The Instigator
masterdrave
Pro (for)
The Contender
theta_pinch
Con (against)

We Need to Cull At Least 1 Billion of the Population

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
masterdrave has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2017 Category: People
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 103915
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)

 

masterdrave

Pro

hi guys its me, first round is for acceptance only. yeah so this is just because I really feel like we just need to kill some people. I think its finally time

please accept and good luck!!
theta_pinch

Con

I accept your challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
masterdrave

Pro

Introductions
Okay, so the first thing I want to say is that of course I realise I am under a lot of heat for this topic. But what I want to express to all of you is that this is the very purpose of a website like this. If you don't think something is worth debating then there is no reason for you to be here. Leave. Comments such as "@masterdrave I hope you're not serious about this." and "wow you belong in jail if you are serious about this post.." are nothing more than projective and entirely helpless. Firstly, not one of you has heard my argument yet. You're simply using past teachings in your own experiences as a premise because this is such a high-running issue. Debating is about more than this. If you're only thinking in moral terms then this topic is not for you. In fact, I would go as far in saying that debating - period - is not for you. Have you actually done any academic study? Created a register of advantages and disadvantages? I doubt so. I hope that my opponent will consider all these things when formulating his own argument. Saying things as blunt and ignorant as "I should be in jail" are totally worthless and based on no evidence and in no realm of actuality.

I shall now begin.

Definitions and Data
Definition of cull in English as declared by the Oxford Dictionary:
Reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.
e.g. "some of the culled deer will be used for scientific research"

Now that there is no confusion as to what I mean by my title, let me give you some very real statistics. According to the website Worldometers.org, which gathers its estimations from the world's most reputable official organisations, the statistics at 3:07:05 pm on 13 September 2017 are:
Current World Population: 7,532,015,081
Births this year: 98,597,917
Deaths this year: 40,753,942
Net population growth this year: 57,833,974
Public Healthcare expenditure today: 7,341,247,243
Public Education expenditure today: 6,384,570,748
Public Military expenditure today: 3,043,888,719

What Do These Mean?
I would ask my opponent to ponder these figures for a minute. Now, consider this passage from the website worldwatch.org, a website that is updated regularly.
"It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 9 billion, perhaps more, by mid-21st century. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable" developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion."

So, to summarise, by mid-21st century the human population will stand at at least 9 billion, a dramatic 1.5 billion more than our current figure, and a frightening 6-7 billion more than is globally sustainable. Thus, if we are speaking from a standpoint of preservation and care, my title is reasonably generous. One billion would not be enough in the long-term. The reason I have used this relatively small figure is simply for a sampling. We need to start here, and see what growth will bring.

Benefits
Perhaps the most hopeful thing about this is that the benefits long outlast ourselves. If this vital action is taken then the generations that will live to see this Earth will be innumerable in comparison to those that would if continuing down our current, detrimental, trajectory. A simple place to start is health. Africa, like many of the other less developed areas of the world, has a very high STD rate. Higher populations can be linked to higher STD rates. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, is a commonly found sexually transmitted disease all over the world; in South Africa, one out of every five people is HIV positive, scientifically known as human immunodeficiency virus (the stage before AIDS). Even removing one billion of our population would drastically diminish this number. Above, you saw that the public healthcare expenditure was sitting at $7,341,247,243 for that day. And that was just by mid-afternoon. More dollars than people on the planet are spent daily to deal with health issues that would be dramatically diminished with the diminishment of the population. Furthermore, if we remove (within the culling) people who reside on housing estates and the long-term unemployed, taxes would at last be useful. Do you truly know where your money goes? You could now. Larger pensions and reasonable taxes would suddenly be possible. Yes, this seems ridiculous, you say, removing humans who are simply attempting to live their lives, staying under the radar. Recall what I pressed at the beginning of this argument. Arguing that this is merely "wrong" or "uncalled for" is unequivocally invalid. Practicality is king here.
Higher population size results in lower resource availability. An increase of births over deaths results in a high rate of natural increase and rapid population growth. Rapid population growth affects capital formation, food shortages, consumer prices, labor problems, and social and political unrest. Money shortages affect the ability to meet day to day needs and expenditures rise (as shown in the above data). Rural and urban development are affected. School enrollments in institutions of higher education can also be affected. Economic disruption results in a widening circle of poverty and a reduced standard of living. Production costs are affected. Most of you may think this is of unimportance to you, simply because of your current position. You have access to the internet, are most likely residing in a first-world country and thus are shielded from economy downfall. However, ignorance is not a defence here.


