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

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 351 times Debate No: 84493
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Climate change is a real and threatening danger. Uptake in sever weather, natural disasters, stagnant food production, dwindling water resources, melting polar caps and glaciers, and extinction of animals, insects, coral that depend on specific temperatures to survive. It is a danger that has been scientifically linked to excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays from the sun that should be reflected back into space and the heat and carbon from our own industrial complexes trapped under the layer they created..

Critics say that the Earth has experience climate change before during times that modern humans were not even alive and therefor human activity can not be causing climate change, even if it exists. But look at what CAUSES climate change. Excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays. In the past this was created by volcanic activity, run away continent wide wildfires, and a massive meter impact throwing millions of tons of dust, dirts, smoke/carbon, and greenhouses gases into the air, blocking out the sun to where very little light reach the Earths surface to heat it and causing an ice age. Critics say that if we ARE having climate change why are we not getting colder then ?

Because once those events happened, they ended. Once all the trees were burned down, there was nothing to burn, once the volcano released all its pressure and stopped erupting, no more heat and carbon/greenhouse gases that trap heat were being produced. There was only one big meteor, one big explosion that created a layer of carbon and greenhouse gases that enveloped the whole world..

Imagine that layer is a house. All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors locked shut, and the heater is set at 90degrees and the stove is on medium heat, going for hours on end. There maybe a few leaks here and there but all in all the house soon becomes unbearably hot and stuffy. You turn off the stove and heater so it won't get any hotter and eventually the house cools because of the leaks. May take a very long time but it happens.

Now imagine instead of turning off the heater and stove, you leave them as they are or ,being generous, turn them down a bit BUT not a lot and they are still going strong for hours and hours. Imagine you add a roommate that has their own heater and stove going as well, and then another, and then another, so on and so forth. The house becomes unbearably hot even faster with each new addition. Even if all of you turned down the heaters and stoves down to the BARE MINIMUM NEEDED TO SURVIVE, with all of the trapped heat from before, the added people adding their own heat/emissions on top of that, the heat will not dissipate before you all die of heat stroke, starvation cause no food plants can grow in such hot and water parched conditions, or oxygen deprivation cause their are no plants to turn the heat and exhale ( carbon emissions) into breathable air.

Humans are highly adaptable and we could probably hold out for a few generations after the collapse of the earths ecosystem but eventually we to would have to adapt or perish.

So why wait till a bottom of the barrel crisis before enforcing laws and society norms that control our population rise ALONG with strategies to curb and reduce our resource guzzling ways ?

It has been scientifically tested and projected by many scientists that Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. Right now we are a bit above 7 billion and grow by about a 200,000 a year.

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

According to population biologist Joel Cohen of Columbia University, other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity are the nitrogen cycle, available quantities of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and many other systems work together, all interwoven to create and sustain life on Earth.

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually UNDER OPTIMUM SUSTAINED CLIMATE AND WEATHER, something that is slowly becoming rare around the world. But pushing that point aside, thats enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion omnivores under US standards of consumption, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned if EVERYONE became vegetarians. But because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, so the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion and be more around 8 or 9 billion.

OH wait .... We are already almost there ! and the world population is expected to hit 8 billion by 2024.

Our bulging population not only threatens us but every living thing on planet Earth. Population control methods MUST be part of ALL climate change, sustainable resource, and green funding policies. A grain of sand my seem tiny but added together they become a huge desert that can swallow us whole.


I apoligize for the varying (and abnormally large)sizes of graphs and charts ahead of time.

Figure 1. The first graph depicts the population of Earth over time.

s://; alt="" width="624px;" height="396px;" />

As we can see in the graph, the world is not on the path of out of control population growth, in fact, population growth has been on the decline. Notice how this occured without any major population control methods.

Figure 2. This chart depicts fertility rates in certain countries.

s://; alt="" width="575px;" height="317px;" />

Why is this graph significant? It depicts the countries that are experiencing population growth. The countries where zero, slow, or NO growth are rich, "developed", states such as the US and Germany. The countries with high fertility rates are countries where poverty is rampant and birth control/women's rights are almost non-existent.Thus,larger population growth rates in the Third World are a consequence of dire poverty and restrictions on women’s ability to control their own fertility

The latest UN population report released on March 12 predicts population will exceed 9 billion people by mid-century. Almost all of this growth will occur in the global South.

The 49 poorest countries in the world will have by far the biggest increases. In the richest countries, however, population will decline from 1.23 billion to 1.15 billion if projected net migration is left aside. (It will increase to only 1.28 billion including net migration).

Raising living standards globally, improving health care, providing access to education and achieving greater equality for women, creates a stable population growth, without the artificial constraints of population control.

