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

The land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/1/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 543 times Debate No: 93277
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




I am arguing that the land environment restricts human life and is irrelevant. By land environment, I suggest the environment based on land (ie. trees and farmland).

It is a waste of space- space which could be used to create more services for the general population. Dwellings are made much smaller to accommodate for wildlife, and it is frustrating to know that we are all missing out on so much.

Pollution is not extremely bad. It is an indicator of technological advancements. When we make advancements we are able to combat the negatives- millions of people die each year from air pollution, however millions are saved because we have created medical equipment and found cures by using up resources.

Algae produces over 2/3 of our oxygen. More algae would mean more oxygen; therefore land environments' photosynthesis is not needed.

This argument strongly proposes that the land environment is unnecessary and restrictive.


The two premises of my opponent's arguments, the first one being that land environment is restrictive, and the second one being that it is irrelevant, have not been sufficiently supported by his/her arguments. I agree that the first premise can hold some weight on its own,as shown by my opponent's argument for expanding the area in which humans can use to provide technological advancements - but even there his argument fails to remain consistent. For example, he attempts to imply that there is some sort of 1:1 ratio relationship between the number of lives lost as a result of pollution, and the number of lives saved from medical advancements. This argument can be ignored because he has not indicated why he assumes this.

Moreover, China, a country that has (to a very significant degree), disregarded their environment to make way for economic growth, lags way behind the US in healthcare. [1]

The second premise of my opponent's argument: that the environment is irrelevant, is not supported at all in his argument. In fact, there is great economic activity in areas dealing with wildlife (not just in zoos), as well farming, and although technology has tapped into theses areas, making them somewhat automated, it's definitely not safe to say that these activities involving the environment do not contribute to economic growth. Certainly, this proves that the environment is relevant.

Debate Round No. 1


My opponent also doesn't explain his arguments.

China has only recently developed. Therefore it is only logical that their healthcare system would lag behind the US.
Also, the economic activity that occurs in wildlife and farming is only a fraction of what could happen if the area was used for services like finance or healthcare. Farming is not for developed countries- it should be considered a way for undeveloped countries to develop (such as Malawi and a lot of other African countries).

The environment is irrelevant. This does not need to be explained: there are no beneficial uses for it.

I did not assume a 1:1 ratio. In fact, I assume more people have been saved by medical advancements than air pollution. The environment with no technology is dangerous and people die from simple conditions.

I would like my opponent to give me a reason the environment is beneficial.


What's clear in this debate is that my opponent seems to extend his theoretical arguments as far as he/she wants to. At face value, the arguments for destroying the environment might make sense, but the limits of these arguments need to be evaluated as well. My opponent needs to explain his assumption that the number of lives lost are offset by the number of lives saved. He/she also needs to explain why they think that physical space is an issue that is limiting our economy.

I would also like to forewarn the voters against any further exaggerations my opponent's arguments. If he/she continues responding with "this would be solved by the technological advancements created by the destruction of the environment", then he also needs to explain WHY he assumes that.

If we compare the global ranking of countries for environmental sustainability, with the ranking of countries for their healthcare services, we see a strong correlation between countries with sustainable environments, and countries with higher-quality healthcare. [1] [2]

The rest of my opponent's arguments are mere assumptions. Again, he keeps assuming that all negative effects caused by environmental damage will be offset by technological advancement. Why? He needs to explain this, not me.

To add, the effects of destroying the environment to make way for economic activity are also significant. CO2 that is sequestered inside trees, or other plants that absorb the GHG, will be transferred back into the air, trapping heat inside the the atmosphere. The added heat will cause sea levels to rise, which can eventually cause floods over entire cities.

Furthermore, destroying farmland also takes away major food sources such as chicken, so there's another negative aspect to destroying the environment.

Debate Round No. 2


The limit of physical space IS an issue for all economies. In all economically developed countries, there is an issue with housing- people can not afford housing, as there is too high a demand with not enough supply. The logical way to get rid of this problem is to build more houses- unfortunately, there is too much land being devoted to the environment for this to happen. More people in housing gives a stronger economy- more people are able to work and get educated.

Technological advancements require resources. Precious ores, which are only salvageable from the environment, are very expensive due to rarity. An example of this is gold, which is used in computing and in decoration. If more of the environment was destroyed, more gold would be found and used and more technology would be able to be created at a cheaper price.

In the comment section someone posted about resources being destroyed. If we were to destroy more of the environment, and make more advancements with renewable energies, this would not be a problem. We would recycle resources so that we aren't jeopardized from destroying it.

CO2 isn't a problem. Algae photosynthesizes too. If we have more algae (by breeding it in the seas and rivers) we can tackle the problem easily.

Food is not an issue either. Like I said earlier, food manufacturing is a way for poor countries to develop. An example is Malawi.

Hopefully you can see there are no benefits to the environment.


Sorry for posting late, I am quite busy this summer.

Anyways, my opponent's arguments can be entirely dismissed as he has not given one source to verify his clearly exaggerated theoretical arguments. He claims pollution isn't bad because it represents an increase in economic activity. However, he has not provided any basis from which he is concluding that the economic benefits outweigh the harms of pollution, apart from the unverifiable argument that more lives would be saved via medical advancements.

He also mentions that farming isn't necessary for developed countries like the USA, but fails to mention that it is a significant source of food, especially in local rural areas. Farming is also ingrained into the culture of many areas of the US. To simply eliminate farming through the destruction of the environment would leave millions of farmers out of work, as they are likely unskilled in other fields.

His example of gold is somewhat contrived. If, hypothetically, we suddenly found more gold (which he still would need to prove would be the case), its perceived decorative value would go down. Rare items tend to conveniently be regarded as "decorative" and "beautiful", when its real value lies with its rarity. The investment activity for gold would also definitely go down, especially as the Peter Schiff followers stop viewing it as a valid hedge against all that inflation.

To conclude, my opponent's arguments for destroying the environment are not sufficiently supported. His arguments which claim an increase in economic activity also fail to hold any real weight as they are clearly exaggerated.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Megatronimus_prime 2 years ago
One important thing to remember resources are not going to last forever. An example is Trees need the environment to grow and we need trees to advance as a species. Also all countries need farming. Were do you thing food comes from. The environment creates resources that we need. Without the environment the world would lose many of its major resources. Coal and oil will not last forever. Solar tech is not advance enough yet, neither is wind tech. The people of this world would have destroyed the environment by now if they didn't know how important it is for the survival of the human race.

No votes have been placed for this debate.