By 2020 the world’s population could well have doubled to around 12 billion people

By 2020 the valets universe of discourse could comfortably bind doubled to around 12 unrivaled thousand adept one million million million million million pack. Are thither secure too numerous people in the mankind, or is it a promontory of a better and fairer distribution of the worlds resources?The dubiousness is postulation if there be too a few(prenominal) resources available for the increasing universe of discourse, or if there atomic number 18 just too many people in the world. The keywords in the question atomic number 18 people and resources. By cosmos, the question is referring to the result of people in the world and by resources it is asking if there are enough natural assets, such as peeing system, pabulum, oxygen and space. The hassles caused by an increasing population include the depletion of natural resources, such as non-renewable energy supplies, and victuals supplies. Currently resources, and population are very unevenly revolve and m ost supplies occur in areas where they are not needed.Mankind has pretended the point of the exponential function curve. Earths population doubled in the 40-year close from 1960 to 2000, from 3 billion to 6 billion. In the last two years, the population has gr witnessup another third of a billion people. That offers the possibility of a doubling measure of only 27 years to reach 12 billion. Partly as a result of this, it is reported that 420 million people live in countries that no long-run have enough cropland to grow their declare pabulum. They have to rely on merchandises. The decline of cropland could be caused by an subjoin in pollution, creating negative events on the environment, or it could be due to the expansion of urban areas due to an increasing population.A depict of the developing worlds cropland is macrocosm degraded, and the rate is increasing. The sterling(prenominal) holy terror may not be famine of land, but a shortage of water. More than one-half a billion people live in areas prostrate to droughts. In the next twenty years, that number ordain increase five times, to among 2.4 billion and 3.4 billion people. Currently, that means half of Earths population go out run proscribed of water within 20 years. It is out(predicate) to farm animals and grow crops without water, which allow whence lead to a decrease in food availpower, especially in areas already suffering from famines.A recent report, released by the earthly concern Watch Institute, declares that, Mining consumes 10% of the worlds energy, spews out toxic emissions, and threatens 40% of the worlds rudimentary forests. These effects could be drastically trim down but, unfortunately, governments are not moving active enough to stem the tide. This indicates that it is suspected that a major contributing factor to the problem is the attitudes of people. Very few governments are fetching radical measures in an attempt to close out the foreseen problems of the future. The reason for this is that because the problems are not save taking a huge effect, by the time the effect becomes apparent it will be too late, and any attempts at solving the problem will be useless.One of the great challenges for governments is to help their poorest citizens encounter secure in their own homes, induct a living and improve their environment. well-nigh 1.2 billion people live in absolute leanness surviving on less than a dollar a day. As populations spiral upward, the underground water tables are dropping. many an(prenominal) regions face fearful drought. Deserts are growing. Forests are world cut down and the land they allow behind is wasting away. Since forty pct of all vegetable and grain food supplies come from irrigated land, a failing water supply creates sever food shortages.Many countries are facing water shortages in the twenty-first century, especially India, whose population passed one billion in May 2002. They are present-day(prenomina l)ly expanding by 18 million per year. Water withdrawals now double the environments ability to re-supply. Half of Indias grain harvest comes from irrigated land.World Watch reports, In a inelegant where 53 percent of all children are already malnourished and underweight, a wither harvest could increase hunger-related deaths.Another threat is shrinking croplands. Some nations already numerate almost entirely upon imported food. Eventually, the food will simply not be available to those nations. First, increased costs will drain those nations of their economic cash flows, and one day, the exporting nations will not be able to supply food at any price. Among the countries where shrinking croplands threaten food supplies are Nigeria, Ethiopia, and Pakistan. Nigerias population will increase from its present 111 million to a estimated 244 million by 2050, while its grain-land per somebody will stay the same. That means each person will have less than half the current supply. Pakista n is expected to grow from its current 146 million to 345 million by 2050. By that time, each person will be dependent upon a piece of grain-land the coat of a tennis court. Japan, South Korea and mainland China already import 70 percent of their grain.Water supplies are fixed by nature. They croupnot be increased. On the other hand, an ever-increasing population can deplete them. This is also avowedly of croplands.I feel that although an increasing population is having a drastically negative effect upon the depletion of the worlds resources, and that resources are clearly unfairly distributed. It is the richest and relatively most sparsely populated countries, particularly Western Europe and America that absorb the highest share of the worlds natural resources. This is because they are the richest countries and can therefore afford to grow their own resources as well as import others, yet offer very trivial money for them.The effect this has is that the worlds resources are being unfairly relocated into the richest countries where it could be claimed that they are being wasted. It is clear that the richest countries currently have an excess of resources that they could share across the world to help combat the problem express by the question. The problem with this is that it is non-profitable and the countries would lose a lot of money, which in a mercantile world is more important than tackling issues of poverty and malnutrition.