Population Checks should be implemented
Debate Rounds (2)
First, I would like to point out the flaw in the case of the affirmative side. In his opening argument, 'Pro' likens earth to a host and its human inhabitants as a disease. Quoting from his argument: ' If the host survives, then the virus will has eventually been lessened or even killed. Either way the virus ends up dying.' Through this statement it is revealed that the affirmative side believes that the human population (A.K.A 'The Virus') will die whether the earth survives or not. By killing off the human population, what does earth become? An empty planet with no inhabitants, it loses its purpose.
I argue that our population should not be thoughtlessly 'killed off' for the earth's benefit. I ask the affirmative, how do you suppose to implement this? Do you honestly believe that governments of developed countries will pass such an inhumane proposition? I highly doubt this!
First of all I'd like to point out that the use of such inhumane techniques would be used to simply benefit future generations. Wouldn't you limit a respectable amount of the population so that future generations would survive? Also killing is not the only way of implementing population checks. Another way of potentially implementing population checks would be by introducing a bacteria that renders the reproductive systems of 1/2 of the human population sterile.
Second of all I'd like to state that the human population would die of natural factors such as global warming and its immediate effects. It would be more beneficial to limit the human population rather than to risk the extinction of the human race.
Finally I'd like to clarify your doubt upon the approval of the foreign governments. Fear would probably be the dominant force behind implementing such drastic measures. In this case, it would mean their population or the world.
Thanks once again.
If you were to conduct population checks where certain members of the human race were rendered infertile, what would give you this right? I doubt that half the world would agree to this. If they were, they wouldn't be having children so frequently now.
Also, there is no benefit in sacrificing or downright violating the rights of the current population in the interest of future generations. Even if you were to half the human population, whether of natural causes or not, the damage has already been done. There isn't a way to fix the ozone layer while still having humans inhabit the earth. There isn't a way to bring back extinct species. Limiting the population would only take a step backwards and halt the many advancements we are making as a human race. Many leaders in history who we now consider lucrative or plain mad thought that what they were doing would benefit the human race but look what happened....
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.