Amazon.com Widgets

Should protection of the environment take precedence over the development of natural resources?

  • Yes it should

    The economic growth of a developing country has been always based on harvesting the resources needed for developing the industrial sector which provided labour and also the evolution of a country GDP. From London Industrial war which caused such a dense smog that people in 19 th century could have died assfixiated and the American Cival War were there were no regulations on procuring resources has affected the Planet Earth in harms ways. As a society we will always look for ways for progress but we must be reminded that we are bound to Planet Earth and if we harm it we harm ourselves. We prioritised Economy development over a healthier Planet but now I hope we have understood the implication of protecting natural resources for the development of a future society. Once a mine has been devoided of gold for example, It has to have been treated with cianure for easier extract which can harm the environment in unprecedented ways. The Earth is for now our most valuable asset and if we affect it the economy will eventually suffer from lack of potable water, Hurricanes which destroy the infrastructure and housing of cities near cost, Polluted and wasted lands which can not grow anything and eventually to economic collapse and decadence of human society. Therefore, You need to prioritise environment over economic growth.

  • Yes, protection of the environment should take precedence over the development of natural resources.

    The issue of prioritizing the environment and economic development come down to an issue of what is possible. Imagine that you have a gold deposit in the middle of a wildlife preserve. On one end of the spectrum you have the possible choice to go in and strip mine the area to get the gold out and leave a wasteland behind. On the other end you have the choice to simply sit on the gold forever and protect the wildlife. Both options have their downsides. It certainly seems like a solution which falls between the two would come down much closer to the environmentally conscious side. Perhaps a smaller mining operation that took longer to extract the gold and at higher cost. It is possible to get the gold out carefully if you are willing to accept a reduced profit margin. It is not possible to restore the lost wildlife if you build a strip mine. Therefore, you need to prioritize the environment over economic development.

  • Save our environment

    We should try to find other resources to use that do not damage our environment. We are relying to much on items that either cannot be replenished or will take too much time to replenish effectively. We need to work towards a cleaner world and if that means that we have to take a few steps back then that is what we have to do.

  • The environment must take precedence of the exploitation of natural resources

    I'm not unrealistic about the planet's massive need of natural resources. I only mean to suggest that the planet and its many varied environments are our greatest natural resource. People should be able to figure out ways to do things without destroying the environment. We only have a single planet, if it's destroyed then so are we.

  • Yes It Should

    Given the known problems we have with the environment, I fail to understand why we continue to let companies tear the land apart to access more finite resources. We will run out of these resources, we shouldn't tear the planet apart trying to access every last drop. I believe protection of the environment should take precedence.

  • Oil and Production

    Economies already thrive off of the laws that don't protect the environment and we need oil. Many people argue we won't have anhything left if we use it all up but truthfully we will find something else to harvest that concors the same things, Or, We can do what everyone says on the left and let our economy die. Unless all prices changed and everything was made to evolve around the enviroment you wouldn't survive if we "protected" all of our forests. We wouldn't have enough in the grand scheme of things. Coming from the U. S. We already plant 6 trees for every 1 we dig up. So why do I need to protect them? Oh yeah, Because uneducated people who say yes don't understand how much our economy will suffer.

  • We need it

    People are let earth die we long enough already we experience a lot so just let it die already. We have way to many problems with rape to drugs to killing people. If the earth dies oh well you better move to mars and be happy there. We might even screw up mars.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>