What’s your take on the economy and the environment? Which is more important? Which has greater effect on the world and the lives of people? I believe that the economy is completely dependent on the environment. The products that consumers rely on come from the environment. As soil depletes in many regions of the world, the crops that make up our daily diets will become in lack. As these crops become fewer, prices will rise forcing many people to experience for the first time factors such as starvation and famine. Economies of many nations will decline as their work force starts to die off from these unfortunate factors. Problems with the environment will also affect many aspects of medicine. Medicines will not only become more expensive, but less abundant, which will pave the way for mass epidemics to devour complete populations. What do you guys think because we've been talking about this in school but I can't take the kids in my class seriously so I'm intrigued to hear some real opinions.
Im going with the enviornment because if the enviornment gets really bad we would probably die if im correct. All the countries should pitch in a little to help it at least a little bit. And if we cure the enviornment then it would help your country becasue the growing of crops would be better and i think faster? Not sure. But then you would be able to seel more and gain a bigger profit because of the quality and quanity of the new crops. But with the economy the massive job loss rate is huge. Causing people to lose jobs and start to become poor and has to look for a job quickly. There are ups and downs on both but i think the enviornment wins becasue the enviornment keeps us ALIVE
I'm going to bring my religion into this debate. Please do not flame me and say how what I am saying is wrong and stuff, its my opinion and what I believe in. I am more concerned about the economy rather than the environment, because I believe that when it is time for the world to end, I know I'll be ready to go to heaven.
Well I don't believe in heaven so don't you think it would be most considerate of you to put the environment before your selfishness?
How can you be so sure that the world is going to end within your lifetime? Shouldn't you be concerned about the welfare of future generations? It is possible to put the economy and the environment first. Placing the environment means maintaining our environment today, which opens up jobs, but also looking towards changing the damage caused to the environment. Further greed and selfishness will only hurt the environment and hurt future generations.
Wow I posted this thread a long time ago, who brought it back But besides that I completely agree with that eagle mostly because they are not positively or negatively correlated-meaning as one goes up the other goes down. If we can move even a part of our economy to environmental purposes, we can make money and be helping future generations as well.
Its not selfishness, its just what I believe in. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about our environment, I am saying we should worry about the economy more than our environment. I am not saying that the world will end in my lifetime. I have no idea when the world will end. I am just saying, let things flow the way its supposed to me. Since we are emitting all these gases into the atmosphere its impossible to let the world do its natural thing. We should be worried about that.
The environment is infinitely more important. The economy is cyclical and things will always improve; if we screw up this planet, we're not getting it back.
You have two contradictory ideas here. One is letting things as they are and the other is fixing what we've done. Which one is it? Also, aren't you supposed to be a good steward of everything including the earth? Maybe instead of worrying about the economy, you should let God handle that?
I would say that they are both very important. Right now the economy is in need of some fixing. And it's seems to be shaping up every day that goes by. The environment however, cannot be brought back. We can always print more money if need be. If the ozone layer is destroyed or our land fills overflow, there is not much we can do to fix it once it's too late. We need to take action on both fronts. Try not to waste so much and try to recycle as much stuff as you can. If we all do our part, the earth should still be intact for the future of families. One is not more important than the other so to speak, but we all need to do our part.
Dream- Yes that is all true, but printing more money isnt going to make us richer, in fact, that is what inflation is, and it is pretty bad right now. If we print more money, it will just be less valuable. I agree with all of that statement, but printing more money wont help.
It seems to me that the base question is: Is it worth the slight economic hit to avoid further environmental regulation? Personally, I believe the answer is yes. Arguments that over a long period environmental destruction will hurt industry and business, you and I both know that humans don't have the natural foresight for that. It is in the short term that we need to rely on media and the internet to keep ourselves informed about the real changes occurring right now. While keeping national parks in California and Alaska safe from loggers will undoubtedly stop, and probably reduce, the number of jobs available in that business, one can hardly ignore the fact that in Mexico City and LA environmental damage is so severe that it is affecting the health of workers; the same blue-collar workers who will produce the shirts for those Alaskan loggers, or even become a lumberjack themselves. I admit, the parallel is contrived. The point I am making is that environmental damage needs to be considered as a chronic human issue that we are already seeing the affects. Ford and Chrysler may have grumbled when that first wave of governmental regulation hit, but they may already be getting a return on that multi-billion dollar conversion in the better health of workers. More emotional ties can hardly be ignored either; keeping Earth green and beautiful is good for general morale, and further provides return for industries. Earth can be inspiring, and it is in this niche that new jobs are created. (Park rangers, writers, photographers, etc.) Obviously, this does not outweigh the loss of jobs caused by it, but the real affects are more subtle and can be seen by the thousands who enjoy picture books of places they may never visit or read the works of Kerouac or Adams. As for the little religion quibble: God never intended us to live in subsistence while waiting for eternity to crash upon us. The crucial fallacy in your argument appears to be that the ultimate disintegration of the environment will signify the end of the world. While it may hasten it, it seems just as reasonable to link the environment to the end of the world to the growth of corporate greed. (Which is, I recall, one of several sins mentioned in particular.) I believe that God wants us to actively pursue the betterment of human kind in all aspects. The end of the world may come in one minute or one million years. Your argument seems to indicate not worship of a god, but worship of the self. I personally think God wanted us to make it together, with love in our hearts for each other, not with simply a cold acceptance for their damnation that's sure to come with the end of the world. Any minute now. Still waiting. Anyway, I'm sure there are more fallacies in my respective arguments than swiss cheese punctured by a frag grenade, but just feel free to point those out