CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You are living in lala land, convienently ignoring facts.
Do you know why Aids has been so rampant in Africa and other third world nations?
When workers travel to work in their nations, and are away from their wives for a length of time, they actually have prostitutes, who many have Aids, having sex with the workers!
In your Liberal no fault ideology, IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT CHOOSING TO HAVE SEX WITH A PROSTITUTE AND THEN GOING BACK TO THEIR WIVES, GIVING THEM AIDS.
Your no fault excuses are why the world has so many problems.
Would you do that to your wife? Would you have sex with prostitutes when you are away from your wife? Would you ignore the risks of getting Aids and spreading it to your family?
Personal accountability and moral self restraint MUST ALWAYS be a part of the solution, along with Condom use, etc., IF THEY CARE!
Rather then speak to the importance of moral values and personal restraint, your political correct answer is to watch millions die from starvation, Aids, etc. with the hopes that SLOWLY people will start having smaller families.
The education to the importance of Moral Restraint, caring for your family's well being, could immediately save lives.
Nah, morals are a dirty word to those on the Left.
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.
Intelligent cultures know what to do when there is a moral problem such as the huge spread of Aids as a result of the promiscuous Gay swapping lifestyles here in America when Aids was spreading so fast.
We addressed the problem, and showed the behaviors being the main causes of it's spread, including infected drug needles and blood transfusions in the beginning.
It's not rocket science, and when third world nations ignore the causes of the spread, then they show their lack of caring for each other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
trust that procrastination and avoidance is inseparable from human nature
Aah. Pascal's Wager eh? It could be true, so go do something about it even if it's crap. I'll get right on that. So, can we build nuclear plants to prevent emissions? 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.