The Instigator
Lexxy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
cal_hates_you
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should population growth be controlled by our Governments or socially shamed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 9/8/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 358 times Debate No: 61434
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Lexxy

Con

As our planet is slowly becoming more and more dense with civilization, we leave ourselves wrapped up in the world, living our daily lives. But occasionally people may wonder if our planets space is ever going to eventually go. There's only so much space on this planet that is habitable, and it's slowly fading away. On one side, population growth is bad and does need mediating. It was speculated that the number of people in the world would reach 15 Billion in the year 2100; and some sort of social shaming would possibly help this population growth, or the easier distribution of contraception.

But the argument I am trying to convey today is that population growth should not be altered or tampered with. I think that this population growth is just another stepping stone in human evolution that came with the age of agriculture. Humans have been socially and physically evolving as our time on this planet has progressed, and it would be wrong to alter 'mother natures' intention for this race. There is no doubt that the increased rate of population growth is terrifying and good at the same time, but we should not be tampering with it because there isn't many moral ways of actually tampering with it.
Sure, you can make contraception easier to get or take away child benefits in certain countries so that people do not feel the need to have more children so that they can pay their bills, but aside from those very slightly-altering choices there isn't much else you can do, unless you're going to cross into the realm of immoral options such as starting a World War or starving a population until they're too weak to actually produce children.
Start le talk.
cal_hates_you

Pro

All over the world, the effects of overpopulation are already noticeable; food and water shortages are all too common, the quality of air is dropping, and living costs are at an all-time high. Natural resources are drying up. The environment is decaying at a shocking rate, due to destruction by humans in order to support their bloated societies. Overcrowding effects the public in more ways than many seem to notice, and also lends illnesses an easier way to travel. Some of the most brutal wars of the past few decades have been the result of conflict about the pressure of overpopulation.

Causes are almost too obvious - better medical facilities and reduced mortality rate are the two most prevalent - however, there are a myriad of reasons that go ignored. As soon as a family has two children, the population is stabilized... however, the current TFR for the average woman, worldwide, is 2.36. You are increasing the population by one for not even every six that die. A decline in the death rate is also to blame - in the UK alone, mortality rates have dropped drastically. In 1900, over 50% of deaths occurred in people under the age of 45; by 2006, only 4% of deaths occurred in this age bracket. The lowest life expectancy in the world is in Sierra Leone, where the average person lives to the age of 47.5. On the other hand, the highest life expectancy is in Monaco - the average citizen lives to 87.2. This may not seem massively high - but if a whole generation lives to that age, whilst still producing children, that obviously puts a huge strain on natural resources. Immigration and a lack of family planning are also major causes of overpopulation - and possibly some of the easiest to fix.

In an ideal world, one would aim for an optimum population. Aristotle, 2500 years ago, believed that, for a city, it was 100,000 - otherwise, it would bring "certain poverty" upon itself. We are, very obviously, far beyond this point.

If the population was lower, resources used for simply sustaining the people would be utilised for development.
There are many valid ways to lower the population worldwide. Better education from a young age would help children learn that they only need one child, and they should be discouraged from having multiple children if they cannot afford to support them. Sex education would also be involved, offering children knowledge of contraception. Furthermore, families should be taught about family planning, and the gross effects of overpopulation. It is possible to implement both of these regimes worldwide. In MEDCs with welfare systems, governments would need to introduce policies in order to stop mothers having multiple children in order to gain more benefits (which is a public issue in the UK, that has in fact reached newspapers often). In some densely-populated areas in China, citizens must abide to a one-child law; this could be introduced in other countries, with tax reductions for the parents as a result. As a money-driven society, this would be reacted to positively. If you wished to be more unethical, however, you could easily render men impotent by putting drugs in the water or perhaps weeding out the 'elite' and simply breeding them. Alas, it is known that decreasing the gene pool in this way can cause issues - whilst an ideal race may seem like an attractive idea to some people, there are studies against it. People with positive eugenics breeding in a small circle present problems such as inbreeding and decreased immunity to diseases. However - if more research was put into the venture and scientific methods improved, eugenics could become a very valid option to help reduce overpopulation.

Whilst there are no easy, ethical, and moral ways of solving the overpopulation crisis, it must be done. It is not a case of letting mother nature do her work; we have perverted the course of life with synthetic medicines and machines. We do not let people die in due time - they are kept alive, weak and frail, contributing nothing to the world whilst depleting resources. Saying that 15 billion people are predicted to reside on this Earth by 2100 is assuming that the planet will survive that long before we destroy it beyond salvation. In the last 600 years, natural disasters, wars, and man-made hazards have made no lasting dent on the population. Must we really abide by morals when it is an issue of life and death for all?
Debate Round No. 1
Lexxy

Con

Lexxy forfeited this round.
cal_hates_you

Pro

cal_hates_you forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lexxy

Con

Lexxy forfeited this round.
cal_hates_you

Pro

cal_hates_you forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.