At a conference in Rio de Janeiro sounded ingenuous idea: it is good to live in the land of billion people! Then all the resources of the biosphere could be spent at the billion, and all would have lived well and richly.
And here's to spend the same resources for 5-6 billion … Clearly, you have to "grow thinner," there was not enough …
– So how do you propose to reduce the population?
– Maybe you can convince people … Not by dying, of course, but, say, not to have more children …
The idea has taken off in the space of human debate.
– A billion? Yes, it would be great if there will be only one billion! After all, just one billion people on earth and live well!
– But let me … This billion live well because there are others, not billions of gold …
Soon found out – by the concept of the "golden billion" refers to two very different ideas.
1. Preservation of the privileges of the North and the backwardness of the South.
2. Decline in the population of the Earth. The government did not say a word about the two versions of the concept … But said many intellectuals and ominous. First they started to figure out how many people should be left on Earth?
A billion? And it very much! Biosphere exhausted, would be enough and 300 million! Enough of a hundred! There are even proponents of leaving only 10 million people …
Incidentally, this is the head of the Russian State Committee for Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Biological Sciences VI Danilov-Danilyan and his close team of experts. They even wrote a special tutorial that explains very clearly: the beautiful Biosphere garden, like a worm in an apple, staring so incredibly supple, all devouring monster – man. At two hundred pages of signs, as nasty a "large herbivorous animal" and how to reduce the "human anthill" in size, but it's generally all the creature eats.
Just why is herbivorous? With the same success, and prey … Um …
Dear Minister, academician and later, during the debate, said: "In order to avoid an environmental disaster, it is necessary to normalize the impact on the environment, and do so without reducing the world's population (of course, in the long term for two & #8209And three centuries) is not possible, in any case, any ideas on this matter is not available ".
Well! If people – this is true whether such "large herbivorous", or such plucked ostrich, you can not put pressure on the biosphere over the allowable.
If people become "too much", and really need to reduce the population. And there is only a question of whom and by what means … e … e … "Cut."
That's the second most important question: which countries and to what extent must reduce its population? How and by whom? Even on the scale of "two & #8209, Three hundred years? "
Again – until the government did not seem to make any decisions … Or have taken – but secretly, without notifying his gray people.
Here is the problem of intellectuals discussing. In China, scientists have convincingly substantiated that this horribly overpopulated country cut population is not necessary, even harmful.
France drew attention to the fact that the country is warm, it climate very favorable, but in the next, but more northern Germany – not so. Perhaps Germany should reduce the population.
In Germany, the favor and noted that here in Germany, fertile soil, and the culture of agriculture is very high. In France, poor soil and grain must be imported. Why the French do not reduce the population? Purely voluntary, of course?
Funny? No, not really. Just one of those amusing to stem the war and disasters.
In the Russian Federation, by the way, at least three "group of experts and analysts" have to count how many people have to leave the country? To me it seems very interesting it is this fact – all over the world and all the scientists argued that the "decline" should not their people and neighbors. Russians were the exception.
What I tell you is pure pseudo-scientific folklore, I can not prove that it was so: you never know who and what is said. But one "office" is proposed to reduce the population to 100 million, the second – up to 75, and the third and did 50 million people.
Even told that the great and the popularly elected president after the third glass of brandy in one evening signed all three projects to reduce the Russian population. But this is almost certainly folklore.
Laws, these projects would not have, but there is important, they say, the trend. Fortunately, a broken.
I think that what appears here is enough to understand the discussion of global issues is not so far from the ordinary person? No! This is just in the first place and it's business.
After all, the idea of reducing the world's population to the "golden billion" (or the "diamond ten million") policy still may well adopt.
Modern man is very useful to know about the crisis of world civilization, and the concept of the "golden billion". Forewarned – forearmed.