Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Overpopulation Issue

PetersSmith
Posts: 5,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:17:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
For some/many, overpopulation is becoming a worry as it has been suggested that Earth is reaching its carrying capacity for humans, where it has been suggested that we need to do something soon to deal with the overpopulation issue. Several suggestions have been posited:

1. Extraterrestrial settlement: Various scientists and science fiction authors have contemplated that overpopulation on Earth may be remedied in the future by the use of extraterrestrial settlements. In the 1970s, Gerard K. O'Neill suggested building space habitats that could support 30,000 times the carrying capacity of Earth using just the asteroid belt, and that the Solar System as a whole could sustain current population growth rates for a thousand years. John S. Lewis suggests that the resources of the solar system could support 10 quadrillion people. http://www.nss.org...

2. Birth regulations: Some leaders and environmentalists have suggested that there is an urgent need to strictly implement a China-like one-child policy globally by the United Nations, because this would help control and reduce population gradually. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, implemented a forced sterilization programme between 1975 and 1977. Officially, men with two children or more had to submit to sterilization, but there was a greater focus on sterilizing women than sterilizing men. Birth credits would allow any woman to have as many children as she wants, as long as she buys a license for any children beyond an average allotment that would result in zero population growth (ZPG). http://truthstreammedia.com... https://books.google.com...

3. Change social norms: Refrain from pressuring people to have children if they are not ready or prefer to remain childless. Some cultures value large families. This often suited a sparsely-populated farming or pastoral region, and sometimes remains as a holdover from those times. Measures can be taken to model and emphasize the benefits of smaller families. Let's not glorify teen pregnancy with TV shows and tabloid magazines. Additionally in affluent countries, we need to shift away from a culture of excess and unsustainable consumption. http://www.researchjournal.co.in...

4. Education and empowerment: One option is to focus on education about overpopulation, family planning, and birth control methods, and to make birth-control devices like male/female condoms, pills and intrauterine devices easily available. An estimated 350 million women in the poorest countries of the world either did not want their last child, do not want another child or want to space their pregnancies, but they lack access to information, affordable means and services to determine the size and spacing of their families. Women's rights and their reproductive rights in particular are issues regarded to have vital importance in the debate. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org...

5. Urbanization: Despite the increase in population density within cities (and the emergence of megacities), UN Habitat states in its reports that urbanization may be the best compromise in the face of global population growth. Cities concentrate human activity within limited areas, limiting the breadth of environmental damage. But this mitigating influence can only be achieved if urban planning is significantly improved and city services are properly maintained. http://spimun.com...

6. Use economic forces: Most people take their economic situation into consideration when planning their families. If they do not have housing and jobs they delay starting families. Birthrates rose during the housing bubble begining in 2002, but when the bubble burst and the 2008 recession began, birthrates dropped. Better economic policies in conjunction with slowing population growth worldwide, can help increase global prosperity. Our usual measure of economic progress, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has a built-in tie to population growth (i.E. More people means more economic transactions). This means GDP can rise with population while median household income (and well-being) actually declines! With the wrong measures we set the wrong goals. https://nimratahir.wordpress.com...

7. Selective breeding and promotion of eugenics: Selective breeding for humans is the process of controlling when, how, and if certain humans will be able to breed. This could include controlling the gender of born children, possibly increasing the female population and decreasing the male population. This could also possibly promote sterility and instead humans are selectively chosen to breed in a controlled and safe environment. Certain genes could be chosen as well, which may even prevent foreseen issues in the future, which is eugenics. http://www.eubios.info...

8. Genocide: What better way to deal with overpopulation then to kill a bunch of people that are causing problems to this world?

9. Mass Extinction of the Human Race: Launch nukes or create a global pandemic to kill most people and start over.

10. Let nature take its course: Natural diseases, certain genes, and human nature in general are all ways that nature uses to curb human population growth. Humans don't need to act as nature will find another way of reducing the population should it get too out of hand.

11. Resource Wars: Wars to solve overpopulation by claiming resources from other countries both creates resource stability and reduces the population.

12. Man-made disease: Nature may be unable to take its course in time. A simple man-made disease designed to kill a certain portion of the population, or those with certain genes, could easily curb the overpopulation issue. However, it needs to be controlled and it needs to be done quickly before it can get out of hand.

13. Promote more births: The more people that are born the more people will die, it's as simple as that.

So, which method do you think would be best to curb overpopulation? Do you think it's even a problem? What do you think is the carrying capacity of Earth? Discuss.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
The easiest way to stop overpopulation is economically. All societies will plunge their fertility rates once they have the economic means to access birth control and other healthcare services. Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:33:45 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:17:03 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
So, which method do you think would be best to curb overpopulation? Do you think it's even a problem?
no. Just look at the rate at which fertility is declining. Africa and India (currently the fastest-growing regions) will start losing people by the 50s.

