Overpopulation is a stupid, damaging myth.

It is unwise to lambast my lack of statistics when I merely question yours, in your final post....you are going to have some explaining to do.... 1. Global Population Growth: First, the global population will double in the next 50 years, according to David Pimentel of Cornell University, last year. He Writes: "The world population is projected to double its current number of 6.5 billion in about 58 years, based on the current growth rate of 1.2% per year.....the world population will continue to expand for about 70 years, before stabilizing at about 13 billion people." Also, According to Chris Bystroff, an associate professor of biology and computer science at the Polytech Institute: "Global population is increasing by about 1 billion every 12 years, according to various sources including the U.N. At the same time, scientists have failed to detect any increase in the size of our planet. It therefore requires only a little math to prove that overpopulation is not a myth." Both of these sources seem to indicate that global science is agreeing that the global population is continuing to grow, and we are reaching what they call the carrying capacity, meaning that we are reaching the number of people that the planet's environment can physically handle. 2. Land Use: You still conceed that you conflate overpopulation and population density. Here is some information that says we are about to reach the amount of usable land. This is from VHEMT in 2007: "If we define uninhabited as areas where human influence is ecologically insignificant, I think we'll find very little land left to spread out on. It's naive to think that all we have to do is distribute ourselves better to solve crowding problems. We need far more than a place to squat. We need water, food, and warmth." This seems to answer your argument that we cannot find enough land that is ecologically sound for humans to live on, because we cannot find enough of the 3 things we need to survive: food, water, and warmth. You seem to oversimplify the argument by believing that all we need is some place to lay down. 3-5. Farming: You cite sources from 1999 that said we overproduced, with little evidence that supports your claim that we can produce at the needed levels now. I will also use information from 1999 that shows that your statistics are wrong. All of the following bits of information are from the worldwatch institute. First, Land production is going down: "The slower growth in the world grain harvest since 1984 is due to the lack of new land and to slower growth in irrigation and fertilizer use. Irrigated area per person, after expanding by 30 percent from 1950 until 1978, has declined by 4 percent since then as growth in the irrigated area has fallen behind that of population." Second, even if we found more land, it would not yeild more grain: "future growth in grain production must come almost entirely from raising land productivity. Unfortunately, this is becoming more difficult. After rising at 2.1 percent a year from 1950 to 1990, the annual increase in grainland productivity dropped to scarcely 1 percent from 1990 to 1997. The challenge for the world's farmers is to reverse this decline at a time when cropland area per person is shrinking, the amount of irrigation water per person is dropping, and the crop yield response to additional fertilizer use is falling." Finally, productivity will bottom out in parts of Africa, the middle east, and southeast asia: "Countries such as Ethiopia, India, Iran, Nigeria, and Pakistan will see grainland per person shrink by 2050 to less than one tenth of a hectare (one fourth of an acre)—far smaller than a typical suburban building lot in the United States." All three of these citations seem to indicate that we do not have enough land, and even if we can find some, we cannot produce enough grain. Next, Economic Desiribility. You say that I proved your points by making the argument that they have stopped growing due to poor economics. However this means that if we try to grow more crops for our people, or the world which you say we can do, it wont happen because farmers have let their lands degrade to a point where it cannot be used. 6. China and Africa: See, you think its funny that you are a policy debater, yet I debated for 8 years and I coach now, so I will teach you something your coach never taught you about africa. First, population growth is up in africa. From Gwynne Dwyer 2007: "You look at the numbers and you think: "That's impossible." Uganda had about seven million people at independence in 1962, and in only 45 years it has grown to 30 million. By 2050, just over four more decades, there will be 130 million Ugandans, and it will be the twelfth biggest country in the world, with more people than Russia or Japan." Here's more, from the Union for African Population Studies in this year: "Sub-Saharan Africa's population is still growing rapidly, and is expected to reach 1.7 billion in the next forty-five years primarily as a result of current and past high fertility. Early marriage, high desired family size, gender disparity in socioeconomic status, low contraceptive use, and unequal access to information and services are some of the major reasons for sustained high fertility in Africa. This high population growth is occurring in a context of high levels of poverty, poor education, low economic growth, environmental degradation, and food insecurity." China: Now, china is a big grain exporter and it is destroying their ability to grow more grain, from Pimentel again: "In the future, when exporting nations must keep surpluses at home, Egypt, Jordan, and countless other countries in Africa and Asia will be without the food imports that now help them survive. China, which now imports many tons of food, illustrates this problem. As the Worldwatch Institute has pointed out, if China's population increases by 500 million and their soil erosion continues unabated, it will need to import 200-400 million tons of food each year by 2050." China and India and the world food market: "Because of industrialization leading to loss of agricultural land, population growth, and the demand for more meat instead of grain as incomes rise, China is projected to need to import 240 million tons of food annually by the year 2030. The same projections show India (currently an exporter of food) needing to import 30 million tons a year. .....Accordingly, the increasing demand for food imports by growing economies like China's will almost certainly drive the price of food up over the next 30 years, virtually ensuring that more people elsewhere will suffer from starvation." This proves that china and india's consumption will greatly effect the rest of the world. Now, you say that we overconsume and throw too much food in America away, which you are correct, however it is impossible to change our lifestyle to one where we stop wasting food and other resources, and even if we do, look at my evidence above, prices are about to fly through the roof anyway. Finally, Old People Dieing: I am not advocating that we should kill of everyone who is old. My argument is that due to advances in technology we are losing all of the death checks that were naturally built in. Things like medicine have elevated our bodies to exist beyond our natural limits. Diseases were created to check our overpopulation and overconsumption of the planet, yet when we can take medicine to escape diseases, means of natural death so our birth rates and death rates can balance out are decreasing. There, I am the only one citing statistics and using different aspects of science to show why overpopulation is not a myth, it is a very serious problem that needs to be thoroughly discussed. Even if we stop being stupid and lazy in america, the world may be too far behind to solve the problem. After reading all of this, two words for you: Bring It!