• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Greatest threat to this planet.

In your opinion, which is the greatest threat to the planet/

  • Global Warming

    Votes: 7 15.9%

  • Human overpopulation

    Votes: 22 50.0%

  • Planet-killing meteor

    Votes: 8 18.2%

  • Death of the Sun

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • Total voters
    44
sangha said:
You don't seem to understand what the word progress means. Whether you like or not, it's still progress
Click to expand...

Which brings us back to my original question.

Is it "progress" to achieve "equality" among men and "equilibrium" with nature, if the cost is developmental stagnation?

If your answer is anything other than "no," I'd say that we have fundamentally different definitions of the term.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Which brings us back to my original question.

Is it "progress" to achieve "equality" among men and "equilibrium" with nature, if the cost is developmental stagnation?

If your answer is anything other than "no," I'd say that we have fundamentally different definitions of the term.
Click to expand...

The cost isn't developmental stagnation.
 
sangha said:
The cost isn't developmental stagnation.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof in demonstrating that will be completely on you.

Historically speaking, the only societies to exist in "equilibrium" with their environment have remained stagnant. All advanced societies have done so at the expense of their environment through population growth and liberal exploitation of natural resources.
 
Papa bull said:
What is the greatest threat this planet faces?
Click to expand...
At present, nearly half of everyone voting is picking the second of the four options: human overpopulation.

And, why not.

When the population becomes too dense, as it is in many places on Earth, people behave neurotically and attempt to kill each other off to make space.

In this dangerous nuclear age, where many nations combined possess sufficient nuclear destructive capability to destroy our planet and all life upon it many, many times over, yes, this is likely the right-around-the-corner scenario that awaits us if we do nothing.

And, so far, we're doing nothing.

And we're doing nothing because, sadly, not everyone is capable of saying no to the "bribe" that prevents them from speaking the truth about this real and huge problem: http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/123826-why-do-conservatives-deny-existence-population-management-crisis.html
 
Gathomas88 said:
The burden of proof in demonstrating that will be completely on you.
Click to expand...

No, the burden of proof is on you

Historically speaking, the only societies to exist in "equilibrium" with their environment have remained stagnant. All advanced societies have done so at the expense of their environment through population growth and liberal exploitation of natural resources.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking, there have never been societies with a sustainable population that is stable.
 
sangha said:
No, the burden of proof is on you

Historically speaking, there have never been societies with a sustainable population that is stable.
Click to expand...

Neither do any exist today. Again, for that very reason, if you want to argue not only for the existence of such a society, but its supposed "superiority" over the status quo we already posses, it is going to be on you to demonstrate the validity and workability of both suppositions, no one else.

I'd get started, if I were you. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Neither do any exist today. Again, for that very reason, if you want to argue not only for the existence of such a society, but its supposed "superiority" over the status quo we already posses, it is going to be on you to demonstrate the validity and workability of both suppositions, no one else.

I'd get started, if I were you. :lol:
Click to expand...

If I were you, I'd read what my original post again.
 
(Accidental post -- moderators please delete)
 
Overpopulation, colonization of MARS will fix this, humanity must become space-faring, 7-8 billion people on a planet of this size is simply not healthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom