The Instigator
Sonofkong
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,285 times Debate No: 11845
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Sonofkong

Con

In light of many of these horror stories of overpopulation destroying all resources I have had doubt on the probability of this happening. Our society as well as many others. Ask these questions to yourself.

1. In today's (Anglo-American) culture will many women want to pursue childbirth?
2. Will these women give birth to a large number of children. (Such as more than 2-4)
3. Will these children be completely ignorant to resource shortages and will governments fail to ration foods accordingly in the case of said shortages.
4. Will society be unable to adapt to even the disappearance of a substance. I.E.'s Oil, Water, Wheat, Rice
5. Will we not be able to plant/breed/create more of this resource.

The answer to all of these questions is no. Young adults and adolescents of both sexes are too preoccupied to consider conceiving children and those that do will avoid more children like the plague. In today's ever more growing liberal society, future generations will all be extremely conscious of there use of recources and in a worst case scenario there will always be governments to regulate the problem before it causes the imagined chaos.

Overall I do not believe a society can unknowingly do itself in to the point of causing setback in an evergrowing population. I forsee a fairly consistant growth of the human race and there is little to worry about.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for beginning this debate. We have a pretty small character limit per round, so without further adieu...

Con begins by stating that he "doubts the probability" of overpopulation happening. Overpopulation is defined as filling with excess number of people, thereby straining available resources [1]. However, there is no 'probability' of this as it is already happening. In many parts of the world, human water use exceeds replenishment; the U.N. predicts that by 2025, 1.8 billion people will be living in regions with water scarcity. Unsustainable farming practices cause the destruction and abandonment of almost 30 million acres of arable land each year.

We consume about 40% percent of Earth's primary productivity. Every day we burn up an amount of energy the planet needed over 27 years to create. These are only a few of the statistics showing that our current levels of consumption are not sustainable. We cannot continue gobbling up our diminishing oil supplies and rural lands at the rate we have been doing. We need to bring our social, economic and environmental systems back into balance in a way that replenishes them for future generations [2]. As you can see, overpopulation is already a problem, and the only way for the human condition to sustain itself is to prepare - i.e. take preventative measures to ensure survival.

In a response to Con's questions--> (1, 2) While the number of Anglo-American births is going down, the earth's population on the whole is rising; The number of humans is increasing by 1.18% per year... (3) I'm not sure if people will be "ignorant" to resource shortages though I don't really see how this is relevant... (4) Con suggests that society will be able to adapt to certain shortages. While I agree that we may be able to find ways to replace oil, I do not see how it is possible that human beings can survive without water. Also, he mentions rice and wheat though ignores the reality that it is not just these 2 types of food; we're losing land that will help us farm, and depleting resources that kill other animals thus effecting the entire food chain... (5) The answer is no, if conditions keep worsening, we will not be able to "obtain more" of any of those resources.

In conclusion, Con writes, "In today's ever more growing liberal society, future generations will all be extremely conscious of there use of resources and in a worst case scenario there will always be governments to regulate the problem before it causes the imagined chaos." Right here Con defeats his very own argument. If he expects people to REGULATE a problem in order to prevent a problem, then right there he acknowledges that we must *PREPARE* for the problem. So here you can see that I have demonstrated overpopulation is both imminent and in need of preparation, which Con apparently agrees with. Thank you.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://www.overpopulation.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofkong

Con

Thank you for your enlightening re-argument.
//Con begins by stating that he "doubts the probability" of overpopulation happening.// I never said I doubted the probability of overpopulation happening. Overpopulation is destined to happen in the foreseeable future. I however do doubt that argument that people will become so immense it'll drain resources to the point we can do nothing and the population is set back.
//(1, 2) While the number of Anglo-American births is going down, the earth's population on the whole is rising; The number of humans is increasing by 1.18% per year... // Although this is true this is mostly in undeveloped countries. As we know the world since the beginning of Civilization has been getting steadily more technological, and the more developed countries have had lower populations. An example would be that in the 1800's America, the pioneers usually had more children to survive. This would be akin to modern Mexico. (This is fact.) http://wiki.answers.com.... As the undeveloped world slowly becomes industrialized as has happened after the 1800's other countries will follow suit.
//(3) I'm not sure if people will be "ignorant" to resource shortages though I don't really see how this is relevant...//
I am simply saying that people will not eat themselves into poverty and know of any shortages that are underwake, While governments will ration materials similar to 1940' America where the government rationed out stamps as limit for how much of something you could pruchase. http://en.wikipedia.org... (US section)
// (4) Con suggests that society will be able to adapt to certain shortages. While I agree that we may be able to find ways to replace oil, I do not see how it is possible that human beings can survive without water...we're losing land that will help us farm... // While I regret adding water to the list, i still stand by what I said when I stated we will be able to adapt to the lack of oil or certain foods (in worst case scenario.) If a product does dissapear, life will go on. The world won't stop turning if we run out of rice. It will be slightly harder but before that happens hopefully governments will prepare for a replacement. Or grow more and fix the problem. My opponent states that land is in short supply and depleting recources. Although on a national scale developed countries arereplacing forest for concret this is very blindsighted on a global level. Even in parts of the country farmland is still abundant. I would know this as a Mid-westerner in which th inside 90% of my home state Missouri is nothing but wheat and billboards.
// (5) The answer is no, if conditions keep worsening, we will not be able to//
We can always make more of these resources with the exception of oil. Food can be regrown, water can be de-salinized and oil is not alone.
As a final note, I will reply to Pro's last paragraph and say that by regulate I meant prepare for a substances loss preemptively. I wait for your reply.
Danielle

