Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies
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
Debate.org
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
