions and the degree of development and concentration of production.

Certain regions of the Earth are characterized by a high population density:

1) East Asian (China, Japan, Korea) - population density is 200-400 people / km2;

2) South Asian (India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan) - 300-800 people / km2;

3) European - more than 100 people / km2;

4) Southeast Asian (Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, etc.) - 400-500 people / km2.

The population of countries over 50 million people in 2019

According to the place of residence of the world population is divided into urban and rural. Now the world's urban population is slightly less than half, but its number is constantly growing, that is, there is a process of urbanization. The main sign of urbanization is the growth of cities, the increase in their influence on settlement and the corresponding complication of functions. The largest share of the urban population is in Australia (85%), Western Europe, North America (about 75%), Latin America (more than 60%). The most urbanized countries in the world are Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Uruguay, Israel, Kuwait, Japan.

Urbanization can take many forms. So, for example, there is a trend towards suburbanization (the role of suburbs, "pull" part of the population and sort out the functions of cities) and pseudo-urbanization (growth in the population of cities occurs due to an uncontrolled influx of unemployed, creates socio-economic problems), Rurbanization (the process of spreading urban forms and conditions of life in the countryside).

The growth of cities and the strengthening of ties between them leads to the emergence of such a form of settlement as an urban agglomeration. An urban agglomeration is a compact spatial grouping of settlements (mainly urban), united into a single whole by intensive industrial, labor, cultural, community and recreational ties. The world's largest urban agglomerations have formed around Tokyo, New York, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, London, Paris, Rio de Janeiro and other cities.

The population of the Russian Federation

If the zone is completely urbanized, then urban agglomerations in this territory merge, forming a metropolis - the very form of settlement. The most considered metropolis of Tokkaido in Japan, where more than 60 million people live. Three megacities have formed in the USA: Boss-Vash, Lakeside (or Chi-Pitts), California (or San-San). In Western Europe, the English and Rhine (Randstad) metropolises were formed.

About half of the world's population lives in rural areas, and primarily in countries with a low or low level of economic development - Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Indonesia. The rural population of Africa is 78% of the total.