Pro

Thanks, Con, for the response.

Con begins his argument by stating, "I never said I doubted the probability of overpopulation happening." However, the very first sentence of his R1 argument reads, "In light of many of these horror stories of overpopulation destroying all resources I have had doubt on the probability of this happening..." In other words, he did in fact say that he doubted overpopulation was occurring. Overpopulation = too many people; not enough resources.

Con continues, "Overpopulation is destined to happen in the foreseeable future. I however do doubt that argument that people will become so immense it'll drain resources to the point we can do nothing and the population is set back." This is a direct contradiction of everything Con has said. Overpopulation is defined as filling with excess number of people, thereby straining available resources. So if he thinks overpopulation is destined, then how can he say it won't drain resources? Also, he clarifies that he doesn't think it will drain resources to the point where "we can't turn back" however I would like to know how we won't if we don't take proper precaution and preparation to ensure that this is the case.

Moving on, Con claims that the earth's population is rising only in under-developed nations. However, several population agencies agree that the world population will continue to grow [1]. You have to remember that while people in developed nations may not be having as many children, people are also living A LOT longer. Next, Con says that the government can take preventative measures to avoid overpopulation draining resources by doing things such as rationing meals and other goods. However, the process of rationing meals and preserving resources is indeed a method of preparation to avoid overpopulation! So right here, Con defeat his own argument.

Con's 4th point says that we can just continue on even if resources fall short. For one, the UN acknowledges that we are in a water crisis; only 1% of the earth's water is available to us [2]. Further, if our water supply is affected or pollution / destruction of the oceans continues to increase, then our food sources in general will be threatened since everything is part of a food chain (and we're at the top). Additionally, anything we'd like to grow needs water (and probably soil). There may be an abundance of land in the midwest now; however, Con cannot speak for the future.

Con also notes, "... It will be slightly harder but before that happens hopefully governments will prepare for a replacement. Or grow more and fix the problem." Again Con is saying that the government can/should PREPARE which is exactly what he is supposed to be arguing against. I am agreeing that yes, the government should prepare...

Outta character for now - back to ye.

[1] http://users.rcn.com...
[2] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofkong

Con

Sonofkong forfeited this round.
Danielle

Pro

My opponent has been online in the last 3 days; in fact he was online 35 minutes ago (and I am posting this as soon as I saw that my opponent forfeited R3). Therefore we can assume that he concedes this debate, or at the very least, expresses bad conduct in not coming back for a final rebuttal. Nevertheless, I'd like to extend my arguments and wishing my opponent luck in the voting period.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Sonofoking - How did you have better conduct? You forfeited the last round. How did you have better s/g? Lulz. How did you have better arguments when you forfeited and couldn't respond? Overall, lol.
Posted by bloodsnhall 6 years ago
bloodsnhall
I dont think we need to over populate for us to run out of resources. We are full bore consumers of every living thing on this planet. There is no doubt in my mind that humans are blind to the fact that they are a overwhelming destructive force on this planet. Nothing will stand in our way of consuming every last resource imaginable. In the end it will be terra domes with small intricate societies working together to maintain our existance on the planet we single handedly bleed dry. I mean tomorrow we could have a nuclear fallout that kills millions of animals and posions our water supply. Although we can create some new amazing fuel source or start transporting water from the back of the moon or something. actually i would worry about it. :)
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Teen pregnancies don't exist?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 6 years ago
Vi_Veri
SonofkongDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
SonofkongDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
SonofkongDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07