Unfortunately, you address the issue of climate change in your argument, without considering the implications of population control.

An article by Simon Butler summarizes it perfectly:

“In practice, there has never been a population control scheme that has met with acceptable environmental or humanitarian outcomes. Columbia University professor Matthew Connelly has thoroughly documented this disturbing history in his 2008 book Fatal Misconception.[9]

China’s one child policy has been hailed as an environmental measure by prominent population theorists such as Britain’s Jonathan Poritt.[10] But he and others ignore that China’s population control has hardly solved that country’s growing environmental problems.

The human costs of the policy, however, are shocking. Until 2002 Chinese women were denied any choice of contraceptive method – 37% of married women have been forcibly sterilized.[11] Female infanticide has reached epidemic proportions”

How can you guarantee the rights of others are not infringed in this process? Who “controls” birth? The government? And who will be in place to decide how to even control population? Many are against birth control, and obviously murder.

I await your response.

Debate Round No. 1


The population has been on a sharp incline since just a bit after the Industrial Revolution but I concede a SLOW DOWN of population growth OVERALL is in conjunction with 1) countries that implemented a one/two child rule, most notably China, who is still a leader in population numbers, 2) the rampant epidemic of AIDS, civil wars, droughts, & food scarcity in developing countries and 3) the urbanization and industrialization of countries. In an agrarian and/or semi nomadic lifestyle, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at a young age on a farm, pulling weeds and harvesting or simple workshop labor. They become a source of income & the more you have the better. Since there is no retirement plan in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age. In a developed urban & industrial society, the economic value of children declines & children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. Not only are chances for employment at an early age diminished, but educational requirements explode dramatically so kids need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s & nowadays into their 30s. In a cost benefits analysis a child cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts as it has OVERALL. BUT ....

The population has only SLOWED DOWN in growth not declined overall and as a population grows, however slow, it unavoidably consumes more and more resources and needs more and more land. My contention is that the Earth has a limited amount of life sustaining resources that should be taken into account. Their is only so much freshwater, there is only so much arable land we can grow food on, there is only so much oxygen. Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?

Any life form, if the pollution grows higher then the area can sustain, unavoidably dies off. A lion pride that produces too many offspring and eats up all the animals in the area, will have to expand their territory in hopes of finding more food or die from starvation. A virus once it has overwhelmed and consumed all of a bodies energies, resources to the point that it can no longer maintain its systems, causes the body to die. it is a proven scientific fact multiple time & by various species. Humans may be a higher order thinking life form, but we are still a life form, & unavoidably we depend on the systems in place on Earth for our survival just like any other life form living on Earth. We can continue to grow and deplete resources and stretch life styes to their limits, all the while causing the extinction of species that are cogs in the wheels of the systems that sustain us, causing those systems to eventually collapse. It has been our business as usual for the past 100 years and can probably last for another 30-50 but why not implement actions to stop or at least extend the period of time BEFORE system collapses ?

HOW those populations controls are written and implemented is a whole nother can of worm lol Religion, country infrastructure, medical systems, cultural traditions and views on family, ect ect, would play a part in any laws and policies. But I contend that with out some form of population control, no climate change/sustainable policies will make any meaningful impact. You can create policies that say every person is only able produce about 3,000 pounds a day ( which can be reduced with car pooling, sustainable energy, ect ) and that takes into account an urbanized citizen with access to a car, a home with electricity, and consumer goods and assumes the gradual industrialization of developing countries. With a global population of over 7 BILLION that equals about 21,000,000,000,000 pound of carbon A DAY. The oceans can absorb about 30%, though that is declining due to various climate, ecology, and environmental reasons, about 40% accumulates in the atmosphere, and about 30% is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. An average mature tree (at least 10-15 years old) can only absorb 48lbs A YEAR so each person on Earth would need about 33 MATURE EVERGREEN TREES each to be carbon neutral. ( thats just for our own HUMAN consumer needs and does not take into account the habitant needs of other animals, ecosystem balance, ect ) SO as the population grows, we will need more trees to be carbon neutral, and we can't cut down these trees, so eventually they will take over the arable land we need to feed ourselves.

Personally population control policies I personally propose would be :
1) contraception is easily available, low cost or free
2) abortions are legal, easy available and at low cost - there would be attached policies and requirements but thats another issue
3) sex education is more readily available & a required course in public middle & high school & includes sexual misconduct laws & sentencing, responsible relationship guidelines and actions, sensitivity training - private schools that don't receive ANY federal or state funding, and schools with a religious guideline & charter are exempt from sex education classes as required a course but may not criminalize students from obtaining or possessing sex education materials unless it actively disrupts teaching when it is conducted (this time does not include recess, breaks between classes,mealtimes)
4) murders/harassment/repetitive slander/&intimidation against people, businesses, or organizations that perform sexual disease testing,abortions,adoptions,foster care,family planning & reproductive health service, shall be persecuted as a felony/hate crime
5) a two child limit on all citizens - those that wish to have more offspring agree to renounce all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding
6) adoption policies and procedures should be fast tracked and more openly available to all within the 2 child limit- excluding foster care and those that have renounced all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding
More stringent policy would be :
1) pregnancy before the age of 25 (better if 30 ) results in a large fine, & a choice between abortion or adoption - if the mother chooses neither options, she relinquishes all right to federal & state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, & crowd funding

I base these policies on on factual financial, social obligations and pressures of raising a child and the impact of a growing population on the environment. I an not religious therefor I do not take religion values into account THOUGH I do know and understand that religious values would be brought into any policies that touch on reproductive rights, for or against them, because many of these policies goes against religious teachings. My argument is that these policies are to promote social and environmental good and/or agendas FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIACTION and not for promoting religious good or agendas so religion should not be involved as that


The fundamental flaw is that population control is downplaying the real solution: technology and equality, so let’s look at the hypothetical situation about the house that you used earlier.

Say you lived in a large house which was heated by an old wood burning stove. It was enough to keep warm but created small amounts of smoke, but it wasn’t in issue then. Eventually, your brother and sister came to live with you in the house. However, the stove did not produce enough heat to warm everyone, so you had another wood burning stove installed. Later, you allow your friend to sleep in the basement because he’s a good guy and helps around the house, even though he’ll need another two stoves. Soon, other family come to live in your house.

Now you have an issue, smoke is wafting through the house and irritating everyone’s eyes and the stoves are taking up space. What do you do? Do you kick out your brother and sister, or the other people? One of the inhabitants argues that you should kick out some residents, which would leave them without a home. Many protested this idea.

The solution is simple: install heaters. Not only have you saved space by reducing size, they are now more efficient and much more capable of heating up the room, without the smoke. Not only this, but you decide that your friend live upstairs where he saves space and energy and where he can help around the house. Now your residents can stay happy and warm.

The solution not only made the house more comfortable, it saved space, and money. Also, the friend was now in a better situation making all the residents equal and able to contribute. That is the power of technology.

Now I could address every single contention,that would take time and too much words. Instead, you mention technology in your argument, saying:

“Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?”

Exactly! We could use desalination to produce water, we could develop better solutions to conserving and creating fresh water. Technology has already allowed us to do such things, and it would solve the issue of dehydration for so many thirsting populations and in arid regions, creating solution that saves lives without polar ice melt. We could develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas! Not only could this possibly solve the starvation problem for many people, but it could bring prosperity, economy, tourism, and yes, oxygen that could help the atmosphere! We can create (and are) self-sufficient homes and apartments that use renewable energy and blend with environment. Eventually, we as population would save BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS by producing ways for more efficient and bountiful farming methods and cleaner environment and improving the lifestyles of BILLIONS of people.

But why do this, when you can introduce an authoritarian way to restrict the right of reproduction and in contrast to the religions of BILLIONS of people, many who would resist any legislation to facilitate a large increase of what they consider murder of a innocent babies(Which I would agree with them and multiple scientific studies as well)?

Also, you reciprocate many urges that the world is on the verge of overpopulation and a dying planet, yet, you yourself mention that it is a “working system”?

AND, you consider contraception methods such as abortion and birth control pills more natural than advancing the human race into a more energy efficient and thriving society? A race terminating its birth rate (which mostly unsuccessful as I will mention in a later argument) is somehow more natural. by the way, “near free” is extremely misleading. Millions of dollars are spent in advertising, passing, and the execution of the bill, much less one that would control birth rates of BILLIONS of people, ie. the funding to create a executive body to enforce it.

Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It’s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does. The human body obviously emit negligible amounts of pollution, and if we create the technology to create efficient energy it would save money in the long-run, as well as allowing us to create even more ways to help the planet, which provides us more money to advance equality and end poverty and thus lend more minds to advance technology, etc.

Debate Round No. 2


WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power.

To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe.

And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES.

My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol )

So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ?
1) Contraceptions are free and widely available
2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also )
3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education.
4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle )

Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" ....

"Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol

check out these links
It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact
this deals with children of educated parents research
psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child


I apoligize, my internet has been on and off for a couple of weeks, and down till now, which means I wasn't able to create an argument this round.
I will extend my argument and I hope you will do the same.
Debate Round No. 3


2cents4change forfeited this round.


Sam7411 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Optimum population goals should satisfy 1) everybody's BASIC quality of life (clean nutritious food, clean water/air, adequate shelter) 2) Access 2 basic human rights - quality education and healthcare, varied economic opportunity, satisfactory sanitary conditions, freedom from racism, freedom of religion, freedom from sexism 3) provide enough genetic biodiversity and 4) large enough to provide infrastructure and social community to promote creativity intellectually, artistically, and technologically

All of these CAN be achieved without driving our planets ecosystems into the ground, other life forms into extinction, and the resources needed for survival dry (freshwater, space, clean air and food) As a population grows it inevitable consumes more and more until it is forceable stopped, either by policy/lifestyle changes or by starvation, rampant disease, war reducing the population down to an acceptable level or worse, down to nothing.

This site details optimum population - it uses basic math equations taking into account the goal along with the earths carrying capacity - though it places it at about 2 billion, worst case/stretching resources at 4 billion - and we are already at 7 billion and still growing


I once again apoligize for not being able to argue this round due to continous issues with my internet provider (Cox). I want to ask that no one votes in this debate, rather when my issue is resolved I'll challenge Pro to a final argument which can be voted on. Thanks for your patience @2cents4change I hope to continue/finish this fun debate.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by 2cents4change 9 months ago
How do you extend a debate - I looked it up in FAQs and couldn't find it
Posted by 2cents4change 9 months ago
I agree that we are hella smart and fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse with our still GROWING population. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug)
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 9 months ago
Thomas Malthus is proven wrong even by those that used to preach his message. Again, this is Sam7411's debate. I will drop out with this comment, man is not "smarter" Humans can increase their relative population density, and no other species can. The age old arguement that continues to try to say that we can no longer develope and discover new resources comes from an elite that wants population control. It's been proven wrong over and over again. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc.
Posted by 2cents4change 9 months ago
Equality is good morally and spiritually but not natural- if all predators were equal to the level of the top predator, very soon all the prey (other animals) will quickly be hunted & eaten. There would be none left to repopulate as a food source for the predators & eventually the predators would turn on each other for food. In breeding would occur cause of the dwindling genetic population due to death from starvation & cannibalism & lead to higher birth mortality and early death due to genetic defects. In the end the predators would eventually die. Nature specifically has check & balances in place to contain a prey species so it does not threaten all other species to a critical/extinct rate. Diseases, limited resources & specific prey needs, territories, even geographical & environmental limitations such as weather patterns, oceans, un passable mountains to contain the predators designed prey(s). These natural limitations has over the course of our evolution keep our population at a reasonable balance with resources available in our territories. Humans are highly adaptable & smart so we have survived so far by bypassing these limitations with agriculture, inventions connected to travel, & the progress of modern medicine. But as a consequence, our ecosystem, Earth, is beginning to strain & will eventually collapse, just like any territory, ecosystem were the predators have over populated/saturated an area or because of environmental collapse. Just as our adaptability & smarts how allowed us to overcome Natures limitation on a top prey species, we are smart enough to recognize that we need nature to survive & therefor need to put limitations on OURSELVES so we don't crash the environmental systems that support us. Because of our adaptability we can come up w/ tech 2 reduce the impact of EACH PERSON but if we keep adding MORE persons past what limited resources the Earth can produce FOR ALL LIFEFORMS it will never be balanced properly,& collapse, will just take longer
Posted by ProveWhatYouSay 9 months ago
Bravo Sam7411
Here are some facts that never seem to get into these debates. Where is the deepest, richest topsoil in the World? Sudan basin. Huge river running through, large lakes etc. Why aren't they feeding Africa and half of Asia? History will reveal this secret from the Battle of Fashoda, the IMF, to the dismantling of a canal cutter in the 70s etc. No complete east to west railroads. No complete north to south railroads. They have been stopped many times. Yet we have all of these looting operations on the coasts. The Sudan basin is underpopulated. Can you imagine the farm equipment America would need to build to bring an area 1/3 the size of the US to the state of the art farming? Can you imagine the customers we would make?

Take a calculator and add up all of the inhabitibal land on Earth. Divide it into acreage and then take a look at how many people we have. You are going to see that we have a lack of development, not too many people. Many of the reasons for lack of development is political and for sick reasons and control of population. This is why you often see no developement in the middle of countries, but rather wads of people near coasts.

Not my debate, but there are entire courses that prove this.
Posted by Sam7411 9 months ago
I don't see how allowing humans to reproduce is being lazy or hypocritical . Real change comes from equality and advances through technology, not from restricting birth rates.
Posted by Pandit 9 months ago
I am with the Population control .

More so , I am with a change in life style . As long as we keep acting like lazy asses and hypocrites , nothing will change
No votes have been placed for this debate.