The Instigator
Rascal
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Volkov
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

An non interventionist strategy is the best way to curb population growth

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Volkov
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,281 times Debate No: 9239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

Rascal

Pro

We have a population crisis on our hands whether people want to accept it or not, let alone openly talk about it. The human populace will reach an unsustainable level at some point in the future if it continues to grow at the same exponential rate of 1.2% (1).

My side of the argument is that we should not adopt strategies to tackle the problem but rather leave it to nature. This would take place through a series of natural checks like the ones set out by Thomas Malthus in his Principle of Population essays. These checks would include famine, drought, disease whilst not excluding other social factors that would arise from an increase of population. These social factors which would curb population include wars over resource scarcity, and general ground level murder and violence that would arise from increasing pressure on communities.

This in my opinion is the better route to follow rather than the interventionist route. I may sound morally corrupt and very callous, but I believe that majority of people would not be in favour of the amount of infringement on liberties by the government that would be needed to tackle such a problem.

Any one wishing to take part in this debate should first agree with the premise that the human population will outgrow the earth's providing capacity if it carries on growing at the same rate. I am not debating whether or not the earth has a optimum population because I would hope my opponent would be rational enough to agree that it does.

I would like to thank Volkov for the opportunity to debate this topic again, and I look forward to his rebuttal which will hopefully be of a higher standard than Nags (no offence bud).

(1) Page 3 http://www.un.org...
Volkov

Con

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this interesting debate, as well as the time and effort he put into writing up his argument.

To start off with, I would like to affirm that I am mostly a non-interventionist. I don't believe in intervening in countries where we do not belong - unless otherwise asked to. Permission is key to entering into any conflict with the intent to help those in need. I don't believe we should enter into every situation, but it is important that we respond to humanitarian crises and human rights abuses when we have been asked by the afflicted to lend a hand.

With this opinion in mind, I find my opponent's argument abhorrent under many circumstances, not to mention ineffective. The suggestion that we allow citizens in other countries to succumb to environmental and social factors completely absolves us of social responsibility, while condemning others to an ultimately painful death. While this can indeed curb population growth, it is not an option for most; as humans, we feel the need to help out our fellow individuals when they are in need. You would be hard pressed to end government services that intervene in other countries either economically, militarily (peacekeeping), or diplomatically, with popular support, or even private services that do the same thing. To illustrate my point, in 2005, a poll indicated that a whopping 65% of Americans supported giving 0.7% of their GDP towards foreign aid programs if other wealthy countries agreed to do the same as well. [1]

Secondly, it is important to note that despite the huge hardships faced by many individuals throughout the world, including negative environmental and social factors, the world population will continue to clime at an exuberant rate. For illustration, we only need to look towards China, which despite going through a huge amount of social and environmental factors, such as the reign of Chairman Mao Zedong that killed tens of millions of individuals [2], in which little to no intervention from foreign countries was present; today, China has an estimated 1.3 billion citizens [3]. Clearly, non-intervention has failed to slow down the pace of growth.

Now, I would like to launch into a general summary of my counter-argument, though due to character restrictions, it will be brief;

As it currently stands, many Western countries have a higher death rate than birth rate, or a rate which is relatively on-par. For example, in Sweden, the birth and death ratio level around 10 per 1000 population [4]. I would also like to point out that Sweden has a highly advanced education and social welfare system [5][6]. There is also many studies that have concluded the better education and government support is, as well as the awareness of effective contraceptives, the lower the birth rate [7].

Therefore, through intervening and stabilizing other governments, we can slow down the birth rate more effectively.

Thank you; my sources are in the 'comments'.
Debate Round No. 1
Rascal

Pro

Rascal forfeited this round.
Volkov

Con

All arguments extended, I guess.

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Rascal

Pro

Rascal forfeited this round.
Volkov

Con

Such a shame. Hopefully, PRO will continue this debate at a later point in time.

All arguments extended. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Ah, I get you; you're completely right, though I believe PRO was arguing that the naturally created wars - in this case meaning war caused by fighting over resources, ethnicity, ideology or whatever - were a way to curb population growth in countries, and that by allowing other countries to come in and mediate the dispute or help put a stop to the fighting, we're just allowing overpopulation to continue.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
By domestic issue, I meant it's policy was enforced domestically-- intervention tends to take place on a domestic level. So far we haven't had any wars in which the explicit goal was to reduce population as such.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Generally it is; but it doesn't limit itself to only domestic issues. Overpopulation in one part of the world can lead to the depletion of resources in that part or another; which in turn affects other countries which either need those resources, or will have to deal with the eventual refugees that start coming over the border in search of more resources to gobble up.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Of course your opponent didn't dispute it, but... isn't population more of a domestic issue? :)
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 1 hour ago
"To start off with, I would like to affirm that I am mostly a non-interventionist."

Wut?"

On foreign policy matters, I am mostly against intervention.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
To start off with, I would like to affirm that I am mostly a non-interventionist."

Wut?
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
Very interesting idea wjm, though I'm unsure how well it would work, given the fact that even if there is not enough resources in a given area, like some African regions, the birth rate is still very high. Though if abortion were decriminalized and offered in such areas, that could turn around...
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Interesting topic.

As undesirable as it sounds, decriminalizing abortion will cause people to control their own population.

Take Italy for example.

And one wouldn't even have to decriminalize abortion, because as the costs of having a child are naturally increased due to the nature of supply and demand with our "running out of" resources, the population will naturally control itself.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
RascalVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
RascalVolkovTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06