The Instigator
OrcaCordova
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
minervx
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We need to change the way we live or we will all die

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2018 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 119108
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

OrcaCordova

Pro

I'm actually new to this website but I'm excited that a found somewhere to debate. So I think we can all agree that climate change is a big problem. It looks like the ocean levels are going to rise substantially and there are going to increased frequency of natural disasters across the globe. I also think we can all agree that it is at least partly caused by humans. Simultaneously we are on track to hit 10 billion people by the year 2050. There is no way we can support a population of this size without some major changes. I am not claiming to have the solutions but it does worry me that we do not seem to be working towards a solution. We seem to be ignoring the impending doom. This next argument is from a TED talk by Charles C. Mann. I encourage you to go an watch it. If you have ever taken biology you have seen bacteria grow in a petri dish. In the petri dish is agar or agarose. The bacteria is in an environment with all that it needs to reproduce with no predators. It reproduces until the environment can no longer support the bacteria and they starve to death. If you are a follower of Darwin you must take in to consideration that we too are a species that has the same natural instincts of all other living creatures. Reproduce and protect yourself. We continue to grow as a species but we are the first species to ever to have the opportunity to evade our own death. My argument here is that change needs to occur. We, As a species, Must decide what we are going to do.
minervx

Con

The intention and general idea of your concept is kind, But the details are muddy. "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time.

First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, But we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. It's reasonable to believe a portion of humanity would survive, Reproduce and take a much smaller role in the world.

Second, Is it feasible to control population? As you said, It's a self-regulating system. Should every government do what China did and outlaw having more than one child? The largest source of population growth is development of underdeveloped countries. Populations do stabilize once the economy is developed enough. If dirt poor countries, Like Zimbabwe, For example, Had a major technological or agrarian revolution, The population would swell. Would we yoke the growth of poor countries to achieve population balance? It reproduces until the environment can no longer support the bacteria and they starve to death. If you are a follower of Darwin you must take in to consideration that we too are a species that has the same natural instincts of all other living creatures. Reproduce and protect yourself. We continue to grow as a species but we are the first species to ever to have the opportunity to evade our own death. My argument here is that change needs to occur. We, As a species, Must decide what we are going to do.

Third, Who is we? Is it the common person? As moralistic as the "tragedy of the commons" argument is, Me buying a hybrid car won't do anything if the rest of my country is still driving Hummers? And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this?

Overall, Our role as people in this earth is very limited. We should reduce the harm of global warming as much as we can, But the decision won't sway the outcome much. If we act now, We'll attenuate tragedies, But not avert them. If we don't act now, I don't think it'll be the end of humanity.
Debate Round No. 1
OrcaCordova

Pro

Hello minervx!
First of all, Yes I mean "we" as all humans everywhere. I know it is very broad but my point is that this is a problem every human should have an interest in.
First, A few arguments of yours actual prove my point.
"Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, " This is exactly the argument I am making! However I understand that you believe we will get to this "change" naturally. However, This once again goes back to my Darwin point. This change will NOT occur naturally because naturally we will do exactly what the bacteria does and spread and reproduce all the way to our demise. The change that needs to occur is unnatural. Once again I have a few ideas for change in mind but that is not my point. We all need to put our minds together to come up with a solution.

"we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. " Once again another point I am trying to make. We are just like the bacteria. We have all the resources we need to survive and reproduce and we have no predators. Yes it is mostly the underdeveloped countries growing but the truth is the world will still hit 10 billion in 2050. We already kill 56 billion animals a year for food and resources. This will only increase until the planet can no longer sustain us.

You ask "Is it feasible to control population? ". Great question! Once again proves my point. Somethings NEEDS to be done. I don't know if it is the solution but it is something that needs to be looked into.

You go on saying "And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? ". You are pointing out a lot of problems that could ensue if we do attempt to save the human race. But what is the alternative? Do nothing? You actually seem pretty keen on "we'll be fine". I will agree with you that it is possible that a very small percentage of the human race would survive if nothing is done. However, If 99% of the population dies, I see that as very worrying. The future of the human race would be in the hands of a very small amount of people.

We have been given a chance to change our fate. A chance to break the natural cycle. I think we should try to take it.
minervx

Con

minervx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
OrcaCordova

Pro

I know my argument seems far fetched. It seems like humans will always find a way out. A way to survive. However, This new challenge we are facing is entirely new to us and life. We are overpopulating this planet. We have evolved in such a beneficial way that we now control the world and its resources. However, We are getting close to the point where the planet can no longer sustain our colossal population. No one argues against this. There are only arguments for whether or not it will resolve itself. Many argue that unforeseeable technology will be invented and save us. However, This new technology would have to be very advanced and we only have 30 years until we hit an unsustainable population. It is entirely likely that we have the potential to invent this technology but not very likely in the time frame given. I argue that we should do something about it. Figure out what we need to change about us and our lifestyles to save us and life on this planet. We do not have any natural instincts that will solve this problem. Life did not foresee it. We need to change something. It is not good when the other side is arguing that some humans will survive. We need to save as many as possible and get started on a plan as soon as possible.
There are many proposed plans. Most involve some form of future technology but not all of it out of our reach. We still have time, Just not a lot of it.
minervx

Con

minervx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 3 years ago
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
your just stupid hahahahahhahaha
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Or make a law thats says people can only have children every 5 years, For a period of 5 years
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Make food free!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.