Why Should You Listen?
Well, the first thing to note is that there is no need for you to listen. To read. Most of the human race has tuned out their brains to the current human climate and rising planetary problems. You have every right available to you to join them. The right to act is almost never fun. It is dangerous, and you are often vulnerable to ridicule. Thus, all I can present to you are the facts. You should listen because there is only one Earth. You should listen because you want to continue living on this Earth. You should listen for your children, and if you plan for them to live on this Earth. To grow. Love. And have children of their own. You should listen because the quota for human population is nearing, and then there is no reversing the effects.

Conclusion
I now pass the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called neo-Malthusian pessimists, to my opponent, theta_pinch. Let him (or her) answer: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand, without irreparable damage, another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per-capita consumption increasingly exceed the Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?

Thank you all for your time. All used sources will be cited in the final round of this debate.
theta_pinch

Con

First I would like to reiterate the issue with the morality of slaughtering 1 billion innocent people.

Most people, I imagine, would agree that murder is wrong. Many would think execution of criminals is wrong. War is widely recognized as horrible despite the good it can ultimately accomplish such as stopping Nazi Germany. More so, those who committed genocide or mass murder like Hitler and Mao Zedong are considered some of the most horrible people ever.

Now let’s consider the numbers. My opponent wishes to kill 1,000,000,000 people.

In the 20the century an estimate 167-268 million people died due to war. Less than 3/10s my opponent wants dead. http://necrometrics.com...

In the holocaust an estimated 15-20 million people in total were slaughtered. The result of this is that Hitler is considered among the most evil people of all time. Yet my opponent wants to kill over 5 times as many. http://www.nytimes.com...

The most horrific death tolls of war and genocide in 20the are mere fractions of the number of people my opponent wants dead. This should illustrate just how morally bankrupt my opponent’s position is.

My opponent does make a good point that human kind’s population growth is unsustainable. However I would like to put forward two points. First with as terrible an act as killing a billion people is, any other way of preventing the effects of overpopulation should be chosen. Second my opponent used worldwatch.org as a source for his/her data and the carrying capacity of earth. My opponent uses this as evidence that the greatest massacre in history must be performed, yet his/her own source comes to a different conclusion about what to do about it. This is what worldwatch.org says their purpose is:

Through research and outreach that inspire action, the Worldwatch Institute works to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world that meets human needs. The Institute’s top mission objectives are universal access to renewable energy and nutritious food, expansion of environmentally sound jobs and development, transformation of cultures from consumerism to sustainability, and an early end to population growth through healthy and intentional childbearing--http://www.worldwatch.org...

The conclusion worldwatch.org comes to is that we need to transition to sustainable energy, environmental, and agricultural processes. Most importantly their solution to unsustainable population growth is to end it by encouraging “healthy and intentional childbearing.”

My opponent would have you believe the best way to prevent overpopulation is perpetrating the greatest massacre in all of history, yet his/her own source advocates a far more humane way of preventing overpopulation and its effects.


My opponent is also hypocritical in his/her appeal to readers to agree. He/she says:

You should listen for your children, and if you plan for them to live on this Earth. To grow. Love. And have children of their own.

Yet he/she would rob 1/7 of humanity of that chance.

He/she implies that those to be killed would be chosen based on disability, poverty, and specific locations, but never explains who is going to make the decisions of who dies and who lives. In all likelihood it would be those in power committing genocide against groups they dislike.


Now I will end with a question to my opponent:

If you are so eager to slaughter 1 billion of our population would you volunteer?

Debate Round No. 2
masterdrave

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for both his honesty and effort. It's evident you really tried with your arguments. It's unfortunate that almost all of them are either invalid or ill-judged. I'll go through it point by point.

You begin on a weak foot with a statement I already debunked in the very first paragraph of my initial debate. You say you are "reiterating" the issue with morality, when I see no point earlier that you originally expressed it. How is this "reiterating"? However, when I say I "debunked" it I am referring to: "If you're only thinking in moral terms then this topic is not for you. In fact, I would go as far in saying that debating - period - is not for you. Have you actually done any academic study? Created a register of advantages and disadvantages? I doubt so. I hope that my opponent will consider all these things when formulating his own argument." I was hoping I wouldn't need to quote myself yet obviously I do, as you have done none of these things. The only objection you've given is a moral one, which is not even a direct response to my argument. Please read the title once more. It is "We NEED to Cull At Least 1 Billion of the Population". Stating: "Most people, I imagine, would agree that murder is wrong..." is not an argument against the need to cull. This makes the need no less. Thus, argument is invalid.

You then go on to say that war is horrible, recognising historic figures such as Hitler and Mao Zedong as, I quote, "some of the most horrible people ever." However, you fail to give evidence or example on what exactly occurred post these events. After the veterans returned home from war the famous baby boom of the 40's happened. The US and several other countries saw a birth-rate spike unequalled until this point in time. Thus, if your only argument here is that planet Earth saw a comparably shortage of humans for a small time, you truly haven't constructed anything close to solid. Although all of this is invalid for the debate I initiated anyhow, I will humour you for the time being. You spoke of Mao Zedong and I assume you were getting at the "Great Leap Forward." If I am mistaken and you have no idea what this is, I apologise. Between 1958 and 1962, a war surged between the peasants and the state; it was a period when a third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertiliser and when the nation descended into famine and starvation. This is naught more than tyrant rule. If my plan was implemented, it would be nothing like this except for the fact that the population issue would gradually be diminishing to a point where future human life might actually be possible. Although you think the outcome is worse simply because of the number of people that will perish, there will be no war to reach this outcome and no political imbalance. Again, intentions that differ drastically to anyone like Hitler or Zedong.
However, again here I will just press that I need not argue this point, as it is not an answer to my debate question. Using historic examples of potentate command and pasting them to my register is a feeble attempt at debate. If you can give no further argument than "This should illustrate just how morally bankrupt my opponent’s position is.", then in my mind you have already lost. You threw up a hasty list of past injustices over a mere century's stretch, giving no reason why these are important and what evidence they show us. However, since you raised it (although argument is invalid) here are some more numbers for you.
  • According to a new UNICEF report, almost 2 billion babies will be born in Africa between 2015 and 2050. The two main driving forces behind this surge in births and children are continued high fertility rates and rising numbers of women able to have children of their own.
  • By the end of the century, 40% of all people will be African.
  • By largest increase, the top 10 African nations will be: Niger, Zambia, Mali, Burundi, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Gambia, Somalia, and Malawi.
6 of these 10 countries are on Business Insider's most current "25 poorest countries in the world" list. Thus, in less than a generation's time 40% of all human life will live in the most necessitous of the third world. To me, this doesn't exactly seem like a step in the right direction for Earth's preservation. Yet applying this to your "moral" logic, all of these terrifying numbers are "better" or "kinder" than the deaths of 1 billion purpose-serving humans. What a shame.

You attempt to raise the point of alternative method. "...as terrible an act as killing a billion people is, any other way of preventing the effects of overpopulation should be chosen." Okay, any ideas as to what this "other way" might be? Have you done the research and brought us a feasible response? I suppose not. Even so, I guarantee whatever you surmise will be incalculably more time-consuming, which, when we get down to it, is what this matter relies on. Time.

You then mention the source I used, attempting to plaster hollowness to my argument by showing how we arrive at different conclusions. "My opponent uses this as evidence that the greatest massacre in history must be performed, yet his/her own source comes to a different conclusion about what to do about it." Do you mind explaining to me how this remotely matters? You do realise what "sourcing" information means, don't you? I'm not disclosing only what I want you to see, and attempting to hide all the rest. The conclusion the page comes to on this matter is of no interest to me. If you scroll up and perhaps read a touch more intently you'll see I used the source simply as a statistic carrier. It explained that the sustainable number for human life on Earth is 2-3 billion. This was all I needed to know/show. I then went on to provide weight and vitality to this simple statistic (which again is alone what I used the source for) - which is inarguably a lot more than you have done thus far.

In your lacking conclusion you stamp me as "hypocritical", stating I will be robbing a seventh of the world of the status I so describe. It worries me that this is at the close of your argument, as it shows me you clearly are still not clued in on what it is I am debating. You are once more stemming from a moral standpoint, which here I can say is a tad more appropriate, as I myself mention things such as love and growth. Yet this is why the issue is so much more vital than you can see. Yes a seventh (at least) will not live full lives, because they are creating lives in doing so. Billions and billions more. You can view above the future of our race - billions bogged down in a corner of the world, scrambling for resources, food, and in turn, life. Thus, if the only argument you can muster revolves around you taking the moral high ground, I can easily assure you that the fate you are condemning for them is far more harrowing.

You ask me if I would volunteer my life in the midst of this world-saving program. If your profile is truthful and you are indeed 19 as you say, I can presume you don't currently have children. For them, for the children of thousands of unspoken generations to come, yes. Yes I would.

