The debate "Economic prosperity is more important than environment protection" was started by
May 5, 2015, 6:27 am.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 45 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
xmliszt posted 1 argument, lea14x posted 2 arguments, jonatron5 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Seraphim posted 1 argument, Shahmir posted 1 argument, I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, bearunter posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
lea14x, xmliszt, jonatron5, libertarian_rebel, Violet, skyfrancois_97 and 21 visitors agree.
Raydiff3r, Seraphim, Shahmir, Sosocratese, ScorpionHan, scooter6381, I_Voyager, PsychDave, administrator, bearunter, Mrcolaman, Nor_Omer, invincible_01, shinywhale, sphericdrake, Zach_Hill, Bodaciouslady16, AnkGanu, DarkAngelAnarchist and 26 visitors disagree.
If you're talking about the lifeless hunk of rock we grow on, you're right. It'll be here no matter what we do. But that hardly matters.
When we talk about "the world" we're usually either talking about life on earth or human civilization. "The world as we know it".
In that context, consider the worst mass extinction of oceanic life occurred this century because of fishing. Now because of it there are massive highly acidic dead-spots which life cannot migrate into. What remains are fleeing those areas. Major refuges for life are dying. The pollutants in the water don't make things any better. There are massive plastic islands out there in the oceans where nothing grows. There are dead forests in South America plastered with plastic bags. A global temperature increase means increased natural disasters. A higher population means more deforestation for farmlands. Less drinking water to go around means more drought and less green life.
A dead rock is not relevant to life. It persisting on for billions of years is not relevant to our actions. The persistence of life and human life on earth is relevant to us. If that ends, we may as well say the world ends. If you disagree, your arguments are entirely linguistic in nature and make no argument.
It's easy to be an idealist (I know, I am one). It's hard to have your cake and eat it too.
Consider that the strongest economic decision you can make is to produce more oil for energy. But it's the worst environmental act. We assume by building our strong economy we'll develop technologies that will magically undo global warming. But the truth is there are no good technologies on the horizon to such CO2 out of the air.
The world's survival depends on environmental prosperity. Humanity's survival does too. Only the state of our massive societies, and the lives of billions of people are reliant on economy. If the economy broke entirely tomorrow, the world would not die. Just the world as we know it. But humanity would go on, diminished, but for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.
But if trends continue in oil development, we fish the seas clean, we scour the lands of space and life - all life on earth will collapse within centuries, save perhaps simpler forms of life. That will last for eons, and eventually global warming might cause a similar effect as to what's happened on Jupiter.
the world survival depends by the economic prospers . the should focus both by limiting the destroyment of the environment and by proceeding the economic prosperity
the planets been here billions of years and survived faaaaaaar worse then anything we could ever do
This is a good argument. It lends to the idea that some kinds of environmental protection or maintenance are impossible without a strong economy.
But to contrast, if a series of economic decisions leave us having more money, but global warming shortly there-after makes intelligent life on earth impossible to maintain, that would be the flip.
If economic priorities destroy the environment, then the problem is our economic priority. But we can't wholesale abandon our economy because we need to take measures to maintain our environment.
economic prosperity can never be better than environmental protection because in the long term you have to care for the environment other wise you can not even have any economy if every things being killed due to lack of environmental protection. but then again in the short term economic prosperity is more important so the best conclusion would be it is better for every one of both are valued equally
we need to sacrifice something in order to get something
I would agree with this statement.
If a country does not prosper economically in the first place, it won't have sufficient money to spend on investments of new technology and then come out with better measures to preserve and protect the environment.
For example, the haze caused by the burning trees in Indonesia affects Singapore very badly. However, Indonesia itself is unable to control the fire as it does not have advanced technology to detect the potential fire in the first place. Furthermore, it takes Indonesia very long time to put our the fire. Hence, without prosperity of economy in the first place, it's hard for a country to protect the environment efficiently.
I recall some economists estimated the value of the services that nature provides us to be in the trillions.
We can't economize a dead-world.
I would disagree. Modern economists have found out that a good model is a balance in between. An example would be electric cars.
There are indeed major benefits of electric cars, but equally the cost regarding the development and implementation of these cars can have a huge negative impact on the economy.
In the long run, we cannot have economic prosperity without environmental protection because we extract the resources we use from the environment itself. I believe they should both be given equal attention to because they're dependent on each other.