Debate 2 – Motion: There are too many people on the planet

Speaking for the motion: Rebecca Hendrix

-There are 6.6 million people currently, and expected to be 9.3 million.

-It was previously believed that increasing the number of people was a positive thing because productivity also increased.

-Malthus showed that was wrong because eventually food and other resources run out

-Many people use this argument and show a 4.3 fertility rate is too high because 2.1 is stable

-More people take up more room and the land is quickly being covered by human use, such as the 80% of rainforests that have been cleared

-monoculture farming decreases biodiversity and depletes the soil

-as population increased by 80%, land use increased by 300%

-as population increases, pollution also increases

-Water supply will become a huge issue (Hoover Dam will be dry by 2021)

-by 2025 half of the pop will have water shortage

-Energy is finite, it cannot increase with population

-With 104% increase in population there is a 400% increase in energy use

-with a 25 percent increase in population, there is a 60% increase in CO2 emissions

Comments on proposed solutions:

-China’s 1 child idea is too extreme

-increase in fertility corresponds to a decrease in education in females

-Contraception should be made available and encouraged to all people

-small families should get government benefits

-research on sustainable living technologies should continue

Speaking against the motion: Corey Evans

-Limiting factors: water, food, and energy

-we have the technology to provide these to our current population

-the rate of increase is actually decreasing, so it should be sustainable

-inefficient farming causes water shortage, not just a lack of water

-in china and India they must fix their methods (suggestion to use hydroponics)

-suggestion to use desalination of sea water for drinking

-Food

-not an issue of volume, but distribution

-caloric intake per person has increased

-with proper management, population can be fed!

-energy

-hydrologic power will become more effective

-solar and tidal energy sources will be harnessed

-nuclear fission technologies perhaps

Speaking for the motion: Christine Mollineaux

-history proves the point, too much of an increase in population with limited resources has a negative outcome

-Anasazi people in ChacoCanyon in the pre-Columbian North America

-they were a well developed, complex society with a quickly increasing population

-as they needed to grow more crops they cut more trees down

-but they needed more crops than the rain could provide for, so wars broke out

-now that land is barren and abandon

-Arizona is a parallel in our current situation (because of limited water)

-people can’t just move off the land because there are no places left in the world for them to move to

-we cant import goods to them because there is no excess in other areas, other people need them for consumption

-proposed solutions:

-sex ed in undeveloped countries (and contraceptive availability)

-government incentives for small families

-conclusion: population is too high, we should learn from history, and there are programs we can install to solve this problem

Speaking against the motion: Casey Gosnell

-defined overpopulation as a number of individuals an ecosystem cannot support on it

-as long as we can provide for people we are not overpopulated

-if we ignore higher standards of living (we cant all be millionaires) then everyone can be taken care of (communism?)

-there are natural regulations that keep our population in check, such as fertility rates and disease

-fertility rates depend on weather the country is developing or not, they are lower in developed ones

-disease is very high in sub-Saharan areas, and it increases with growing populations

-we cannot extrapolate a small scale history (Anasazi) to a global problem today because our technology is different

-Malthus used incorrect paramaters

-distribution is a problem, not supply—there are more obsess people than malnourished!

-food is available, political will to mobilize it is not there

-new technologies answer food and water demands

-breeder reactor for uranium power can supply humans until sun blows up

-large scale poverty is caused by bad management, not overpopulation

-zimbabwe famine is due to bad farming

-North and South Korea are very similar in landscape, but better management in the south allows for higher fertility and standard of living

-we should shift our focus from higher standards of living to equalizing everyone on a lower standard (communism?)

-“The earth is a big place and I don’t think there are too many of us right now” – Casey

Question Session:

Q: Todd, the moderator for the for side: since the fertility rate is decreasing, why not wait and see if it decreases to a stable rate?

A: Christine: we still need to worry about babies coming into low standards of living now

Q: Todd, for the against side: How should we redistribute the resources to the poor?

A: Casey: put waste in outer space, and increase education to decrease fertility

Corey: population growth is decreasing even in poor areas

Q: Katherine, for the against side: please address thermal pollution

A: Casey: there are systems (cogeneration) to use excess heat to power other processes, and hopefully nuclear power methods will improve

Q: Stephanie for the for side: contraceptives are not morally ok for all people

A: Rebecca: other methods will work for those people, such as family planning and incentives for smaller families

Q: Shannon for the for side: is it barren where the Anasazi lived? (I have been there and it wasn’t)

A: Christine: Yes, it is a credible source from a book published by an expert

Q: for the for side: is a small difference enough of an effect to bother with in reducing family size?

A: Yes, we hope so, but we will have to wait and see!

Q: for the against side: if a developing country is sustaining itself, what incentives could exist for small families?

A: Casey: if they can sustain extra people, go ahead and make them

Q: Brandon for both sides: why should the government provide money to decrease the population when that would decrease the number of people paying taxes, and decrease revenue?

A: Casey: governments are corrupt, not a scientific question but a political one

Summary

Rebecca: Population is increasing so it absolutely requires action

Corey: problems are a result of bad practice, not overpopulation. The birth rate will slow and technology will improve

Christing: will technology save us? Why risk it?

Casey: we are not to the point of overpopulation YET, that is the point! We have the technology, we just need to find the will to change.