The Instigator
Nefelibata
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
angryduck
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Nefelibata
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 422 times Debate No: 60974
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Nefelibata

Pro

Full Resolution: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.

The first round is for acceptance.
angryduck

Con

Extracting resources from developing countries will always take priority over environmental protection. Its an unavoidable truth that given the unsustainable growth of our population coupled with dwindling resources any attempt to prioritize environmental protection is not possible. In short , don't bother , its probably too late.
Debate Round No. 1
Nefelibata

Pro

A sub point – Links:

The negative stands on the foundation of economic development. The belief of “mo’ money, no problems” is what drives him. However this is a view that puts humans as superior to everything else on earth, and uses nature as a stepping stool for our selfish desires. This is the basis of Anthropocentrism. Devall[1]:

“The dominant paradigm in North America [is] … the belief that … the primary goal of .. nation-states … should be to … increase production of commodities and satisfy material wants … Nature, in this paradigm, is only a storehouse of resources which should be “developed” to satisfy … demands … The goal of persons is personal satisfaction …”

Even the word “environment” is anthropocentric. It implies that nature is just a backdrop for humans – this attitude is the cause of the ecological crisis. Curry[2]:

“environment … as a word prejudges the issues in a particularly unfortunate way, insofar as it implies that the natural world is essentially merely a surround, backdrop, or setting for the main attraction: us. But that very attitude is integral to the present crisis. For this reason, I prefer ecology …”

B sub point – Impacts:

First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior. Donovan[3]:

“Through … exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals. Humans … justify … exploitation of other species by categorizing “animals” as inferior and therefore rightfully subjugated while categorizing humans as superior … So … universal is the false dichotomy … that symbolically associating women with “animal” assists in their oppression. Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior”

Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior. DeMello[4]:

“we are rapidly becoming a throwaway culture, in whichanimals are tossed awayItshould serve as a warningof people who so easilyinflict crueltypsychologists have for years known of the connection between the abuse of animals and violence toward humans. Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documentedThe evidence is notanecdotal; numerous studieshave shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commitviolent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence,violence toward animalsneeds to be taken seriously”

Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life. Smith[5]:

“The anthropocentric viewechoes the waymany humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different …. Regarding others assubstandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty or eliminationToo often people label what they don’t understand as inferior, … Anthropocentrism does notbridge the artificial gap it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated fromtheir environment.causing the disintegration of health and harmony for allhuman life.”

C sub point – Alternative:

Reject the negative case and adopt a policy of deep ecology. Zimmerman[6]:

“Deep ecology isainsight into the interrelatedness of alllife on Earthanthropocentrism – … is a misguided way of seeing things.an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life Instead of regarding humans asuniquethey see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. …. Instead of identifying with our egoswe wouldidentify withthe whole ecosphere.Wewouldn’tdamage the planet, just as you wouldn’t cut off your own finger.”

And this solves for the ecological problems of today. Affirming makes the world a better place. Katz[7]:

“’anthropocentric’ ethical systems fail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism … system. The natural world –natural entities and natural ecological systems—deserves our moral consideration as part of the interdependent community of line on Earth. … The basis of a moral justification of environmental policy is that we have ethical obligations to the natural world …”

Now, let's go over my opponent's last round (even though it was supposed to just be him accepting, but oh well).

His entire argument is just multiple bare assertions. Nothing is actually backed up by evidence of any kind. There's no reason to buy his assertions that it's just not possible to happen.

But, moreover, his assertions are also the is/ought fallacy. He's saying that it's just this unavoidable truth that it's not possible to prioritize environmental protection first, but the resolution isn't a question of what is, but rather what ought. It's asking us to consider the resolution in the hypothetical, and debate the merits of of both side's theory without actually coming up with a practical solution to anything.

Furthermore, I'm still going to be outweighing my opponent's argument because a) I actually have evidence behind my position, and b) the thesis of economic development is one that's going to kill us all anyway (i.e. anthropocentrism), so at least I'm trying to help and save people rather than just rolling over and dying.

With that, I pass the round back over to my opponent.

Sources:

[1]
Devall, Bill. "The Deep Ecology Movement." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[2] Patrick Curry, BA in psychology, September 3, 2001 (University of California at Santa Cruz, The Campaign for Political Ecology) <Murray>

[3] Carol J Adams, Josephine Donovan, Animals & Women Access via: Google-Print 1995 p. 355

[4] DeMello, Margo. "Cruelty to Animals a Warning of Possible Violence to Come." SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.

[5] Smith 02 [Penelope Smith, Animal Talk, “Anthropocentrism”, 2002. Accessed January 24, 2014. Retrieved online at http://animalliberty.com...]

[6] Zimmerman, Martin E. "Introduction to Deep Ecology." Context Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[7] Eric Katz, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997 [Nature As Subject : Human Obligation and Natural Community] <murray>

angryduck

Con

Thankyou for accepting my view that economic development is going to kill us all . Any "green Ideas" about saving the planet are just shifting the deck chairs on the Titanic. Developing countries need all the cash they can get and exploiting their resources in any way they can will satisfy whatever Immediate agenda they have. We are human beings and will continue to demolish the environment in whatever short term gain that gives us.
Debate Round No. 2
Nefelibata

Pro

I think my opponent is confused. Whenever he says that "economic development is going to kill us all", he's specifically advocating against the think he's supposed to be advocating for.

But to respond to the only (unwarranted, asserted) claim that he makes, which was "Developing countries need all the cash they can get and exploiting their resources in any way they can will satisfy whatever Immediate agenda they have."

This would be very hard to prove because developing countries don't even get the profit from the materials they extract. They're extracting materials for other, developed nations which just leaves them with the check, not the payday.

Katz and Oechsli[1]:

“Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preservingtherain forest, are spread outacross the entire human race, while the costsare bornebylocal human populations. Development of the rain forestprovides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding thatThird World countries limit developmentviolates basicnotions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for theworld’suse of natural resources.”

So, this means that if the developing countries want to see any kind of benefit at all, they'd be better off investing in more environmentally friendly policies (i.e. deep ecology) which not only benefits them, but the rest of the world as well.

And, my opponent doesn't really respond to anything that I said in my case, so extend it out as unrefuted.

[1] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

angryduck

Con

angryduck forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Nefelibata

Pro

Extend my arguments.
angryduck

Con

Third World countries are directly implicit in the downfall of the human race because of their need to reproduce . Its not rocket science. Any ecological concerns you might have will soon be outstripped by the demands of 9 billion people in 40 years time.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by LubricantSanta 2 years ago
LubricantSanta
Ha, last year's Lincoln Douglas.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
What both sides seem to have ignored is the real reason WHY underdeveloped nations are forced to over exploit their natural resources. It can be summed up in six words: "The World Bank and compounding interest".
Large sums have been loaned to third world nations for "modernization" at high rates of interest. This interest has accumulated to many times more than the principle of the loans, and although these nations have repaid amounts far in excess of the original principle their debt still grows. To attempt to pay these debts they are forced to "sell" their natural resources to various corporations who are ruthless in the manner in which they extract them. The host country gains virtually nothing.
Posted by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
hi zaradi
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
NefelibataangryduckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 2 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
NefelibataangryduckTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
NefelibataangryduckTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF