NationStates Jolt Archive

For economics we are doing debates. My topic is "The economy is more important than the environment." I'm on the affirmative side and if you don't mind I'd like a little help in getting started. I'm on the same team as Funky Beat and he'd be really grateful as well. I'd also welcome any negative views so that I can form a rebuttal.

I'm Einsteinian Big-Heads and I'm arguing that the environment is more important in our class debate.

I'm Einsteinian Big-Heads and I'm arguing that the environment is more important in our class debate.

You stay out of this. This is to help me not you.

You stay out of this. This is to help me not you.

You need all the help you can get...

You need all the help you can get...

Well, you have the easier side. Keep out of my thread :sniper: . Can somebody please post something helpful? Getting a little impatient.

Well, you have the easier side. Keep out of my thread :sniper: . Can somebody please post something helpful? Getting a little impatient.

So young, so angry...

i dont think so

countries will rise and fall, economies will crash and be rebuilt, but the one thing that will always be here is the environment

i dont think so

countries will rise and fall, economies will crash and be rebuilt, but the one thing that will always be here is the environment

Clarify that for me: Which side are you on?

Clarify that for me: Which side are you on?
oh, i was replying to the first post which was saying that the economy is more important

i dont think so

countries will rise and fall, economies will crash and be rebuilt, but the one thing that will always be here is the environment

Countries used to rise and fall, but in modern times will they really fall any more? The only thing wich could make America fall would be a crash in their economy. Would exploiting the environment to keep the economy going steady be justified? The earths resources are running out. Is there anything wrong with making them run out faster?

Countries used to rise and fall, but in modern times will they really fall any more? The only thing wich could make America fall would be a crash in their economy. Would exploiting the environment to keep the economy going steady be justified? The earths resources are running out. Is there anything wrong with making them run out faster?

Ah, yes. "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

And overuse of resources is not the only thing, We are influencing the atmosphere in ways that we do not understand, and that could result in horrific consequences.

Ah, yes. "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

And overuse of resources is not the only thing, We are influencing the atmosphere in ways that we do not understand, and that could result in horrific consequences.

So we all die a little earlier than planned. So what. I'd rather die happy with my technology than live long with nothing.

So we all die a little earlier than planned. So what. I'd rather die happy with my technology than live long with nothing.

I think that may change when, and if, you have kids.

And besides, are you happy now?

So we all die a little earlier than planned. So what. I'd rather die happy with my technology than live long with nothing.
Think of all the amazing natural things around the world, the beauty of nature.

would you not want generations to come to be able to enjoy this beauty as you have instead of having to thumb through faded photographs to see what you can go and see for real whenever you want?

I think that may change when, and if, you have kids.

And besides, are you happy now?

Right now I'm just about the happiest man in the world (I don't show it because I don't want to tell anyone why I'm happy). You got me on that kids part. :headbang:

Think of all the amazing natural things around the world, the beauty of nature.

would you not want generations to come to be able to enjoy this beauty as you have instead of having to thumb through faded photographs to see what you can go and see for real whenever you want?

That kind of argument doesn't work against Commie Catholics, he finds very few things beautifull...

Right now I'm just about the happiest man in the world (I don't show it because I don't want to tell anyone why I'm happy). You got me on that kids part. :headbang:

Oh, no. Now you're gonna be all cryptic for the rest of the day...

That kind of argument doesn't work against Commie Catholics, he finds very few things beautifull...
not even this (http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/images/DSC03820%20rainforest%20b.JPG)?

not even this (http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/images/DSC03820%20rainforest%20b.JPG)?

Probably not. Nice pic though.

Think of all the amazing natural things around the world, the beauty of nature.

would you not want generations to come to be able to enjoy this beauty as you have instead of having to thumb through faded photographs to see what you can go and see for real whenever you want?

Well, they can see it in a national park. An environmental preservation. They can either experience the beauty of nature or they can experience the beauty of human ingenuity. I'd rather experience human ingenuity (not really, just playing devil's advocate).

Probably not. Nice pic though.
And if you carry on with economy over environment, thats all youll be left with

photos

Well, they can see it in a national park. An environmental preservation. They can either experience the beauty of nature or they can experience the beauty of human ingenuity. I'd rather experience human ingenuity (not really, just playing devil's advocate).
an environment cant exist on its own in a park, there isnt some magical barrier that changes into a park, it relies on the environment around it as well, outside the park.

That kind of argument doesn't work against Commie Catholics, he finds very few things beautifull...

The sun, The environment, Tink, and Lashie.

Four very beautiful things. That's more than a few.

an environment cant exist on its own in a park, there isnt some magical barrier that changes into a park, it relies on the environment around it as well, outside the park.

I don't see why.

not even this (http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/ghayes/images/DSC03820%20rainforest%20b.JPG)?

Hmm. Isn't it a wonderful co-incidence how you go for the most visually appealing piece of the environment you were able to locate. Mankind isn't all bad and destructive, think of some of the beautiful old European cities; Madrid, Rome, Prague... beautiful architecture and beautiful culture.

