The Instigator
angryduck
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheRussian
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Given the exponential population growth of humans no one should care about the environment.

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...
TheRussian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/2/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 602 times Debate No: 61190
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

angryduck

Pro

An unsustainable population will shortly [40 years maybe] inhabit this Earth. Some say maybe 9 billion of us. Recycling house hold Items now and any other green Idea you can think of will not delay [much) the catastrophy awaiting our children.
TheRussian

Con

I accept. Present your case.
Debate Round No. 1
angryduck

Pro

I accept my point of view has no good outcome.
The current Increase in population Indicates that unless a miracle occurs soon there will be a dramatic conflict over dwindling resources. Recycling plastic bags and pretty much any green "Idea" you can think of will a waste of time.
TheRussian

Con

First, I would like to note that my opponent's logic is virtually the equivalent of "since a person is going to die anyway, might as well do drugs, it doesn't matter".

We must try to conserve resources and our environment so we at least have time to research, discover and plan how we will manage in the future.

One way to do so would be to stop buying/producing useless products that just waste resources. I'm sure that most people can remove half of the things found in their home and still live a comfortable life.

My opponent mentions that there would be dramatic conflict. That may be true, but if our goal is to save the human race, then it doesn't matter. As long as someone comes out as the victor and survives, then humanity survives and technically, all is well. (I know it sounds terrible). Also, the countries that save resources now, would be at the top in such a conflict because, well, they would have the most resources.

If countries start acting now by doing things such as building desalinization plants (facilities that filter salt-water into fresh water), then when the crisis strikes, things may not be as bad.

In reality, water is the only problem, because it is not produced in nature (in significant quantities) and there is no substitute. We can create a substitute for fossil fuels and virtually any other kind of resource, but not water. That's why if we invest into desalinization plants (or other future technologies that perform the same function), humanity will survive.

Of course a more extreme method to survive would to be use the "one-child rule" or something of the sort to curb the population.

We must fight to survive, it is any organism's most basic instinct. If we don't fight then might as well just launch the nukes and save us some future misery.
Debate Round No. 2
angryduck

Pro

Thank you for partly agreeing with my argument in that the future situation might be terrible but that us human beans will survive , though in smaller numbers. My point is why should I bother about any ecological , environmental fussing when we are all heading off to Hell in a hand cart . Unsustainable population growth is sooner than you think going to be a disaster on this Orb for all its inhabitants. Why recycle?
TheRussian

Con

Green ideas are not limited to recycling and we are arguing about other environmental things as well. My point stands that in order for ANYONE to survive, we need resources, and the environment is resources. If we put no effort into conserving our environment, then there is no hope. Think about the fact that most developed countries have sucked their land nearly dry of resources (or are in the process of doing so) and heavily rely on the import of natural resources from other countries. Without this import, even today's most powerful countries would be nothing within weeks. All power, wealth and life depends on resources, so if there are no resources, how can there be life?
Debate Round No. 3
angryduck

Pro

Water , oil and food are all finite and should be protected. However, the population of this Planet will soon exhaust all of these in its demands .The Elephant in the room is shouting but no one can here it.
9 billion people will soon be here.
Don't bother about the future. Unless about 1 billion human beans wear a condom for a decade we aren't going anywhere sustainable. Forget green Issues.
TheRussian

Con

Food is not finite because it can be grown and reproduced. Oil is finite but there are very many other sources of energy that could be used. Water is finite but is "recycled" by nature and fresh water can be filtered out of the oceans.

There are millions of acres of fertile land in the world that are not being used for farming which, if used, would greatly increase food production.

There are millions of people in the world that do little to nothing to support their community, and if they would be put to work, then production/efficiency would greatly increase.

We are nowhere near the end, the Earth (with our help) is capable of handling our growing population. As mentioned, we can take more drastic measures such as the one-child rule if necessary.
Debate Round No. 4
angryduck

Pro

The Earth is more than capable of dealing with us. Our population will reach a point where it is unsustainable and chaos will ensue. We will survive but there will be less of us and we wont be able to get Sky Sports for quite a bit.
TheRussian

Con

It seems as if my opponent (along with me) got a bit off topic. I think I have proven that resources are necessary to our survival and we must conserve them because if we don't, then there is no chance for anyone. As mentioned, if we don't conserve our resources, then might as well launch the nukes and save us some misery.

Thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
The Earth has a physical limit to what it can sustain. That is where natural selection partly comes in. Those who require the least amount of resources will survive.

Also, I'm afraid you are wrong about the whole "USSR starving because it didn't have freedom like the US". Don't forget that while the US was safely in the distance, the USSR took the full blow of WW2 and the country was ravaged by war. Food production and manufacturing would, of course, fall after such an event.
Posted by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
Not only is some of that simply disgusting to me, but it is false.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
I hear this nonsense that we are running out of resources. And yet you could fly from New York to L.A. at night and see very little lights down there. It is mostly vacant land.The real problems we are face out of control governments. In the 50's the U.S. could feed the world 5 times over. That is because we had freedom. The U.S.S.R could barely feed itself. Not because it had less resources, but because socialism and communism stifles output.All of the poverty in the world can be laid solely at the feet of human behavior.Never on this earths ability to produce.This earth could support 1000 times its population, and still leave room for everyone to live a good life. You could take the present population of the earth and give each person a couple of acres and they would not fill up the state of Texas.
Posted by Jenatherts 2 years ago
Jenatherts
I agree the small things matter. However... From the 1964 to 2001 the uk population grew by 5m. From 2001 to 2014 the population growth was 5m. Worrying...
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Too busy to debate this... Here's the basic argument I would put forward:
(1) What pro is saying is comparable to how we are all going to die anyway, so there's no reason people should not smoke. However smoking cuts years off our lives.

(2) Taking care of the environment is much the same, unless we get some awesome supervillains (see: Batman Begins) saving us from our own stupidity, we'll face possible extinction in the 40 years (as pro suggests), yet if we can make it even 45 years instead that would be worth the small sacrifices of picking up after ourselves. This applies even more so for people below age 40 here, who might want to enjoy another few years of life, so really should care.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
angryduckTheRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro got off topic in the end and could not fulfill his BoP that no one should care about the environment
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
angryduckTheRussianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's best appeal was "why should I bother". Con gave reasons to bother, including stretching the sustainability time. A pretty clear win to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.