Pls help my debate ...

[Fidelbrand]

My debate is : Should Environmental protection be placed before economic progress?

I m the Pro side.

I think one of the main attacks of my oponents is :

Economic progress leads to tech. advancements, which in turn can help the environment.

How can i kick their asses when they say this?
Pls also present any arguments u wish to make..

thanks!

[Soviet power supreme]

Since when economic progress has helped the enviroment?

Ever since neopolitian revolution the enviroment is gone weaker.

Economic progress leads to tech and advancements which makes the economics better or how do you think that industrialization has helped the enviroment?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 05:18 PM
I think one of the main attacks of my oponents is :

Economic progress leads to tech. advancements, which in turn can help the environment.


Economical progress does lead to technological advancenments, but only to advancements which are businessinterresting.

I am sure powercompanies could find with relative ease powersources which aren't doing much damage to the enviroment and are cheaper. But why would they research something like that? Such a discovery would mean the end of the powerindustry in it's current shape and wouldn't bring up as much money as power does today.

Business simply means trying to get as much profit as possible, therefor companies should not be trusted, especially not with important matters such as enviroment. They go for maximumprofit and would certainly not investigate technologies which would damage or evend end their goal of existence: profit.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 21 2003, 05:26 PM
Since when economic progress has helped the enviroment?

Ever since neopolitian revolution the enviroment is gone weaker.

Economic progress leads to tech and advancements which makes the economics better or how do you think that industrialization has helped the enviroment?
i guess they might say that accumulated capital helps R&D (Research & Development)... then, they invent things such as solar power , wind power facilities nowadays, and more new inventions to come in the future? .. i think they might say that.

[Fidelbrand]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Nov 21 2003, 05:43 PM



Economical progress does lead to technological advancenments, but only to advancements which are businessinterresting.

I am sure powercompanies could find with relative ease powersources which aren't doing much damage to the enviroment and are cheaper. But why would they research something like that? Such a discovery would mean the end of the powerindustry in it's current shape and wouldn't bring up as much money as power does today.

Business simply means trying to get as much profit as possible, therefor companies should not be trusted, especially not with important matters such as enviroment. They go for maximumprofit and would certainly not investigate technologies which would damage or evend end their goal of existence: profit. [/quote]
Very well said, comrade. I guess this is the highlight of the day~ at least i can't counter-argue on what u say... ;) I will use this point to bomb them.. tks. :ph34r:

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The environment and business are usually in conflict because it is cheap and profitable to rape the Earth under capitalism.

Technology can be developed that would be Earth friendly, but it clashes with the nature of business (which is simple profiteering... all other concerns are secondary). Renewable energy generation is already possible, and likely to be inexpensive. It is far more profitable, however, to keep us dependant on a dwindling supply of fossil fuels. As the sources become more scarce, we can be coerced into paying horribly inflated prices.

[Soviet power supreme]

The environment and business are usually in conflict because it is cheap and profitable to rape the Earth under capitalism.

It's almost under every economic system.Only hunter-gatherer systems 10000B.C and before weren't raping the nature.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 21 2003, 12:37 PM
It's almost under every economic system.Only hunter-gatherer systems 10000B.C and before weren't raping the nature.
Anti-environmentalism has been a symptom of pre-capitalist economic systems, that is fair to say. It seem that this destruction has accelerated dramatically under capitalism, though.

A system like communism, however, that emphasizes common ownership should do a lot toward protecting the environment. Our Earth keeps us all alive... protecting nature is good for everyone. There would be greater emphasis on clean sources of electricity, since we would all have our right to breathe recognized. And there would be no fossil fuel oligarch to overrule us.

[Kez]

economic progress will help the environment and the workers ONLY when it is democratically controlled by the workers, otherwise it is at the mercy of the capitalists whose ONLY concern is $$$ or £££ or €€€ same shit, different colour

[praxis1966]

Well, look on the bright side. According to some studies Michael Moore talked about on SPAN the other day, the most liberal of estimates say that the world's oil reserves will be completely depleated sometime in the next 70 years. At least then the corps. and gov't will be forced to investigate alternative energy sources.

Furthermore, I'd definately raise the following question. Why is it that we continue to use a highly pollutive, more expensive, and ultimately non-renewable energy source when in the long run you could just as easily use vegetable or hemp oil to power things like automobiles? Try to corner your opponent into using something other than the cost involved with that type of technology as an answer.

[Fidelbrand]

Thanks comrades. Indeed v helpful. Our opinions are quite on the same level. ;) .. and special tks to praxis1966.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Economical progress will never help the environment, especially in neo-fascism (usually called neo-liberalism), which opposes it in favour of humans, or should we say, less than 2% of humans...