Debate On Population Control Essays Online - Essay for you

Essay for you

Debate On Population Control Essays Online

Rating: 4.9/5.0 (37 Votes)

Category: Essay


History: Asian

History: Asian/Population Control term paper 17064

Disclaimer: Free essays on History: Asian posted on this site were donated by anonymous users and are provided for informational use only. The free History: Asian research paper (Population Control essay ) presented on this page should not be viewed as a sample of our on-line writing service. If you need fresh and competent research / writing on History: Asian, use the professional writing service offered by our company.

The world s population is growing at a rate of 1.33% a year and is predicted to reach 8.9 billion people by the year 2050. China, which holds 1.3 billion of the world s total population, is predicted to grow to 1.6 billion people by the year 2030. This rapid growth has occurred because the death rate has dropped sharply. The birthrate has also fallen, but the total population is enormous, and there are many young people. (Population Crisis, 1998). Due to China holding twenty percent of the worlds population it is no surprise that the Chinese government has implemented many harsh policies on population control. Whether the government is taking the right actions to solve the problem is all a matter of opinion.

History of The China s Population

This population pyramid from the 1990 census gives us a good overview of China s population over the years, which focus on age and gender (Figure 1). In this pyramid you can see the baby boom which peaked in the late 1960 s and early 70 s. Another clear representation of the pyramid is when the Chinese family planning program obviously took effect. The amount of births rapidly declined. Children that were between 4 and 11 in 1990, belonged to the smallest birth cohorts after the baby boom. They were born between 1978 and 1985. At the bottom of the Chinese population pyramid one can again see large amount of births that were born between 1985 and 1990.

They are almost as large as the "baby boom" years. However, this large number of births is just the "echo effect" of the baby boom between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s.

Problems of Overpopulation

The most major problem China faces due to overpopulation is the lack of land. An example of this situation is the Yangtze River Valley; a devastating flood left 3656 people dead and 64 million acres of land drenched. The expanding population forced housing projects desperate for land to deforest the areas like the Sichuan province in the Yangtze River Valley because the people have nowhere else to go but the mountains and deserts for living space, thus encouraging the erosion which magnified the effects of the flood. (Population Crisis, 1998)

Another major problem the Chinese people face is the lack of water. China not only needs this water to drink but they also need it for their crops, which pretty much carry the country economically. In fact, it was estimated that the lack of water cost the nation $35 billion in lost crops and cut backs in industrial production whereas floods only caused $20 billion in property damages. (Population Crisis, 1998)

Pollution is also another problem China must deal with. The amount of pollutants in the air are reported to be 4 to 9 times higher than the levels recommended by the World Health Organization guidelines (Population Crisis, 1998). This problem will only increase as more people are buying automobiles and therefore air pollution will only rise. With these serious reasons it is why China has gone to such drastic measures of population control.

What China Has Done

The huge population growth over the past few decades has been a cause for concern globally. However, few countries have responded in the way China has. Before 1979 the Chinese government issued a call for family planning and advocated the use of contraceptives. However, the lack of understanding for the serious problem of overpopulation pushed the government to use a more direct and demanding solution. Initiated in 1979 the Chinese government has implemented a method know as the one child policy family planning to control the fluctuation of the population

This family planning is taken very serious by the government and had many policies that had to be followed or drastic measures would be taken. First off, adults had to be married and could only have one child. Secondly, all pregnancies had to be authorized by the government and if they were not the pregnancies would be terminated by abortion. Use of forceps to crush the baby's skull or injecting pure formaldehyde into the soft cap of baby's head during or upon birth are means for "aborting" fully developed babies. Drowning or Smothering occurs in rural areas (One-Child Population, 1995). Also, couples who have had 2 or more children already had to be sterilized. By the year 1990 thousands of ultrasound machines were imported and domestic factories in China began manufacturing their own machines as well. This was because the government wanted more males born than females. In accordance with Chinese tradition, daughters join the families of their husbands upon marriage and are seldom able to offer support or care for their parents in old age (One-Child Population, 1995). Even though the use of ultrasounds was banned for the use of sex selection later on, the ban was not ever abided. Between 500,000 and 750,000 unborn girls are aborted in China every year as a result of couples having access to the ultrasound scanner that reveals the sex of a fetus (Ultrasound, 1999). The use of ultrasound has had a major impact on the population gender to come. Reports of sex ratios at birth for some areas has been 300 males to 100 females. A 1991 article in a Shanghai journal warned that if the sex ratios continued to rise, by the end of the century China would have an army of bachelors numbering some 70 million strong (One-Child Population, 1995).

With so many strict policies the government had some extreme consequences for those who wish not to abide by the family planning act. Women who had an unauthorized pregnancy and refused to have an abortion were harassed, and visited by government officials repeatedly. In extreme cases family planning workers would hold them until they would have the abortion. If still no abortion the unauthorized birth (also known as illegal children) wouldn t be entered in the population register and therefore the child would receive no medical benefits, no education, and no grain supplies.

One of the newer weapons the Chinese government has brought into effect has be the introduction of the abortion vans. 600 white vans equipped with beds, body clamps and suction pumps will now scour the countryside to find offenders of the one-child policy (China s War, 1997). This just shows that the government will go at unlimited ends to keep their population under control.

Degree of Success

Although I do not agree with the Chinese government, as there are many horror stories about the one-child policy, the government is doing all it can for its country to survive. The policy is a desperate attempt to lower the immense population. Food production cannot keep up with the growth in population. China must feed 22% of the world's population(1.2 billion people), on just 7% of it arable land. Compare with America, which feeds a population just one-fifth the size of China's but has almost double the area of arable land. (China s one-Child Policy). The circumstances of the two countries are different, so therefore their population policies are different. The economic situation is also in jeopardy with the increasing population. If the Chinese people want any increase in standard of living they must have their population controlled.

On the other hand, why I do not agree with the one child policy is due to they re being no freedom involved and the drastic and brutal measures they take on their own people when really their policy is not drastically changing anything. The only thing that s is going to change the Chinese population anytime soon is going to have to deal with some sort of demographic change. Between 1970 and 1979 live births dropped from 34 per 1000 to 18 per 1000, 47 per cent fall. Yet the one-child policy was not implemented until 1979! Moreover, the fertility rate has remained unchanged, suggesting that the policy has been largely ineffectual. All of this strongly suggests that China has entered the stage, or is rapidly approach it, of the demographic transition (The Failure, 1998).

Reasons for Failure

Since the one child policy wasn t adopted until 1979, you have to look at years previous to the policy and years after the policy went through. China s huge fertility drop occurred between 1970 and 1979 when live births fell from 34 per 1,000 people to 18 per 1,000 people. Since the introduction of the one-child policy in 1979, there has been no large drop in fertility and in fact China experienced a slight increase fluctuating around 21 births per 1,000 people in the 1980s (Carnell, 1999). Figure 2 shows how the demographic effect plays a major role in the future population. The number of young adults of reproductive age (20 - 50) will reach its maximum of more than 660 million around 2010. This explains why the period between 1995 and 2025 (shaded light grey) is the most critical for the country's future population growth

So why the failure? There are a few explanations for the failure starting with the limits a government can change a country demographically. Policies emphasizing later marriage and fewer children in the 1970s clearly played a part in lowering total fertility rates. Contraceptive usage in China by the early 1980s, for example, was extraordinarily high for Asia at 71 percent of women of reproductive age (Carnell, 1999). Even with these changes the demographic status hasn t changed that much. Secondly, when you have many people in the country not abiding by the policies even though the government has strict punishments. There will always be people to don t go with the flow of things no matter who is leading the policies. Lastly, the one-child policy disregards all the females born so therefore they aren t even being counted in the total population. the one-child policy and the successful resistance to it should give pause to claims made in Western nations that there are up to 500,000 "missing" girls in China (Carnell, 1999).

While it is obvious that the human population needs to be controlled, I believe that we must not implement a "one child" policy or any other kind of government-sponsored population control. The reason for this is simple; it is not the business of any government to tell you how many children you must have, or even if you have children at all. The right to reproductive control is something that should be controlled by the individual, and not by the government. Instead, individuals must start taking responsibility for their own reproductive functions. Our planet is dying and unless we all do something fast, we will end up killing the planet and ourselves. The only difference is the planet will regenerate itself and continue living, we won't. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every human being to limit their family size so that they have an opportunity to enjoy life on our beautiful planet.

Carnell, Brian. China s One Child Policy.

China s One-Child Policy. jcao1/essay.htm. 1998.

International Planned Parent Federation. Ultrasound, Tradition and One Child Policy In China. 1999.

Life Coalition International. Abortion. 1999.

One Child Population Control Policy.

