The Instigator
Susanna
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Xenofloppy
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

do you agree: We are developing at the cost of nature?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,144 times Debate No: 41877
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Susanna

Pro

I think yes but dating back to the past, one would realise that man and nature used to share a close and intimate relationship.Today, in industrialized age we are developing very fast but forgetting that we are leaving behind bad foot marks by destroying our nature.I think that we can develop without destroying our nature but today what people are doing is cutting forest and using land for making industry which is causing harm to our nature. Man, depended closely on nature. This dependence was wrought not only because of the need for food and water but also for their survival.
Xenofloppy

Con

I'll take the challenge here.

I need to point out that man did rely on nature, but the only issue is was that back then, nature was the only thing one could rely one. Yes, it gave you water. Yes, it gave you air. But it also gave you so many hazards, the things that could kill you (dieseses, rampant animals, etc.) made nature not only a nessecity but a prominent threat. Technology, even at the cost of nature, helps us humans survive. Many cures to dieseses were made with technology. The computer/tablet/misc. you use to access this site was made with technology. And those products were most likely made from places that used to be forests and ecosystems. I'm pretty sure everything one uses was made with modern technology at the expense of nature.

So the problem is not whether nature needs to be conserved but rather what's the problems if nature is not conserved. I'd actually see no problem. Water can now be purifed and recycled, and being able to create oxygen (that we can breathe) doesn't sound too far from now. Food can be made from farms, that's simple. Farms don't need to rely on nature, other than breeding, which is a rather elementry concept. Most animals can be cloned anyhow, so food is not a problem. If meat can be cloned, I'm sure plants can as well.

So why do we need nature? Nature is a thing of the past now. Welcome to the industrial age of innovation. Don't like it? Might as well "depend on nature" again and either

a) Get killed by an animal
b) Get killed by disease
c) Die from starvation/thrist
d) Some other reason.

If you have any other further argument, please state them in the next few rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Susanna

Pro

I agree with you that :-" Many cures to diseases were made with technology. The computer/tablet/misc. you use to access this site was made with technology. And those products were most likely made from places that used to be forests and ecosystems. I'm pretty sure everything one uses was made with modern technology at the expense of nature. "

And yes the problem is that nature is need to be conserved because without the effort of us nature can't be conserve.Can nature can conserve itself???
Absolutely, the answer will be no.
and i can't understand what you want to make us understand by saying that:-"the problem is not whether nature needs to be conserved but rather what's the problems if nature is not conserved"

And let me tell you, that we have some destructive habits which is causing nature harm and this is in our habits because of showing development:-
1. Frenzied consumption of paper
2. Addiction to plastics
3. Negligent forgetfulness
Many of us have this habit to forget easily. But in our innocent forgetfulness, we often forget that we are causing untold harm to the environment. Forgetting to switch of electric appliances while leaving the room is a big psychological disorder that is worming most of the world"��s population today
4. Dependence on automobiles
5. Wasting food
6. Throwing off instead of recycling
. It is crucial that we understand the importance of recycling. Everything, starting from paper to cloth can be recycled and utilized in a better manner.
7. Unnecessary purchase
The same concept of preventing unnecessary wastage again! We should by only what is needed.
Xenofloppy

Con

I'm not sure if Instigator got my argument. In my argument, I stated that nature was unnessecary because technology could fill in our neccesities.

My point: Technology makes nature obselete.

Evidence: Our basic needs are covered by technology. As I said before, water can now be purifed and recycled[1], and being able to create oxygen (that we can breathe) doesn't sound too far from now[2]. Food can be made from farms, that's simple. Farms don't need to rely on nature, other than breeding, which is a rather elementry concept, and all you need is animals. Most animals can be cloned anyhow, so food is not a problem. If meat can be cloned[3], I'm sure plants can as well.[4]

If Instigator wishes to give an argument stating why nature is needed in present day, please do so.

Sources:
[1]http://www.epa.gov...
[2]http://science1.nasa.gov...;
[3]http://www.fda.gov...
[4]http://science.howstuffworks.com...;
Debate Round No. 2
Susanna

Pro

Susanna forfeited this round.
Xenofloppy

Con

Instigator has forfieted the round, meaning they could not think of an argument.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SonicGhost 3 years ago
SonicGhost
Pro has no evidence, therefore no argument. Global warming cannot be used as evidence because it is debatable if CO2 even causes it, or is it just a natural cycle for Earth.
No votes have been placed for this debate.