Hmm. Isn't it a wonderful co-incidence how you go for the most visually appealing piece of the environment you were able to locate. Mankind isn't all bad and destructive, think of some of the beautiful old European cities; Madrid, Rome, Prague... beautiful architecture and beautiful culture.
thats not really the argument though, what the argument is is whether or not you should pursue your economy at any cost to the environment

edit: and to be fair, i just typed "rainforest" into google. rainforests really do look like that.

thats not really the argument though, what the argument is is whether or not you should pursue your economy at any cost to the environment

But my point is that showing a pretty picture is not going to convince me that the environment is more important than the economy. The two are inter-related, and its difficult to distinguish one of increased importance.

But my point is that showing a pretty picture is not going to convince me that the environment is more important than the economy.
that wasnt the intention

i was posting it in answer to a comment made by a poster about another poster, not as part of an argument

And if you carry on with economy over environment, thats all youll be left with

photos

hear hear.

that wasnt the intention

i was posting it in answer to a comment made by a poster about another poster, not as part of an argument

You do realise that Commie Catholics, Einsteinian Big-Heads and myself are all in the same economics class and are, indeed, working on the same topic (EBH is opposed to CC and myself). Tell you what, I have no desire to argue with you about the merits of the environment and the economy. We'll call it even?

*offers handshake*

The environment is better. If our environment is bad then who cares about the economy if the world is not going to be here within the next like 100

why do we have to take sides... how about this idea thats a little different:

with a good economy, the stimulation of science, experimentation and development of new methods can be found, and perfected, at which point, we may be able to save society from the inefficient uses of natural resources as energy.

The two sides can feed off of each other... then the protection of the environment will make the area more desireable to live in/visit... so you make the price of an area with a good environment, high, to live in... at which point, the upper class with lots of money to spend increase the net yield of cash in the area... heceforth helping the economy

(increase things such as tourism, and a class of people with a lot of money will be willing to spend it in a beautiful/environmentally safe area)

The environment is better. If our environment is bad then who cares about the economy if the world is not going to be here within the next like 100

Precisely the point. We must plan for the long term.

<snip>

Unfortunately, it being a debate, we must take sides.

Although I agree that one cannot "survive" without the other.

why do we have to take sides... how about this idea thats a little different:

with a good economy, the stimulation of science, experimentation and development of new methods can be found, and perfected, at which point, we may be able to save society from the inefficient uses of natural resources as energy.

The two sides can feed off of each other... then the protection of the environment will make the area more desireable to live in/visit... so you make the price of an area with a good environment, high, to live in... at which point, the upper class with lots of money to spend increase the net yield of cash in the area... heceforth helping the economy

(increase things such as tourism, and a class of people with a lot of money will be willing to spend it in a beautiful/environmentally safe area)

I agree with you entirely. However, FB, CC and I put this thread up because we are in a classroom debate with predetermined sides. I'm afraid we require a slightly more polarised viewpoint for it to be useful. Sorry.

Precisely the point. We must plan for the long term.

And compromise our life quality now?

That's really the question we're answering. Life for the now or life for the then?

<snip>

Pretty good answer, although the purpose of the debate is to take sides. Thanks :fluffle: .

Pretty good answer, although the purpose of the debate is to take sides. Thanks :fluffle: .


well if im taking sides... economy matters now.. environment matters later... without a good economy youre going to destroy the environment with inneficient industries and such... so economy comes first.. then when its stable you worry about the luxuries of life.... a good clean environment.

well if im taking sides... economy matters now.. environment matters later... without a good economy youre going to destroy the environment with inneficient industries and such... so economy comes first.. then when its stable you worry about the luxuries of life.... a good clean environment.

This is all great stuff. Why couldn't I think of this?

This is all great stuff. Why couldn't I think of this?

'cause your thick. :D

I think the debate question, "The economy is more important than the environment," sets up a false dichotomy. (Cool! Extra points for managing to use the word "dichotomy" in a post! )

The economy is how we get what we want. If people want a nice environment then they can create an economy that provides it.

If what you accually want is a world full of environmental degradation then perhaps you're not really thinking ahead.

Perhaps you want to debate the trade off between protecting the environment and say higher GDP.

As a final note, I think you'll find that most developed nations are growing increasing more concerned about the enviroment, whereas in poor nations the natural enviroment isn't as well cared for quite as well on acount of how they are poor.

The environment is a resource as any other. Using it up will mean we won't have it later.
I therefore propose you base part of your argument on Marginal Social Benefit and Marginal Social Cost. That'll look good with your teacher, too.

Firms always try and produce where Marginal Revenue = Marginal Cost. These are only private MRs and MBs, though, and if negative extrenalities are involved, (eg pollution) individuals will produce more than the socially optimal amount.
Therefore, ideally you would find out how much the externalities are worth and introduce them into the firm's cost functions (either through taxes or regulations). You'd get MR = MSR and MB = MSB. Therefore MSR = MSB and you are at a socially efficient level of production.

BUT, that doesn't mean no pollution at all! There is a socially optimal level of pollution and it is greater than zero. That is because there are diminishing marginal returns to your pollution-reduction. Getting rid of the last 5% (example!) of your pollution could cost millions, ie more than the benefit of not having those 5% of pollution.

Therefore, I would say:
1) Good on you for choosing the much harder side to argue.
2) Optimal pollution is where the firms MSR = MSB. That must be achieved through Government intervention.
3) Optimal pollution is greater than zero, as there are diminishing returns to environmental protection.

Hope that helps! :D