Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does a right to life include the environment?

1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:14:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

Obviously pollution is not a good thing, but to prohibit any activity that causes noticeable pollution would be a horrible idea. The human species, to raise the collective standard of living and to provide for a growing population of people who will all need food, drinkable water, shelter, clothing, and other goods, by necessity engages in activities that displace nature in favour of using land for human purposes and settlement. If you shut down all sources of carbon emissions you'll destroy all economic growth and development for the constantly growing human population unless you find an equally viable alternative to replace carbon-emitting activities with.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 7:44:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 5:14:31 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

Obviously pollution is not a good thing, but to prohibit any activity that causes noticeable pollution would be a horrible idea. The human species, to raise the collective standard of living and to provide for a growing population of people who will all need food, drinkable water, shelter, clothing, and other goods, by necessity engages in activities that displace nature in favour of using land for human purposes and settlement. If you shut down all sources of carbon emissions you'll destroy all economic growth and development for the constantly growing human population unless you find an equally viable alternative to replace carbon-emitting activities with.

+1
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:15:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

We are adaptable enough that we could subsist on artificial foods and vitamins and an artificial environment. self-destruction is a strawman.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:18:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:15:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

We are adaptable enough that we could subsist on artificial foods and vitamins and an artificial environment. self-destruction is a strawman.

It's not a strawman at all. Do humans have the means to put 7 billion people in a artificial environment?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:19:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.

More wealth for some time doesn't mean anything if there's no Earth to profit off of in the future.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:22:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:19:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.

More wealth for some time doesn't mean anything if there's no Earth to profit off of in the future.

The world won't end if a few trees are dying. Also keep in mind the Earth has recovered from situations FAR worse than global warming in the past.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:25:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:18:37 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:15:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

We are adaptable enough that we could subsist on artificial foods and vitamins and an artificial environment. self-destruction is a strawman.

It's not a strawman at all. Do humans have the means to put 7 billion people in a artificial environment?

Saying that the world will end or people will go extinct because of global warming is most definitely a strawman.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:28:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:22:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:19:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.

More wealth for some time doesn't mean anything if there's no Earth to profit off of in the future.

The world won't end if a few trees are dying. Also keep in mind the Earth has recovered from situations FAR worse than global warming in the past.

That's a gross underrepresentation of potential problems. The growing issue with consumption-ready water and breathable air (smog -> health problems) do hurt humans.

And before you say we can use technology to make saltwater drinkable - such tech is incredibly costly. So, you could be using your few extra dollars for what you could have for free if you don't destroy sources of water. Envrionmental protection will not lead to economic collapse.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:29:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:25:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:18:37 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:15:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

We are adaptable enough that we could subsist on artificial foods and vitamins and an artificial environment. self-destruction is a strawman.

It's not a strawman at all. Do humans have the means to put 7 billion people in a artificial environment?

Saying that the world will end or people will go extinct because of global warming is most definitely a strawman.

Life will be made incredibly more difficult for no reason for those who don't have the means to have wealth.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:29:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Scientist: global warming will cause changes for many lifeforms who are much less adaptable than humans and will likely be destroyed.

Strawman: destruction of the environment means destruction of all humans.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

It's an interesting argument, but not one which I expect to go far.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:31:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:29:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Life will be made incredibly more difficult for no reason for those who don't have the means to have wealth.

Life is increasingly posh and comfortable.

I can assure you, you will likely never have to suffer the quality of life as those 1000 years before you, even if you were getting your food from an artificial lab.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:35:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:28:14 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:22:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:19:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.

More wealth for some time doesn't mean anything if there's no Earth to profit off of in the future.

The world won't end if a few trees are dying. Also keep in mind the Earth has recovered from situations FAR worse than global warming in the past.

That's a gross underrepresentation of potential problems. The growing issue with consumption-ready water and breathable air (smog -> health problems) do hurt humans.

And before you say we can use technology to make saltwater drinkable - such tech is incredibly costly. So, you could be using your few extra dollars for what you could have for free if you don't destroy sources of water. Envrionmental protection will not lead to economic collapse.

Pollution rates will get fairly lower as time passes actually, considering the progression of renewable energy. Pollution is inevitable, so it's a far better idea to learn to cope with it as to the contrary of restricting economic growth.

The technology to make saltwater drinkable might be expensive, but it becomes cheaper as time passes. Have you heard of the lifestraw by the ways?

Radical environmentalism won't lead to economic collapse, but it will lead to decreased economic growth. Environmental skepticism won't lead to environmental collapse either.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:36:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:29:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:

Saying that the world will end or people will go extinct because of global warming is most definitely a strawman.

Life will be made incredibly more difficult for no reason for those who don't have the means to have wealth.

Even these guys had it better than 1000 years ago. The world is actually naturally a very toxic place for humans. We have no obligation to preserve it, only make it better for us, even if it means turning it into planet human. I have no problem watching natural selection and the wholesale extinction of unfit species as the world gets a bit warmer as a result of our 80 plus year cozy lifestyles.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:39:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:29:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:


Life will be made incredibly more difficult for no reason for those who don't have the means to have wealth.

And really, the actual threat to human life isn't even closely related to global warming and climate change. It is most assuredly the lack of natural selection of humans and unrestricted overpopulation. And even that isn't even a threat to our existence, just standards of living.

Overpopulation is far, far more likely to cause a drop in global standards of living than global warming could ever hope to do.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:41:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:35:38 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:28:14 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:22:16 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:19:35 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:16:10 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:09:17 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 7:43:54 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

This is quite ridiculous; environmentalism has gone way too far. If pollution is causing very significant effects to public health, it is a much better idea to work to cope with it and help people live through it, as to the contrary of putting more environmental restrictions. Pollution is a necessarily evil to our economic growth. More economic growth would likely contribute to helping more people than pollution would harm people.

Where is the line between a balanced life and self-destruction in the name of greed, though?

Environmental skepticism isn't "self destruction in the name of greed," it's compromising on the environment for everyone gaining a higher standard of living and higher amount of wealth from a growing economy.

More wealth for some time doesn't mean anything if there's no Earth to profit off of in the future.

The world won't end if a few trees are dying. Also keep in mind the Earth has recovered from situations FAR worse than global warming in the past.

That's a gross underrepresentation of potential problems. The growing issue with consumption-ready water and breathable air (smog -> health problems) do hurt humans.

And before you say we can use technology to make saltwater drinkable - such tech is incredibly costly. So, you could be using your few extra dollars for what you could have for free if you don't destroy sources of water. Envrionmental protection will not lead to economic collapse.

Pollution rates will get fairly lower as time passes actually, considering the progression of renewable energy. Pollution is inevitable, so it's a far better idea to learn to cope with it as to the contrary of restricting economic growth.

http://m.timeoutbeijing.com...

So is this going to get better quickly? I don't think that, for many places around the world, the Earth's natural process of sustaining itself is reliable for their lifespans.

The technology to make saltwater drinkable might be expensive, but it becomes cheaper as time passes. Have you heard of the lifestraw by the ways?

Lifestraw is good for parasites. I don't know if it can reverse acidification of water bodies.

Radical environmentalism won't lead to economic collapse, but it will lead to decreased economic growth. Environmental skepticism won't lead to environmental collapse either.

Both economies and environments adapt, but I think economies do it a bit quicker...so I'll go with environment over pure economic growth.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:47:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

The environment is naturally toxic to humans. It has a right to be terraformed by humans.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:49:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.

But humans require a functioning environment to live.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:51:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:49:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.

But humans require a functioning environment to live.

That doesn't automatically mean the "right to life" extends to the environment. So anything that humans require to live automatically have the "right to life"?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:52:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:51:46 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:49:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.

But humans require a functioning environment to live.

That doesn't automatically mean the "right to life" extends to the environment. So anything that humans require to live automatically have the "right to life"?

No, that's not the question. The idea is that a stable environment is needed for a human's right to life.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 9:54:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:52:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:51:46 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:49:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.

But humans require a functioning environment to live.

That doesn't automatically mean the "right to life" extends to the environment. So anything that humans require to live automatically have the "right to life"?

No, that's not the question. The idea is that a stable environment is needed for a human's right to life.

And? So that means the government has an obligation to protect the environment, but it doesn't have a "right to life" because that would mean it would apply to the collective whole of the environment, and then someone could get arrested for cutting down a tree.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:05:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 9:52:36 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:51:46 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:49:53 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:46:34 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:45:55 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 4/15/2016 9:43:59 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:07 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
http://lawstreetmedia.com...

The government is being sued over not taking action to combat climate change by a group purporting to represent children across the US. The lawsuit has been allowed to move forward by Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, who said,

"If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health."

So, does our right to life include a government obligation to protect the environment?

No, it shouldn't be the "right to life", but the government should have an obligation to protect the environment from collapsing. Especially considering it's a factor that affects the Doomsday Clock.

Why is the environment not a part of the right to life (a question everyone has neglected to answer)?

Because it's not a human being.

But humans require a functioning environment to live.

That doesn't automatically mean the "right to life" extends to the environment. So anything that humans require to live automatically have the "right to life"?

No, that's not the question. The idea is that a stable environment is needed for a human's right to life.

A stable environment is most certainly not needed for humans to live. The environment naturally is anything but stable or predictable. Where are you getting this narrative from?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:47:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think its very simple. The government has to protect your right to life. Destroying the environment violates your right to life. The government has an inherent duty to protect the environment. These are all truisms, so...