Population Control. Should we make an effort to reduce our population growth?
I think our population crisis is under-noted... which is sad because it can potentially be the biggest problem the human race has ever encountered... I believe.
Yes.
Side Score: 38
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 38
|
|
|
|
|
5
points
To begin... it is estimated that their is 20,000,000,000,000 tons of living tissue on the Earth today... and has been that way since at least the early seventies (for that... we are certain). I think 90 percent of that tissue is plant life... the other 10 percent is animal life. Many scientists believe that the Earth has reached its maximum limit in supporting life. The mass of humanity has been increasing throughout history; and it is still increasing, but is doing so at the expense of other life forms. Every additional pound of human life means one less pound of nonhuman animal life... the Earth must maintain its limit... you see. If we continue growing at this pace ( I believe it is 160,000,000 a year now... its growing significantly every year though ) it will mean... by 2436... no other species of animal life will exist on Earth... and their will be 2,000,000,000,000 tons of human life to sustain. What does this mean? The surface of the Earth is 520,000,000 square kilometers, so that when the Earth reaches its ultimate number... the average density of the population will be eighty thousand per square kilometer... and I'm talking if the population were spread out evenly... over the desert areas, the polar areas, and the oceans. Without any other animals for resources... is this possible to sustain? I believe not... unless we can predict that our technology will be advanced enough to solve this problem at that time. Side: Yes.
It's definitely a problem. But the problem largely lies outside of the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hopefully Africa and Asia can keep their population growth under control. If not... well, there's another argument for global government I suppose. Side: Yes.
"Many scientists believe that the Earth has reached its maximum limit in supporting life.....by 2436...I believe not... unless we can predict that our technology will be advanced enough to solve this problem at that time."-We probaly would have found other planets that can sustain life and move to them to that planet. We HOEPFULLY move animal and plant life to that planet. Just think 3-Dimentionally. Side: No.
it is estimated that their is 20,000,000,000,000 tons of living tissue on the Earth today... What you say about my mama?! Oh, so I suppose my mama is the only thing that has life on this planet now, it that what you sayin? You do know that's my mama you talkin bout there! XD lol, sorry, I had to say that... Side: No.
I don't think we should be looking to reduce because it's not at a hazardous level. However I thinnk we should stabilise it. Only problem is most of the population growth is in poor rural developing countries - where numbers are vital for survival/success. Just give it some time... if we don't do anything then mother nature will do her job and when a population is unsustainable then its numbers will go down. Side: Yes.
I think that we have to reduce the global population, or at the very least level off the population growth. The planet cannot maintain a much larger population of omnivorous animals as large as humans. I am hopeful, though not completely naively, that this reduction can still come through education. It seems only intelligent not to overpopulate the planet that we all depend on. Why overload the lifeboat? Side: Yes.
|
4
points
So your first instinct is to point the finger at America? And I suppose you could say my first instinct was to point the finger outside of America... And we've got a bunch of people denying the problem... Something tells me this story is not going to have a happy ending. Side: Yes.
No. There's that stat that India has more honors students than America has kids. We will be over run by larger more prosperous nations if we regulate our population. But in places where family's have 10 kids and they are all on welfare, I think those parents should be beaten and tortured for bleeding the system...although i know it wouldn't be practical to actually carry out. But i hate when people have more kids than they can support...it so ignorant and selfish. Side: No.
There is no need to control the population because if the population became too large for our resources, people would start to die anyway. Secondly, the places that have the highest population are places that cannot afford to do anything about it anyway. Also, there is no way to control the population unless we become Communist China!! It is outrageous to deny someone a child that they want because the world population is supposedly too high. Side: No.
1
point
Since I will be dead in about 70 years or more (hopefully) I really couldn't give a shit. 1. I don't give a shit 2. It's tyrannical to control how many kids we have. That's commie bullshit. America has plenty of land if somehow the population can't be held in the major cities anymore. We actually hardly use most of the land on our country. We're humans, we will adapt. Side: No. Who cares?
4
points
1. I did add 2, didn't I? And in a way, my not giving a shit mentality is part of my belief that we should not limit the livelihood of citizens for an effort that is irrelevant (in the non give a shit mentality, of course). but even with relevance, it shows that it doesn't exist! 2. proof proof proof proof proof if you want, we can get into an opinion war... or just post random research. Side: No.
much of the land you propose that people should just move to is uninhabitable. yeah, let's all go live in deserts and mountains. let's build cities, schools, and factories on the sides of mountains and in grasslands where resources are low to continue living our industrialized lives. Side: Yes.
I disagree with the whole point of the question - so vote no. The premise is one based on fear, probably from reading some dime store novel. Because it is certainly not one based on fact. There is no world hunger or serious lack of resources other than that created by man. (if we would just stop feeding the starving people in Africa, then they would be less likely to behave like pigeons in a park) Sure if you visit some city in Asia you will be taken aback by the number of people walking around - but again that is a man-made situation. And no one there is starving either, other than that caused by man and politics (north korea). Side: No.
3
points
First of all... listen to MisterGuy. He stated some things which I intended on pointing out. Secondly...I don't appreciate your fallacious insults toward my question. Thirdly... it is most certainly based on fact. Refer to my other argument. You will see facts that build a basis of logic for this question (only a little bit of opinion at the end). You are welcome to dispute it, by the way, if you happen to catch any lies (which you won't). You fail to utilize a very useful technique in detecting/indentifying problems... FORESIGHT. You are right that there is no "world hunger" or "serious lack of resources" at this moment. The human race does not have any immediate threats in this respect... but what about later? In not to long a time (if we continue at the birth rate we currently are) the population increase will halt; but for the worst possible reason - there will be a catastrophic rise in the death rate. The famines will come, the pestilence will strike, civil disorder will intensify, and by 2436 some governmental leader may well be desperate enough to push the nuclear button. (Again, refer to my other argument if you desire a more in-depth look at "later"... I'm sorry, but I don't feel like repeating myself). You may ask, "Why should we counter this problem now? Why not when this "overpopulation" business starts posing some serious problems?" It is because I don't want the human race to encounter serious problems (especially problems which stem from the previous generations naivete). I would rather that the human race live as comfortably as possible forever. It is because we are living comfortably NOW! We can prevent this from ever happening RIGHT NOW! Another reason... the Earth has indisputably reached its limit in the amount of life it can sustain. The human race is growing at the expense of other life forms (for more depth, refer to my other argument). You may also state, "IT"S DOWNRIGHT COMMUNISM TO ENFORCE LIMITS ON THE BIRTH RATE!!! I HAVE THE RIGHT TO AS MANY KIDS AS I WANT!!!" This question is always asked under the assumption that there is only one solution to regulating the birth rate. That widely-spread, narrow solution... I believe... is to murder all of the extra infants that are conceived (the limit is two in countries that enforce this, which makes the most sense). Personally... I never want to come to that, so I WILL PROPOSE A MUCH BETTER SOLUTION (among other things I expect). We must stop living by the code of the past. We have developed a way of life that fit an empty planet and a short existence marked by a high infant mortality and brief life expectancy. In such a world there is the virtue in having many children, in striving for growth in numbers and power, in expansion to endless space, in total commitment to that limited portion of mankind that could make up part of a viable society. But none of this is any longer. At the moment, child mortality is low, life expectancy high, the earth full. There are no empty spaces of worth. WHAT WAS COMMON SENSE IN A WORLD THAT ONCE EXISTED HAS BECOME A MYTH IN THE TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORLD THAT NOW EXISTS, A SUICIDAL MYTH AT THAT!!! My solution?... firstly... to alter our attitude toward localism. We can no longer expect to profit by anothers misfortune. We can no longer settle quarrels by wholesale murder. To put it bluntly... we need a world government that can come to logical and humane decisions and can then enforce them. I am not suggesting that this government enforce conformity in every respect... the cultural diversity of mankind is surely a most valuable characteristic and must be preserved... but not where it will threaten the species with suicide. Secondly... we have to give women a different kind of life. A life that faces outward toward the community and the world... as opposed to an inward life that faces on the home and the family. Women must be allowed equal oppurtunity with men in every aspect of society... and to enter into any branch of industry, politics, religion, science, or anything that she wishes to do. This life will substitute the "baby-making machine" idea of life and inevitably form a much better society (with a much lower birth rate). Side: Yes.
"There is no world hunger or serious lack of resources other than that created by man." This is nonsensical double-talk. Humans need food...duh...no shit no one is going to be able to change that! The fact that many, many people in the world go without good nutrition is not a problem that can be simply wished away. "Sure if you visit some city in Asia you will be taken aback by the number of people walking around - but again that is a man-made situation." Again, more nonsensical double-talk. No shit people having more people is a part of the problem, but again, wishing this problem away with the back of your hand in not helpful at all. "And no one there is starving either, other than that caused by man and politics" Baloney...do some research on world hunger before you say something as silly as this. Side: who is we
What a great comeback - thanks! Nonsensical double talk - is that user name already taken? But seriously - cut the crap and quit reading the talking points for just a moment. My point is that any world hunger going on right now is not due to a lack of food availability in the world - it is because lame-ass people (like yourself?) keep sending money to people in Africa to live in places that don't support life. Or maybe they live in North Korea where hunger is used as a weapon against the people. Etc. Our world population will grow just as long as their are enough resources for it to happen - and by all accounts it is still growing. Side: No.
|
.svg){kind=link}