CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
8
YES NO
Debate Score:12
Arguments:9
Total Votes:12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 YES (3)
 
 NO (6)

Debate Creator

deepishm(359) pic



ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE—PRICE OF PROGRESS?

YES

Side Score: 4
VS.

NO

Side Score: 8
2 points

In the past sense, yes, as the Industrial revolution is the main cause of environmental damage

Industrial Revolution = Progress = Environmental Damage

Fortunately technology has advanced enough that environmental damage is no longer necessary for further progress,

And hopefully the Industrialized nations (especially the US) begin taking more responsibility.

Side: yes
deepishm(359) Disputed
1 point

Industrial Revolution = Progress = Environmental Damage

Fortunately technology has advanced enough that environmental damage is no longer necessary for further progress

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE ALSO INCLUDES THE MORE USAGE OF VEHICLES,UNWANTED DEFORESTATION........... So do you want to mean that things like this can take place without damaging the environment??????????

Side: No
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

Not at all.

I'm saying that before the technology was available,

progress was not possible without environmental damage.

Today though there are so many ways to make vehicles with 0 emissions that it's ridiculous we haven't abandoned cars that run on gas completely,

And with recycling, more companies going paperless, and tree farms that make use of fast growing lumber, there is also 0 reason for any clear cutting.

Obviously though, only a couple decades ago none of this was possible. In the past progress required environmental damage of one sort or another, that's all I'm saying, not judging whether it's right or wrong.

Side: yes
1 point

Yes!

The progress of human, intellectual degeneration has precipitated the justification of debauching the environment of life for monetary advancement.

I hope I live within a society which doesn't require an explanation of the above statement.

Side: yes
2 points

All the things that human beings have designed and devised for comfort have some kind of repercussion for the environment. Most of them require some kind of energy to manufacture, operate, maintain and disposing off is very difficult too. The energies that are in use for most part are polluting and renewable energy forms a miniscule part of what is used on a significant scale. Nature’s bosom is more often than not ripped apart and later it is choked with the refuse of human actions that are carried out in the name of progress. Something that is designed to fulfil a small purpose is sometimes taken far, and then the resources are overstretched, making it a damaging exercise.A BANE FOR THE EARTH.

Side: No
2 points

I am of the firm belief that nature gives human beings enough clues to understand its workings. I think it is possible to achieve progress without damaging the environment. For instance, we know that there are renewable sources of energy and which energy sources are lesser polluting. Already there are people who are designing houses that do not require air conditioning even in extreme summer. They have understood and modified their knowledge of architecture in keeping with natural principles, using material to optimum levels. There are people who are trying to ensure that dependence on modern conveniences does not become absolute. I feel that if there is sensitivity to the cause, there can be progress achieved literally in its true meaning. I think that there is a need to reinforce the value of what we have, why we need to preserve it and how it can be done. Once people see nature as the sustaining life force, they will not try to eat away into it but strengthen it. And it is something that we owe to the generations to come.

Side: No

Absolutely not. To quote "Jurassic Park," "[They] were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

Side: No

Agreed 100%. So many people are so preoccupied getting something done that they never stop to think about the eventual repercussions of such acts. We cannot rape the earth of its treasures and assets and then stop to ask...how do we undo this? All risks must be calculated before beginnig a new journey into the unknown...you must take things to their logical end lest we ruin our planet for all time.

Side: No
1 point

From the above discussion I have concluded that some causes of the damage to the environment lies in the legislating and the regulating agencies of the country. But at present the question that assumes importance is that what will work. The answer lies in the green technologies which increasingly use renewable resources; reduce wastes, pollutants, emissions; recover, reuse and recycle; reduce the pressure on natural resources and restore the balance of the eco-system and biosphere and ultimately help in providing “ecologically sustainable development”. Progress is a wholesome word and carries much weight. In order for it to be at minimum to damage to environment, sustainability has to be worked at.

Side: NO