The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Environmental sustainability & public health are more important than short-time profit

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 838 times Debate No: 71277
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Hello, this debate is about if environmental sustainability & public health is more important than profit gaining (especially large industries, like the oil, tobacco and fast food industry). But this debate is also about that inequality and growing human population is a serious problem as well. CON is supposed to make an counter-argument why we shouldn't make a priority on public health and the environment. And should we really exhaust all resources for a short-time period and of course what the consequences will be. Its supposed to be more peaceful and not aggressive debate, please. Good luck.


Hello, I want to clarify some things before we head into this debate. I am all for environmental sustainability and public health. But is it the biggest thing we need to address? I will argue it is not. I will later expand on what I mean by that. For the sake of the debate, I will define several terms, which my opponent is free to change.

Environmental sustainability - "The maintenance of the factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis" [1]

Public Health - "all organized measures (whether public or private) to prevent disease, promote health, and prolong life among the population as a whole" [2]

Profit, in this debate, will refer to "Economic Profit", not accounting profit, that is:

"Revenue - all opportunity costs. Opportunity costs are the alternative returns foregone by using the chosen inputs. As a result, you can have a significant accounting profit with little to no economic profit" [3]

I will leave the term 'Inequality', 'priority' and 'exhaust' for my opponent to define, as they are very vague references.

Debate Round No. 1


Its very hard to start, as there are many points. So I"ll start with the impact of agriculture on the environments.

I don"t mean the ecoagriculture, but the more common large-scale corporate agriculture, that is appearing all over the world. This economisation of the farming has also lead to mass extinction of local farmers, due to hard concurrence of large farmers. Its also leading to large-scale fertilisation of areas (that has a negative effect on all local environments). I"ve done some research for math a few years ago and while testing the composition of a small stream near a farm, I found out that the levels of fertilisation substances were high. This aquatic pollution is very common in industrialised countries and is able to poison the environment or cause dangerous spreads of algae, that after death leave behind CO2 and take the O2 from water, killing almost all aquatic fauna. However the other way to use an area for agriculture is to move to other areas when the soil gets infertile, this approach is yet worse, because you"re constantly destroying environmental areas and leaving behind an very bad Pedospheric condition, making an rehabilitation of the nature a lot harder. Not only this, large plantations that are growing in very sensitive areas are really hurting the biodiversity, due to the support of only a single culture of plants. Deforestation is actually happening, but not only because of agriculture *. Irrigation is a modern and ancient technique, that is proven to be effective, however it has a major minus. Its causing increasing soil salinity, that makes an soil very infertile, its also one of the many reasons why the Mesopotamians collapsed. Plus it can destroy the aquatic environments, large rivers and streams in Spain got drought-out. And in South-Spain many ecologist are still and were warning about the possibility of infertile and salty soil future, following a end to agriculture and making it nearly impossible for environments to stabilise back. Large industries in farming are also showing off a negative effect on bees (all bees, wild and domesticated). But we can also see the brutal and concentrated meat-production (US is the worst here) where animals might not even see the sun. Its also leading to dangerous merits with the chemistry and Genetic engineering and no-labeling policies. We are also observing E. coli and salmonella in modern farming.
Basically, bacteria is getting immune to our antibiotics, as it adapts to its new environment. It really bad , because one day we wont be able to get rid of the b"s with antibiotics.
The solution to this is simply: Ecoagriculture.

But everything is going to be injured by our terrible influence to our environments. We"re releasing large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere, causing increased climate changes, CO2 reacts with H20 into H2CO3 that"s poisoning our seas. We"re destroying forests and areas that are really needed for nature to make its typical cycles, we are also causing the creation of Global Warming, by speeding up the natural feedback's that can be dangerous. The climate has changed often in its past and it has made a lot of good and bad, however there is more than enough evidence that were causing this climate change. It"s as well influenced by solar activity. Its going to be a poor future, because of that what were doing now. Lets not forget about the pollution of CH4,NO-s, SO2 (in water transforms into H2SO3)

