Overpopulating the Earth
Debate Rounds (3)
Of course we can outnumber the space, but that is not what I am stipulating. I believe that so long that there is Space to literally live, then the world can produce enough resources to sustain us.
If we lived in the planet, then we can house ourselves aware from the fruit production, then we can maximize efficiency. Despite the fact that the earth would thus become smaller, via using structures to create multiple layers of living space with less material, we could still increase the worlds habitable zone-age.. :S
Thus. Human's can not overpopulate the planet to a point where it cannot provide, while we can still move about and function happily.*** the argument***
I believe that the planet can sufficiently feed potentially hundreds of trillions of people.
Humans already overpopulate Earths natural resources. If humanity went vegan (as livestock is very inefficient source of food) and used vertical farming method, Earth would reasonably support about 10 billion people.
Tell me you completely took that into consideration. DO IT. TELL ME (that*).
secondly. after we have now fed every animal on the planet and every person, and have exceeded our food necessities by such a high amount hat we made alcohol, SO much alcohol we can't properly market it all, We'd have an excess of ethanol fuel.
So. now. everyone has chickens. Because their easy and take little space, and are easy to feed. And their poop produces methane which can be used for a furnace or generator, if properly harvested on a civil scale. So excess food.
The deserts can be converted into forests by supplementing them with our feces instead of pouring it into the great lakes and ocean. Which can produce animal habitats, while be turn the current forests without feces into agricultural centers and habitats for humans without destroying their productive qualities.
Mountains can be turned into homes. To turn current metropolis and urban centers into farms.
and mines like I said reduce human impact on the surface, while presenting the minerals necessary to build these new cities in the mountains, and towers to save space.
Even open pit mines serve a practical value of being the ground for factories, markets, stations, and government buildings as well as launch pads.
The world is very capable of feeding the human society with fish alone, if we cultivate and harvest them appropriately. Which should be the law that every municipality did it. Without drug supplements*. this does not mean there would not continually be tests with different drugs for results, but not as a device to increase food production.
In addition, we should have statutory gardens growing in our windowsills, and seeds sprouting in our kitchens every spring.
I also diet on wood, leaves, foliage, moss, mushrooms, herbs and insects in my yard and on the 'road'.
via this method, mixed with human mechanical engineering we can easily produce and harvest enough food to maintain a substantially larger population with the current amount of topsoil on the planet. The mechanical engineering is more structured towards energy development*** which is easy. > and with a smaller amount of earth beneath the topsoil do to mining, the thermal dynamics of the world may permit a large production of energy without effecting the global climate/weather.
CynicalOptimist forfeited this round.
I mean to say, ~ with an appropriate amount of living space left, to actually enjoy life, have meager privacy, and prepare for congregations ~ the world itself is capable of providing food for every last living thing on it.
Vegetation can be used to make alcohol, for fuel and pleasure, and can be made from the same crop which is eaten, and used for art supplies.
and all we have to do is garden, and distribute the cultivatable earth appropriately over, in and around our infrastructure developed to increase the habitable living space.
Is that something GoOrDin Would say? Damn straight.
welcome to the back of my head.
CynicalOptimist forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.