- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
I don't believe aids has much relevance with higher birth rates, but as you wish:
A large part of the issue is that typically many people won't know whether they actually have aids or not. It's especially difficult when you don't have easy access to testing and the disease is spread without the hosts knowledge, though that's honestly not enough to explain 'rampant' aids in Africa. It has been thought that aids was prevalent in Africa due to a lack of education, but despite campaigns to correct this alongside condoms and treatment the issue is very much present. It's speculated that they simply have more sexual partners than average, which is probably true and helps explain the situation. You aren't wrong in that some African cities have a severe problem in how they deal with and address aids. This means they have a problem they have been ineffective in solving. This does not mean they are incapable of making decisions or are too stupid to manage themselves. We all have our own issues. I imagine you'd argue against the problems in your country be grounds for disqualifying your people from deciding things as personal as parenthood so it's hypocritical of you to imply that of others. You're correct in that to the natives there's a well known associated risk of contracting aids when having sex with prostitutes in a country riddled with aids, which many clearly ignore for the instant gratification of sex and a break from loneliness. However I'd argue while this may not be the case for sex everywhere, it is but an iteration of a recurring anthem of human nature of instant gratification over long term benefit, and not just specific to the peoples you dislike.
The idea I'm pushing here are that morals and personal restraint, while somewhat appealing and admirable to some on an individual level, has a minor affect on the national and global scale of population. The population of nations are instead composed of factors such as the financial viability of caring for multiple children simultaneously and mortality rates.
In poor countries, people have many children because of high local mortality rates. They want their children to survive them, and it can take having 4 or 5 kids just in order to have 2 grow to adulthood as the rest die during infancy and childhood. The situation is different in developed countries due to the better standard of health, reducing mortality rates and making parents more certain that when they birth a child, they'll be supporting them all the way through their life.
Importantly, there is a transition of heightened population growth during the introduction of better medical care immediately reduces death rates, but it takes time for people to get a new sense of how many children they'll typically need to have in order to have one survive. This has already happened after relatively recent surges in medical progress in first world countries, and populations in developing nations are following suit, only some years behind developed countries.
These aren't just hopes that the population will decrease, national growth rates are actually slowing down at significant rates. The global population is still growing as other nations bridge the aforementioned transition.
To AlofRI's credit, of most of the posts I've seen you type, you usually throw the first insult, which really doesn't help you if you yourself don't want to be insulted.
You very frequently call people with differing opinions 'fools' and constantly simplify them in an extremely condescending manner.
You even do it here, shooting at the psychology and mannerisms of people you don't know saying they have nothing better to do than hate you, and hate you simply for the fact that (you believe) you're right. Do you believe everyone that isn't you is that shallow?
You're argument seems conflicted. You state that we are incapable of judging what is good or evil. Then you, le human, state that good is truth and evil is falsehood.
You then introduce our universe with a deterministic-sounding description of its past, but isn't god meant to have given free will? Are these not mutually exclusive?
Then you blatantly exempt yourself from your own predefined rules with a bunch of assumptions on the psychology of people. Can you please explain this to me in a way that doesn't make you sound hypocritical? I'm still willing to admit personal bias, but am beginning to reach the point of no return.
Perhaps you are not wrong about god's existence, but your interpretation of his work must surely be.
And how does Bell's theorem, which basically states you cannot use algebra to solve quantum mechanical problems, have any relevance with your argument? What, you think quantum mechanics variables are undeterminable? Because to an extent involving probability and logic, they are.
When we judge someone it is essential that we consider the possibility of the person being good and having the options to be able to choose. I'd like to think we prosecute for harmful decisions not harmful circumstances. For example you don't judge a falling brick for killing a human the same way as a human killing a human, presumably because:
1) the brick is predictable in it's affect in harming the human, it has a very restricted number of conceivable options.
2) the brick has an extremely limited ability to choose between any of the hypothetical options that may or may not result in the human's death.
If the universe is deterministic it violates the concepts of both a variety of options and the ability to choose. We all become falling bricks. Justice and morality become useless concepts for use against each other.
If the universe does operate in a deterministic fashion, we are clearly blissfully unaware of it, as it hasn't stopped us from foolishly dictating the moral relevance of people's actions on the whim of a jury from that period of time.
Whats more, if the actions taken by a person are predetermined, we can't suddenly stop and take the bigger picture from there; the moral judgement passed is also predetermined.
What I think is somewhat certain is that the argument 'determinism isn't a thing because then justice/morality isn't real' is completely false. Bad logical sequence. It is possible that the universe is deterministic while our concepts of justice/morality are imaginary.
I don't mind being disputed, I mind replies which have nothing to do with the post they reply to, to the point where its author may or may not have read it.
Reducing the population of a nation can be done by either reducing birth rates or increasing death rates. Given the ethical restriction the latter is off the table whether directly or indirectly.
You could enact policy restricting the amount of children per household, but would meet fierce widespread opposition on exactly who gets that treatment. Others can argue that children are a human right, even the only purpose humans have. That already hits the ethics wall for a lot of people. What's more, how do you enforce it? Sterilisation after two children? Capital punishment of excess babies?
Using economics is probably the more subtle approach, but any legislation made must still be stated such that its purpose and result is already made clear and can be debated against on the same grounds. Using economic penalties or subsidies is a slow process, not just in enactment, but in practice and will likely not even fully work comfortably; people may still have too many children if the law is too lax, and will protest if the law is too constricting, but the law will have to bring the average household down to no more than 2-3 children per family. You would have to financially choke the family into not being able to have more than 2-3 kids to be certain. Then atop that you have the rich barely being affected unless their penalties are heavily biased against their wealth.
