CreateDebate


Debate Info

17
15
Yes No
Debate Score:32
Arguments:37
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (16)
 
 No (13)

Debate Creator

Robertgreen(22) pic



Is overpopulation the number one cause of Climate Change?

While environmentalist blame big oil, personal greed, and right-wing politicians, should we move towards combating overpopulation instead?

Yes

Side Score: 17
VS.

No

Side Score: 15
2 points

We can't have a guilt campaign over personal consumption. If your footprint is too big, then there are too many people. The only solution for future generations is to have gradual depopulation.

At some point we need to find ethical ways to forcefully deal with overpopulation.

Side: Yes

Yes, according to those who think over population is the cause of climate change, they should all kill themselves to reduce the population, rather than kill innocent vulnerable babies who have never poluted anything.

Side: Yes
Robertgreen(22) Disputed
1 point

I understand the fear, but not all environmentalist are psychopaths. I rather look for ethical solutions to overpopulation. If population growth continues the rainforests will get destroyed, price of food will skyrocket, and housing will become affordable. We are running out of nature in cities, as new development takes pace. So if you had to stop population growth, how would you go about it ethically? Obviously not by murdering them. How would you go about preventing mothers from getting pregnany 5, 6, or 7 times in developing countries, running out of space and resources?

Side: No
FromWithin(5471) Disputed
1 point

Did you know America's birth rate has dropped to record lows and we are not populating America enough to support our economy, our retirees, etc.?

It's called education and free condoms in third world nations. If they are too stupid to live responsibly, they will have huge problems. Their choice.

If parents have no problem watching their children starve to death, and still keep getting pregnant, what does that say about them?

We as human beings can choose to live responsibly, or live like animals.

Side: Yes
1 point

Really depends on your idea of overpopulation. Were we to hypothetically have a tenth of the people on the planet at present, we'd have proportionally less impact on the planet. It's also obvious that more people will have the opposite effect.

From here, do you consider the planet to be presently overpopulated? If so, then yes, as population will proportionally scale every effect caused by people on the climate. However we can combat the impact of our sheer numbers by being more efficient in our consumption of energy and using alternative means of converting energy with lower side affects on the planet, as has been done to some extent so far.

This helps us avoid the awkward question of how to forcibly solve overpopulation, though if unchecked overpopulation will overcome ANY other factor given that nothing is truly 'green'. Even 'greener' options such as solar panels have can be harmful in that they have to be manufactured, use materials, space etc.

A common counterargument here is that we may have a minor affect on climate change. However given the climate data over the industrial revolution through to present day this seems unlikely. Even if true that we had a small effect on climate change, at some point we would.

Side: Yes
Robertgreen(22) Disputed
1 point

Look at a google satellite image of the Midwest. States like Iowa and Kansas have had over 95% of there forest cut for agriculture, since Columbus Arrival. Imagine the same thing happening to the Amazon to feed future generations in places like Brazil?

I personally think Kansas and Iowa need at least 20% to be forested. We would have to replant some forests.

Side: No
Nomoturtle(610) Disputed
1 point

As I see it your argument little to do with my mine, so I have no idea what your intention is in not only a reply but also a dispute. You even stand on the No side, which you clearly don't advocate, but oh well.

Yes, deforestation is a common solution to the problem: 'we need more space', which is a consequence of overpopulation and solving overpopulation would ideally reduce our need for more land.

You suggest replanting forests, but that land is currently required (depending who you ask) for our current population and can't just be returned anymore. There is some unused space around the planet, but they are typically less fertile, requiring additional resources to develop plant life which nobody, or at least not enough people are prepared to divert attention and resources to.

Simply having fewer people (I assume the actual point of your debate question) would be easier, but policies that reduce the population are typically gross violations of human rights which you no doubt wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, whether that be killing groups of people or restricting parenthood.

Luckily for us, developed countries seem to tend to a naturally rounded off population and growth rate, with developing nations seeming to be following a similar trend. Future population may not be much larger than today as more people have fewer children. Simply reducing our footprint by eliminating inefficiencies and innovating in cleaner energy may be enough, which I believe to be a far more attractive alternative to maintaining population.

As you put it, it is unfair to have a guilt campaign over carbon footprints, but it is both necessary and preferable to reduce our footprint over population control.

Side: Yes

The Earth is the biggest cause of climate change. Oh...and the sun. And Rosie Odonnel's enormous shadow.

Side: No
1 point

The Earth is the biggest cause of climate change. Oh...and the sun.

