CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Economy vs. Environment
If you had to choose between the economy and the environment, which would you say is more important? Which would have a stronger influence on the lives of people. Do you think that both are important at the same level because of the interdependence on the relationship between the two?
If we were to focus on the economy to the detriment of the environment, then lots of people would die...., thus easing the environmental pressures caused by humans. In other words, the system is self correcting and I for one would like to see rush hour traffic correct itself ;)
It would be great to have both, but if you were forced to make a desicion, you'd have to pick the economy, because without an economy, there are no jobs. without jobs, there is no money. without money there is no food, shelter, or rescources other than what you can gather for yourself. society as we know it would be destroyed, and we would spend our days living in caves and eating bits of meat cooked over a fire.
Yes, but without an environment there wouldn't be any jobs or money, because we wouldn't be there. we would have already died because the environment died out. There wouldn't be any meat to cook or caves to spend our days in.
Intelligent. Humans may have compassion but they can't betray against their own human nature, and that human nature is to feel pity on oneself. Such as this situation.
a rich man deals with a poor man that "if you would not clean the environment I will give you lot of money" do you think he will agree? If you say yes, then you surely understand human. If not then think twice, imagine that you are the poor man then their you would understand.
P. S, I support you , ignore the" disputed " banner
a rich man deals with a poor man that "if you would not clean the environment I will give you lot of money" do you think he will agree? If you say yes, then you surely understand human. If not then think twice, imagine that you are the poor man then their you would understand.
The environment is the only thing that makes human life possible. I would not agree to "not clean the environment" for anything. The entire existence of both myself and the entire human species (as well as every other species) depends on the environment. We absolutely must "clean the environment" and protect it for our own good and everyone else's. That is the truly intelligent conclusion.
I cleaned the typo You can re-read it again coz I know you were confused at my message .
" I would not agree to "not clean the environment" for anything. The entire existence of both myself and the entire human species (as well as every other species) depends on the environment.."
This is what you said, and this is what I'm talking about, what you were saying is compassion.
You said no because you haven't really imagined being poor, poverty is when you can't afford toilet so you poo on the ground or somewhere else or poverty is when you don't have something to eat or poverty is when you can't give the things that your family needed.
You said, """We absolutely must "clean the environment" and protect it for our own good and everyone else's. That is the truly intelligent conclusion."""" As an older man I know that you know that this world isn't a paradise where you always get what you wanted.
There are times that we sacrifice an important thing for another important thing. Just like the poor man in the situation, he sacrificed the environmental importance to have good wealth because he pity his family and his self
Sure, I'd like to see you say that when the rivers and seas are so polluted that all the fish are dead, the air is so polluted that you have to wear masks...
Sure, we would care for that when we get enough money to provide for ourselves and our family.
Here in third world country, if you serve the environment you only got low salary, what's the point if doing so if we got no enough money to provide us what we need. Environment alone doesn't feed us anyway.
I think that the environment can be a source of ecnomony itself. Take for example, oil is a product of the environment which is a rich form of resource that can contribute to the economy. Agriculture is also a rich form of resource that can contribute to the economy. There are also many other economical resources that are produced by the environment such as water, oxygen, materials such as wood for building purposes, and many more resources. The environment if not taken good care of, can also lead to severe disasters.
Oil, agriculture or any natural resource are not sources of wealth because you could own all the oil fields in the world, but if nobody wants to exchange goods, then it is no use to anyone, so if the economy is taken care of first, the environment will naturally follow.
But if you have the products to trade, then countries will likely be interested in trade but if you do not have the products to trade, how will that affect the economy?
It still comes down to the fact if the product you have is useful to the country and they are interested in trade, then that builds the economy. Therefore the source of the economy will be the products you are trading. And if one country is not interested in trade, there are many others that are.
You answered the question yourself. If you dont have the products to trade, then it affects the economy in terms of revenue and job creation.
a bad environment can kill other poor people but not me, dude I got money.
When the ecosystem collapses no one survives, child. You cannot eat money or make a good fire with it, when the environment collapses resources become scarce, then industry collapses, then society collapses. Money will be worth nothing if that happens. But your demise could be much more swift depending on the extent of the environmental decay.
Ouch dad, don't underestimate me, it hurts my stone-like feelings.
Ofcourse I'm aware of that , you just misunderstood me coz you were too advance as you said from the start "when the ecosystem collapse", like dad we're not there yet but yeah I understand you.
Anyway, let's be practical , if you have good economy that means you also have good environment look at the 1st world country, and these what makes a family healthy, the economy ,because with the good economy you have money, money to fund those environmental services and this is what makes environment good. Because whether we like it or not, money already runs the world .
Also ,It's not the other way around. Having good environment doesn't mean good economy, economy comes first. Look at the poorest country in the world, the central African republic, they have good environment yet they have very low economy. You know what's more terrifying inside the country? The famine
Anyway, let's be practical , if you have good economy that means you also have good environment look at the 1st world country
A good economy does not = a good environment. A good economy = a high rate of production and a high rate of the usage and exchange of resources. This means that on a capitalistic market the better the "economy" is the more resources are being expended, there is absolutely nothing about capitalism that gives two solid shits about the environment.
because with the good economy you have money, money to fund those environmental services
Rich people don't give a single wet fuck about the environment kid, get that through your cerebral cortex before it's too late.
