|
Debate...the environment does NOT need protection???
So, I have to debate for class that human consumption is not such a big deal concerning the environment and that we, as humans, do not need to change our lifestyles to "protect wildlife".
So far my big points are:
-Where do we draw the line? We are already taking measures against pollution and other "wasteful" actions. When do we stop inhibiting our own lives for the sake of animals?
-Progress will slow down, which will slow the economy and the development of our quality of life. A lot of the energy used is by workers. If scientists are given a limit on how much of man-made chemicals they may produce, they may not find the cure for AIDs, or develop a new type of prosthetic limb that can function just as a normal limb. It slows down progress. Once our society is used to having something, it cannot be taken away from them. Businesses and factories will not know how to function in a society without the raw goods they were used to using and the "toxins" that have been emitted from production. Also, "eco-friendly" products are way more expensive than the kind that the average consumer buys. Produce markets have a specific "organics" section because not everyone may be able to afford these organic products.
-In fact, on an individual level, the idea of enacting protocols which will "help the environment" is actually government manipulation and it can only further harm our already depleting economy. Gas prices in Chicago are currently at $3.35 a gallon, if we had submitted to the Kyoto protocol in 1997, gas prices would have skyrocketed by now. True, this would get many citizens to ride bikes instead of using their cars, but some people are so used to using their cars and require them for their businesses that raising gas prices to such an extreme would only cause them additional suffering. Semi trucks have been found to be a contributor to global warming. If truck usage is "banned" or limited and gas prices increase to such a high level, the goods which they commonly transport will become impossible to afford. These "eco-friendly" regulations that would be put in place really become government manipulation to force consumers to buy things that they cannot afford. Therefore, we would be taking a large hit to our already suffering economy, straining our own quality of life, in order to maintain or increase the quality of life for animals.
-something about the psychological benefits of seeing nature or going to nature not outweighing the positives. The fact that we have forest preserves and many people choose alternative vacation spots such as amusement parks....
Any suggestions?
I'm looking for weak points in my argument as well as any points to strengthen it that I may not be thinking of.
Thanks!
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Activism?
I am not an expert but i think it would be helpful for you if you focused to on the concepts of life going the way "god" or a higher power has destined it to go. Keep in mind that many people follow the concept of destiny and believe that man has little to nothing to do with what is and will happen in the world. I think this will be a good arguement for you to add. Also the idea that like a sore the body reginerates it's self and maybe relate that to the earth being able to heal it's self at the right time if it is meant to with out the help of humans. Just some small suggestions. :)
]
Woohoo, you're opening a can o' worms.
But you have a well-thought-out point of view. And you're right, once people got used to cars and other amenities, there's no going back. You're taking on an unpopular stance, and I don't necessarily agree with you, but I applaud you for paying attention to the issue. Most people just really don't care one way or the other.
I think the weakest point in your argument is the underlying fact that someday, maybe not in your lifetime, we will run out of fossil fuels. I remember when Jimmy Carter was pushing for funding for solar and other renewable technologies, it got shot down basically because people said "well, that'll take 20 years to get off the ground". Well, it's been 30 years. And we're still guzzling gas.
Personally, I think it's too late. Even if we totally stop emissions right now, we're screwed. All the toxins that we've buried, the damage that we've done to the ozone, all the radioactive nuclear "core rods" that we've buried underground and have actually LOST TRACK OF will come back to bite us in the ass. But the earth will survive. We as a species have already committed suicide. But a thousand years from now, when human beings and their toxic legacy have been long forgotten, the earth will begin to heal itself and prepare itself for the next round of species. I know this doesn't really answer your question, but I'm glad you opened the debate.
]
More Questions: |