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

By 2020 the human beings nation could vigorous have doubled to round 12 billion peck. Are there just similarly legion(predicate) people in the world, or is it a question of a split and fairer distribution of the worlds resources?The question is asking if there argon too few resources getable for the increasing commonwealth, or if there be just too many people in the world. The keywords in the question atomic number 18 macrocosm and resources. By population, the question is referring to the number of people in the world and by resources it is asking if there argon enough natural assets, such(prenominal) as water, provender, oxygen and space. The puzzles caused by an increasing population include the depletion of natural resources, such as non-renewable energy supplies, and solid food supplies. Currently resources, and population are rattling unevenly spread and most supplies occur in areas where they are non needed.Mankind has reached the point of the exp unityntial c urve. 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 experiencen an another(prenominal) third of a billion people. That offers the possibility of a doubling time 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 longer have enough crop kingdom to plough their own food. They have to rely on imports. The reduction of cropland could be caused by an increase in pollution, creating negative put ins on the environment, or it could be due to the expansion of urban areas due to an increasing population.A accommodate of the developing worlds cropland is being degraded, and the rate is increasing. The greatest threat may not be shortage of land, but a shortage of water. More than fractional a billion people live in areas prone to droughts. In the next twenty years, that number will increase five times, to amid 2.4 bil lion and 3.4 billion people. Currently, that means half of Earths population will trifle out of water within 20 years. It is impossible to farm animals and climb crops without water, which will therefore lead to a decrease in food availability, especially in areas already suffering from famines.A recent report, released by the World charm Institute, declares that, Mining consumes 10% of the worlds energy, spews out toxic emissions, and threatens 40% of the worlds undeveloped forests. These effects could be drastically reduced but, unfortunately, governments are not moving quick 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 prevent the foreseen problems of the future. The reason for this is that because the problems are not yet taking a huge effect, by the time the effect becomes apparent it will be too late, and any attem pts at firmness the problem will be useless.One of the great challenges for governments is to help their poorest citizens olfactory sensation secure in their own homes, make a living and make better their environment. Around 1.2 billion people live in absolute pauperism surviving on less than a dollar a day. As populations spiral upward, the underground water tables are dropping. Many regions face gross(a) drought. Deserts are growing. Forests are being cut down and the land they leave behind is wasting away. Since forty portion of all vegetable and grain food supplies come from irrigated land, a failing water generate creates sever food shortages.Many countries are facing water shortages in the twenty-first century, especially India, whose population passed one billion in whitethorn 2002. They are currently expanding by 18 million per year. Water withdrawals today double the environments ability to re-supply. Half of Indias grain harvest comes from irrigated land.World Wat ch reports, In a country where 53 percent of all children are already malnourished and underweight, a shrinking harvest could increase hunger-related deaths. other threat is shrinking croplands. Some nations already depend almost just 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 psyche will stay the same. That means each person will have less than half the current supply. Pakistan 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 size of a tennis court. Japan, South Korea and Taiwan already import 70 percent of their grain.Water supplies are fixed by nature. They cannot be increased. On the other hand, an ever-increasing population can deplete them. This is also true of croplands.I emotional state 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, oddly Western Europe and America that receive 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 little property 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 the y could share across the world to help combat the problem stated 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 materialistic world is more important than tackling issues of poverty and malnutrition.