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.
People will love this. Why would they want to be able to have kids, if they don't want kids? It will be done to babies as a matter of routine, and unwanted pregnancies will be a thing of the past.
I feel like a monster for liking this. I feel that nature will handle it itself, for example if the predator population in any area is too large, the prey population's decrease will either cause the predator population to decrease or cannibalism will start, also decreasing the predator population. With that in mind however, if there was no other way or a method of restriction had to be taken I would vote on your sterilization method.
Who knows maybe after so and so many years, we will adapt like bees, where our own mothers will secrete a chemical in labor that sterilizes us, and only the government will have an anti sterilization chemicals.
Is that rap? The next generation will be propagated by...the people. I'm not saying that no one can reproduce, just that we don't want people to have unwanted babies. It's called birth control.
No, not rap just word written in rhyme. Not much different from a rap due to the fact that all word must be spoken in time. It's just a poetic line and I define the very subjugation of your imposed crime. I see your intentions are unclear, and for you I wish the best here. Please understand this is a personal matter. My will to have babies given to the government's whim? What could be sadder. There is a condom; the primary form of birth control and a pill for her because that's how we roll.
We're not talking about the government's whim. You still choose whether and when to have kids, but you're in control rather than leaving it up to chance. Condoms and pills are not perfect.
Why are you still barking? We are talking about how only a king could be the one starilizing all human beings because sex is amazing! Do you really want to pick me a part again with no argument? Saying that population is a problem must mean you are living in a basement. Your very view is the essence of less freedom and I want to stop you in your tracks because all you need is some understanding or a condom.
Absolutely a sterilized person can have sex and your argument? its pointless. Do you not know that there are people out there that could never have babies and are disappointed? Morbid the thought to take away something that does not belong to you from the beginning makes you retarded. Fighting me on my about everything without much more then a mind suspended. Saying that people can just come in and steal your home paid in full because some scumbag has his hand in your pocket? A reality, so perverse; and then to go as far as to label it my responsibility. Don't come back until you rehearse. Maybe you should come back with a way to reimburse these poor souls that you'd have blacked up charcoal
I feel regardless of if he is, the idea is sound. When things rhyme they have symmetry to our ears, and cause us to pay more attention, proving to make his argument slightly that much more convincing.
We don't need to regulate population. We need to change the way we all live together. We need a reality check. The entire population of the world could easily stand shoulder to shoulder in an area the size of California. The only problem is the system we live in takes on more area then it's worth. Every building is ment to occupy an area, every road, every base and in any case these areas are designated dead space. Nothing is allowed to grow there. It is maintained by the system to make sure that is exactly what happens. Plus if humans had any sense they would know that population is not a problem, with some self control and will power the entire human population could be cut in half in one generation. 7 billion into 3.5 billion using the whole 1 child per house hold method. This is all theoretical, because people die for stupid reasons every day.
I like this, I never thought of it that way, if we put some more thought into our living situation, and tried to live smaller, all connected, spaces, this perhaps would go a long way in solving the issue.
Thanks man, I'm glad you have some belief in that perspective. I seriously hate the demonic propaganda calling for euthanasia and genocide. It's for these reasons; this perspective I abide. Catch you on the flip side.
7 billion people won't just disappear in one generation (25yrs). You would need more time than that. China's problem at the moment is that they are facing a population crisis where the adults will become incapable of supporting their parents financially.
"On the economic front, the total Chinese population over 65 is rising, percentage wise, at one of the fastest rates in the world. This is a tremendous drag on economic growth in most of the industrial world, but may prove to be even worse for China despite the lack of an expensive network of health care and pensions for the elderly. After all, a government that does not take care of its elderly cannot expect strong support or stability even were it not autocratic."
Basically we have a rapidly ageing population, especially in developed countries. They will not go away in 25 years... have you heard of something called population momentum also? I wish I had my Geography notes with me, then I would be able to explain it better.
Okay, I see your take and have a better understanding of what your are saying. Yes, it wont just disappear over night. No one is expecting it to. All I'm saying is that from your statement of 25 years the "next generation" will be half the current total population if done right and without genocide the elderly could live till their timely demise. The population will steadily decrease and if the next generation followed the same principals we would see a huge reduction given the time. To even conceive of the idea that they would disappear over night is preposterous and i feel played for a fool. Besides, If this was done there would be no more need for economic growth (the system is faulty anyway) every thing would just need to be maintained. of course there probably wouldnt be enough workers to maintain it all given that outcome.
Those in retirement would still need money. And people can live to 90/100 yrs so anyone under retirement age (65) in a developed nation are not likely to be dead (old age) in the next 25 years. It would be difficult to enforce in developing nations.
Overall I think a three child limit would be better, and the things I listed on my other argument somewhere in this debate.
You don't need to enforce any kind of regulations on human population. You seem to be wanting to make this a more of an economic dilemma. The reason why people work is to have a pension plan, especially here in the more developed countries. I don't disagree with you that money is a pain, but America for example has spent trillions of dollars on wars when they could be spending that money feeding clothing educating and taking care of the people of the world and if every country took this route it would most certainly do just that many times over without one human excluded and we would even have enough money to explore space.
That's what I was saying in my first argument on this debate, improve quality of life in developing countries so people don't need to have as many children. I just made a small list, instead of writing a paragraph about it all. I wouldn't work for a pension plan, I don't intend on having one... people work for money in the hand more than they do for their old age. Some countries don't have pension plans, and some jobs don't. I.e. agriculture. It's a culture thing, in China and India children take care of their parents when they grow up.
Nature is actually remarkably good at doing that itself. The world our burgeoning population is contributing to may not be one that is hospitable to human beings but nature is quite indifferent. Any effort we make to regulate our population would be a farcical attempt to emulate a process more complicated than anything we could ever implement ourselves. The ego associated with the proposition is incredible, and more likely than not we would fuck things up even more for ourselves than we already have in the attempt.
No, we need to let some predators get at us. Right now the biggest predator to humans is other humans, and even other humans are shutting down those other predator humans.
We don't need to regulate our own populations, we are a part of nature, even though we like to think we're above it. When we get to be too big to support ourselves, we will wane, it will be devastating for some, a lot probably, but it will be a humbling thing for humanity.
I agree here, though I have been contemplating lately that perhaps the more advanced we get the easier it is to pull more resources out of littler sources, Imagine us obtaining the technology to manipulate matter chemically, and atomically, to create any resources necessary... I just had the thought just now that in doing so opens us to a world where we could start to quickly consume all the resources of the universe truly, at least after some period of time could that become very dangerous... then again by the time we are that advance maybe we would be wiser and allow a well built "give and take" system with the universe.
Anyways I like your opinion, as I feel no matter how powerful anything gets, it will not be able to escape the threat of itself, in a way we are all truly our own enemy aren't we? I find it odd how seemingly overlooked the possibility of crumbling from our own power is.
Regulation of human population is unneccessary because given most people who are responsible humans determine the right amount of litter is best for them.