FANDOM



About Edit

Debate topic: "what should we do about overpopulation?"

Note that the word "should" means you must focus on the moral issues of possible solutions.

Instructions  Edit

Same as last time. When you comment on a solution, please use pro/con templates to make it clear which way you are arguing.

To avoid screwing up the formatting, always edit in "source" mode, not "visual" mode.

Debate Edit

Solution 1Edit

Regulating fertility rates by giving infertility causing medicine to a part of the population --193.174.11.19 11:50, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Nele+Theresa

  • Symbol oppose vote Very good and clear opinion,but how to regulated this? How to select the "part of the population"? -> Playing God ? Kristian-h (talk)Nikoline/Kristian
    • Symbol oppose vote Part of the population? – Who gets to decide who should take this kind of medicine --Anders Johnsen (talk) 11:57, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Kim/Anders

    • Symbol oppose vote As addressed in the recent Dan Brown book: Randomly selecting people to become infertile, would go against human rights. Besides the main driver for population increase is found in developing countries, so for this to have an effect it would have to be limited to these countries only. This solution would be outright racist and wrong! --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC) M&R

    • Symbol support vote We should limit procreation of stupid people. --193.175.191.76 12:08, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin + Kerry

  • Symbol oppose vote Wasn't this the kind of thing which Hitler believed in? -- James
    • Symbol oppose vote Didn't Hitler believe in the creation of a superior race, rather than solving overpopulation? --193.175.191.76 12:12, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin+Kerry
      • The claim is that no form of population control is possible without eugenics, and eugenics is an unacceptable right-wing belief symptomatic of organisations such as the Nazis. -- James
      • Symbol oppose voteEvery scientist working in genetics will state that in order to have superior genetics, diversity is needed. Eugenics often considers only one race to be superior. By the isolation of one race, the development of hereditary diseases and gene mutation are fostered, which will cause the "superior race" to disappear soon. As Darwins theory suggests it is the fittest who will survive. So in order to solve the problem of deciding which people should and should not be allowed to have children diversity but also intelligence should be considered. --95.91.231.92 12:37, February 1, 2014 (UTC) Kerry
  • Symbol support vote selected regions could be chosen randomly by international organizations. It would not be limited to specific ethnic or social groups. Unlike Hitlers theory it would not wipe out a specific group. --193.174.11.19 12:13, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Nele+Theresa
    • Symbol oppose vote So one day a person would wake up to the news: Congratulations you have won the lottery - you will not procreate. ? --193.175.191.76 12:15, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin+Kerry
      • Symbol neutral vote This looks like a new solution. -- James
  • Symbol oppose vote Again, selecting random regions would not solve the problem, since overpopulation is a third world problem. And letting International Organizations run the selection is equally bad. How many third world international organizations have you heard of? This is again biased towards the western world telling the developing world what to do. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:21, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R
    • Symbol oppose vote Overpopulation is not just a third world country problem, because everyone who lives on earth is affected by overpopulation and the misuse of resources. Rather than paternalizing the developing countries, maybe we should create a board consisting of members of each country on the planet that will work on educating the world population and reallocating and managing resources all over the world, so that overpopulation doesn't need to occur in developing countries anymore. --95.91.231.92 12:42, February 1, 2014 (UTC) Kerry

Solution 2 Edit

We should try motivating people not to have to many children. For example by giving better education and stimulis not using children as "retirement arrangement".Kristian-h (talk)Nikoline/Kristian

  • Symbol support vote For example we can implement social marketing strategies in order to educate the public on overpopulation effects --193.174.11.19 11:53, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Theresa und Nele
  • Symbol oppose vote How would you suggest to implement this effectively in developing countries?--Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:11, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R
  • Symbol oppose voteIn order to create a social security and an increase education, you would either have to either tell every individual country how to distribute their state budget OR you would have to ask other countries to contribute to it. Otherwise its going to be difficult. Education and social security is not free--Kristinajansen (talk) 12:14, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Lena, Jeanette+Kristina

Solution 3Edit

We should focus on women’s right and education in general --Anders Johnsen (talk) 11:41, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Kim / Anders

  • Symbol support vote Agreed, because higher education and career oppurtunities will lead to a change of lifestyle and opinion about children as an economic plus. It will rather turn into an economic minus. --193.174.11.19 12:05, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Nele+Theresa
  • Symbol oppose vote This is easier said then done. In many countries where population growth is a problem, religious or cultural factors also play in and have an effect on the general opinion towards women's rights. Ergo, a change in culture or reform in religion might be neccesary before this can take place. Religion and culture are relatively static and take ages to change. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:16, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R

Solution 4 Edit

Married couples without children will receive pension in developing countries. This pension will be funded via an international pension fund where every country has to contribute. --193.174.11.114 12:01, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Ole, Eva

  • Symbol oppose vote We are already having problems financing our own pension. How do you want to finance pension for the whole world if there are no more children growing up to pay into the fund? --193.175.191.76 12:06, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin + Kerry
    • Symbol support vote This is merely a question of priorities. If countries consider overpopulation to be as important as the salvation of Greece's finances, they will come up with the money. --193.174.11.19 12:19, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Eva, Ole
  • Symbol oppose vote What would they do with the money? Would that be a sustainable use of money? As they do not have children, they would spend everything on themselves and the money would be "lost" after their death. 193.174.11.19 12:08, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Till and Alina
    • Symbol support vote It is not about what they do with the money but about giving an incentive not give birth to children as a substitute for a pension system. --193.174.11.19 12:18, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Eva, Ole

Solution 5 Edit

One child policy! --Kristinajansen (talk) 11:41, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Lena, Jeanette, Kristina

  • Symbol oppose vote No! Every person has the freedom to choose how many children they want. When a government or other authority decides to regulate the number of children per family, they impose limits to the human rights --193.174.11.19 11:50, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Theresa and Nele
  • Symbol support vote Everyone has the right to improve/maintain standard of living which cannot be done in countries where the inhabitants tend to have too many children --Kristinajansen (talk) 11:55, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Lena,Jeanette+Kristina
  • Symbol oppose vote This solution would not be appropriate in countries like Germany where the population is already declining. Besides, it can lead to imbalances in the population structure and as well as an increase in infant homicide. 193.174.11.19 11:57, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Till and Alina
  • Symbol support vote In Germany (and other developed countries) the one child policy would not be necessary as thr reproduction rate is under two. --Kristinajansen (talk) 12:11, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Lena, Jeanette+Kristina
    • Symbol oppose vote In China, this one-child policy has had negative effects on the population structure (see above). On the other hand, the question would be in which countries to implement this policy. This could even lead to an increase in migration. 193.174.11.19 12:18, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Alina and Till

Solution 6 Edit

We should provide a proper education and stable social security systems especially in developing countries in order to reduce the necessity of having many children. 193.174.11.19 11:47, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Alina and Till

  • Symbol oppose vote Is it morally acceptable to paternalize developing countries in this way? --193.175.191.76 11:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin + Kerry
    • Symbol oppose vote It would not be paternalizing, but helping the countries in their development. It is also in their interest to live a safer and better life. 193.174.11.19 12:01, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Alina and Till
    • Symbol oppose vote In order to create a social security and an increase education, you would either have to either tell every individual country how to distribute their state budget OR you would have to ask other countries to contribute to it. Otherwise its going to be difficult. Education and social security is not free  --Kristinajansen (talk) 12:08, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Lena, Jeanette+Kristina
      • Symbol support vote Yes, you are right. Developed countries would have to contribute to developing countries' state budgets. 193.174.11.19 12:12, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Till and Alina
        • Symbol oppose vote Developed countries should contribute, however the use of the money given should be regulated. Otherwise the developing countries would waste the money in corruption and criminal activities. --193.175.191.76 12:23, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Katrin+ Kerry

Solution 7 Edit

Reallocation of resources and wealth, paired with education to create a developed world where naturally the population growth will decline.  --193.175.191.76 11:48, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Katrin + Kerry

