Is nature worth more attention than technology
Debate Rounds (5)
As con, I will be trying to convince you and other readers that technology should have the greater focus. Technology has been arguably the most detrimental force towards nature since the industrial revolution. Ignoring technology will only worsen and prolong the negative impacts technology has or will have on nature.
The con, has made an interesting statement, that ignoring technology will worsen the negative impact technology has on nature. Which is definately true, if you look at the problem from todays point of view.
However I have started this debate from a philosophical point of view. Would humanity be better of, if instead of focusing on developing machines, we would focus on nature.
The development of technology has, as con has nicely said, only devistaded nature. Global warming, oil wars, nuclear bombs, acid rains, and so on. As Larry West, enviromental issues expert, puts out in his arcticle (link: http://environment.about.com... ) "Global warming is not only a threat to our future health, it already contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually, according to a team of health and climate scientists at the World Health Organization and the University of Wisconsin at Madison—and those numbers could double by 2030."
And these are just the consequences of global warming. Think about Hiroshima, World Wars, Oil wars... All, because of the rise in technology.
Wouldn't we be better off without machines, without technology...
Now I don't claim, that there wouldn't be wars, if there was no technology. However the number of casualties would drop significantly and the damage done to Earth would be way smaller than it is now.
Pro makes the comment "Wouldn"t we be better off without machines, without technology"" About eight years ago, I was dying. Without machines from the hospital and trained doctors to take care of me, I would have died. It pains me to write this; some people in the Republican Party would have preferred me to die than get medical help. This is to say, I would be much worse off without certain machines or certain technology.
We agree about air pollution causing acid rain, the detrimental forces of nuclear bombs, global warming, and wars being fought over oil. We agree about wars cause more deaths and are more harmful to the planet. However, there is a difference between technology has only devastated nature and technology is the most detrimental force towards nature. The main difference is technology can be good, can be neutral, and can be bad. The technology that is bad is very harmful to the people, the plants, and to the ecosystem itself. Coal burning power plants, gasoline powered cars, the extreme inefficiency of packaging materials, the extreme amount of food waste in the wrong way , military weapons, and planned obsolesce are but some examples of bad technology.
Innovators have addressed some of these issues. I have faith that the rest of these issues will be addressed by some future innovator. Innovation will be the key to the future. Some of these inventions have been cell phone towers (replacing phone lines), digital downloads / access (replacing mail, newspapers, VHSs, DVDs, Cassettes, and CDs), Tablets / Kindles (replacing books), hydrogen powered cars  (replacing gasoline powered cars), and solar power roadways  (if fully implemented would replace power plants) just to name a few.
Some technology is both good and bad at the same time. Medical technology, as mentioned above, has been critical to my life. With the same stroke of the pen, medical technology has caused an overpopulation of this planet. If penicillin and other medical breakthroughs had not been discovered and the trend line for population growth had continued, then there would be roughly 2.7 billion people on the planet today. Medical technology, better nutrition, and better sanitation pared with people continuing to have roughly the same amount of children have been the causes of the explosion in the last 100 years.
Medical technology has drastically improved the standard of life for humans. However, it led to population explosions around the world. While the number of people is increasing, the resources available have been steadily decreasing (which causes prices to go up). While the world not being ready for the expansive population growth is part of the problem, the main problem is these people either being ignorant or totally disregarding statistical data . These huge groups of people show that innovation by itself is not enough. Government must make policy to address these issues. There will probably be some laws that people will not like, but we will need to have them to save the planet.
I am sorry. This is not as philosophical as I want it to be " I felt rushed while writing it. I will try to be more philosophical with the rest of this debate.
Tiny_beautiful_nature forfeited this round.
Tiny_beautiful_nature forfeited this round.
I am terribly sorry that I can't finish the debate so I will just post this few thoughts and let the voters decide ...
First of all con has made a powerful statement, that she would be dead without technology. Let me just say that inspite the technological advancement that we have, think about all the deceases that were released on purpose just so some scientists could get some rewards and how many people have died and been tortured so that human anatomy and medical knowledge could be learned. Are all the casualties that happened really worth the life of few that can be saved today?
Also I would like to point out that medical experts also existed before the industrial revolution, that were studying the plants and knew all their healing abilities, they knew about the energy that flows through our bodies that science is only now slowly adapting...
Did we really advance so much since industrial revolution and was it worth all the lost knowledge (lost in the witch procceses, for those of you who don't know witches that were killed were healers, but the church and lords at that time needed workers for factories so they decided to prevent abortions and birth control by killing all those who knew that stuff (the so called witches)) ...
In my opinion the price that was paid and the knowledge that was lost isn't worth the few advances that we made.
Once again I'm sorry I have to be brief, but I hope the voters can understand what I am trying to say.
I believe pro and I agree that nature is important. We disagree on whether technology should be focused on greater. I believe technology should have the greater focus as it will cause a greater impact on nature.
As previously stated, we agree that some technology is bad. We agree that chemical and biological weapons are bad. One cool piece of technology that is good for nature is the reforesting of areas by dropping saplings from the back of aircraft .
Pro writes about eastern medicine. Both eastern and western medicines explore the same plants and animals. Earlier this week, a wasp poison was found to help kill mutated cells while not being harmful to the body . Both eastern and western medical practices will benefit from this discovery. Western medicines like to produce synthetic chemicals, so that the cures and/or treatments can reach a wider populace at a greater speed as opposed to eastern medicines.
The focus of this and the next generation should be correcting bad technologies and innovation towards new technologies to address global warming once and for all.
Ps. I really like your profile picture :)
: http://s.hswstatic.com... and https://www.youtube.com...
: https://www.youtube.com... or http://www.aol.com...
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.