The Instigator
crackslide
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
KyleLumsden
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Is humanity leading itself to the end of our civilization?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 907 times Debate No: 6842
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

crackslide

Pro

I am presenting this debate because even though many people' d say I'm too young as to criticize what adults are doing and I can't do anything to change it, I want to say that all of us are making of this place something and somewhere is ratherable not to live in, or to live with fear.
Every day the numbers of deaths and murders are increasing, people don't do anything because most (not saying all) is more interested in wealth and richness than in trying to help the others and to prevent this from happening.
We just don't care if ours kid's kids will die from what we could stop now 'cause we think "Oh, well, I'm not going to be here, let the future governors take care of it", but the truth is that if we don't stop being so careless and start taking care of the issues, no one will.
I'm not only referring to murders, but also corruption, the ecology, the lack and lost of moral values, violence and intolerance.
KyleLumsden

Con

Wiktionary's first definition of civilization is, "An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development." I'll focus on the second part of the given definition, which addresses a "stage" or "system". My kneejerk reaction to the resolution was to ask WHOSE civilization it saw ending, but I think my opponent is implying that the world is so interconnected now that we all sink or swim together in our modern globalized era.

For me to argue that humanity is not leading itself to the end of its civilization, it will be necessary for me to explain what stage I think we're in and what system I think we're under. Not long ago, US business was expanding to all corners of the world. Today, as communications technology becomes more powerful and profit margins become tighter, US business is outsourcing jobs to all corners of the world. In the middle of rising standards of living in other countries and a weak dollar at home, the US is no longer the clear beneficiary of globalization. Other countries are earning their well-deserved more equal seats at the international economic table. Therefore, I'd describe Civilization's current stage as Economic Globalization with the US as a Major Player. (I apologize for the US-centric point of view here, but it's the lens through which I perceive the rest of the world).

As for Civilization's system, I'll describe it as Regulated Capitalism with Safety Nets. Health care is still employer-funded in the US, too many Americans are currently losing their jobs and houses, and Wall Street recently stuck up a great big middle finger at the American Dream, but even as one of today's more unregulated capitalist economies, the US still maintains extensive social programs for the poor and unemployed. In the aftermath of trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus packages, the US economy is almost certain to become more rather than less regulated by the federal government. The nuances of the US system are changing to fall more in line with the rest of the more regulated world, but the current system is still capitalist at heart.

My argument is that humanity is not leading itself to the end of the status quo that I have described. Big changes will undoubtedly occur, but globalization is here to stay as is the US's prominence on the world stage, and safety net capitalism is going to stick around as well.

As energy becomes scarcer, as the population becomes larger, and as more countries with no business bombing other countries drop more bombs, the worldwide standard of living will decrease. It will increase here and there in countries that are on their way up on the economic wheel of fortune, but for most of the major players, especially the US, it will decrease. Yet the dominant system will not fundamentally change, because the US federal government will not allow it to do so. The US owes too much money to the rest of the world for the world to just let it fail, and--and I'm not proud to say this, but I think it's logical--the US has too much military power for other countries to completely turn their backs on it and risk angering it. The political and business elite in the US, meanwhile, will not allow the standard of living of the average person to drop too far for fear that this will lead to revolution. So the US, by hook and by crook, will take a big hit in standard of living but probably not as big a hit as it deserves. Fair or not, the US will continue to be a major player on the world stage.

As more people lose their jobs in the US, the cry for state-sponsored health care will only get louder. Once the US joins most of Europe in this arrangement, there is no going back. After the Wall Street debacle, whose scandalous depths are still being sounded, the average American is unlikely to ask for less government regulation of the markets. Yet a form of the market system will persist worldwide because our age of specialization demands it. A shift to actual socialism would require either world government (which too many countries with too many weapons and conflicts would never sign off on), or a dramatic decrease in worldwide production because of the loss of the benefits of specialization (which would make this situation equally impossible).

For the reasons my opponent outlined and more, humanity is not headed in a good direction, and big changes are almost certainly on the way worldwide, but neither the stage nor the system of our current global civilization is ending anytime soon.
Debate Round No. 1
crackslide

Pro

crackslide forfeited this round.
KyleLumsden

Con

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by animea 8 years ago
animea
While con clearly wins I have to disagree with this statement

"As energy becomes scarcer, as the population becomes larger, and as more countries with no business bombing other countries drop more bombs, the worldwide standard of living will decrease."

Billions of people in all parts of the world are industrializing and in another 50 years or so will have standards of living 10-20 times s high as they are currently experiencing. Considering half of the world is and will continue to gain access to basic things like clean water, roads and electricity i don't see how you can consider the world wide standard of living to decrease. We are on the eve of the biggest increase in standard of living the world has ever seen.

Furthermore, it contradicts everything history has ever taught us. Over the long term, global standard of livings increase, always. Even in the US, the standard of living is going to rise, not fall. Sure, relative to other countries we will not be as strong, but in an absolute term technology is just going to go up and up. Products will get cheaper, jobs will become more efficient. Over the long term, standards of living ALWAYS go up.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
crackslideKyleLumsdenTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
crackslideKyleLumsdenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
crackslideKyleLumsdenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07