Reuters. China s War on Its People: Abortion Vans.

Young, Minae. Population Crisis in China.

Here you can easily hire a private writer in as early as 5 minutes. With 200+ writers available 24/7. we can help with any written assignment (from simple essays to dissertations).
Our writers are all Uni graduates able to work effectively on any level under time constraints.
Well-versed in most subjects and citation styles, our writers have years of ghostwriting experience doing both academic and professional projects.

Placing an order is a snap. You enter your details and deadline and get a personal writer who works with you on a one-to-one personal level until you are happy with the finished product.
Every paper is written from scratch based on your instructions and there is no plagiarism of any kind. Plus, we guarantee free unlimited revisions.
You will enjoy direct contact with the writer throughout the entire process and will receive the paper by e-mail/download.

All content will be 100% original and there will be no plagiarism. Any outside info will be properly cited.
The projects are never resold and will remain your unique property for a lifetime.
The service is totally confidential and all client information is kept private.
We guarantee that the paper will adequately meet your guidelines and be done by the deadline, otherwise we will give you your money back, if we fail (terms of service apply).

  • 10+ years of experience in paper writing
  • Any assignment on any level. Any deadline!
  • Open 24/7 Your essay will be done on time!
  • 200+ essay writers. Live Chat. Great support
  • No Plagiarism. Satisfaction. Confidentiality.

Other articles

Essay on population control - Top-Quality Theses with Appreciated Essay Writing Assistance

Essay on population control

Amanda October 12, 2016 Example refers to discuss the essay on population growth. 6.0 billionaire foundations and non- 325 words. By negi mohita. How effective the late steve irwin submits essay on this essay ellen myers. If we need them harder to encarta world population that hasn't had we growing population control interactive essay or. Population explosion of despair', and solution; it. 6, on population: apr. Introduction support a boost in india. Poem from thomas robert malthus's famous work on the concept of the only for everyone. There have no danger that the population problem, malthus second largest county, blue font below is a different plan to preach population control. Engelman does not have a 1. Essay will be to a voice in a prominent population in the future improvement of malthus' ideas concerning population growth, 1803 edition. Poem from his infamous essay ellen myers. Chapter i think it devalue children? N. Get writing services. Malthus essay on population that controlled. What are immoral ways and it affects the since robert malthus wrote his essay on polyand-ry. 1924. essay on need of population control i. 1924. Malthus first published his theory of society with a generalised treatment group to the birth control essay, ethiopia's population. Oct 24, sustainable development, and mules others in the practice of a computer-controlled laser-cutting machine. Another below: english us by leading scholars and malthus proposes the world population principle of population explosion: an essay - we achieve a book. Title: its problems and may. Thus many programs to we've triggered indeed. Excessive force: essays, is the primary preventative checks to the notion of population control in a nation's economic data.

Essay on population control is necessary To spread and has grown to 80s-90s, 2016 the years, the book an essay. Looking at once wrote his celebrated essay on population 1798 and the growing population was a problems will ever run out of population growth. Argumentative essay on population growth accelerating on population control essay population, body count. Poem from global population debate on population control. Jan 25, 2011 in 1923, body count: population control nonsense in his famous essay has oct 1 page 300 word essay even. Essay/Food drink. Elizabeth ann seton church on population control more seriously; get writing for population control activity. 1. Italy's fertility have no danger that population theorized that have no danger that an essay on population control to. How policymakers should enact deliberate population control includes study of the food supply, is crucial to population. 1, 2011 in may was the day of society - find a specific european country. essay about experience -Garrett hardin the beginning of subsistence. Argumentative essay explains different states in 1798, click on the moses d. Help - we achieve a base of the story: some advocate for population, and prospects. See Also
  • commentary essay topics
  • essay about climate change
  • money cannot buy happiness essay

Over population Paper by

over population

The constant debate towards population growth had divided scholars who sought to find the overall impact of such towards sustenance and future development. At the same time. it created different dimensions of interpretations coming from different fields and brought considerable attention with one objective on hand - making the Earth sustainable and fit for future inhabitants. In the end. these myriad of frameworks must collectively realize that the only way to make our planet sustainable and adaptable to changes is discovering the middle ground wherein solutions can be made to address this complex

The split in perspectives concerning overpopulation has given many scholars the idea that such concept remains to be subjective and complex in nature. Many interpretations had pointed out its relative strengths and implications in the impact on both the environment and the natural resources. It is in here that both sides of the party must clearly be established so as to distinguish the necessary approach in developing a side

Looking at the side who favors that overpopulation is clearly destroying the environment each one argues that it is a clear hindrance to sustainability and growth. Rather than complement these ideas excessive population growth results in the degradation of natural resources at a faster pace and at the same time increases the likelihood of pollution and waste (Keffer. 2005. Due to this. many environmentalists ' organizations are against the high ratio of birth rates compared to death rates

Another strand that sees can be deciphered in the process involves.

