Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

What's more important, economy or environment?

profile picture
mike_e
Posts: 2419 - Karma: 3,066
our environment is being destroyed by industrial/capitalist ideologies worldwide. is a flourishing economy worth the damage being done? discuss.
Jan 12 2014 7:11PM
76 21
profile picture
stickski
Posts: 1938 - Karma: 1,529
Balance.
Jan 12 2014 7:13PM
2 1
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Click for larger image
Jan 12 2014 7:13PM
12 4
profile picture
CosmicBrownie
Posts: 199 - Karma: 1,177
quite accurate except obama trying to stop it
Jan 12 2014 7:18PM
3 5
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Actually if you look at graphs of the US Economy he did stop a lot of economic categories dropping in like his second or third year but it never rebounded so it's just sitting at the bottom. He stopped the bleeding but couldn't heal it
Jan 12 2014 7:20PM
3 0
profile picture
chickenonabun
Posts: 461 - Karma: 285
I don't think it is worth it; what I hate is people always think of our environment as something that has to provide us with economic benefit. The natural world should be valued as just that, the natural world. Also the economy can do just fine without harming the environment, however being more environmentally freindly would result in less profits in the short term. But are profits for some rich people really the most important thing in the world, vs. the ACTUAL biosphere that we depend on to sustain us?
Jan 12 2014 7:22PM
3 0
profile picture
Dhane
Posts: 3866 - Karma: 1,722
Environment. No question.
Jan 12 2014 7:22PM
18 1
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
We all need both. Without an economy we would not be able to have the means to do what we love, like ski. One needs a good economy to have an excess of time.

We cannot sacrifice the environment for the sake of the economy, there needs to be a happy medium. The best way to do this is innovation. We need to make it profitable to be "green". You're not going to convince people to save the environment by paying more for a good. You have to make the greener option the better and most cost effective of the options. This whole "do it because it's good for the planet" has not and will not work.

Jan 12 2014 7:26PM
1 0
profile picture
RockNRollNghtClb
Posts: 2013 - Karma: 2,509
the fact that you are even questioning this is fucking pathetic
Jan 12 2014 7:33PM
2 2
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Yeah. It's kinda like those signs protesting rape. Who are they protesting against? Nobody is out there defending rape
Jan 12 2014 7:34PM
4 0
profile picture
Dhane
Posts: 3866 - Karma: 1,722
Why not? You'd have to be a total asshole not to follow that logic. We shouldn't have to save our planet because there is a buck to made in it. Its just the right thing to do.
Jan 12 2014 7:35PM
3 1
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
Well then you're not doing the right thing right now and either am I.

We are both on computers using electricity generated most likely from coal, one of the worst of all fossil fuels.
Jan 12 2014 7:44PM
1 0
profile picture
Dhane
Posts: 3866 - Karma: 1,722
Touche, got ya now
Jan 12 2014 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Dustin.
Posts: 13839 - Karma: 7,704
Arguably, in our society it cost more money to "go green". Also, there are a lot of "green" programs that focus solely on that programs goals for what "green" is and may or may not turn any noticeable profit or environmental benefit for the customer.

The green energy enterprise is more and more confusing every day, and it's easy to waste millions of dollars on wasted efforts and practices that do no good whatsoever for the earth.
Jan 12 2014 7:46PM
3 0
profile picture
mike_e
Posts: 2419 - Karma: 3,066
for the record, i'm an environmentalist. just starting the conversation without being biased.
Jan 12 2014 7:47PM
1 0
profile picture
YoungWookiee
Posts: 681 - Karma: 394
Balance
Jan 12 2014 7:50PM
0 0
profile picture
galardogod
Posts: 1698 - Karma: 5,209
Economy by far
Jan 12 2014 7:52PM
0 4
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
The "green" option might not even be the best option for the environment. Those batteries in these "environmentally" friendly electric cars require so much lithium, and if you haven't seen what a lithium mine looks like you should google it.

The same goes for what it take to make solar panels, or how much energy is lost in the electric lines themselves. Large innovations need to be made, its not just doing the right thing.
Jan 12 2014 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,750
examples please
Jan 12 2014 7:53PM
0 0
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
So far it's been the only form of motivation to do well for the environment, and have you seen any major changes? because i haven't.


Jan 12 2014 7:58PM
0 0
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
and right now we don't even have the abilities to go "green". There is no way, and i mean ZERO way of existing in the same form of society as we do now, or anything that even closer resembles it, and remove ourselves from our fossil fuel dependency.
Jan 12 2014 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
mike_e
Posts: 2419 - Karma: 3,066
There shouldn't have to be an economic motive for going green. that just shows what greedy assholes we've become.
Jan 12 2014 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51643 - Karma: 162,249
Sweet Jesus. Talking about Obama in a positive light regarding economics?

No wonder we are where we are. Politicians blow at economics and we say, hmm pretty good job there. Let's elect that thurrr guy again.

