Instigator / Pro
20
1500
rating
9
debates
61.11%
won
Topic
#6177
We don't need forests in100 years
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 4 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
jonrohith
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
18
1500
rating
5
debates
60.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Welcome
Importance of trees:
*Trees are the pillars of earth shaping every land in earth with its roots
*Trees produces about 28% of earths oxygen
*Trees provide microclimate ,shelther ,food, to animals ,birds
BUT AFTER 100 YEARS, WE DONT NEED TREES:
*Though trees give much benefits, we don't need it later parts
*Trees are often prone to forest fire releasing huge quantities of carbon at one time
* A single tree occupies huge space, Trees are often shelter for illegal activities
Technologia:
*Today humans are moving towards sustainable growth, We already using EV vehicles, Also countries such as Britain derives more than 80% of from sustainable methods such solar, tidal etc
* IN future we need more land to live, as forests occupying major areas, we can cut down trees and take it.
*Though tree produces oxygen , it is only little amount just 28 % of total earth
ALGAE TANKS:
* Under good sunlight and nutrient-rich water, algae can produce 10–15 times more oxygen per square meter than a tree.
* As well as we will use totally electrical energies in 100 years, we can destroy forest and can place algae rich lake and artificial trees equipped with solar panels, .
NANO INSECTS:
* We don't need natural pollinators like bees, butterflies anymore, we can use robotic insects and nano robots to pollinate farming land .
Conclusion:
Changes alone does not change, in future the need of trees will decrease, and we might build small artificial forests in every 10 sq kilo metre , this will make climate is same on all places, we will built algal tank on roof tops, robotic birds that not need fruits or nuts.
Forfeited
Round 2
From above words, kindly vote for me
So I tried to answer with a polite answer, and I will start with the first thing: cutting down the forests as a consequence for the over population will be our living end.
As the global population continues to rise, so does the demand for land, food, housing, and infrastructure. One major consequence is the accelerated rate of deforestation, especially in tropical regions. This process brings several severe consequences:
- Loss of Biodiversity: Forests are home to more than 80% of terrestrial species. Deforestation destroys habitats, leading to extinction or severe decline of plant and animal populations.
- Climate Change Acceleration: Trees absorb carbon dioxide. Their removal increases greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to global warming.
- Soil Degradation and Erosion. Forests protect topsoil from erosion. When trees are removed, rain and wind erode the soil, reducing agricultural productivity and increasing desertification.
- Disruption of the Water Cycle. Forests regulate local and global water cycles. Deforestation reduces rainfall, dries up rivers, and can lead to prolonged droughts.
- Negative Impact on Indigenous Communities. Many Indigenous and local communities depend on forests for food, shelter, and culture. Deforestation often displaces them and erodes traditional ways of life.
- Urban Sprawl and Unsustainable Agriculture. Population pressure often leads to expansion into forested areas for housing or large-scale farming (e.g., cattle ranching, palm oil), which are rarely sustainable long-term.
You mentioned earlier also that the sustainable growth will affect the world in the same way that the forests do, but what's the point between the forests and the sustainable energy?
The fact that ALGAE could potentially be even better compared to forests is totally nonsense.
While Algae tanks can help absorb the carbon dioxide, the effects wouldn't be the same as forests because they don't offer the same benefits as forests.
You mentioned also the presence of Nano Insects could replace the small pollinators insects. As I've done before, I give my point and all the sources.
- First of all: There will be critical consequences to food security. Around 75% of global crops depend on pollinators. Bees, butterflies, and other insects pollinate plants more efficiently and selectively than any technology we currently have.
- Biodiversity Support. Pollinators help maintain healthy ecosystems by aiding reproduction of wild plants, which in turn support birds, mammals, and other wildlife.
- Resilience and Balance. Natural pollinators adapt to ecosystems, evolve with plants, and sustain themselves — unlike artificial solutions that need energy, maintenance, and materials.
Now, passing to the other hand, why nano insects are not a sustainable substitute of pollinators.
The first point and it's the critical one is the production, because nano insects, as robots require rare metals and really high energy: That is the exact opposite of sustainable
The second point are the ecological risks.
Releasing in nature thousands or millions of artificial devices into ecosystems could disrupt natural balances, harm organisms, or introduce unknown environmental consequences.
Not as last, what is the real cost and the effects? Also putting all the effort to make that work, it would be really inefficient for the human uses. Artificial pollinators can’t match the speed, precision, and efficiency of bees.
Simulating complex behaviors like flower recognition or weather adaptation is incredibly difficult. But the worst is investing in artificial replacements could distract from the urgent need to protect and restore real pollinator populations through habitat conservation, pesticide regulation, and climate action.
In conclusion forests in 100 years would probably be even the best thing to let stay because in a total destroyed planet, destroying also the only thing that can provide us oxygen and food is not a good thing at all.
The sources:
https://www.pollinator.org/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468265922000166
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/20/bees-threats-war-microplastics
https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2017/02/11/artificial-pollinators-are-cool-but-not-the-solution/
https://www.beeculture.com/synthetic-pollination-invasive-species/
https://exchanges.warwick.ac.uk/index.php/exchanges/article/view/966
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/5/857
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest
https://www.newsweek.com/viral-post-liquid-tree-algae-carbon-dioxide-1792214
I let it go forfeited because I couldn't use the internet and there was little time. my apologies 🙏
Buddy you didn't answer, what is it? You offended?
Hope it's satisfying enough
Thanks
dude what I just read is hilarious honestly