I'm just going to leave this here for your idiotic, science-denying face to lie about:-

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

NASA conspiracy, hey bronto?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes yes, the magical "97%"...

https://youtu.be/SSrjAXK5pGw

Is this kind of like the "almost all scientists are atheists" narrative that you tried to spin, before, that I quickly debunked? Of course it is. But of course, you're brainwashed beyond reason, and are mentally ill, and use less of your brain, all according to psychology, concerning being a grammar Nazi...

Side: No
1 point

https://youtu.be/-duOB-YINbM

https://youtu.be/Z5c_XGMWfgI

Here, enjoy. Then scurry off and educate yourself genius.

Side: No
Robertgreen(22) Disputed
1 point

Even if Climate Change isn't real we're running out of land to growth food. Future generations won't have access to affordable housing. Resources could become rationed, because of high-demand, in environmentally protective areas. Buying lumber becomes more expensive, and forests diminish in size, and supply can't keep up.

Most environmentalists are afraid to talk about overpopulation, because the problem exists in the developing world. You're essentially having an intervention on poor people. Overpopulation becomes the responsibility of the 99%, instead of using the 1% as a scapegoat. It goes against the "leftist" narrative of only blaming the 1%.

Some environmentalist say we have no right to tell poor mothers, how many babies they have, when we use more resources. The same poor mothers, would use just as much resources as us, if they were given the chance. Everyone wants to become rich, but if there is too many of everyone, everyone is going to be competing over limited resources, reducing the quality of life, for most people on the planet.

So the question becomes, how do you deal with overpopulation ethically, if you have to use force?

Side: Yes
1 point

The climate has changed millions of times before Homo Sapiens walked the earth and it will do it millions of more times after humans depart the earth until the sun finally gives out. Now there is science nobody can deny.

Side: No
1 point

We have been heading to this point in time ever since the industrial revolution and the ever increasing abuse of our planet in order to produce ever more profit from an ever increasing population.

So whilst yes population explosion is in the mix it is also the means that we have used to service that population that we need to consider.

The tools we have used were inert (coal, oil, timber, etc) until we invented the industry to use them and so laying blame upon them is like a murderer blaming the knife that they used to kill someone.

Side: No
1 point

I would blame fossil fuels and oil as the main reason for global warming, but Overpopulation plays a big part as well. The way to combat global warming is actually quite simple. Drive electric or hybrid cars if possible, use alternative heat and light sources instead of fossil fuels and oil, protect the environment, cycle and walk more, use public transport over cars, and vote for a good president. Those are pretty much the essentials.

Side: No
foratag(247) Clarified
1 point

If you are going to blame fossil fuels for global warming, then please explain this to me. We drastically increased fossil fuels from the 1950's through the 1970's compared to the 1930's and 40's and the planet went through a dramatic cooling spell. That would completely dispel your notion that fossil fuels cause the earth to warm up, would it not?

Side: Yes
Nomenclature(1170) Clarified
1 point

If you are going to blame fossil fuels for global warming, then please explain this to me. We drastically increased fossil fuels from the 1950's through the 1970's compared to the 1930's and 40's and the planet went through a dramatic cooling spell. That would completely dispel your notion that fossil fuels cause the earth to warm up, would it not?

You're asking random people the answer to this question? Call NASA. I'm sure they will be happy to help you with your enquiry.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Side: Yes
Polaris95(50) Clarified
1 point

I honestly don't know if there was a cooling spell in the 50's or something, but it's the factories and the cars that spill Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere. This is clearly not just some naturally occurring thing. We have caused global warming, and we have to stop it.

Side: Yes
Robertgreen(22) Disputed
1 point

Well it hasn't happened yet. The system is reluctant to change. Should we intervene on unsustainable population growth, or do we let things take its course, and live with the consequences. I think it's far easier to convince governments to have national campaigns that stabilize population growth, than convince all citizens to switch to an electric car, and give up excess personal consumption.

Side: Yes
Polaris95(50) Clarified
1 point

You are right, but electric cars are the future of automobiles. Europe is embracing it, Japan is embracing it. Why isn't the US? I know we can't force people to change their car right away, but easing in a transition over a period of time would be preferable. By 2040, most people will/should be driving electric cars. I hope people start the initiative to try use more environment-friendly cars, such as hybrids. It's worth a try.

Side: Yes
1 point

no overpopulation is not the number one cause of climate change though people do throw off heat the burning of fossil fuels is the most popular reason of climate change

Side: No
Robertgreen(22) Disputed
1 point

Climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. It doesn't matter if someone drives an SUV, if there was less than a billion people on the planet. We didn't do anything to curb population growth, when it became a concern in the 1960's, because the globalist, wanted unlimited workers to make our products at unethical wages.

Side: Yes