some philosophy abstractions on global history data and prospect for future
critics of course wellcomed
It is a widespread belief that the disaster is
massive reduction in population size. However, no less pernicious, though not
so obvious are the consequences of its excessive growth. In this regard, it
must be said that under the overcrowding means the disproportion between the
possibilities of environmental protection and the needs of humanity. The
criteria are the presence-absence of the required number of drinking water,
agricultural land, energy stocks, stocks of natural resources, favorable
climatic conditions and so forth. While the social dimension is somewhat
shaded, it is much more difficult to analyze. You can not get sober assessment
based on simple calculations of available resources and their ability to ensure
that some of the population. The presence of environmental opportunities of
population growth does not mean the actual feasibility of this process. The
optimum population is not maximal in size, a deeper analysis of social space is
required, which can significantly alter the geographical logic.
For example, the territory of Russia itself is able to feed the
population, many times exceeding the population of contemporary Russia, but due to several social causes
such population growth does not happen. The development of unoccupied areas
would require a very high fertility rate, or its substitute by migration flows,
as a consequence – low education, primitive farming and, ultimately, lower
economic efficiency and the inconvenience of the process.
Thus, in modern conditions analysis of social
space is more important than that of the geographical space, and violation of
social organization in its consequences is equivalent to an ecological
disaster. There is need to develop the concept of social overcrowding, as,
despite the capabilities of ecosystems in its social dimension Society could be
overcrowded, its population is in disproportion with the quality manufactured
material and intellectual products, which at all times has been the criteria
for society resistance to external threats and internal problems, could be a
threat itself.
Conditionally highlighting key social
subsystems that are universal for any society, one can name the following: management
system, the army, science and technology, infrastructure.
These subsystems, one way or another, exist in
any society, but may not coincide with the boundaries of social groups. The
role of the administrative staff is to coordinate the remaining parts, the
confrontation outside and resolving internal problems. Army's aim is protection
from external influences and finally, from all non-systematic effects (in this
sense it is more than the usual definition, but the structure of the armed
forces, intelligence, emergency departments and police are organically linked).
Science and technology are responsible for the accumulation of knowledge and their
further practical application. At the same time, the infrastructure provides
the necessary conditions for the activities of other subsystems. The survival
of community is possible in the optimal organization of all four subsystems. In
terms of inhibition of development of science defensive army capability, management
efficiency and quality of infrastructure, are reduced which in turn leads to
further weakening of the entire system. The same happens in any other case.
The modern problem of mankind lies in the
extraordinary inflation of Infrastructure (Economics), despite the fact that its
role in the system should not be greater than that of any other component. Infrastructure
is essentially aimed at simple reproduction, and if it is hypertrophic, then it
blocks the effective engagement of the other subsystems, leading to a dangerous
imbalance.
A question is legitimate as to whether it actually
is an infrastructure of infrastructure, when the mass consumption becomes
self-perpetuating, subordinating the activities of the other three subsystems,
which finds its expression in the corporation a lobby instead of necessary
coordination, the use of the army in order to expand the market rather than
defense, the use of scientific advances for optimizing the manufacturing
process with the damage to its fundamental development.
This process began long ago: its roots can be
found even in the Neolithic revolution, when it became possible to feed more
people with less effort. The question of whether population growth is expedient,
then, of course, was not raised, and there was no population policy, although
the frequent and devastating wars and epidemics played some regulatory role. Tendency
for extensive growth: expansion of acreage and the number of people was too
strong as compared to intensive development: the accumulation of knowledge and
further technological innovations, and therefore the upgrade had to fight its
way through centuries of stagnation, typically in the areas which were poor and
therefore tended to seek new solutions . Any strategic thought was out of the
question, as it is now, there was no awareness of the long-term impact of
demographic recovery that was happening, there was also no realization
alternative innovative ways of development, and therefore logic of a simple
summation of the number of soldiers and land, as an indicator of strength
worked. Process had the nature of chain reaction: high population gave the
tactical benefits to a society that made the neighbors refer to the same model,
making it impossible to implement wherever the strategic policy, not because
of the intellectual underdevelopment at
that days, but because of the contradictions between tactics and strategy, the
late returns from the last. The growth of world and regional populations in
general retrospective tends to be proportional to territory and synchronous.
The greatest expression of these demographic
trends is found in the modern and contemporary time: thanks to the industrial
revolution, continued so far, a manifold increase in population became possible.
Again, despite this opportunity the question of expediency is open. Cheaper
food and living conditions, coupled with a decrease in mortality due to
advances in medicine have encouraged population growth. The interests of the
producer were to increase market and maximize profits, which, in turn, makes
the demographic growth beneficial for them. Over time, focus on the mass consumption
is becoming more pronounced. Keynesian reforms represented a clear example that
reflects this trend. Upon closer examination, they have their roots in the
nineteenth century (for example: social and economic concessions to the
workers, after the suppression of the Chartist movement in Great Britain), and their legacy largely
determines the dynamics of the modern world economy. Their essence was the
artificial resuscitation of demand by a State, by way of wealth redistribution,
but, strange as it may sound, not at the expense of large manufacturers and
their enterprises, but by their conservation, since there were only two
possible scenarios: either the restriction of mass consumption, or its further
pumping. Strategically (for the State) it would better be waived, but this would
result in impairment of the quality of life, conservation of mass unemployment,
severe social instability, loss of manufacturers` profits and ultimately
pervasive bankruptcy, which they could not afford, and therefore preferred to
provide social concessions, profitable for the corporations in the long term.
For society it turned out to be conservation and the accumulation of problems, which
only now begun to crop up. Lack of awareness of long-term consequences of
decisions makes the situation difficult to resolve in the future.
We must recognize the existing economic system of
so-called “developed” countries very fragile with the growth of new centers, first
of all: India and China, as well as the development of new
technologies. In essence, innovation economy can not coexist with mass
consumption, since it implies the flexibility of the whole system, which is
impossible in the presence of inert large producers, as well as mass education
system, not conducive to the development of creative thinking. The problem of
social overcrowding, dangerously deformed western society of modern and
contemporary times, unfortunately, had a marked tendency to the growth during
this period of time.
Up until the countries of non-Western
civilization did not participate in the process of modernization, the problem
was not critical. Now, it becomes increasingly important with the growth of
global competition. The main problem here is that the possibility of mass
consumption and production in China and India (separately) are several times
higher than similar facilities of the West (in aggregate), which makes Asian
products more competitive due to its cheapness. In addition, it allows to
concentrate the vast capitals, part of which goes for research in order to
optimize the process, and if in general this model is not very effective, in
China and India is much better off than in Western countries, namely at the
expense of its main component - population, with ever-increasing consumption.
Thus, “developed” economies will be forced, by
refusing to cheap imports and next to mass consumption as such for the benefit
of the innovation economy, despite the attendant social costs. This starts a
chain reaction of innovation development all over the world, resulting in almost
total unemployment and the collapse of the economies of mass consumption. This
will make the congestion (the economic equivalent - unemployment), one of the
main problems with which they will have to fight. The transition may be
balanced only with the formation of strategies for action now.