We Need to Cull At Least 1 Billion of the Population

IntroductionsOkay, so the first thing I want to say is that of course I realise I am under a lot of heat for this topic. But what I want to express to all of you is that this is the very purpose of a website like this. If you don't think something is worth debating then there is no reason for you to be here. Leave. Comments such as "@masterdrave I hope you're not serious about this." and "wow you belong in jail if you are serious about this post.." are nothing more than projective and entirely helpless. Firstly, not one of you has heard my argument yet. You're simply using past teachings in your own experiences as a premise because this is such a high-running issue. Debating is about more than this. If you're only thinking in moral terms then this topic is not for you. In fact, I would go as far in saying that debating - period - is not for you. Have you actually done any academic study? Created a register of advantages and disadvantages? I doubt so. I hope that my opponent will consider all these things when formulating his own argument. Saying things as blunt and ignorant as "I should be in jail" are totally worthless and based on no evidence and in no realm of actuality. I shall now begin.Definitions and DataDefinition of cull in English as declared by the Oxford Dictionary:Reduce the population of (a wild animal) by selective slaughter.e.g. "some of the culled deer will be used for scientific research"Now that there is no confusion as to what I mean by my title, let me give you some very real statistics. According to the website Worldometers.org, which gathers its estimations from the world's most reputable official organisations, the statistics at 3:07:05 pm on 13 September 2017 are:Current World Population: 7,532,015,081Births this year: 98,597,917Deaths this year: 40,753,942Net population growth this year: 57,833,974Public Healthcare expenditure today: 7,341,247,243Public Education expenditure today: 6,384,570,748Public Military expenditure today: 3,043,888,719What Do These Mean?I would ask my opponent to ponder these figures for a minute. Now, consider this passage from the website worldwatch.org, a website that is updated regularly. "It has become increasingly apparent over the past half-century that there is a growing tension between two seemingly irreconcilable trends. On one hand, moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 9 billion, perhaps more, by mid-21st century. On the other, prudent and increasingly reliable scientific estimates suggest that the Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an "adequate" to "moderately comfortable" developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion."So, to summarise, by mid-21st century the human population will stand at at least 9 billion, a dramatic 1.5 billion more than our current figure, and a frightening 6-7 billion more than is globally sustainable. Thus, if we are speaking from a standpoint of preservation and care, my title is reasonably generous. One billion would not be enough in the long-term. The reason I have used this relatively small figure is simply for a sampling. We need to start here, and see what growth will bring. BenefitsPerhaps the most hopeful thing about this is that the benefits long outlast ourselves. If this vital action is taken then the generations that will live to see this Earth will be innumerable in comparison to those that would if continuing down our current, detrimental, trajectory. A simple place to start is health. Africa, like many of the other less developed areas of the world, has a very high STD rate. Higher populations can be linked to higher STD rates. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS, is a commonly found sexually transmitted disease all over the world; in South Africa, one out of every five people is HIV positive, scientifically known as human immunodeficiency virus (the stage before AIDS). Even removing one billion of our population would drastically diminish this number. Above, you saw that the public healthcare expenditure was sitting at $7,341,247,243 for that day. And that was just by mid-afternoon. More dollars than people on the planet are spent daily to deal with health issues that would be dramatically diminished with the diminishment of the population. Furthermore, if we remove (within the culling) people who reside on housing estates and the long-term unemployed, taxes would at last be useful. Do you truly know where your money goes? You could now. Larger pensions and reasonable taxes would suddenly be possible. Yes, this seems ridiculous, you say, removing humans who are simply attempting to live their lives, staying under the radar. Recall what I pressed at the beginning of this argument. Arguing that this is merely "wrong" or "uncalled for" is unequivocally invalid. Practicality is king here. Higher population size results in lower resource availability. An increase of births over deaths results in a high rate of natural increase and rapid population growth. Rapid population growth affects capital formation, food shortages, consumer prices, labor problems, and social and political unrest. Money shortages affect the ability to meet day to day needs and expenditures rise (as shown in the above data). Rural and urban development are affected. School enrollments in institutions of higher education can also be affected. Economic disruption results in a widening circle of poverty and a reduced standard of living. Production costs are affected. Most of you may think this is of unimportance to you, simply because of your current position. You have access to the internet, are most likely residing in a first-world country and thus are shielded from economy downfall. However, ignorance is not a defence here.Why Should You Listen?Well, the first thing to note is that there is no need for you to listen. To read. Most of the human race has tuned out their brains to the current human climate and rising planetary problems. You have every right available to you to join them. The right to act is almost never fun. It is dangerous, and you are often vulnerable to ridicule. Thus, all I can present to you are the facts. You should listen because there is only one Earth. You should listen because you want to continue living on this Earth. You should listen for your children, and if you plan for them to live on this Earth. To grow. Love. And have children of their own. You should listen because the quota for human population is nearing, and then there is no reversing the effects.ConclusionI now pass the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called neo-Malthusian pessimists, to my opponent, theta_pinch. Let him (or her) answer: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand, without irreparable damage, another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per-capita consumption increasingly exceed the Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?Thank you all for your time. All used sources will be cited in the final round of this debate.