Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Earth's Population

Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind. Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

Or do you have another solution to this problem
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:54:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind. Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

Maybe, but doubtful. Fortunately population growth is slowing down.
Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

Well, we could do that, or wait to see what happens. If our population growth slows down enough to go into the negatives we're fine. But that is very unlikely. Therefore we will probably die either way. I prefer to do it now, since we probably have a better chance at surviving.
Or do you have another solution to this problem

But a better solution is to limit the birthrate. For example, one woman can only legally have 1 or 2 kids, unless they already have more than that, in which case they cannot have more. Makes sense to me, and would certainly decrease population (1 per 2 parents=Negative growth).
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 5:33:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Resources are quite fine. The problem is in the distrubution.

The population is going to stabalize in 20-30 years.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 5:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 2:54:11 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
But a better solution is to limit the birthrate. For example, one woman can only legally have 1 or 2 kids, unless they already have more than that, in which case they cannot have more. Makes sense to me, and would certainly decrease population (1 per 2 parents=Negative growth).

I didn't think of that but when should that be implemented (world wide) and more importantly what would the ramifications be for disregarding it.
Disquisition
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:01:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 5:33:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Resources are quite fine. The problem is in the distrubution.

The population is going to stabalize in 20-30 years.

I don't think so, at best we are living substantially longer due to advances in healthcare and kiddos are still being born (maybe not as much though).
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:01:13 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/14/2013 5:33:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
Resources are quite fine. The problem is in the distrubution.

The population is going to stabalize in 20-30 years.

I don't think so, at best we are living substantially longer due to advances in healthcare and kiddos are still being born (maybe not as much though).

Countries with high life expectancy tend to have low birth rates.

You can read a collection of statistics and information here:
http://www.worldometers.info...
Shadowguynick
Posts: 516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 5:51:36 PM, Disquisition wrote:
At 8/14/2013 2:54:11 PM, Shadowguynick wrote:
But a better solution is to limit the birthrate. For example, one woman can only legally have 1 or 2 kids, unless they already have more than that, in which case they cannot have more. Makes sense to me, and would certainly decrease population (1 per 2 parents=Negative growth).

I didn't think of that but when should that be implemented (world wide) and more importantly what would the ramifications be for disregarding it.

Most likely within the next 10 years, so that we can make good predictions for the future. Punishment would probably be heavy fine, and much more closely watched.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:19:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind. Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Why?

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

Well, the United Nations estimates that human population will plateau at around 10 billion, at least in terms of an Earth population.

But second, I'd say probably.

Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

No, that's barbaric, regardless of any foreseeable utility.

Or do you have another solution to this problem

Again, I think that we will be able to provide for more people, particularly with things like GM food.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 9:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind. Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

Or do you have another solution to this problem

Those are questions, not solutions.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 9:08:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind. Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

Or do you have another solution to this problem

Both together would work best. Eco-terrorism FTW!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 9:12:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:13:30 PM, Disquisition wrote:
It's undeniable that within this century, we will or come extremely close to exhausting all the resources earth has to provide for mankind.

I deny it.

Therefore I want to propose two solutions that you can either agree or disagree with.

Will humanity be innovative enough to maximize the usage of our scarce resources in proportion to population increase?

It depends what the population increases to. What size do you expect the population to be at?


Would you rather eradicate ( to seem less apocalyptic, eradication by substantially decreasing our efforts in healthcare) enough people to sustain life on earth?

No. If we've ran out of resources then this can be the only alternative. Until then we keep people alive. On of the "weaker" people could be one of the people who would also "save" us, if your scenario plays out.


Or do you have another solution to this problem

Wait it out, it may not be such a big problem?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!