The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Overpopulating the Earth

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 587 times Debate No: 88698
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




I think that it is impossible for the human race to overpopulate the earth - considering our resources* - if we increase the population gradually and in a regulated manner to allow the vegetation to keep up with converting rock into biomass which can be eaten.

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.


You are so horribly wrong...
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.
Debate Round No. 1


LOLZ. so wrong. what if everyone stopped cutting grass with non renewable resources on their property, at schools and universities with tuition fees and on government property with tax dollars?
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.
Debate Round No. 2


So all I am saying is, overpopulating the earth, in the right circumstances, seems pretty impossible to me.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
not having an opponent makes this hard... to motivate myself.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
nice to see I am winning your favor.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
I am 100% PRO vegetarian. But am not enforcing such regulations on the planet, just advising them** in this theoretical + IDEALOGICAL situation.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.