Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction
Debate Rounds (3)
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.
RA: Now given this resolution I give the following observations. Here are some definitions
1) developing countries: a poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced "economically and socially
Should: Moral obligation,
prioritize: Designate or treat something as more important than other things
4) Environmental protection: Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organization or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans.
5) Resource extraction: The disturbing, and extraction of the natural resources that occur naturally in the environment.
6) Value the value I will be upholding in my debate is life
7) Since protecting the environment is for the greater good of all life on earth my criterion is utilitarianism.
Contention 1: Resource extraction harms the environment and life
A)Resource extraction harms the environment
To clearly paint a picture in your mind so I can help you understand the vastness of deforestation by humans or a form of resource extraction, before I finish what I"m saying in this sentence that I"m speaking right now, 50-100 acres of primary tropical forest will be harvested and turned into useless land. The result of resource mismanagement induces environmental stresses which escalate to destruction of the environments and its inhabitants.
sub point B) Resource extraction causes animal extinction
Perhaps one of the most striking elements of the present extinction crisis is the fact that the majority of our closest relatives " the primates " are severely endangered. About 90 percent of primates " the group that contains monkeys, lemurs, lorids, galagos, tarsiers, and apes (as well as humans) " live in tropical forests, which are fast disappearing. According to the European Union about 32 million acres of forest is lost per year which means 32 million acres of habitat to animals is lost. We"re currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we"re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day . It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century .
SP C) Resource Extraction causes human hardships
Contention 2) Resource Extraction Does Not Help Developing Countries
Not only do the disadvantages of environmental degradation and violence serve to devalue the Negative case, but the direct economic benefits to be gained from resource extraction often turn out to be a driver of greater poverty.
A) Resources don"t go to the country
When a country has resources higher powers such as the US and Russia go in a extract the resources, not the country itself. Russia for example would pay a country a little money and then send in their oil rigs or so on to extract the resources for their own purposes.
Contention 3) Resource Extraction Fosters Violence
There is a viable link between resource extraction and violence and the evidence for it is found in many journal articles. Extraction is often accompanied by protest further which is complicated by the desire of the government to exploit its potential riches at any cost. Protest often escalates. As we extract more and more resources they will become more rare and that means the humanity is going to fight over the little resources that will be left. This is because humanity realizes without resources we cannot evolve and if we can't evolve we will either devolve into a more and more primitive form of man each day or we will go extinct. A perfect example to back up my case on that people will attack people over resources in when Iraq attacked Kuwait for money and oil.
Contention 4) Resource extraction has a negative impacts on developing countries citizens
Child labor is one of the sad realities of this world and it is not uncommon to find it in developing countries but the fuel source and driver of child labor is resource extraction. Children in developing countries are exploited and often forced into slave labor or working on the smallest wages. Child labor is a very common reality in Africa with countries showing 50% of the child population working or forced into slave labor. Children are often beaten and die frequently while working. One example is an African country of Sierra Leone where child labor is very common and the children are put to work in mines to mine for blood diamonds. Resource extraction is the driver of this cruel fate of these children and it needs to stop. You cannot value resource extraction when it involves kids being beaten and put to work that often scars them physically and mentally for the rest of their life and thats IF they survive.
Don"t be the cause of greater depression world wide and I can see nothing but an aff vote and good luck to my opponent.
Here is a simple question, do you want to live or do you want to die? since i want to live i stand firm and negate the resolution
Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict
RA: now given this resolution i give the following observations. here are some definitions;
Developing countries: a poor agricultural country that is seeking to become more advanced economically and socially,
should: Moral obligation,
prioritize: designate or treat (something) as more important than other things,
environmental protection: Environmental protection is a practice of protecting the natural environment on individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the natural environment and humans,
Resource extraction: the disturbing, and extraction of the natural resources that occur naturally in the environment
the value that i will be upholding in this debate is Humanity's survival, humanity being the human race humans collectively.
since the survival of humanity is for the greater good of society my criterion is utilitarianism
the development- environment link
In order to develop new technologies we need resources. Extracting resources may create negative environmental impacts.The good new, as the level of development improves, the impact on the environment improves.
there is an immaculate form of data and graphing known as the environmental kuznets curve. the curve is shaped as a bell. it shows that the poorest and richest countries have the cleanest environments while the middle income countries, ones that are developing, have the worst environments. the middle income countries" environments begin to improve when they reach a $8000 per capita income. this just further proves that resource extraction is key to cleaner environments and wealth.
Based on the empiric of the EKC we can conclude that one mechanism for solvency of environmental impacts exists in increasing the wealth of nations. Especially those nations which are the source of the world's resources.
the resource wealth link
Many poor, developing countries are sitting on natural resources worth billions and in some cases trillions of dollars. These countries can gain benefits for their citizens by extracting these resources. The potential for developing countries to help themselves is enormous with respect to their present situations. we can not let the mistakes of the past be a deterrent to advancement in the future. It is very possible for developing countries to reap these natural benefits.
This situation should, and can, change. For those countries that depend on extractive industries, the income generated by this sector could be transformed into an opportunity if it is used properly. According to estimates by Oxfam countries such as Angola, Chad, Nigeria, Ecuador, and Venezuela could use hydrocarbon exports to significantly increase their public spending per capita on education and health by 2015, investing 20 per cent of estimated tax revenues in education and 16 per cent in health.Bolivia saw oil and gas revenues rise from $448m in 2004 to $1.531bn in 2006, due to the redistribution of profits agreed in contracts after 2005. Indonesia and Norway are good examples of countries with significant revenue from natural resource extraction, where public spending is aligned coherently with long-term development goals.
resources are the keys to the future
The environmental impact humans have upon the planet is profound. Fact. And worse, because all emerging, industrialized societies need resources, the extraction, processing and consumption of resources comes with significant environmental cost. We acknowledge that today, our economies are driven by a scarcity of resources, many of which are non-renewable and often taken with significant environmental impact. Paradoxically, these resources are enabling the development of new technologies and methods which will reduce the impacts of scarcity and environmental degradation
so in an overall sense, without these resources and the extraction of them, we will be unable to solve the problems already created by them and solve other problems to come
so be the solution not the problem, support resource extraction and send this planet to a brighter and safer future. vote neg
Ok so first off I would like to apologize to my viewers and my opponent because my sub point c got accidentally deleted as I posted my case and I couldn't change it so I hope we can look past that and not include that in the debate.
I will begin by immediately attacking my opponents case starting with his value. My opponents value for this debate is humanities survival where mine is life which encompasses quality of life, life itself and lifes SURVIVAL. So in this debate my value already is greater than my opponents because my value encompasses my opponents value. To point out another detail life refers to all life and not just humanity or humanities survival so my value is much greater than his.
Moving on to my opponents first contention I will attack this by saying that my opponents contention was the development-environment link. He revolves his contention around the EKC which refers to the THEORY (meaning we arent positive that it actually has effect) that states that the poorest and richest countries have the cleanest environments where the middle income countries have the most pollution. This means that if we extract resources and develop we can reverse pollution. The problem with this EKC is that countries do NOT develop through resource extraction. You may be think "what this guy is crazy" but if you look at the facts countries that value environmental protection are the developing countries. Take the Congo for example. They produce about 49% of the worlds Cobalt and 30% of the worlds industrial diamonds yet they have the worlds worst growing economy and the 8th worst economy in the world. Now turn you attention to countries such as the Netherlands and Iceland which have very little land masses and next to nothing when it comes to resources but they DO value environmental protection.
Going on to his second contention which states the resource wealth link and that countries are going to gain wealth from the resources they sit upon. We know this to be false according to my rebuttal about his first contention which is that countries sitting upon vast amounts of resources like the Congo are NOT gaining any money and developing in any way. On top of that you have to take into effect that most developing countries have corrupt governments and the money is not given out equally and the citizens do not benefit at all from the resource extraction and often with these corrupt governments the resources are the greater drivers of corruption in the government which would further ruin the lives of the citizens within the country.
Finally moving on to his last contention which states that resources are the keys to the future. According to Jesper Roine from Stockholm Institute of transition Economics countries that develop best are the countries that do not use their resources and exploit them completely. Take on the Netherlands. They have next to no resources yet they are developed. Why is this? This is because if you dont have/use your resources it creates incentives to ensure that your economy will grow and put long term economical growth benefits in motion. This has been the case of MANY countries and the truth is that the countries that have the best economies and futures are those that value environmental protection not resource extraction.
So first I proved that his first contention doesn't work because countries dont develop through resource extraction as much as environmental protection. For his second contention I proved this false as well considering that countries are not developing via resource extraction and that it does not benefit citizens of developing countries in any ways especially with corrupt governments. And finally moving on to his last contention I have shown evidence that the key to a countries future and more specifically its economical future is in fact environmental protection and not resource extraction.
IAmCrazy forfeited this round.
IWasCrazy forfeited this round.
IAmCrazy forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.