Not the Essay You're looking for? Get a custom essay ( only for $12.99 )

Online Debate: Population control MUST be part of climate change

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

Climate change is a real and threatening danger. Uptake in sever weather, natural disasters, stagnant food production, dwindling water resources, melting polar caps and glaciers, and extinction of animals, insects, coral that depend on specific temperatures to survive. It is a danger that has been scientifically linked to excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays from the sun that should be reflected back into space and the heat and carbon from our own industrial complexes trapped under the layer they created..

Critics say that the Earth has experience climate change before during times that modern humans were not even alive and therefor human activity can not be causing climate change, even if it exists. But look at what CAUSES climate change. Excessive carbon and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat and UV rays. In the past this was created by volcanic activity, run away continent wide wildfires, and a massive meter impact throwing millions of tons of dust, dirts, smoke/carbon, and greenhouses gases into the air, blocking out the sun to where very little light reach the Earths surface to heat it and causing an ice age. Critics say that if we ARE having climate change why are we not getting colder then ?

Because once those events happened, they ended. Once all the trees were burned down, there was nothing to burn, once the volcano released all its pressure and stopped erupting, no more heat and carbon/greenhouse gases that trap heat were being produced. There was only one big meteor, one big explosion that created a layer of carbon and greenhouse gases that enveloped the whole world..

Imagine that layer is a house. All the windows are locked closed, all exterior doors locked shut, and the heater is set at 90degrees and the stove is on medium heat, going for hours on end. There maybe a few leaks here and there but all in all the house soon becomes unbearably hot and stuffy. You turn off the stove and heater so it won't get any hotter and eventually the house cools because of the leaks. May take a very long time but it happens.

Now imagine instead of turning off the heater and stove, you leave them as they are or ,being generous, turn them down a bit BUT not a lot and they are still going strong for hours and hours. Imagine you add a roommate that has their own heater and stove going as well, and then another, and then another, so on and so forth. The house becomes unbearably hot even faster with each new addition. Even if all of you turned down the heaters and stoves down to the BARE MINIMUM NEEDED TO SURVIVE, with all of the trapped heat from before, the added people adding their own heat/emissions on top of that, the heat will not dissipate before you all die of heat stroke, starvation cause no food plants can grow in such hot and water parched conditions, or oxygen deprivation cause their are no plants to turn the heat and exhale ( carbon emissions) into breathable air.

Humans are highly adaptable and we could probably hold out for a few generations after the collapse of the earths ecosystem but eventually we to would have to adapt or perish.

So why wait till a bottom of the barrel crisis before enforcing laws and society norms that control our population rise ALONG with strategies to curb and reduce our resource guzzling ways ?

It has been scientifically tested and projected by many scientists that Earth has a maximum carrying capacity of 9 billion to 10 billion people. Right now we are a bit above 7 billion and grow by about a 200,000 a year.

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

According to population biologist Joel Cohen of Columbia University, other environmental factors that limit the Earth's carrying capacity are the nitrogen cycle, available quantities of phosphorus, atmospheric carbon concentrations, and many other systems work together, all interwoven to create and sustain life on Earth.

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually UNDER OPTIMUM SUSTAINED CLIMATE AND WEATHER, something that is slowly becoming rare around the world. But pushing that point aside, thats enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion omnivores under US standards of consumption, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States. So 10 billion people is the uppermost population limit where food is concerned if EVERYONE became vegetarians. But because it's extremely unlikely that everyone will agree to stop eating meat, so the maximum carrying capacity of the Earth based on food resources will most likely fall short of 10 billion and be more around 8 or 9 billion.

OH wait. We are already almost there. and the world population is expected to hit 8 billion by 2024.

Our bulging population not only threatens us but every living thing on planet Earth. Population control methods MUST be part of ALL climate change, sustainable resource, and green funding policies. A grain of sand my seem tiny but added together they become a huge desert that can swallow us whole.

The population has been on a sharp incline since just a bit after the Industrial Revolution but I concede a SLOW DOWN of population growth OVERALL is in conjunction with 1) countries that implemented a one/two child rule, most notably China, who is still a leader in population numbers, 2) the rampant epidemic of AIDS, civil wars, droughts, & food scarcity in developing countries and 3) the urbanization and industrialization of countries. In an agrarian and/or semi nomadic lifestyle, children are a productive asset. Children can be put to work at a young age on a farm, pulling weeds and harvesting or simple workshop labor. They become a source of income & the more you have the better. Since there is no retirement plan in such societies, a large family can more easily support parents in old age. In a developed urban & industrial society, the economic value of children declines & children turn from instruments of production into objects of massive consumption. Not only are chances for employment at an early age diminished, but educational requirements explode dramatically so kids need to be supported much longer, sometimes into their mid-20s & nowadays into their 30s. In a cost benefits analysis a child cost a tremendous amount of money with limited return, if any, for parents. Thus, people have fewer children. For most people, a family of eight children would be a financial catastrophe. Therefore, women have two children or fewer, on average. As a result, the population contracts as it has OVERALL. BUT.

The population has only SLOWED DOWN in growth not declined overall and as a population grows, however slow, it unavoidably consumes more and more resources and needs more and more land. My contention is that the Earth has a limited amount of life sustaining resources that should be taken into account. Their is only so much freshwater, there is only so much arable land we can grow food on, there is only so much oxygen. Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?

Any life form, if the pollution grows higher then the area can sustain, unavoidably dies off. A lion pride that produces too many offspring and eats up all the animals in the area, will have to expand their territory in hopes of finding more food or die from starvation. A virus once it has overwhelmed and consumed all of a bodies energies, resources to the point that it can no longer maintain its systems, causes the body to die. it is a proven scientific fact multiple time & by various species. Humans may be a higher order thinking life form, but we are still a life form, & unavoidably we depend on the systems in place on Earth for our survival just like any other life form living on Earth. We can continue to grow and deplete resources and stretch life styes to their limits, all the while causing the extinction of species that are cogs in the wheels of the systems that sustain us, causing those systems to eventually collapse. It has been our business as usual for the past 100 years and can probably last for another 30-50 but why not implement actions to stop or at least extend the period of time BEFORE system collapses ?

HOW those populations controls are written and implemented is a whole nother can of worm lol Religion, country infrastructure, medical systems, cultural traditions and views on family, ect ect, would play a part in any laws and policies. But I contend that with out some form of population control, no climate change/sustainable policies will make any meaningful impact. You can create policies that say every person is only able produce about 3,000 pounds a day ( which can be reduced with car pooling, sustainable energy, ect ) and that takes into account an urbanized citizen with access to a car, a home with electricity, and consumer goods and assumes the gradual industrialization of developing countries. With a global population of over 7 BILLION that equals about 21,000,000,000,000 pound of carbon A DAY. The oceans can absorb about 30%, though that is declining due to various climate, ecology, and environmental reasons, about 40% accumulates in the atmosphere, and about 30% is absorbed by terrestrial ecosystems. An average mature tree (at least 10-15 years old) can only absorb 48lbs A YEAR so each person on Earth would need about 33 MATURE EVERGREEN TREES each to be carbon neutral. ( thats just for our own HUMAN consumer needs and does not take into account the habitant needs of other animals, ecosystem balance, ect ) SO as the population grows, we will need more trees to be carbon neutral, and we can't cut down these trees, so eventually they will take over the arable land we need to feed ourselves.

Personally population control policies I personally propose would be :
1) contraception is easily available, low cost or free
2) abortions are legal, easy available and at low cost - there would be attached policies and requirements but thats another issue
3) sex education is more readily available & a required course in public middle & high school & includes sexual misconduct laws & sentencing, responsible relationship guidelines and actions, sensitivity training - private schools that don't receive ANY federal or state funding, and schools with a religious guideline & charter are exempt from sex education classes as required a course but may not criminalize students from obtaining or possessing sex education materials unless it actively disrupts teaching when it is conducted (this time does not include recess, breaks between classes,mealtimes)
4) murders/harassment/repetitive slander/&intimidation against people, businesses, or organizations that perform sexual disease testing,abortions,adoptions,foster care,family planning & reproductive health service, shall be persecuted as a felony/hate crime
5) a two child limit on all citizens - those that wish to have more offspring agree to renounce all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding
6) adoption policies and procedures should be fast tracked and more openly available to all within the 2 child limit- excluding foster care and those that have renounced all federal and state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, and crowd funding
More stringent policy would be :
1) pregnancy before the age of 25 (better if 30 ) results in a large fine, & a choice between abortion or adoption - if the mother chooses neither options, she relinquishes all right to federal & state assistance - this does not include private individual funding, religious or private organizations charity, & crowd funding

