The debate "It is legitimate for developing countries to prioritise economic development over the environment" was started by
July 16, 2015, 4:47 am.
19 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Turtle posted 1 argument, desght posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Girl101 posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Turtle, desght, historybuff, HowdyDoody03, jonatron5, MEATMISSILE01, Sarashouwne, gouthamabi, skyfrancois_97, Trance, musejay1 and 8 visitors agree.
Girl101, PsychDave, I_Voyager, gerami, The_lamp, denno27, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, Skeetc15 and 7 visitors disagree.
While I'm not sure that China is the best example given their current environmental nightmare, but it is a excellent example for both sides. 100 years ago they were a technological and economic lightweight, to put if mildly. They were used and abused by Westerners. They industrialized incredibly quickly and it has improved the standard of living for their people and made them a global power. It also has left them with rivers you can't touch, air you can't breathe and soil you can't grow anything in. They are the champions of both sides of this argument. They now have the money and technology to begin to protect the environment (they are bringing in some strict environmental policies) but it is largely too late. The damage is done. So o suppose I agree with others that economic growth should be slightly ahead of environmental protection for a developing country, but within reason. if you go crazy with it like China it wont be worth it when your people all get sick.
Before I start I'd just like to say I'm closer to the middle than either end of this argument, but if I had to pick a side I'd definitely say the economy should come first. Unless well-developed nations are just itching to give these countries solar panels and wind turbines worth tens of thousands of dollars (which I seriously doubt), they can't be "green" using that route, and simply using only whats absolutely necessary for food and heat is going to leave them in the exact same place they are now: a nation that can't afford to give its people food or healthcare and that makes no significant scientific or technological advances. Plus, a lot of the pollution and deforestation thats occurring in those nations already isn't because of them, its because of the US, Australia, Western Europe, and other developed countries essentially buying them out and therefore doing whatever they want with the country's resources. Even if environment is important to them, if they never bother to improve their economy, they'll never be able to kick these countries out, and they'll never be able to afford renewable resources.
(I am arguing so that there is a discussion :) I do not actual agree with the moot) It is legitimate for developing countries to prioritise their economy over the environment. As the economic state of the developing countries improve, more money will be able to flow through the system meaning more money invested in the people and infrastructure (and improve the education system allowing opportunities for the young people of tjeir cpuntry).As more money flows into the system through whatever means the country takes to expand their economy, they better the quality of life for the people. Part of this, as mentioned is the investment in their own country meaning that the quality of the environment should be imrpoved as it is part of the country's identity.
Although we may sacrafice a little, developing countries need to expand their economy so that they can in turn improve the quality of life for their people and the environment thus breaking the cycle of breaking and fixing mistakes. The long term goals will out weigh the short term goals - with time everything heals.
(I would really appreciate feedback on my argument if possible)
If a developing nations destroys the environment to gain temporary prosperity (strip mining, clear cutting, dumping waste) the positive effects will not last, and the negative effects will. The drain on the health care system (or the deaths and illness of the citizens if there is no system) will outweigh the longterm benefits, and eventually they will have to pay more to fix what they broke. There should be a balance between environmental protection and economic growth.
I think the enviorment should be put slightly ahead of economics. let me explain, we need trees, plants and the such for food and oxegon. If we end up with little trees, it's hard to reforestate. Not to mention pollution will kill the earth, making economics useless when we all die.