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

Population growth needs to be controlled

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,735 times Debate No: 9516
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)




As developed, intelligent beings we have managed to overcome natural selection in so far as we can give people increased immunity to diseases and help them survive even in the face of serious genetic disorders.

According to a graph on the BBC website [1] the population has grown very rapidly in the past 50 years. Scientific progression plus an increase in health care and hygiene has attributed to this growth; people are living longer and there is lower infant mortality.

We are overpopulating the Earth, this increases the possibility of wars over land, oil, food and water as these resources become scarce. There will be insufficient jobs to go around and there really will be no way out of poverty for those unfortunate enough to be in that situation. As we continue to squeeze every last drop out of the Earth it will bite back causing large scale natural disasters and due to the increased population density - greater loss of human life. This is shown by the current Global Warming issue - our demands on the planet are having adverse effects.

We are cutting down rainforests and destroying huge colonies of animals as our demand for goods grows. Technology is unable to provide answers for the near future in terms of energy alternatives.

I feel that given the fact that due to human advances we are now able to live longer and overcome many diseases and medical complications that once controlled population levels, we are now responsible for controlling our growth. Also given the fact that we are an intelligent species and quite capable of foreseeing the consequences of our actions and of our failure to act, we are in the position of power. If we choose not to act, this fact could have a huge impact on our ability to avoid conflict in the future and possibly destroy much of the varied life on Earth.

I do not intend this to be a discussion of who should control growth or by what means it should be done, this discussion is intended to be about mankind as a whole and simply a discussion of the above.

Thank you for reading,




The world runs on a cycle. A cycle that God did create, if I might add. A cycle that "produces after its own kind." We are not overpopulating the earth. Just because doctors and scientists have come up with shots and vaccines doesn't mean that people aren't dying everyday. Vaccines help prevent certain diseases but there are some diseases that they have not come up with a vaccine for. Take cancer, for an example, it takes thousands of lives a year because we have not found a cure, for certain cancers. But even if we do have a cure for one specific cancer, people may not even catch it in enough time. People are not living longer. Take the second law of thermodynamics, it says things are progressively getting worse. Humans are becoming more weak in their immunity and are getting worse as the years go by. People are dying at earlier ages than they were back in, say, the 1800's. As for the lower infant morality, I am not sure what point you are trying to make since the decrease in infant morality would decline the survival rate of infants.
There is plenty of the earth for all of us. Now in Tokyo, Japan I would say they are a little crowded. (ha ha.) But everywhere else there is plenty of room for everyone. This is not back when everyone was determining what their country boundaries are. That is what our military protection is for. If anyone comes and tries to take over our country it isn't because they NEED more room its that they WANT more room or they want to expand their religion.
According to this article, which I would say is pretty reliable, we will never run out of oil. If you read this article completely it will better explain what I am about to say. The earth has plenty of oil for the next fifteen years, and if or when we do run out of oil we will already be drilling for more oil by this time with our new resources and new equipment to do so. Even if our earth "does run out of oil in the next fifteen years, scientists are working very hard on how to get a car running without oil, so I am sure that within the next fifteen years they will come up with a solution.
As for running out of food, take a flower for example, it reproduces itself by itself. A flower makes its own food and provides oxygen for us to breathe. Some flowers' ovaries turn into fruits, which we eat. Two thirds of what we eat comes directly from plants. The other one third comes from animals which eat plants. So, if flowers reproduce themselves by agent dispersal, mechanical dispersal, and the five different types of vegetation propagation: cuttings, layering, grafting, budding, and tissue culturing, how is it that we can run out of food if two thirds of our diet comes directly from something that can reproduce itself over and over while the other one third of what we eat comes from what eats plants. We will not run out of food because the earth will reproduce it naturally even if people do keep having children.
We will never run out of water because it recycle itself by precipitation and evaporation. It just keeps running through the system but cleaning itself along the way. WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF WATER!!!!
Trust me there are no global warming issues. When God created the earth he made it a perfect distance from the sun; that way we wouldn't be too hot or too cold. Its not called global warming its called the tribulation. It is getting close to the end of the world. The Bible says so, and as everyone knows the Bible calls pretty many shots like things about the Hittites, which came true. Everything is matching up- the seasons are mixed up, this world is so wicked, and people are wanting to change our nation as not being founded on the Bible. Its the end, but scientists like to call it global warming. Christians call it the tribulation.
Don't worry the facts you feel are going to destroy the earth aren't going to. God is.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for taking the time to accept this debate.

Oh people are dying every day, but the birth rate outweighs the death rate, so yes the population may not be growing as quickly as it could if no one died, but it is indeed growing. People are getting weaker in their immunity and in their natural genetic defences because of the scientific advancements and because most people get health care to prevent natural selection from improving the gene pool, by survival of the fittest.
The fact is that if we can meddle in these things which prolong life artificially why should we not also meddle in the creation of life so that we strike the balance nature once had. Lower infant mortality simply means that fewer babies die at birth usually due to better health care but also due to improvements in hygiene and sanitation.

One religious argument is "we cannot tell people not to have babies, it is natural and God wouldn't want us to change it" however we are quite able to tell people when they can die or not. Shouldn't this also be God's decision?

There is plenty of room if you look at it from a distance; however once you get down to the ground you see that a lot of the land is desert or snow; arid land that cannot be used to grow food, land that would require a huge infrastructure to support life on it. Take for example Las Vegas, built in the desert it takes large amounts of water from the Colorado River, meaning that the river is practically a trickle by the time it reaches its destination. This is what I mean when I say we will run out of water, obviously there is an immense amount of water held in the ice caps and in the sea, but this water isn't drinkable and can't be used to irrigate crops.
Precipitation can't always be collected 100% to drink or irrigate crops; it is also not reliable, for the most part. One year may be very wet and the crops grow well, another year it may be too wet, or too dry. If the population grows to a level where we need all the food we can get, we cannot afford these inconsistencies.