Having good environment doesn't mean good economy, economy comes first. Look at the poorest country in the world, the central African republic, they have good environment yet they have very low economy. You know what's more terrifying inside the country? The famine
Economies come from natural resources because commodities come from natural resources, resources depend on the environment, the entire existence of humanity is thanks to the conditions on our planet. Our economies would not exist without the environment. Africa does not benefit from it's own resources because of multinational corporations exploiting them.
Wait up uncle your turning the other way around, the high rate and usage exchange is what makes the environment good because of how they use it . You see, economy is the way of turning good environment into a useful one.
Such as if a man wins at a golf competition should you praise the golf club or the man? Ofcourse the man because he is the one who brought the game and the golf club is the thing that he used.
Same in our topic
We both know Capitalist doesn't give a care about environment but they aren't dumb to deal with a business that isn't good at handling with the environment, the environment that they use to produce bussiness' resources.
Yes Uncle, keep understimating me, I didn't say rich people give shit to environment, I know you know people aren't saints ,i'm talking about the government , you know uncle, they need money too and money can't just appear magically. Markets are not the only public services that gives a shit to economy, even government that's why the world 'political economy' exist, and ofcourse you know that uncle.
Yes, economy came from environment and we both know that coz you see that I take economy interrelated to environment and the difference between us is that I believe that it is the economy that brings wealth to people and you believe the other way around.
You clearly misunderstood me, you said "resources depend on the environment, the entire existence of humanity is thanks to the conditions on our planet. Our economies would not exist without the environment"
You think I don't know these stuff uncle, the only thing I didn't know was cursing but thank you for fucking teaching me, I owe you.
Lastly, I got question and answer
You know why you misunderstand me? That's because you take the question as "what existence is better, the economy or the environment? " when I take the question as "which gives more benefit, economy or environment? "
You're right but we still don't care about the environment, as long as we have money we don't give a care. This is what we humans are, face it. In order to provide for your family you'll choose and only choose economy.
So this is why students would rather choose chemical engineering rather than agricultural course
People would choose being a CEO rather than farming.
Economics is basically concerned with the distribution of resources, with no intrinsic care for how they are obtained.
As living, biological entities which depend upon other life forms to survive, our environment takes precedence. I find it amazing that people dispute the need for a clean, healthy environment.
It is impossible to fix the environment before the economy. Economy creates wealth, so the more wealth is created, the more we care about the environment. Protecting the environment eventually comes. If the economy is vibrant, then the environment is back to pre-industrial revolution, and millions would die because of the wealth we created from technology.
It is in the process of creating more wealth that we tend to destroy the environment. You mentioned that the source of the economy is wealth but in fact the source of the economy is the environment. Where do you think we get all the products to actually produce goods and services? It comes from the environment. If there is no environment there is no economy.
It is true that all goods and services must come from the environment at least in the original stage of production, but as a economy grows with the investment in capital goods and labor, less and less resources are taken out of the Earth to produce these goods.
The economy is a mass delusion. We made it up, like a religion. If humans could sort out their problems without greed, the environment would be a lot easier to maintain. The economy is unnecessary, it's just an obstacle.
An economy is not a mass delusion, it is simply people freely exchanging goods and services, for an economy is just the broad term for trade. Without trade, modern complex society is impossible, and computer and internet that it appears who enjoy to use doesn't exist.
How would the environment be easier to maintain without the exchange of goods and services?
I listened to about 40 seconds. It's nonsense. Money is not necessary, it only brings divides and increases greed. Money is a promise- that is all. Trade without money is more honest and real. It's also not just about a healthy environment. Where do you think our food comes from? Our oxygen? Our clean water?
Settle down, only 40 seconds, don't be too ambitious by listening to other ideas.
If money is unnecessary, why don't you live only on trade of goods and services if you think is divides and increases greed.
The opposite is true, money actually brings social cooperation and wealth. Money is the most important tool, it is the only way man can tolerate man because of the mutual benefit in indirect trade.
Trade without money is barter, and only primitive economies result of only barter.
I'm not so much against money as what it has become. In actuality, it has no worth- just paper and information on a computer. The coins aren't even taken seriously any more. Money is definitely not more important than the environment. The environment is how we earn wealth, and wealth is not money, money is just a way of measuring wealth. If we damage the environment, we might as well chop our hands off. It is the food, the water and the air.
Money has become perceived as evil only because of the government's ability to manipulate it. True, fiat paper currency has no value, it only has value because government screams real loud insisting it does, but commodity coins do because of its intrinsic value and honest trade. Trade is stored in the value of medium of exchange.
As for the environment generating wealth, this is true yet really only the original factors of production, all other stages of production is capital goods. The environment is only a factor of creating wealth, and money is neither wealth nor how wealth is measured. Wealth is the production of goods and services. Therefore, money is solely a medium of exchange.
Environemtal Development should be more important, First of All we're looking forward to both benefits..Yes we need enviornment, yes we need economy, BUT if you invest the money to develop environment which is also improved the economy, for example: Planting trees, many trees in your country that is for traveling place, and when you did it, the foreigners from other country may come to your country, and yes you also get money and it raise your economic,too! Also making a resources at the top, planting trees, or used some hydroeletric power,windmill, solar cell, etc..Which is help on environment and also we had much resources which we'll not waist money on imported things..because we plant it, we made it, we have it by ourself...So if you CHOOSE ENVIRONMENT..it will help ECONOMIC on the way..so let's choose Environment!!
