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