Bulgaria is said to have a "declining" population. Many politicians and economists are calling for rapid growth - perhaps because, in the past, rapid growth has increased prosperity for some people. But is rapid growth the best strategy for Bulgaria?
Imagine that the population has grown to 16 million people - every place is twice as crowded. Has the number of good jobs increased or are all these new people unemployed? Where do they live?
Some things do not increase: amounts of land, air, and water are still the same. More people need more land for buildings, factories, farms, and roads. That means fewer places for wilderness, recreation, cars, or buses. High populations in many countries, with many different living standards, are only maintained through the constant conversion of natural habitats to farmland, or through the draw down of fossil fuels, and by economically cheating the poor and powerless. Eventually these things get corrected by war, collapse or adjustments (all usually unpleasant).
What would happen if the number of people keeps decreasing? At some point, maybe half a million, it might be hard to keep the cultural values of the people active and vital. It might be hard to maintain many industrial activities. At a very low number (5,000-50,000), there might be problems with fertility or social cohesion. The population has been low before, during Thracian, Roman, or medieval times, but it was rarely thought to be too low.
Rather than just let the population grow or shrink, we could try to figure out what a healthy population should be, by relating it to the carrying capacity of the land. The carrying capacity is that number of people who can be supported on a long-term basis, using local renewable and nonrenewable resources for all needs, including clothing, shelter, transportation, information generation, and aesthetic satisfaction. This capacity can be increased or decreased by using different kinds of agriculture or different kinds of technology. For instance, technology can give higher yield crops, but also hurt crops with unforeseen side effects (poor uses of pesticides, for example). Furthermore, the capacity decreases as the use of energy and resources per person increases.
The ecologist Eugene Odum suggested using land area as a measure of human carrying capacity. The minimum area requirement per person to sustain all needs for the state of Georgia in the U.S. is 2.02 hectares. This number includes land for natural areas, as well as for producing food, sitting communities, and road networks.
Bulgaria and Georgia are roughly comparable in productivity. The size of Bulgaria is 11,091,200 hectares, so if we divide by 2.02 hectares, we get a maximum population of 5,490,693 - significantly less than the current number. An optimum population might be less than three million. Any size human population can disrupt natural cycles and environments, however, so numbers are only the beginning.
All living beings adapt to and change each other over time. They also change the climate and environment. Wild populations usually exist at far less than a maximum number. They are limited by the productivity of ecosystems. We humans need a similar flexibility to adapt our populations to changes in climate and the productivity of the land. That is why a smaller population may be better ecologically.
Instead of treating a declining population as a problem, why not consider it an advantage? With ecological planning, Bulgaria could become the first balanced nation on earth, by linking its population to its carrying capacity and wild environment. Countries such as China, the United States and the Netherlands will have to face these limits soon and Bulgaria could become a good model for them to follow.
Imagine that the population has grown to 16 million people - every place is twice as crowded. Has the number of good jobs increased or are all these new people unemployed? Where do they live?
Some things do not increase: amounts of land, air, and water are still the same. More people need more land for buildings, factories, farms, and roads. That means fewer places for wilderness, recreation, cars, or buses. High populations in many countries, with many different living standards, are only maintained through the constant conversion of natural habitats to farmland, or through the draw down of fossil fuels, and by economically cheating the poor and powerless. Eventually these things get corrected by war, collapse or adjustments (all usually unpleasant).
What would happen if the number of people keeps decreasing? At some point, maybe half a million, it might be hard to keep the cultural values of the people active and vital. It might be hard to maintain many industrial activities. At a very low number (5,000-50,000), there might be problems with fertility or social cohesion. The population has been low before, during Thracian, Roman, or medieval times, but it was rarely thought to be too low.
Rather than just let the population grow or shrink, we could try to figure out what a healthy population should be, by relating it to the carrying capacity of the land. The carrying capacity is that number of people who can be supported on a long-term basis, using local renewable and nonrenewable resources for all needs, including clothing, shelter, transportation, information generation, and aesthetic satisfaction. This capacity can be increased or decreased by using different kinds of agriculture or different kinds of technology. For instance, technology can give higher yield crops, but also hurt crops with unforeseen side effects (poor uses of pesticides, for example). Furthermore, the capacity decreases as the use of energy and resources per person increases.
The ecologist Eugene Odum suggested using land area as a measure of human carrying capacity. The minimum area requirement per person to sustain all needs for the state of Georgia in the U.S. is 2.02 hectares. This number includes land for natural areas, as well as for producing food, sitting communities, and road networks.
Bulgaria and Georgia are roughly comparable in productivity. The size of Bulgaria is 11,091,200 hectares, so if we divide by 2.02 hectares, we get a maximum population of 5,490,693 - significantly less than the current number. An optimum population might be less than three million. Any size human population can disrupt natural cycles and environments, however, so numbers are only the beginning.
All living beings adapt to and change each other over time. They also change the climate and environment. Wild populations usually exist at far less than a maximum number. They are limited by the productivity of ecosystems. We humans need a similar flexibility to adapt our populations to changes in climate and the productivity of the land. That is why a smaller population may be better ecologically.
Instead of treating a declining population as a problem, why not consider it an advantage? With ecological planning, Bulgaria could become the first balanced nation on earth, by linking its population to its carrying capacity and wild environment. Countries such as China, the United States and the Netherlands will have to face these limits soon and Bulgaria could become a good model for them to follow.
