CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Robertgreen

Reward Points:22
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:10
Debates:3
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

Lets say you were made ruler of the world, but you were forced to find policies that would reduce the worlds population by 25 percent, before 2100, how would you go about it as ethically as possible? If condoms and female education is not enough, what ethical, but aggressive polices could you imagine working to meet that target? You have no choice but to reduce the population, how do you go about doing it, while maintaining some dignity for humanity?

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.

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.

1 point

Then increase the retirement age. Don't increase population to pay for pensions, and then destroy the planet. When the population starts to reduce, we can create new parks in cities, instead of almost every corner being a concrete jungle. Wolves can come back to places like Kansas, and biodiversity can increase as forests are replanted. You would see beautiful forest driving across the midwest, not just horizon to horizon farms with hardly and trees. People could visit these forest to go camping and enjoy a higher quality of life.

1 point

I didn't mean to dispute you. I thought you needed to click on it for a reply. I'm new to this.

I'm trying to come up with ideas to deal with overpopulation ethically. I think intervention is required, but it has to be smart intervention. So many people are afraid of the issue, because it draws up images of a plague being realized to cull the planet. I think there's less chance of that happening, if we put an ethical alternative in place. In order for the alternative to be put in place, we can't be afraid to talk about the problems of overpopulation, and intelligent ideas to solve it.

Id like to see countries like India have its population reduced by at least 30% over the next 100 years. Not fast enough to destroy the economy, and not slow enough where no difference is made. It would be a gift to future generations, so they can have a higher quality of life.

1 point

I really like Ben Shapiro. I'm actually a conservative who hated Obama for his wreckless spending. I understand the Agenda 21 concerns. I'm not one of those elitist psychopaths who wants to kill babies. Many liberals think money grows on trees. I think we need to pass a balanced-budget law. I don't want future mega cities to go about 20 million. Where children never get to play in nature, and everything in life becomes about materialism. I think humans are loosing access to nature, and it worries me.

I think overpopulation is still a problem. I'm looking for ideas for ethical ways to deal with it. If you go to countries like India, there are 1.4 billion Citizens, Quality of life is reduced, and many people live in Slums. Add another billion an you get extreme poverty. and many people competing for resources. I would never suggest murder, but we could reduce the birth rate. Develop policies towards 2 or 3 kids, instead of 6 or 7.

If we were forced to gradually reduce the worlds population, how would you go about doing it ethically? If we are forced into some form of intervention, what is the right intervention. Can you suggest any ideas without insults, because I totally get what your coming from, listening to Ben Shapiro?

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.

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.

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?

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?

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here