Now, under-population is becoming an issue for the first world.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,681
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 7:57:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
If anything, we're at the risk of underpopulation. Most developed countries have fertility rates far too low to sustain on their own. There are more than enough resources to comfortably feed the human population, the problem is the poor usage and distribution of resources. Underdeveloped countries only have such high fertility rates because high child mortality means that most kids born will not likely survive, if they have less children, they'll likely lose them all due to a high child mortality. Not only that, but fertility rates tend to go down as standards of living increase and child mortality decreases.
"Praise Allah."
~YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:36:49 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Overpopulation is not a problem. It is predicted the Earth can sustain 10 billion people and the Club of Rome predicts that the population will stabalize at 10 billion people.
http://www.livescience.com...
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:43:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:36:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
Overpopulation is not a problem. It is predicted the Earth can sustain 10 billion people and the Club of Rome predicts that the population will stabalize at 10 billion people.
http://www.livescience.com...

Exactly. Hayd's getting all SJW here too.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:53:58 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:55:50 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:53:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

Yes, to take off the assistance and allow for them to starve to death. That's the point of population control, to stop the growth of your population and to limit it in any way you can. Why do you ask for people to give you opinions about population control and then expect it all to be nice and hunky dory?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 11:59:27 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:55:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:53:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

Yes, to take off the assistance and allow for them to starve to death.

Thank you for discontinuing your lying on that point

That's the point of population control, to stop the growth of your population and to limit it in any way you can. Why do you ask for people to give you opinions about population control and then expect it all to be nice and hunky dory?

I did not ask for people to give me opinions on population control, nor did I expect it to be nice and hunky dory. You're lying again. Regardless, this is a red herring. You said you support governments intentionally starving its citizens to death
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:06:04 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

In many cases, the government assistance causes the starvation. For example, look at the way that American dumps the food purchased in order to prop up subsidized prices on destitute African nations. The influx of low-price food to the market means that the farmers who live there can't compete. Their farms go out of business, and the agricultural industry of the country atrophies to the point where the people can only live on this foreign aid, which despotic governments have a history of withholding in order to prop up their own crumbling power.

'Dead Aid', by Dambisa Moyo, is a great read on the subject.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:10:49 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor

Yes, from a political philosophy viewpoint the government's inherent duty is to protect its citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Intentionally starving them to death violates their right to life, thus it violates the duty of government. It also violates basic human rights. But besides all of that, I was referring to basic human decency, and morality (it's immoral for a person to intentionally kill another, especially through extreme suffering such as starving them to death)
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:12:10 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:17:03 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
For some/many, overpopulation is becoming a worry as it has been suggested that Earth is reaching its carrying capacity for humans, where it has been suggested that we need to do something soon to deal with the overpopulation issue. Several suggestions have been posited:

1. Extraterrestrial settlement: Various scientists and science fiction authors have contemplated that overpopulation on Earth may be remedied in the future by the use of extraterrestrial settlements. In the 1970s, Gerard K. O'Neill suggested building space habitats that could support 30,000 times the carrying capacity of Earth using just the asteroid belt, and that the Solar System as a whole could sustain current population growth rates for a thousand years. John S. Lewis suggests that the resources of the solar system could support 10 quadrillion people. http://www.nss.org...

2. Birth regulations: Some leaders and environmentalists have suggested that there is an urgent need to strictly implement a China-like one-child policy globally by the United Nations, because this would help control and reduce population gradually. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, implemented a forced sterilization programme between 1975 and 1977. Officially, men with two children or more had to submit to sterilization, but there was a greater focus on sterilizing women than sterilizing men. Birth credits would allow any woman to have as many children as she wants, as long as she buys a license for any children beyond an average allotment that would result in zero population growth (ZPG). http://truthstreammedia.com... https://books.google.com...

3. Change social norms: Refrain from pressuring people to have children if they are not ready or prefer to remain childless. Some cultures value large families. This often suited a sparsely-populated farming or pastoral region, and sometimes remains as a holdover from those times. Measures can be taken to model and emphasize the benefits of smaller families. Let's not glorify teen pregnancy with TV shows and tabloid magazines. Additionally in affluent countries, we need to shift away from a culture of excess and unsustainable consumption. http://www.researchjournal.co.in...

4. Education and empowerment: One option is to focus on education about overpopulation, family planning, and birth control methods, and to make birth-control devices like male/female condoms, pills and intrauterine devices easily available. An estimated 350 million women in the poorest countries of the world either did not want their last child, do not want another child or want to space their pregnancies, but they lack access to information, affordable means and services to determine the size and spacing of their families. Women's rights and their reproductive rights in particular are issues regarded to have vital importance in the debate. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org...