But were also having trouble with waste, and it"s a serious problem. China and second place US are the worst and largest polluters. There simply is not enough regulation and initiative will-power for better ways of wasting products. Too much plastics aren"t being recycled and the use of light-decomposable plastics is low. We"ve still got the problem of lack of recycling. But the amount of cole and oil that is being burn isn"t even reasonable. Energy can be produced in another way. Like nuclear, solar, wind, wave, river (but not too much) power and more ways do exist. Desertec a European group, that thinks that we should invest into large areas of solar panes in the Sahara desert. Check what sized-area do we need for the electrical-supply of all EU. But there are also other alternatives. For instance a hydrogen-powered economy (H2 Economy) would be a great solution. Because all industries would still work on burning. We get H2 with the electrolysis of H2O. And when H2 burns, that is quite an explosion water creates (H2+O2->H20). It"s a clean way, plus its only gas, so we wouldn"t experience all these oil disasters.
Trusting the market, isn"t really a great idea, as it didn"t really develop in a green way, but the opposite. But some changes are visible, we"re selling more electrical cars and hybrids than ever before. In the past and still today the oil industry is a big factor everywhere. Many economies rely very much on the price of it. But the problem was that the oil industry bought-off all potential green alternatives. Its called the power of money. In capitalism you cant make it without any potential investments and growths.
Also Hydraulic fracturing is a serious health and environment hazard. Compare Vermont (The first US state to ban fracturing) and the rest of the US that hasn"t ban it.
The last pollution is the one you probably never heard of, but is quite important.
Space debris. Its becoming a more and more serious problem in the LEO and GEO and especially in the polar orbit. More and more satellites, leftovers from previous missions and satellites" Its getting a problem as more and more missions continue. Space in 2050, if we continue business as usual, we"ll experience serious threads to all missions private or research-based, and new disasters will occur yet more often causing yet more trouble. It"ll become a serious problem and getting rid of it isn"t easy and cheap. You cant send a garbage truck into space like in Hollywood. You"ll need high precision spacecraft that will have to use an complicated radar to detect and slow-down debris. The slower the speed, the sooner they"ll fall back. But the worst part is, that you aren"t allowed to take back a dead satellite without the permission of the owner, that"s a problem.
now lets head to the problems of human over-poulation. We"re the same as an bacteria culture. Because every species if given an great opportunity (no predators, diseases, much food and water) in nature will overpopulate an ecosystem. The nature has a system, so always when an species number is growing, the number of predators grows. But the Homo Sapiens is a problem. We"ve destroyed every predator in our way+ we are able to cure diseases (more or less). Nature has no systems to regulate our growth. So one day, the human number will meet the limit. The limit is when nature wont be able to work anymore and we"re going to collapse. A smaller amount of people are a lot more easy to control, organise and sustainably work.
Inequality is also a bigger problem. We"re saying that we need the rich to invest in our future. But latest research has showed that we don"t need the rich (well, we need them in smaller amounts), in the UK the average income of the middle and low class hasn"t rise, but the income and worth of the rich has grown 2-times more. So taxing the rich less isn"t a good thing, but the opposite. But also evidence has showed that extreme redistributions aren"t as good. But equality is also very important, because it can cause an better living environment. Scandinavia, especially Denmark and Sweden have a very low GINI coefficient. They are also listed as the best countries to live in. Equality makes less crime (proven fact) and makes the people more sceptical. Compare Denmark and the South African Republic.

But the point is that we need to plan more our future. I mean, how would you fell that your child would never have seen the outback & Norwegian fjords because they turned into plastics-factories?

Your turn ,Good luck.


Jupiter1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


As my opponent forfeited, i won't be able to criticise or agree with his argument. So i'll continue, because i wasn't able to finish my last argument.

Public health is often ignored and business is often a priority. The heavy industry, the leaded fuel industry, the tobacco industry have all been a serious thread to our environment and health, but have been regulated or eliminated. Today the biggest thread still comes from the food industry, oh and oil industry. The oil industry has prevented all concurrences like eco-cars, biofuel... Its also sad that oil-rich countries become so developed (like United Arab Emirates). Fossil fuels are terrible. They are fossils that've been left of past-life forms. Burning them can also produce SO2 if more sulfur is present. Hydrogen and bio-fuel are a good solution. The WHO has proposed the ban on fast-food advertisement. I agree with them. The fast food industry has strong lobbies, especially in the US. The problem is that they use simple chemistry and biology to make max profit. And they're successful. The obesity rates in the west have skyrocketed. Meanwhile in countries like Sweden (that has regulated them) the obesity rate's a lot smaller. Also compare the life-expectancy of Japan to other countries, the food there is a lot healthier. The globalization is good, however it can be dangerous. Almost every country has a McDonald's. Due to higher obesity rates production should fall in the future. The problem is getting bigger and bigger. So, the fast food industry is a big business. Like, they put more monosodium glutaminate, sugar and antibiotics into their food, so that people eat more. Because these substances increase your apetite non-natural. Industries are exploirating us. To have a good future, we need to care about our health."

If we continue bussiness as usuall we're not generating a good future for our children. They'll have to be worried with bad sideeffects that we created."

Well, good luck for your argument.


Jupiter1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


One last G"day, its my last argument. I'm going to only enhance this last argument, because Con hasn't responded.
My whole debate was a little pessimistic, so I'm going to point out the more positive facts. Especially the growth of the production and the fall of the price of renewable energy.

China is in lead, that is a good thing since China"s the worst polluter. We could invest in Sahara, Outback, Gobi desert and in the Nevada desert. About inequality, there is some hope, because more and more countries are getting developed and people will fight for better life standards, however the inequality is growing. Compare the UK in the 19th and the UK in the 21st century.

Many countries are slowly developing Eco- technologies, but too slow. For instance,even if we start doing everything to protect the environment, stop the Global warming and similar, we still will experience some extra warming until the climate will start stabilising.

But we´ve got to do something to stop the growing population. The most effective way is to improve human condition, wealth and education. The emergency way is to regulate/limit the number of children per family. India is a country that has to do something about their population. Very soon India is going to have a larger population than China. If we wont control the global population, then we´re about to experience economical, environmental and social dangers. The human population growth is worrying,isn't it:

Nordic countries if compared to Russia, have a different way of industry. Russia has a higher environmental and health pollution causing shorter life, meanwhile countries that took care of how the industry develops, especially f they were concerned with health, made a better future, that is also more healthy.
Environment can fix it self, Aldus it takes much time and many loses can be observed. We´ve made a lot of problems that future generations will have to take care of. Its worrying, but there is a possibility that future technology´ll help to solve the problems.

Well, thanks for the little debate.


Jupiter1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by StalinIncarnate 3 years ago
Global Warming is a myth, and Bacon tastes horrible.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture