Should Curing Cancer, AIDS, etc. Be Outlawed and Genocide Encouraged

My second round shall both refute my opponent's rebuttals and contend against the decision to outlaw the curing of certain diseases. Rebuttal: My opponent has factually identified a global crisis: overconsumption of Earth's resources. My opponent goes further to say that a solution to overconsumption is a decrease in population. This is a possible solution, yet not at all necessary. In fact, overconsumption can be directly solved by a decrease of consumption itself. Thus the question is: Should genocide be the course of action most, or at all, practical and lawfully acceptable in our society? I contend that it is not, and that it is a negative course of action only harmful to our entire human society. My opponent says "I feel that if this is necessary for the preservation of humanity as a whole, then we cannot focus on the short term struggles. " This I view as a statement contending that genocide is acceptable, or exempt from ethical or lawful jurisdiction, if it is necessary to preserve humanity. I will disprove my opponent on this matter because I contend that genocide is NOT necessary to prevent global collapse, thus making it ethically and lawfully wrong; giving it no socially acceptable place in society. 1st Argument Genocide is not necessary to prevent a global collapse. According to the definition provided by investopedia. com: "A total economic collapse is characterized by economic depression, civil unrest and highly increased poverty levels. Hyperinflation, stagflation and financial-market crashes can all be causes. Government intervention is usually necessary to bring an economy back from collapse, but can often be slow to remedy the problem. " My opponent asserts that genocide is the best course of action, or at least a favorable one, for a global form of government to prevent a global economic collapse. This is incorrect. Many other forms of government intervention, or even simply government involvement can deter or prevent a global collapse. Elements of command economy or mixed economy, or similar ideas implemented in known forms of government such as socialism, communism, utilitarianism, etc. can be far better alternatives to genocide. These such elements would amount to governmental economic regulations such as limitations of imports; particularly on wasteful products with global conservatism in mind, regulation of resource consumption or selling by private or federal businesses or other entities, or any form of strategic increase of taxation on scarce or valuable resources; excluding the distribution of basic and necessary living staples. Of course this course of action enforced separately by each nation, country, or state could catastrophically cripple an entire economy, thus the only implementation of this governmental intervention would work on a global or multi-national level of decisive agreement. This, however, does not give an advantage to the more easily feasible method of genocide because it should be safe to say that genocide is unsupported by more than the majority of our globe's nations. Environmental protection and regulation is also a safer and more favored alternative to genocide. Our society's ever-growing technological advances may, if in the interest for human preservation, be implemented towards resource protection, resource conservation, and resource recycling. A global understanding of an imminent economic crisis would involve not manslaughter, not war provocation, and not national contempt, but it would contrastingly bring our world's powers together in progressive cooperation. These alternatives I have offered are far more acceptable than genocide and I understand that to win this debate, my opponent must refute my claims and explain how the unethical, unlawful act of genocide could still be a better, and necessary alternative.