5. Urbanization: Despite the increase in population density within cities (and the emergence of megacities), UN Habitat states in its reports that urbanization may be the best compromise in the face of global population growth. Cities concentrate human activity within limited areas, limiting the breadth of environmental damage. But this mitigating influence can only be achieved if urban planning is significantly improved and city services are properly maintained. http://spimun.com...

6. Use economic forces: Most people take their economic situation into consideration when planning their families. If they do not have housing and jobs they delay starting families. Birthrates rose during the housing bubble begining in 2002, but when the bubble burst and the 2008 recession began, birthrates dropped. Better economic policies in conjunction with slowing population growth worldwide, can help increase global prosperity. Our usual measure of economic progress, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has a built-in tie to population growth (i.E. More people means more economic transactions). This means GDP can rise with population while median household income (and well-being) actually declines! With the wrong measures we set the wrong goals. https://nimratahir.wordpress.com...

7. Selective breeding and promotion of eugenics: Selective breeding for humans is the process of controlling when, how, and if certain humans will be able to breed. This could include controlling the gender of born children, possibly increasing the female population and decreasing the male population. This could also possibly promote sterility and instead humans are selectively chosen to breed in a controlled and safe environment. Certain genes could be chosen as well, which may even prevent foreseen issues in the future, which is eugenics. http://www.eubios.info...

8. Genocide: What better way to deal with overpopulation then to kill a bunch of people that are causing problems to this world?

9. Mass Extinction of the Human Race: Launch nukes or create a global pandemic to kill most people and start over.

10. Let nature take its course: Natural diseases, certain genes, and human nature in general are all ways that nature uses to curb human population growth. Humans don't need to act as nature will find another way of reducing the population should it get too out of hand.

11. Resource Wars: Wars to solve overpopulation by claiming resources from other countries both creates resource stability and reduces the population.

12. Man-made disease: Nature may be unable to take its course in time. A simple man-made disease designed to kill a certain portion of the population, or those with certain genes, could easily curb the overpopulation issue. However, it needs to be controlled and it needs to be done quickly before it can get out of hand.

13. Promote more births: The more people that are born the more people will die, it's as simple as that.

So, which method do you think would be best to curb overpopulation? Do you think it's even a problem? What do you think is the carrying capacity of Earth? Discuss.
Overpopulation is a myth. Fertility rates are decreasing. So, basically, there's nothing to be worried about. To put it simply, the Population Research Institute made a great series of short and informative videos on this, if you want to watch them: https://www.youtube.com...
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:14:58 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:59:27 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:55:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:53:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

Yes, to take off the assistance and allow for them to starve to death.

Thank you for discontinuing your lying on that point

That's the point of population control, to stop the growth of your population and to limit it in any way you can. Why do you ask for people to give you opinions about population control and then expect it all to be nice and hunky dory?

I did not ask for people to give me opinions on population control, nor did I expect it to be nice and hunky dory. You're lying again. Regardless, this is a red herring. You said you support governments intentionally starving its citizens to death

Starving people to death isn't an action, it's inaction. Humans don't starve by doing something, they starve by doing nothing. It's not deliberate or intentional killing of anyone when you simply are just doing nothing. No one is required to care for another human, unless they are your children.

Starving people is immoral and unethical, but that's what you do for population control. Regardless, we can support a lot more people than we currently have, and by the time it hits the maximum, we will already have enough wealth going into poor areas that it will stabilize it self.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:19:00 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:10:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor

Yes, from a political philosophy viewpoint the government's inherent duty is to protect its citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Intentionally starving them to death violates their right to life, thus it violates the duty of government. It also violates basic human rights. But besides all of that, I was referring to basic human decency, and morality (it's immoral for a person to intentionally kill another, especially through extreme suffering such as starving them to death)

I agree, i just don't think cutting welfare subsidies wouldbdo that, unless you implemented that policy in isolation without implementing other Libertarian policies
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:26:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:19:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:10:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor

Yes, from a political philosophy viewpoint the government's inherent duty is to protect its citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Intentionally starving them to death violates their right to life, thus it violates the duty of government. It also violates basic human rights. But besides all of that, I was referring to basic human decency, and morality (it's immoral for a person to intentionally kill another, especially through extreme suffering such as starving them to death)

I agree, i just don't think cutting welfare subsidies wouldbdo that, unless you implemented that policy in isolation without implementing other Libertarian policies

I kinda get what you're implying here. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that if more libertarian policies were implemented, than less people would be at risk of starving to death. I agree with this concept, but there would still need to be some type of safety net, for those who libertarian policies failed to empower.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:29:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:14:58 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:59:27 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:55:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:53:58 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:51:07 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:48:15 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:41:59 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:36:28 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:29:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:21:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:14:01 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 11:08:46 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

You support governments starving people to death in order to control population? You realize starving someone to death literally makes the person feed off their own organs

No one is starving anyone, it's simply ending government assistance and allowing them to starve.

Who ends government assistance? The government does. The government is this starving people to death in order to control population. Do you support this? Should a government be allowed to do this?

Well, Western governments do not need population control because they already have the healthcare systems for it. Poor nations needs population control, and ending government assistance won't help it in any way because there is no government assistance in the first place. The best option is better healthcare facilities which is achieved through ending regulations and enforcing property rights.

And yes, the government has the right to end government assistance programs. No one is owed any form of money simply for being a citizen, and no one should be forced to pay taxes so it can be redistributed to some parasite.

It's disgusting how you try to complicate the issue, and try to justify your position. There is no justification and the issue is black and white. You support governments who starve their citizens in order to control population. You can complicate your answer but it comes down to "yes"

There's a difference between government forcefully starving people, and removing government assistance so they can fend for themselves. I believe in the latter, not the former.

You describe two methods of achieving the same result. Both are intended to achieve the same result. Thus both are equally disgusting. It's not to "fend for themselves," it's too starve them to death, as you said yourself earlier. Don't try to lie

I'm not lying, you halfwit. I'm telling you exactly what I've been saying for the past half dozen posts, that the point is to erase all assistance programs so that they have to fend for themselves. The end result of this will be that either they starve to death or they get the proper necessities to continue living.

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

Yes, to take off the assistance and allow for them to starve to death.

Thank you for discontinuing your lying on that point

That's the point of population control, to stop the growth of your population and to limit it in any way you can. Why do you ask for people to give you opinions about population control and then expect it all to be nice and hunky dory?

I did not ask for people to give me opinions on population control, nor did I expect it to be nice and hunky dory. You're lying again. Regardless, this is a red herring. You said you support governments intentionally starving its citizens to death

Starving people to death isn't an action, it's inaction. Humans don't starve by doing something, they starve by doing nothing. It's not deliberate or intentional killing of anyone when you simply are just doing nothing. No one is required to care for another human, unless they are your children.

Cutting government programs is an action, not inaction. Your logic is so ignorant. If this reasoning is sound then there would be no one in poverty. There are people in poverty: your reasoning is bullsh!t

Starving people is immoral and unethical, but that's what you do for population control. Regardless, we can support a lot more people than we currently have, and by the time it hits the maximum, we will already have enough wealth going into poor areas that it will stabilize it self.

Just use birth control...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:31:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 7:27:24 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
The easiest way to stop overpopulation is economically. All societies will plunge their fertility rates once they have the economic means to access birth control and other healthcare services. Regardless, overpopulation only occurs in poor nations, and they can deal with it themselves by allowing them to starve.

Letting people starve isn't an option
Meh!
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:31:41 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:26:25 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:19:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:10:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor

Yes, from a political philosophy viewpoint the government's inherent duty is to protect its citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Intentionally starving them to death violates their right to life, thus it violates the duty of government. It also violates basic human rights. But besides all of that, I was referring to basic human decency, and morality (it's immoral for a person to intentionally kill another, especially through extreme suffering such as starving them to death)

I agree, i just don't think cutting welfare subsidies wouldbdo that, unless you implemented that policy in isolation without implementing other Libertarian policies

I kinda get what you're implying here. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that if more libertarian policies were implemented, than less people would be at risk of starving to death. I agree with this concept, but there would still need to be some type of safety net, for those who libertarian policies failed to empower.

The safety net would be charity as well as enforcing some of the filial responsibility laws on the books and currently ignored.

Filial responsibility laws would only be implementedbif charity did not hold up, and I think charity will provide a big enpugh social net, as it did before social programs when for example doctors would gelp 10-20 percent of their patients for free (just one example).

Any tldr: charity and filial responsibilty laws
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:32:24 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/29/2016 12:19:00 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:10:49 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/29/2016 12:04:07 AM, Wylted wrote:
Hayd

The intent is for them to starve to death, as exactly what you said in the first post

It is unethical for the government to do anything other than protecting the negative rights of it's citizens. With that being said, a government who sticks by those principles will have more prosperous people, less poor and more charitable organizations providing for the poor

Yes, from a political philosophy viewpoint the government's inherent duty is to protect its citizens life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Intentionally starving them to death violates their right to life, thus it violates the duty of government. It also violates basic human rights. But besides all of that, I was referring to basic human decency, and morality (it's immoral for a person to intentionally kill another, especially through extreme suffering such as starving them to death)

I agree, i just don't think cutting welfare subsidies wouldbdo that, unless you implemented that policy in isolation without implementing other Libertarian policies

That doesn't matter, bballcrook argued that it should be used specifically to starve people to death
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,256
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2016 12:32:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 11:36:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
Overpopulation is not a problem. It is predicted the Earth can sustain 10 billion people and the Club of Rome predicts that the population will stabalize at 10 billion people.
http://www.livescience.com...

When it gets over 10 billion people, we can safely let the nukes fly! :D