• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Overpopulation Challenge

R

Ryan Cramer

Banned
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
84
Reaction score
12
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I have a simple Challenge. Lets see who can come up with the best answer. Can you name one environmental problem, that doesn't get worse from population growth?

When the population increases, climate change gets worse.
When the population increases, deforestation gets worse.
When the population increases, desertfication gets worse.
When the population increases, landfills get bigger.
When the population increases, plastic waste in the ocean gets worse.
When the population increases, the demand for poaching gets worse.
When the population increases, water pollution goes up.
When the population increases, air pollution gets worse.
When the population increases, urban sprawl gets worse.
When the population increases, affordable housing gets worse.
When the population increases, traffic jams get worse.
When the population increases, we build more nuclear power plants.
When the population increases, food prices go up due to competition
When the population increases, soil contamination gets worse
When the population increases, overfishing gets worse
When the population increases, people become more alienated from nature.

Why fight all these issues separately, when we can kill all the birds with one stone?

We can fix climate change, and reduce every other environmental problem, by gradually reducing our population.

Reduce the population, and solve every environmental problem at the same time.
 
Leftists; reducing the population one abortion at a time.
 
Ryan Cramer said:
Why fight all these issues separately, when we can kill all the birds with one stone?
Click to expand...
Killing all the birds does not fix the claimed issue. :mrgreen:

And the climate is going to change regardless of anything we do. It always has.


But I am all for population reduction to ensure those we allow to come into being enjoy life like we have been able.
 
Last edited:

How does the USA reduce the population in the Third World, Mexico, India, or other ****holes?
 
Wacko's have been proclaiming this for generations. The truth is, more population produces more productive people to get resources to where they're needed. There is no such thing as an uninhabitable population for the earth.
 
WCH said:
Leftists; reducing the population one abortion at a time.
Click to expand...
Right-wingers: Indulging in one straw man argument at a time.
 
Ryan Cramer said:
Reduce the population, and solve every environmental problem at the same time.
Click to expand...
We are. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and continues to decline.
 
HonestJoe said:
We are. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and continues to decline.
Click to expand...

I see. That must be why they are claiming it will peak in 2070 right?
 
Ryan Cramer said:
I have a simple Challenge. Lets see who can come up with the best answer. Can you name one environmental problem, that doesn't get worse from population growth?

When the population increases... etc
Click to expand...
Pretty much everything you wrote is wrong.

Things only get worse if we increase the population AND continue on the exact same path we are on now -- where we rely heavily on fossil fuels, lots of disposable goods, high consumption of meat, and a suburban lifestyle.

For example: Cities are actually much more efficient than suburbs. Apartments require less building material and less energy than a big unattached house; cities can efficiently leverage public transport, ride sharing, bicycles and walking than a suburb (which means, if we're smart about it, traffic jams won't get worse). We're already working on "vertical farms" that can be built close to cities. Increasing urban density, and encouraging urban living, means we don't need to destroy more forests. There are also lots of cities where it's easy to experience nature, though most cities could use more green space.

A few other points:
• Food prices have actually fallen over the decades, despite massive population growth over the past century.

• Plastic and solid waste is largely a function of a disposable attitude towards life and goods, not a function of the number of people.

• Affluent nations, by the way, throw away tremendous amounts of food, in no small part because it has become so cheap and abundant in those nations for most (definitely not all). Just cutting back on food waste would make a huge difference in terms of the efficient allocation of food resources.

• We definitely don't need to build more nuclear power plants just because there are more people. I have no idea where you got that one from.

• Overfishing is a result of, again, poor planning and bad attitudes towards planning (e.g. valuing jobs over natural resources, especially when the depletion of those resources will end those jobs anyway). While there is no perfect answer, relying on fish farming and vegetable food sources can definitely mitigate overfishing.


Why fight all these issues separately, when we can kill all the birds with one stone?
Click to expand...
Because none of those issues would actually be solved by reducing populations or birth rates.

People aren't necessarily going to drive lower-emission vehicles, or waste less food, or improve the insulation in their homes, just because they decided not to have kids.

Even if we did somehow devise a humane way to cut the world's population in half, it wouldn't work. We were still polluting massive amounts in 1972, when the global population was literally half what it is today.

