the benefits of being a throw-away society outweighs the costs to society and the environment
Debate Rounds (2)
Mr. Speaker, our first point is that new devices and uses of technology are still growing.
Why does this matter? On the textbook, it said that new mobile phones appear on the market every few months. If people don"t throw away their old technologies and buy the new ones, we would have to throw the new ones out, making them obsolete. Then, more pollution would be formed because more and more devices are being thrown, leading to landfills and that would give other resources needed to be thrown away, no space. This would also be bad for society because maki
First of all, I would like to establish that a throwaway society is not sustainable. A multitude of studies have shown that in New York City, between 1905 and 2005, there was a tenfold rise in packaging and old products.
A world which bases its economy on a throwaway society will have consequences of a far greater magnitude than the aftereffects of the industrial revolution. Agriculture will suffer. There will be food shortages. Diseases such as asthma will be rampant. Potential drugs that could have been derived will be lost. The list goes on.
One of the most important arguments Pro will probably bring up is that a throwaway society will be good for the economy. While this may be true, there are more sustainable methods to boost production while maintaining the balance between humans and nature. Consider the circular economy, which maximizes the sustainable use and value of resources. According to a report by the British government, there are potentially billions of pounds of benefits for businesses across the economy to be more resource efficient.
Some will argue that a throwaway economy is needed to pull the economy out of a tailspin. But as Joseph Stieglitz pointed out in his book Freefall, long term "green" investments could help, as well as having a greater money multiplier effect than pure consumption. Constructing high speed railways is such a method.
You keep on talking about the topic of green, green, and green.
This would benefit the garbage in all those landfills. Would you not agree that if the new products are not used, they'd become obsolete? Wouldn't that just lead to more garbage? We shouldn't stop our progress right now. Look how many companies there are: Rogers, Fido, Bell. They are trying to please us. As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions.
In addition, I think of the model as you buy something and throw it away maybe two to three months later. As humans, I think we're smart enough not to be so prodigal and throw away something as soon as we buy it.
Everything has to go through a process to actually be in market. Respect that. Everything is detrimental, including us.
For these reasons, this has to pass.
Medicinal progress would be impeded because most of our drugs are derived from plants, and plant life would suffer from the backlash of a throw away society. Most scientists agree that asthma and a variety of other diseases (such as lung cancer) are caused by environmental factors.
"If the new products are not used, they"d become obsolete? Wouldn"t that lead to more garbage?"
This is a ridiculous claim. Consider, for instance, the "tax" that the Canadian government put on plastic bags. People now buy less plastic bags. Did this lead to more garbage? Of course not. Companies just started producing less garbage bags.
"As customers, it's our responsibility to know what the next step is. We have the right to make our own decisions."
This isn"t relevant to our debate, but in a throw away society, companies manipulate consumers into buying more. Below is a list of how companies do this:
The circular economy and green investments are alternatives to the throw away economy. These systems and methods have more benefits and less drawbacks of a throw away society. Thus the "economic cost" of a throw away society is negative.
Most of my opponents analysis is unsupported or simply pathos. And as Pro has not proven that the benefits outweigh the costs (BoP is on my opponent), I urge a Con vote.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by IronCurx 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: As Con stated Bop was on the side of pro, and since Pro failed to provide a good argument on how the benefits of being away... and the environment. Plus Con used good sources. And pro did not finish his/her first argument. Also pro had bad grammar a heavily one-sided 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.