Not only that we also have forests and large areas of land dedicated to animals, we cannot use this land to live on. The animals of this world also need their space, sure we COULD populate every corner of this world, but would it be worth it after all areas of natural beauty are destroyed? We need not think in country boundaries when we look to see if there is enough space, supposing we could all get along and share the land eventually we would run out of space. What about the space required for the animals most of us like to eat? They need to roam and breed, they need prey or plant life to sustain themselves, which in turn needs space.

Perhaps there will always be oil, but what about our environment? If we continue to increase production of cars, production of energy and production of all the products that use oil somewhere in their production line to meet the growing demands of a developing world and a growing population we will pollute huge areas of this planet. Already we are seeing some effects of this – global warming, mixed up seasons etc. Why should we drill in areas of natural beauty, areas we cannot even confirm as containing oil?
We need an alternative energy plan, and this plan cannot meet the demands being placed on it now, let alone those that will be placed on it in 10 years time.

Turning to food, we can run out of it because we do not have the space to cultivate enough crops to feed everyone. Plants also provide oxygen for us to breathe. But what are we doing when we need more space, or more wood etc.? We are cutting down trees, we are removing huge areas of dense greenery, we are removing that which helps us breathe, which feeds us and feeds animals which we then eat. How in a world where we populate most of the space are we going to be able to produce enough crops for us to survive?
The Earth can't make food on its own, it needs plants. Plants need water and bees for pollination. Yet we are polluting rivers as we don't have anywhere to put our waste, we are killing bees with pollution and cutting their numbers by destroying their habitats to put down more houses and roads. We are killing what we need to survive because we need more space. We could genetically modify foods perhaps, to increase the rate of growth or the vitamin content. But why change what nature has done so far? Also the current push is not towards genetic modification of food, but away from it. This is the wrong direction for a growing population. This level of genetic modification is also so great that it would take years to make sure it works and is safe and sustainable, and we would still need space in which to grow the food and we would need water to feed it.

You are correct in saying we will never run out of water, of course we won't. But we may run out of drinkable water. Look at the Ganges, look at the Colorado River. Both have been tapped off along their route until they are not more than a dribble. What about the animals and people down river – do they not need water too? Desalinisation is too expensive to become a viable source of water, many areas are too dry to populate and over farming and over consumption of water is causing land to become arid and thus producing less food. If there were fewer people this problem would be far reduced and perhaps not exist as we could rotate crops and give the land a chance to recover and also allow rivers to continue on their original path and allow them to distribute nutrients downstream to support the plants and wildlife there.

I do not wish to get into a debate about God but I will say that throughout the universe there are many billions of planets that are also the correct distance from a star and we are just lucky that life managed to evolve here. There is a high probability of life being elsewhere in the universe too, maybe not as advanced, but life none-the-less. The Bible has enough written in it and enough ambiguities that there will undoubtedly be some coincidences. There are more than enough contradictions and incorrect predictions that we can say that the probability of the Bible correctly predicting the end of the world is almost zero.

Throughout history there have been changes in climate (this is the cycle you talk about), and no doubt we are going through one now and it is being called Global Warming. Now this is a natural event but it is being catalysed by us and our love of fossil fuels. If indeed this is a natural climate change then we will soon enter into an ice age, during this period the habitable area of the world will decrease and our large population will work very much against us. We will be in a smaller area, with fewer places to grow crops and with fewer natural resources than before and we will not be able to survive without huge loss of life.

A nation should not be founded on the Bible or any other religious book as there is no room for common sense. If your religion is correct and all others are made up, then why can yours not be made up? If your religion is correct and so are all others by virtue of the previous point, then why is yours more correct? Why are they not all manifestations of the same idea, the differences being mostly superficial? This logic and indeed most other logic are thrown out of the window when dealing with religion. Any civilisation based on one religion and living it by the religious text word for word will end in disaster (Middle East anyone??).

The Earth will be destroyed in a few billion years when the Sun runs out of energy and expands, swallowing up the Earth and Mars before becoming a white dwarf star or similar. Or it will be hit with an asteroid.


heidi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Although my opponent forfeited the previous round I will summarise my points in this closing statement.

Space on this planet is limited as are resources. As the population grows we need more resources to survive in the way to which we are accustomed, as more nations become developed they too increase their demand for resources. We need space to farm and mine these resources, especially food, and as the population growth requires more space too we will eventually reach a point where we do not have space for everyone and everything we need to survive.

If we watch a charity event about third world countries and the number of people dying of starvation or disease we are no doubt upset. Imagine this in the USA or Western Europe. Huge numbers of humans will lose their lives due to famine or war when space and resources become very limited.

Why should we be able to affect death rates without taking the time to control other factors such as birth rate in order to strike a balance? Nature's way of controlling population size will famine and disease. We should be intelligent enough to see the effect of our advancements and modify our behaviour to compensate.

Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.


heidi forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by daven1986 8 years ago
Nags, yes it should be "should" instead of "needs". That was a mistake on my part when changing my title.

MewxVenus, some people don't think it should be controlled. I felt there were far too many options to formlise a debate on just one issue regarding who or how. Hence the reason I chose to debate the issue as a whole.
Posted by MewxVenus 8 years ago
There's a big problem with the question you're raising here: duh. Of course it needs to be controlled. But without being able to debate the means or who is going to do it your debate becomes irrelevant.
Posted by Xer 8 years ago
Change 'needs' to 'should' to avoid semantics.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF (btw did you know that all of the people in the world could so to south Africa and live with the same population density as Berlin, kinda cool huh)
Vote Placed by imabench 5 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by MewxVenus 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con forfeited.
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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