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

developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 926 times Debate No: 44562
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




I stand in the strongest negation to the resolution," Developing countries should prioritze environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict.

1. The developing countries have too unstable of an economy to be able to prioritize environmental protection. And doing so, would create more detriments than benefits.

2. The most pressing issue that developing countries must adress is poverty and only when they have fulfilled the socioeconomic needs of their citizens can they thinking about prioritizing the environment.


A sub point – Links:

The negative stands on the foundation of economic development. The belief of “mo’ money, no problems” is what drives him. However this is a view that puts humans as superior to everything else on earth, and uses nature as a stepping stool for our selfish desires. This is the basis of Anthropocentrism. Devall[1]:

“The dominant paradigm in North America [is] … the belief that … the primary goal of .. nation-states … should be to … increase production of commodities and satisfy material wants … Nature, in this paradigm, is only a storehouse of resources which should be “developed” to satisfy … demands … The goal of persons is personal satisfaction …”

Even the word “environment” is anthropocentric. It implies that nature is just a backdrop for humans – this attitude is the cause of the ecological crisis. Curry[2]:

“environment … as a word prejudges the issues in a particularly unfortunate way, insofar as it implies that the natural world is essentially merely a surround, backdrop, or setting for the main attraction: us. But that very attitude is integral to the present crisis. For this reason, I prefer ecology …”

B sub point – Impacts:

First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior. Donovan[3]:

“Through … exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals. Humans … justify … exploitation of other species by categorizing “animals” as inferior and therefore rightfully subjugated while categorizing humans as superior … So … universal is the false dichotomy … that symbolically associating women with “animal” assists in their oppression. Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior”

Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior. DeMello[4]:

“we are rapidly becoming a throwaway culture, in whichanimals are tossed awayItshould serve as a warningof people who so easilyinflict crueltypsychologists have for years known of the connection between the abuse of animals and violence toward humans. Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documentedThe evidence is notanecdotal; numerous studieshave shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commitviolent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence,violence toward animalsneeds to be taken seriously”

Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life. Smith[5]:

“The anthropocentric viewechoes the waymany humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different …. Regarding others assubstandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty or eliminationToo often people label what they don’t understand as inferior, … Anthropocentrism does notbridge the artificial gap it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated fromtheir environment.causing the disintegration of health and harmony for allhuman life.”

C sub point – Alternative:

Reject the negative case and adopt a policy of deep ecology. Zimmerman[6]:

“Deep ecology isainsight into the interrelatedness of alllife on Earthanthropocentrism – … is a misguided way of seeing ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life Instead of regarding humans asuniquethey see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. …. Instead of identifying with our egoswe wouldidentify withthe whole ecosphere.Wewouldn’tdamage the planet, just as you wouldn’t cut off your own finger.”

And this solves for the ecological problems of today. Affirming makes the world a better place. Katz[7]:

“’anthropocentric’ ethical systems fail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism … system. The natural world –natural entities and natural ecological systems—deserves our moral consideration as part of the interdependent community of line on Earth. … The basis of a moral justification of environmental policy is that we have ethical obligations to the natural world …”

Now let’s go to the NC:

Group the two arguments he makes:

1. There’s literally no warrant to anything that he’s saying here. This is all just unwarranted assertions. He needs to back up his arguments with actual evidence if he wants any kind of credibility.

2. I outweigh. Making sure that developing countries have steady economies won’t matter if we’re all gonna die anyway.

3. TURN: Negating actually doesn’t help developing countries that much, if at all. It just spreads the gains out to the rest of the world and leaves the third world with the tab to pay. Katz and Oechsli[8]:

“Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preservingtherain forest, are spread outacross the entire human race, while the costsare bornebylocal human populations. Development of the rain forestprovides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding thatThird World countries limit developmentviolates basicnotions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for theworld’suse of natural resources.”

4. AC impacts will always come first. These anthropocentric arguments limit the scope of our ethical discussion. We need to expand our sights and consider the solution if we’re to find any solution at all. Katz and Oechsli 2:

“Our complaint is not merely with thedifficulties of performingutility calculations. The deeper issue is the anthropocentric frameworklimits ethicaldiscussions. The primary concern for human interestscreates an irreconcilable conflict between two goods that areadvocated by anthropocentric policiesthe ecosystem which preservesandthe economic use of the landWe are faced witha conflict between a long-term supportand short-term usable goods. This conflict cannot be resolved unless we expand the framework of discussion beyond the limits of anthropocentricreasoning”

[1] Devall, Bill. "The Deep Ecology Movement." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[2] Patrick Curry, BA in psychology, September 3, 2001 (University of California at Santa Cruz, The Campaign for Political Ecology) <Murray>

[3] Carol J Adams, Josephine Donovan, Animals & Women Access via: Google-Print 1995 p. 355

[4] DeMello, Margo. "Cruelty to Animals a Warning of Possible Violence to Come." SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.

[5] Smith 02 [Penelope Smith, Animal Talk, “Anthropocentrism”, 2002. Accessed January 24, 2014. Retrieved online at]

[6] Zimmerman, Martin E. "Introduction to Deep Ecology." Context Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

[7] Eric Katz, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997 [Nature As Subject : Human Obligation and Natural Community] <murray>

[8] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.

Debate Round No. 1


debateroxsox forfeited this round.


Guess I should've expected this.

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


debateroxsox forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


debateroxsox forfeited this round.


Think he just left because I text-walled him?
Debate Round No. 4


debateroxsox forfeited this round.


Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: No FF's and clear exploration of the debate topic.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.