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

does protecting environment hiders progress

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: 7/28/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 36086
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Development would have no meaning if our very existence is being threatened!! In fact, it is the development that hinders our environment. At present, environment is the only thing keeping us alive. Since the earliest times, humans have needed nature for its basic everyday life resources such as wood, food, medicines and many more.As we known, humans are resourceful and capable of intelligence. Taking time to think through this problem is not much to ask. In turn, the resources we save today will help us to create a better world tomorrow. We can use the resources we are using today in our future without affecting much to the environment. We are aware of the effects industries have on this planet. Our awareness make us responsible.


Thank you for this debate.

Let me just say, I like nature as much as the next guy. Nature is beautiful . Going hiking in Canada is amazing.
However, nature isn't as important as you think. Trees themselves can be replanted. Lakes can be man made, and so can rivers. Trees can be planted on top of skyscrapers and on top of apartments, in the flat section of the roof. Nature is expendable, and in today's society, think about how many people DONT care about nature. Technology is influencing society down a more virtual road. The future of humanity is not nature, but virtual reality.

If you're upset about animals, think about how many of these animals are hostile towards humans. Bears, wolves, lions, vultures, and think about what would happen if dinosaurs were still about. Animals are by default, either hostile towards us or afraid of us. They serve no purpose other than either being part of our families as pets, or as resources.

Bushes, grass, shrubs, all can be recreated, especially so in a virtual reality.

"By the 2030s, the nonbiological portion of our intelligence will predominate."

-Ray Kurzweil;

Protecting the environment does hinder progress, because trees and vegetation itself can be recreated, and factories and research must come first. At the height of technological progress, answeres to all these questions will come, but first we must get there. In Canada, there are

A country should have designated zones that will remain as parks and vegetation forever, never to be disturbed, and should use the environment as necesssasry everywhere else.


Canada protects the nature in the red marked areas. The rest is up for grabs as they see fit. I rather like this idea because most of the trees scattered around Canada that have no use are being taken and used.

In the future, if we so wanted we could replant an entire forest. Nature is not under threat, the more we protect the enviornment, the more it will hinder our progress.

Debate Round No. 1


well, well - i don't think environment is just about planting trees and grass or vegetation . it also includes WATER. The technology of the present world does not extract salt from ocean water ant only 1% of the total water on earth is drinkable. Sadly, even my country is going to suffer from water shortage in next 10 years. Even the water conservation is not noticeable in this devoloping world. I still doubt if humans are going to survive for long.


"In canda there are" is a typo so pelase ignore that.

This goes back to what I said. We don't need to protect water, we need to move along with research. Lower the population. It is the POPULATION that requires thinning. Governments are trying to be politically corrrect by letting the population continue to grow. Earth is on the verge of collapse because there are not enough resources to go around. By lowering the population we can continue to harvest nature as we see fit and still stay alive as a species. That's all I have to say.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.