I base these policies on on factual financial, social obligations and pressures of raising a child and the impact of a growing population on the environment. I an not religious therefor I do not take religion values into account THOUGH I do know and understand that religious values would be brought into any policies that touch on reproductive rights, for or against them, because many of these policies goes against religious teachings. My argument is that these policies are to promote social and environmental good and/or agendas FOR ALL REGARDLESS OF RELIGIOUS AFFILIACTION and not for promoting religious good or agendas so religion should not be involved as that

The fundamental flaw is that population control is downplaying the real solution: technology and equality, so let’s look at the hypothetical situation about the house that you used earlier.

Say you lived in a large house which was heated by an old wood burning stove. It was enough to keep warm but created small amounts of smoke, but it wasn’t in issue then. Eventually, your brother and sister came to live with you in the house. However, the stove did not produce enough heat to warm everyone, so you had another wood burning stove installed. Later, you allow your friend to sleep in the basement because he’s a good guy and helps around the house, even though he’ll need another two stoves. Soon, other family come to live in your house.

Now you have an issue, smoke is wafting through the house and irritating everyone’s eyes and the stoves are taking up space. What do you do? Do you kick out your brother and sister, or the other people? One of the inhabitants argues that you should kick out some residents, which would leave them without a home. Many protested this idea.

The solution is simple: install heaters. Not only have you saved space by reducing size, they are now more efficient and much more capable of heating up the room, without the smoke. Not only this, but you decide that your friend live upstairs where he saves space and energy and where he can help around the house. Now your residents can stay happy and warm.

The solution not only made the house more comfortable, it saved space, and money. Also, the friend was now in a better situation making all the residents equal and able to contribute. That is the power of technology.

Now I could address every single contention,that would take time and too much words. Instead, you mention technology in your argument, saying:

“Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?”

Exactly! We could use desalination to produce water, we could develop better solutions to conserving and creating fresh water. Technology has already allowed us to do such things, and it would solve the issue of dehydration for so many thirsting populations and in arid regions, creating solution that saves lives without polar ice melt. We could develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas! Not only could this possibly solve the starvation problem for many people, but it could bring prosperity, economy, tourism, and yes, oxygen that could help the atmosphere! We can create (and are) self-sufficient homes and apartments that use renewable energy and blend with environment. Eventually, we as population would save BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS by producing ways for more efficient and bountiful farming methods and cleaner environment and improving the lifestyles of BILLIONS of people.

But why do this, when you can introduce an authoritarian way to restrict the right of reproduction and in contrast to the religions of BILLIONS of people, many who would resist any legislation to facilitate a large increase of what they consider murder of a innocent babies(Which I would agree with them and multiple scientific studies as well)?

Also, you reciprocate many urges that the world is on the verge of overpopulation and a dying planet, yet, you yourself mention that it is a “working system”?

AND, you consider contraception methods such as abortion and birth control pills more natural than advancing the human race into a more energy efficient and thriving society? A race terminating its birth rate (which mostly unsuccessful as I will mention in a later argument) is somehow more natural. by the way, “near free” is extremely misleading. Millions of dollars are spent in advertising, passing, and the execution of the bill, much less one that would control birth rates of BILLIONS of people, ie. the funding to create a executive body to enforce it.

Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It’s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does. The human body obviously emit negligible amounts of pollution, and if we create the technology to create efficient energy it would save money in the long-run, as well as allowing us to create even more ways to help the planet, which provides us more money to advance equality and end poverty and thus lend more minds to advance technology, etc.

WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures. THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power.

To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe.

And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES.

My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol )

So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push. curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ?
1) Contraceptions are free and widely available
2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions. if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity. also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also )
3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect. the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education.
4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle )

Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage".

"Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol

check out these links
It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact
this deals with children of educated parents research
psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

Optimum population goals should satisfy 1) everybody's BASIC quality of life (clean nutritious food, clean water/air, adequate shelter) 2) Access 2 basic human rights - quality education and healthcare, varied economic opportunity, satisfactory sanitary conditions, freedom from racism, freedom of religion, freedom from sexism 3) provide enough genetic biodiversity and 4) large enough to provide infrastructure and social community to promote creativity intellectually, artistically, and technologically

All of these CAN be achieved without driving our planets ecosystems into the ground, other life forms into extinction, and the resources needed for survival dry (freshwater, space, clean air and food) As a population grows it inevitable consumes more and more until it is forceable stopped, either by policy/lifestyle changes or by starvation, rampant disease, war reducing the population down to an acceptable level or worse, down to nothing.

This site details optimum population - it uses basic math equations taking into account the goal along with the earths carrying capacity - though it places it at about 2 billion, worst case/stretching resources at 4 billion - and we are already at 7 billion and still growing

I once again apoligize for not being able to argue this round due to continous issues with my internet provider (Cox). I want to ask that no one votes in this debate, rather when my issue is resolved I'll challenge Pro to a final argument which can be voted on. Thanks for your patience @2cents4change I hope to continue/finish this fun debate.

Posted by 2cents4change 1 year ago

I agree that we are hella smart and fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse with our still GROWING population. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures. THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug)

Thomas Malthus is proven wrong even by those that used to preach his message. Again, this is Sam7411's debate. I will drop out with this comment, man is not "smarter" Humans can increase their relative population density, and no other species can. The age old arguement that continues to try to say that we can no longer develope and discover new resources comes from an elite that wants population control. It's been proven wrong over and over again. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc.

Posted by 2cents4change 1 year ago

Equality is good morally and spiritually but not natural- if all predators were equal to the level of the top predator, very soon all the prey (other animals) will quickly be hunted & eaten. There would be none left to repopulate as a food source for the predators & eventually the predators would turn on each other for food. In breeding would occur cause of the dwindling genetic population due to death from starvation & cannibalism & lead to higher birth mortality and early death due to genetic defects. In the end the predators would eventually die. Nature specifically has check & balances in place to contain a prey species so it does not threaten all other species to a critical/extinct rate. Diseases, limited resources & specific prey needs, territories, even geographical & environmental limitations such as weather patterns, oceans, un passable mountains to contain the predators designed prey(s). These natural limitations has over the course of our evolution keep our population at a reasonable balance with resources available in our territories. Humans are highly adaptable & smart so we have survived so far by bypassing these limitations with agriculture, inventions connected to travel, & the progress of modern medicine. But as a consequence, our ecosystem, Earth, is beginning to strain & will eventually collapse, just like any territory, ecosystem were the predators have over populated/saturated an area or because of environmental collapse. Just as our adaptability & smarts how allowed us to overcome Natures limitation on a top prey species, we are smart enough to recognize that we need nature to survive & therefor need to put limitations on OURSELVES so we don't crash the environmental systems that support us. Because of our adaptability we can come up w/ tech 2 reduce the impact of EACH PERSON but if we keep adding MORE persons past what limited resources the Earth can produce FOR ALL LIFEFORMS it will never be balanced properly,& collapse, will just take longer

Bravo Sam7411
Here are some facts that never seem to get into these debates. Where is the deepest, richest topsoil in the World? Sudan basin. Huge river running through, large lakes etc. Why aren't they feeding Africa and half of Asia? History will reveal this secret from the Battle of Fashoda, the IMF, to the dismantling of a canal cutter in the 70s etc. No complete east to west railroads. No complete north to south railroads. They have been stopped many times. Yet we have all of these looting operations on the coasts. The Sudan basin is underpopulated. Can you imagine the farm equipment America would need to build to bring an area 1/3 the size of the US to the state of the art farming? Can you imagine the customers we would make?

Take a calculator and add up all of the inhabitibal land on Earth. Divide it into acreage and then take a look at how many people we have. You are going to see that we have a lack of development, not too many people. Many of the reasons for lack of development is political and for sick reasons and control of population. This is why you often see no developement in the middle of countries, but rather wads of people near coasts.

Not my debate, but there are entire courses that prove this.

Posted by Sam7411 1 year ago

I don't see how allowing humans to reproduce is being lazy or hypocritical. Real change comes from equality and advances through technology, not from restricting birth rates.

Posted by Pandit 1 year ago

I am with the Population control .

More so. I am with a change in life style. As long as we keep acting like lazy asses and hypocrites. nothing will change

No votes have been placed for this debate.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.