I'd just like to mention now that there are a supposed 5 rounds to this debate. I doubt we will need them. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
theta_pinch

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for reminding me of the specific wording of the resolution: that we NEED to cull at least 1 billion of the population. This is a very high standard of evidence my opponent has set for himself. The crux of the issue is that of unsustainable population growth, thus I merely need to provide an equally or less implausible solution to the issue.
Now being a problem of overpopulation we need to limit the amount of births. Of course the most direct way to do this in the same vein as my opponent's culling idea is to sterilize at least 1 billion people. Neither are in any way ethical but sterilization would at least give those 1 billion people a chance to live.
There is also a problem that fundamentally undercuts my opponent's plan: it's merely a stop gap measure. If you kill 1 billion people, all of you've done is make it take longer to reach overpopulation. It needs to be done again. And again. And again.
What I propose is a true solution. First we need to increase education levels as much as possible. According to the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, a 2011 study found, in support of earlier research, that increased levels of education achieved by woman correlate with a lower fertility rate.

“The most ambitious, or ‘fast track’ (FT) scenario assumes all countries expand their school system at the fastest possible rate—this is comparable with past, best performing countries, Singapore and South Korea, says co-author Samir K.C..“The most pessimistic scenario of ‘constant enrollment numbers’ (CEN), assumes no new schools are built and the number of people attending schools remains constant, which, under conditions of population growth, means declining enrolment rates.”

“Under these two extreme scenarios, population size in 2050 could vary by as much as 1 billion–with 8.8 billion people expected under the fast track scenario and as many as 9.9 billion under the constant enrolment numbers scenario, as can be seen in figure 1. The effect is greatest in countries with current high fertility rates and high education differentials,” he stated.--http://www.iiasa.ac.at...

As the study authors say, if education is expanded as fast as possible, population size by 2050 could be 'only' 8.8 billion. Notably this is an action that would continue to reduce population growth, unlike my opponent's solution. Also unlike my opponent's solution this action holds all the good effects of increased education such as less crime, higher productivity, higher wages, and a stronger economy.

http://www.epi.org...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Increased access to contraceptives and comprehensive sex education are also important as both are known to decrease fertility rate, and unplanned pregnancies.

Second, we need to move to renewable resources and more sustainable methods for food production.

For example 36% of the worlds crops are used to feed livestock. If we invested in and transferred over to cultured meat it would have incredibly good effects:

‘What our study found was that the environmental impacts of cultured meat could be substantially lower than those of meat produced in the conventional way,’ said Hanna Tuomisto of Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, who led the research. ‘Cultured meat could potentially be produced with up to 96% lower greenhouse gas emissions, 45% less energy, 99% lower land use, and 96% lower water use than conventional meat.’ http://www.ox.ac.uk...

Vertical farming is another example of more sustainable food production. Vertical farms can grow crops year round, and produce a lot more food on a smaller amount of land than traditional farming.

You then mention the source I used, attempting to plaster hollowness to my argument by showing how we arrive at different conclusions. "My opponent uses this as evidence that the greatest massacre in history must be performed, yet his/her own source comes to a different conclusion about what to do about it." Do you mind explaining to me how this remotely matters? You do realise what "sourcing" information means, don't you?

Your source is written by people far more informed than you and I are who have dedicated their lives to solving the overpopulation problem. If you're going to use them as a reliable source of information for statistics you shouldn't just dismiss all the conclusions and solutions they come to.



Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by theta_pinch 4 months ago
theta_pinch
@hellojohn, Just goes to show me that I should read more carefully before crafting a reply :P
Posted by hellojohn 4 months ago
hellojohn
Hahahah wow....theta_pinch you got rekt.
Posted by What50 4 months ago
What50
I feel like the corpse will help the medical field. They need more human cadavers I feel like killing a couple thousand people will give them the needed corpse to fulfill their needs.
Posted by missmedic 4 months ago
missmedic
You do not have to kill people, just sterilize poor people. This would help reduce the surplus population and reduce poverty.
Posted by lkasch42 4 months ago
lkasch42
I would love to ask one question of you. Since you are so for this culling of the human race, would you be one of the people to sacrifice yourself?
Posted by lkasch42 4 months ago
lkasch42
I would love to ask one question of you. Since you are so for this culling of the human race, would you be one of the people to sacrifice yourself?
Posted by What50 4 months ago
What50
A million is too much. Tone it down to a couple thousands, and see if it goes anywhere.
Posted by Shad0wXx 4 months ago
Shad0wXx
@masterdrave I hope you're not serious about this.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
wow you belong in jail if you aer serious about this post..

if no human gives birth in the next 100 years, the human species will be extinct.. different solutions you know, not psycho driven but actual intelligence involved..
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.