To put it another way: Thanos' plan in Avengers: Infinity War was incredibly dumb. As in, epically stupid, beyond belief stupid.

So, what we really need to do is... wait for it... emit fewer greenhouse gases, and be a little more responsible.

This doesn't mean we have to move into caves and wear hair shirts for the rest of our lives. It just means we have to find better ways to generate electricity; be more mindful about the things we buy and use; actually eat the food we buy, and so on.
 
HonestJoe said:
We are. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and continues to decline.
Click to expand...

Population growth is barely declining.

It took over a 100 000 years to get to the first billion in 1805.

It took 122 years to reach the second billion in 1927.

It took 32 years to reach the third billion in 1959.

It took 15 years to reach the fourth billion in 1974.

It took 13 years to reach the fifth billion in 1987.

It took 12 years to reach the sixth billion in 1999.

It took 12 years to reach the seventh billion in 2011.


Let's not be lazy, and hope for the best. We need some form of ethical intervention.


7 Population Milestones for 7 Billion People
 
HonestJoe said:
We are. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and continues to decline.
Click to expand...
Yeah, about that...

1960: 3 billion people
2018: 7.7 billion people

The growth rate peaked in the early 1960s, but the population is still increasing by over 1% per year. It's not likely to go negative any time soon.
World Population by Year - Worldometers

Plus, 1% of 7.7 billion means more people, in absolute numbers, than 1% of 3 billion.
 
Ryan Cramer said:
Population growth is barely declining.
Click to expand...
Growth rates are declining. They peaked at 2.09% in 1968, and are now at 1.07%. Hopefully that's what he is talking about. But you never know around here.
 

Why should we tell future generations they can't eat meat, can't drive large cars, can't go on airplanes, must live in small apartments, can't have backyards, have cold showers, all because we were too afraid to control our population? Why should they have to ration their lifestyle, because we put them in that predicament? Why should they have to watch the Amazon disappear, because we didn't do anything to curb rapid population growth in Brazil?

What's worse, telling people it's a mistake to have five children, or waiting for the consequences?

Sometimes prevention is the best option.

View attachment 67253512
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
Increase immigration into the US
Click to expand...

We can start by building vasectomy clinics all over the world. We can require family education in high school, and teach future parents about the virtues of having small families.

China and India should depopulate faster than Australia and Canada.

It will take a few hundred years to convert farmland into forests, and restore ecosystems.
 
Last edited:

The world can easily handle more people than it has now... billions more.
 
Ryan Cramer said:
Is seven billion not enough for you?
Click to expand...

Poverty is not the result of over population... and I would rather have far far less people because I am an outdoors person... but the Earth can take it.
 
HonestJoe said:
We are. World population growth peaked in the 1960s and continues to decline.
Click to expand...

1960 population: 3.033 billion
2019 population: 7.714 billion

World Population by Year - Worldometers

You are missing the point, intentionally.

But a fascinating fact: These 7.7 billion people could all, hypothetically, fit inside one cubic mile.
Proof:
5,280 cubed = 127 billion cubic feet
127/7.7 = 16.49 cubic feet per person, a box 6 feet high, 2 feet wide, and 1.5 feet thick on average
Thicker for Saudis, some of the fattest on earth.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Poverty is not the result of over population... and I would rather have far far less people because I am an outdoors person... but the Earth can take it.
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
Poverty is not the result of over population... and I would rather have far far less people because I am an outdoors person... but the Earth can take it.
Click to expand...

There's a strong correlation between population growth, and alienation from nature. What do these new houses, and prison cells have in common? They all look the same. There is no outdoor recreation. The children are stay indoors, because there's nowhere to do outside. If you want to go some place interesting, you need a car. We shouldn't be designing our communities this way.

They're running out of land, so they put you 5 feet from your neighbor. It's sad to see people taking out 40 year mortgages to pay for these prisons.

View attachment 67253530

A gradual depopulation can help reduce housing prices, and bring us back to nature. We wouldn't get to appreciate the immediate effects, but it could be the greatest gift for future generations.

View attachment 67253531
 
Even in developed countries, the inner cities are an aesthetic catastrophe.

 
We need to downsize, and replace ghettos with beautiful subdivisions.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…