Should overpopulation become an issue, the good news is that assuming nothing great happens, the problem will probably eventually resolve itself as resources become scarce. Once living space becomes a (/n even more) valuable commodity and eventually a need, it should become yet another case of the haves and have nots. It won't be comfortable, but the haves should be able to continue living in a similar though more expensive manner to how they do today while the have nots will likely be crammed into a small space with little hope of improvement. This should force these particular people to have more pressure on the decision 'should I have a child?' in a situation where there isn't physically enough space to support them in terms of housing, food or services such that having one or perhaps two children might be financially viable, but three or more only an option for a small proportion. Imagine the poor version 2.0 as a stereotype. We'll reach a new equilibrium this way, with potentially some wars or famines in between. However this way, there's technically no particular individual from any particular political group at fault for some unethical solution, so nobody can be persecuted for the situation. We can all just live knowing we're a shitty, inactive and flawed people lacking any initiative to have let it get that far. Ha, capital punishment would certainly come back for unspoken love of its convenience.
Point is an ethical solution is unattainable. It's bad enough that this is population control as the topic here, but more so that the ethical restriction here is subjective. What is needed is a compromise between our core ethical values involving some combination of unfairness and violations of rights. Our idea of morality and rights have evolved over the years as things have 'progressed', they'll inevitably downgrade too as the situation requires. However it'll probably be a bumpy ride given how we've managed to become simultaneously entitled and complacent.
Bit of an edit there, you omitted the condescending 'smirk', which was nice of you. Also seems you care enough about your point to do as much. Sort of admirable.
Of course not. The left will bitch about that too. Why? Because it's never about the thing (climate change) with the left. It's about stopping Capitalism.
Honestly I'm not really sure how far I can contest that one. However while I'd say the right tries to boasts the image of the more practical of the two sides, they frequently can't do much else but contest the left's propositions. And why not? It's easy, who doesn't like easy work?
As an example out of my very limited political knowledge, the bill the republicans made essentially as a replacement for obamacare was pretty rubbish. All the quips and promises as usual unmet and as I see it, the whole situation made worse in that case.
Neither party are particularly good. The left seem too narrowly focused on minor personal agendas and are often dreamy or unrealistic. The right are often inconsiderate and amoral (not immoral) at times, obsessed with economics, out of touch with what would make a majority happy.
On a day to day basis the future is disregarded, blame thrown around, responsibility avoided, with solutions hard to come by over the noise of one party trying to downplay the other.
Even in the second video you link in another post here, the person asking the question is trying to prompt a right wing alternative solution to the left's 'tank in the woods' and is effectively given a null response. Much needed productive discussion with opposition is hard to come by. Especially when most of what you hear through the media is simply whatever they can sell.
So no, not Pascal's wager. I want you to question your sources, everything I've seen from you makes statements without data and therefore may or may not be false.
Nuclear plants? They have issues but they're pretty good. Risks, set-up and the rather expensive decommissioning aside, some efforts definitely need to be taken to dispose of the waste just sitting on site. Otherwise they're certainly one of the better solutions out there with Uranium sources lasting around a couple millennia, plenty of time to keep us going and to investigate additional sources.
First half of the video you post is something I can agree with, it's a valid fallacy. However the video ALSO doesn't discuss the significance of climate change. I thought this was a good illustration: https://xkcd.com/1732/
That's what I believe of how things are going, taken from a webcomic you'll undoubtedly declare a poor source, yet this is what is claimed already by multiple sources.
These suggest that even with ideal immediate action against climate change, we'd be powerless to stop it's progression in a short enough time period before a higher than average temperature develops, which is clearly largely our fault.
I'm not familiar with the legitimacy of any of these sources, so I won't argue for them. However even if you don't believe them, trust that procrastination and avoidance is inseparable from human nature and you should take your sources with a grain of salt.
After misinterpreting (I hope) you the first time I almost posted this:
Are you seriously saying that increasing unplanned parenthood is the solution to helping support the economy? You sound like you're taking the position of needing more meat-machines to support retirees and increase economic growth, regardless of whether or not people want these kids or not.
America's birth rate is dropping as people DECIDE to have fewer children. Using contraception is enforcing their choice not to have children.
Glad I double checked. Second pass:
I want to contest the somewhat arrogant notion that developing countries are 'too stupid to live responsibly'.
Developing countries are beginning to show a similar birth rate trend to those of developed countries (excluding wars and such). I find it extremely hard to believe that a majority of the population grew up and decided that having one less kid is for the betterment of mankind. Virtually all conflicts in society are a manifestation of conflicting personal interest. Especially suspicious is that many people don't give a shit about what the planet looks like in a few dozen years time, much less the grand scheme of our population generations down the line.
These sorts of choices seem to correlate to the health conditions of the country. There is a bit of lag there, but in time, people see that 5 of their 7 children aren't dying anymore once their conditions improve and they can afford better healthcare to keep the kids they do have alive. Eventually you get families with 2-3 children as we see in the developed world. It's not that they want to watch children starve to death, and so have more children. Tragically, they know that their kids will probably die. However they wish to have kids not for the sake of it, but to have surviving kids. Unfortunately that's an aspect of humanity that is very much still rooted in previous animal nature.
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.