  • Symbol oppose vote How would you reallocate resources and wealth? Would that mean taking away German money and giving it Guyana? 193.174.11.19 11:56, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Alina and Till
    • Symbol oppose vote Part of the solution would be not thinking of different countries instead of the world as a whole, everybody is equal and deserves the same resources. --193.175.191.76 12:02, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Katrin + Kerry

Solution 8 Edit

We should let nature take its course, in order to limit world population. History has shown that nature will eventually regulate world population, i.e. Black Death in the Middle Ages, natural disasters, etc. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 11:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote Nature often lets violence and mutual destruction limit populations. You want to include this as well, do you? --James
  • Symbol oppose vote No, we do not wish to include war and violence, but mainly we support a state of passiveness. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:05, January 31, 2014 (UTC) M&R
    • Symbol support vote Good Idea, as it does not imply a direct way of interference.Kristian-h (talk)Nikoline/Kristian
      • Symbol oppose vote Does this mean that we should stop looking for cures for diseases like aids or cancer? Because it will only affect the most rapidly growing populations without affecting developed countries. --193.174.11.19 12:00, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Nele and Theresa
  • Symbol oppose vote we are all for nature, and sure nature will take its course – but do you really want to let it go this far? --Anders Johnsen (talk) 12:03, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Kim/Anders
  • Symbol oppose vote Human interference would in most of the case mentioned above go against human rights and be paternalistic. Furthermore, the world would eventually be controlled by an elite, made up of Western countries. Therefore, we suggest the passive approach, in order to avoid some of us playing God. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:09, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R
    • Symbol oppose vote Human rights will be of smaller importance once the world is heavily overpopulated anyway, because the struggle for food will be of prior political concern. --193.174.11.114 12:13, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Ole, Eva
    • Symbol oppose vote Yes, the world would be controlled by an elite, a surviving one that is, the rest we just let die? -- Kim/Anders

Solution 9 Edit

“CHINESE ONE CHILD POLICY”-- with MORAL ADJUSTMENT 193.174.11.19Wulong, Erwan

  • Symbol oppose vote This solution would not be appropriate in countries like Germany where the population is already declining. Besides, it can lead to imbalances in the population structure and as well as an increase in infant homicide. 193.174.11.19 11:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Till and Alina
  • Symbol neutral voteWhat do you mean by moral adjustment? --Anders Johnsen (talk) 12:07, January 31, 2014 (UTC) Kim/Anders
  • Symbol support vote 1. But Germany has no such kind of problem, we should focus on developing countries.
  • Symbol support vote 2. It is horrible to think about homicide, DON'T YOU HAVE CONDOM??? 193.174.11.19Erwan, Wulong
  • Symbol support vote 3. The period of high birth rate and low mortality rate is relatively short because of development, if we could go through this period we could have a more sustainable future 193.174.11.19Erwan, Wulong

Solution 10 Edit

We would contribute substantially to stabilising world population by forcing changes in Roman Catholic ideology and/or its influence in the developing countries. The question is, when does freedom of religion go too far, and is this a religion which has gone too far? -- James

    • Symbol oppose vote there are several other factors causing overpopultion than the weltanschauung of the roman catholic church. Especially because being Roman Catholic does not necessarily mean you are not allowed to use contraception. --193.174.11.19 12:21, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Nele+Theresa
    • Symbol oppose vote We agree that overpopulation is often not primarily a question of religion since we don't see Bavaria to be overpopulated --193.174.11.19 12:23, January 31, 2014 (UTC)Anna, Eva, Ole
    • Symbol oppose vote Some might say that the policies towards contraception i.e. using condoms is the Catholic Church's way of limiting world population, via keeping AIDS alive. --Mojojojo89 (talk) 12:24, January 31, 2014 (UTC)M&R
  • Symbol neutral voteBeing a pagan, I would say yes – it has always gone too far, but changing religious attitudes is not that straight forward -- Kim/Anders
  • Symbol neutral vote I would say that the influence of catholic church in developing countries is rather low. Overpopulation is not caused by people in developing countries believing that contraception is bad. However overpopulation is rather caused by non-educated people that contraception exists and it's affordability and the fact that people still use children as a retirement plan. --95.91.231.92 12:57, February 1, 2014 (UTC) Kerry