Population Growth

I recently made a couple posts with Iosphemg about population growth. I’m interested to see if anybody shares his opinion. Anyone an advocate for uncontrolled population growth? Even himself, just reiterate the arguments and more. It’d be nice to put the points of view under the spotlight.

I’m not knowledgeable enough about population growth to undertake a challenge, but I can see how unlimited population growth is acceptable to human civilization–it must grow in relation to technology. As soon as technology fails or lags behind, populations will die off accordingly. The best example is “climate change” right now. If humanity doesn’t have the technology to predict, account for, and solve problems of natural disasters, then die offs will occur with the potential to wipe out all of human civilization.

I absolutely believe this-

Bearing and rearing a certain number of healthy children should be economically beneficial to a citizen. Bearing a greater number than this should become an economical deficit.

In other words, you should be praised for taking your place as a member of society trying to propagate the species. You should be penalized for adding to the competition of a population potentially desparate for resources.

I would love to undergo such a challenge, but likewise, I have no “background” on the issue. Judgements of the winner would have to be based on the best theoretical construct of a sustainable society. It could not be based on the broadest knowledge in the subject – Otherwise there would be no challenge. I’d almost certainly lose. I’d have almsot no one to quote, I’d just direct you to wikipedia.

My point as well. Population growth, when controlled, is good as it makes the workforce more capable and readily available. What he was advocating is not using contraception and either resorting to abstinence or a condomless marriage with a whole lotta kids. There’s a point when population growth is no longer beneficial. If I remember the term from my economics class, it’s the point of diminishing returns. Only so much input will yield a substantial output.

What I find most amazing about this argument is that it’s being argued while the world is having a food and fuel crisis! At the same time that some countries are seeing the price of rice double or more in just two, three weeks!

Ok Rouz lay down the preliminary house rules! :smiley:

Let’s dance! :-({|=

I really don’t know, I need guidance to this sub forum. Any help mods?

I think it might also be interesting to do 2v2 discussions. That way, one person’s ignorance of a specific topic or inabilities in a particular field won’t get in the way of the general argument, assuming the two people complement each other’s weaknesses and strengths.

House rules are flexible. If you’re interested in 2v2, you’ll each need to find partners. Then make some suggestions. The initial debate should give a rough guidline, but the specifics are up to you.

If you’re looking for a more firm suggestion, here’s mine:
2 versus 2
4 posts per team, each team member posting twice.
2 days to reply (to allow time for discussion with teammates, but you might want to get each others email/AIM/MSN contact info to make it easier)
3 judges, jury vote (they discuss and all the votes come in at once. That was something I liked in the inaugural debate that I didn’t come up with. Xunzian gets credit for that innovation)

Possible changes might be going 1 on 1 if you can’t get partners; taking less time per post if it’s 1v1 or if you are using another means of contact to discuss with your teammate; and forgoing judges, because a 2v2 debate takes away the popularity contest effect, and I don’t know how biased the board is in favor of one position or the other (though, that might just be because it’s not a debate I engage in too often).

Anyway, that’s my suggestion, but PM each other to nail down the details. The rules are flexible, so pick what you like.

A standard discussion should do for now, and a 2v2 if I fail to hit the nail on the head. Here’s to get the ball rolling, make a new topic with your opener and we’ll go from there Ios.

Point of contention: The merits of contraception and controlled population growth vs those of uncontrolled growth with no use of contraceptives.

Here are a few personal preferences based on things that irritate me:
No smileys.
No outright denials (i.e. “No you’re wrong”), all statements should be backed up with evidence (i.e. No the ball weighs 5kg as measured by a scale). Citations should be, where possible, from credible sources. As little wiki as possible and no sites that support a certain stance to offer their view on it (a marxist site’s statements to support communism).
No attacking the opponent, only his stance.
No sarcasm, wit or “roll of the eye” statements.

Let’s see how things progress from there.

Yes that would do. But we need more time to distinguish who are capable of doing and defending the stance.

I am all for the rules of engagement you are espousing. But may I add that we must address each other as “Prime Minister”, “Government member”, etc… (for the affirmative) or “Opposition Leader”,“Opposition Member”, etc… (for the negative) respectively as to address the opponent but not “attacking” him in any way.

All the same I’m ready if you are ready.


Well I haven’t thought of that.

Are you available Faust? Any ideas Rouz?

I’ll volunteer. Can I simultaneously be a judge while in a debate?

People who have no life are great listeners, you know.

Gaia and Faust are more than enough I believe, if somebody else cares to weigh in, or if 3 judges are the standard, then I’d appreciate a third person joining in the fray.
We can kick off whenever. I’ll be changing house in the coming week so if I happen to fail to reply within the 24 hour period, don’t hold it against me!

We’re going to do the debates one at a time, on a first come first served basis. Gaia and Joker got their act together, so down the chute they go. I would strongly suggest an odd number of judges, for reasons I hope I don’t have to explain. “One” is an odd number - just to make a suggestion. Anyway, it doesn’t have to be twebty-four hours - any reasonable time frame will do. But it looks like a short delay would be helpful here.

But please state the final version of your rules.

If you’re still looking for a third judge I’d be more than happy to volunteer…

It’s an interesting debate. I am caught on the fence.

Uncontrolled population growthwould solve our natural selection problem… but many would die…

We could control it all and less would die… for awhile… then we could be devastated by germs or something more explody.

we could get caught off guard and be set back like 50 generations…

In either case the risks are big and the benifits are big.

I must admit that uncontrolled population growth is the best bet, but the gain is lessened by the cost.

On the other hand, the gain is great, but so too is the risk.

I would need more information i guess…

Okay my list of judges are:



Faust (again, :laughing: )

Do we have a final statement of the agreed-upon rules?

What does the house believes, I think it should be stated to limit the area of argumentation don’t you think?

Number of posts should be limited, at least. Also, please, judges, just give a collective verdict at the end, so we can wrap the debate up. You can all blather all you want on the discussion thread as to why you chose the way you did.