Development Antagonistic to Environment
Debate Rounds (3)
Think about it. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, I wouldn't have been writing this debate. I would have been in a state of eternal peace. Total innocence. No questions. How beautiful it would have been if
we were to be living with no distinctions, no boundaries, no groups, and not segregated. I believe higher knowledge has resulted, to utter disaster
1. Development can bring a positive effect
It is true, that in large part development has been antagonistic to the environment, however it is well within the realm of possibility that development can in fact benefit the environment. For example, through the use of well implemented irrigation, one can bring a higher yield to crops as well as their surrounding area.
The problem arrives when technologies are implemented poorly. In these cases, over logging, dangerous damming and other negative effects arrive.
Other examples of benefits to the environment, include the production of medicines. Whilst many overseas diseases have been introduced around the world. Human culture is beginning to unify through overseas travel.
In the modern era, common diseases are already well spread, and therefore the environment is perhaps in a poorer state than it would have been without human development. However, research is progressing at an unprecedented rare into medicine and science, meaning that now there is a greater chance that development would be beneficial to the environment compared to previous eras.
2. Is change antagonistic?
As a result of human intervention the world is undoubtably different, however is this bad. If I was born a women instead of a man, that wouldn't be bad. Just different. Similarly, if an ecosystem is destroyed and a species is mde extinct by another, that would not necessarily bring forth a worse world, just a different one.
For example in the era of dinosaurs, the danger factor was higher than now apparently. They were largely made extinct, but I would argue that based on perception that was beneficial to many species on the planet, both flora and fauna.
"If I was born a women instead of a man, that wouldn't be bad. Just different. Similarly, if an ecosystem is destroyed and a species is made extinct by another, that would not necessarily bring forth a worse world, just a different one."
Think. If we didn't have moved forward, didn't have thought about it, how the world works, the hows, the why's , the where's, wouldn't it had been a "natural world for the social animal"?
The ecosystem would had been the same, the flora, fauna, everything.
Wouldn't this difference would have been the one, when we didn't kill someone for our "Extra Luxury"?
I don't deny that development has often brought negative effects. I simply claim that it is not evil by nature. Development has often been perceived badly, but it is important to remember that outside of the past century, environment played a much smaller role in decision making.
However environmental concerns are now ,in many parts of the world, key social, political, and economic concerns. Now, in many countries, mining companies have to jump through a massive series of hoops in order to start new projects. Also alternative energy is being highly publicized and research.
In short, the trend is that the more developed a country gets, the more environment takes presidance as an issue. In the long term it is possible that the environment will in fact benefit from our achievements. Regardless of the fact that the benefiting environment will not be identical to the environment of way back when.
jibin forfeited this round.
Rynhardt 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.