Jonathan Swift was Right: Eating Babies is the Answer to Overpopulation

Cordial greetings! I shall be defending the motion that Jonathan Swift was right! Let them eat babies! For my opening statement, I shall present my plan, and then I shall respond to Con's rebuttal and counterplan. But first a quick note: since Con has failed to observe one of the rules--that round one was only for acceptance--I ask that he NOT make any arguments in the final round, and instead ONLY write "The End" for that post. This will ensure that we both have an equal number of speeches with which to make our respective cases. Okay, on to the arguments! Lt.Cmdr.Data 1. Presentation of the framework I shall define "Poor" as living on USD 1.25 a day or less. [1] My burden in this round is to demonstrate that consuming the babies--which I will classify as 15 months or younger--of the poor will solve for overpopulation. I will also attempt to demonstrate that eating babies will help solve for world hunger, but, as the resolution states, I ONLY have to show that it is a solution for overpopulation; any benefits regarding world hunger are ancillary, and I have no obligation to prove or uphold these ancillary benefits. 2. Presentation of the thesis. Thus, I assert that cannibalizing babies is the solution to overpopulation. 3. Is overpopulation a problem? Firstly, I will establish that overpopulation is, in fact, a problem. While this seems fairly obvious when taken on face value, there are several factors to consider. How many people can the Earth support? When will growth rates begin to slow and approach the statistically inevitable zero? What is the timeline for all of this? There seems to be little consensus within the scientific community regarding how many people the Earth is capable of supporting. This is all relative the our technological capacities as well as the functionality of our economies. Yet, most scientist to acknowledge that there will come a time, probably within the next century [2], in which the Earth will be too small for the number of humans living on it. The UN projects the global population to reach in excess of 694 billion people by 2150--far more that can be managed [2]. The UN asserts that this increase is near inevitable if birth rates remain the same. Now, statistically, it is also inevitable that growth will approach zero--in other words, the exponential growth will flatten out at some, undefined point in the future. But, there is again no consensus on when this stabilization will occur. In fact, it is likely, according to Malthus and other theorists, to occur just as food resource begin to strain to support them. Basically, when we start to starve, we'll stop reproducing. This could lead to a variety of problems, ranging from poor living conditions due to rapid growth to starvation and poor quality of life due to the strain on resources. From this it is not ridiculous to hypothesize that nations will fight over remaining resources. So, in order to correct for (1) a lack of resources (both natural and man-made), (2) the risk of war, and (2) a simple lack of space, something must be done to solve for overpopulation. Moreover, Con never disagrees that a solution to overpopulation must be found; he just disputes what solution we should employ. That leads me into the final point of my case. 4. Presentation of Pro's Plan/Solvency My plan to solve the problems of overpopulation is simple: eat the babies of the poor, as Swift argued. This would not only have a significant population-stabilizing impact--1 billion children are born into poverty [3]--but they could also be used to feed the hungry around the world. That would essential cut humanity's growth rate in half [3], because one of every 2 children could be used for food. Jakeross6: 1. The "Modest Proposal." I agree with his summary of Swift's article. 2. Viability of Pro's Plan/Con's Rebuttal Con makes several attacks here. I'll take 'em one at a time. (1) Abortions - firstly, abortions are, in fact, NOT necessarily increasing among poor communities [4]. Moreover, abortions for the poor are unsafe, because the poor are less likely to have adequate care facilities [5]. Therefore, it is actually safe to carry the child to term and then to kill it. (2) Poor as an eye sore/exquisite cuisine - whether or not they taste good does not matter. The goal is feeding the population. Obviously, not everyone can eat smoked salmon, but they do need to be fed. Also, I am not out to eliminate poverty, because people can always fall into poverty from higher social stations. So, I'm not concerned with the beautifying the poor--I am more concerned with feeding people and saving the planet from the pains of population growth. 3. Con's Counterplan/the Memphis Hunger Games Con says his counterplan has many benefits, chief among them that the poor would be eliminated. In fact, poverty CANNOT be eliminated, only controlled. If I have 10 people who each progressively make more money, and I kill person #1, then person #2 is the next poorest. This second person becomes the new impoverished class. The goal, then, is not to eliminate poverty, but to find a sustainable food source that also checks poverty (fewer babies = more able to provide for your family = more $) and that solves for overpopulation. And, while Con says he responds to the hypothetical objections he raised, he never explains how we could reach criteria for his plan. Also, keep in mind that there is a significant risk of spillover violence, especially when we consider that billions of people live in poverty. How could we control a hunger games of billions of armed an angry poor people. We'd be overrun. Therefore, we should all prefer my plan to Con's counterplan. Citations: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://discovermagazine.com... 3. http://www.globalissues.org... 4. http://www.guttmacher.org... 5. http://www.ippfwhr.org...