And to thread you could improve the economy and environment vastly. You don't have to pick one or the other. If you can only pick one I'd say the environment though.
Jan 12 2014 8:18PM
1 0
profile picture
SkiThe603
Posts: 5376 - Karma: 498
and you are part of the reason our society will fail within the next 10 years

money = power =/= happiness, fulfillment, equality
Jan 12 2014 8:19PM
1 0
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Oh I don't think he did a good job but from looking at the numbers I know it could have been worse
Jan 12 2014 8:22PM
0 0
profile picture
Spagett+
Posts: 3499 - Karma: 14,884
I'm going to go with that all you "environmentalists" who are saying that the environment is more important than the economy have put absolutely 0 thought into the actual repercussions of the "going green" of an entire country, let alone the US. The high standard of life that you all enjoy so much would be gone until feasible replacements were found for ways to make heat, electricity, and a new fuel source for transportation vehicles. It would be such an extreme sacrifice that I doubt any of you would be willing to make it with the hope that is might better the world for later generations because, quit frankly, humans are selfish and it is in their nature to make sure that they are living comfortable lives, and if that means destroying the environment, then so be it because they are living how they want to.
Jan 12 2014 8:25PM
4 1
profile picture
Wallisch_pl
Posts: 5260 - Karma: 1,022
Spagett I have never heard you talk so civilized, one could say...you...spooked me
Jan 12 2014 8:27PM
5 0
profile picture
mike_e
Posts: 2419 - Karma: 3,066
i think we need to go back to the basics.. the high standard of living that you speak of is a want, not a need, and i think most people know that deep down but choose to ignore it.
Jan 12 2014 8:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Spagett+
Posts: 3499 - Karma: 14,884
But by going "back to basics" people would be regressing on thousands of years of scientific and technological advancements, and at that point it is a choice that no one would be willing to make, which is really what my last post was about. I'm not justifying or denying the problem of climate change or resource depletion or any other environmental issue, I'm just trying to put into perspective how unviable a change is that would substantially reduce the worsening of the environment on an national or international level.
Jan 12 2014 8:52PM
1 0
profile picture
Spagett+
Posts: 3499 - Karma: 14,884
N is now a vowel.
Jan 12 2014 8:58PM
3 0
profile picture
corona
Posts: 12795 - Karma: 32,750
the problem every person in this thread has so far made is using extremes. 'going green' doesn't need to mean living off the grid and using no unnecessary luxuries, all it needs to represent is a conscious effort to try to reduce some of the waste that we've become so attached to. This can be as simple as composting instead of throwing in the garbage. It helps yet won't put the economy to a standstill.
Jan 12 2014 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
SlurmrnHurnyBurn
Posts: 315 - Karma: 765
.
Jan 12 2014 9:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Gnarwall
Posts: 1180 - Karma: 50
I'm drunk and I'm sick of my conservation bio work, so here we go. I don't think it's a question of economy vs. environment. I think it's more a balance of consumer practices, and a re-evaluation of what economy is. Our entire global economy is based around continuous growth and expansion, which physically isn't possible on a finite planet. Regardless of whether we are consumerist or we turn into a bunch of environmentalists, there will still be a problem regarding space and materials. In order to reduce economic stresses on the environment, it would be worth trying to focus economic energy on experiences, skills, and relationships instead of materialistic things. Just getting society to recognize that we can do things locally instead of buying a bunch of crap would help the situation a lot. There is always going to be a need for certain material goods, but if we could shift more towards education and music/reading/writing/etc, we'd be way better off. People would still be getting paid to do stuff, but maybe they'd blow their money on watching performances instead of buying crap. Or maybe I'm just drunk.
Jan 12 2014 9:50PM
1 0
profile picture
Bogs
Posts: 4296 - Karma: 1,361
Don't think there's much to discuss here. This is pretty much a no-brainer: environment
Jan 12 2014 9:55PM
0 0
profile picture
bieberhole69.
Posts: 654 - Karma: 1,387
Economy is more important-but to a point. If you think about it, some amounts of pollution are good. Because that pollution is coming from the production of products that benefit society.
However, eventually we reach a point where the benefits society is gaining as a whole- that is the consumers who use the product and the producers who benefit from the consumers buying it- are outweighed by the negative impact the pollution has on the world as a whole. Its just a matter of finding that point
Jan 12 2014 9:55PM
1 1
profile picture
Tinga
Posts: 11349 - Karma: 2,333
the economy is dependent on the environment.
Jan 12 2014 10:20PM
0 0
profile picture
steezbox
Posts: 1394 - Karma: 701
Yeah, the economy, especially when global temperatures hit that +4C mark.
Jan 12 2014 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
chickenonabun
Posts: 461 - Karma: 285
Who are we to say that the benefit some people get from buying a product or selling it to make money can ever be greater than the cost to the environment?
Jan 12 2014 10:24PM
0 0
profile picture
cool_name
Posts: 4295 - Karma: 3,131
hey, obama tried to stop it, the video just cut off before you got see that nothing he did helped
Jan 12 2014 10:30PM
0 0
profile picture
bieberhole69.
Posts: 654 - Karma: 1,387
It's all a matter of opinion. One could argue that the pollution generated from cultivating agriculture is worthy of the x amount of tons of CO2 emitted, because the lives prevented from starving from that food are worth more than the .000001 degree they raise the temperature.
By the same argument, one could say that the satisfaction or benefit one person gains from driving a hummer is not worth as much as the negative impact it has on the environment.
But regardless, if society as a whole set a certain amount of pollution as acceptable (this is all theoretical), then society would find more efficient ways to produce products so that more can be produced in the same amount of pollution
Jan 12 2014 10:44PM
1 0
profile picture
Theskiingguy
Posts: 476 - Karma: 2,514
I'll just say one thing..
the economy can ALWAYS wait... the environment can't. Once you screw the environment over we're all dead, literally.
Jan 13 2014 1:25AM
0 0
profile picture
chicken
Posts: 6843 - Karma: 2,123
environment.

Click for larger image


Jan 13 2014 1:54AM
0 0
profile picture
penguiin
Posts: 1444 - Karma: 561
you and I could get along.

On topic though, I think that we can balance both. The industrialized world is relatively new in comparison to the earths age so we are still learning from our mistakes. Industrialization has taken a huge step forward in the past 20 years as far as "going green" goes.

All these environmentalist expect change to happen immediately and that's just not possible. Changes are constantly being worked on you just have to be patient and do your part to help.
Jan 13 2014 3:18AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)