People or environment first?

[Ulyaoth]

Just wondering what's more important to people, to improve the lives of people(ie, poor in first world countries, and third worlders in general) or protecting the environment by cutting off pollution, protecting forests and endangered animals that people may want to hunt and cut down for farming or mining or whatever.

At present I believe it's the case that if all of the world lived at a western level, we'd be out of resources quickly. I also see people all the time that complain about global warming, wanting the west to massively reduce pollution and such, but at the same time wanting to allow China and India and such to have no regulations basically, with the note that they should be given free range to industrialize/modernize.

[cristophe el perno]

Simply put, the planet will not survive if third world nations develop in the same manner as the first world did.

[Time Commander Bob]

Simply put, the planet will not survive if third world nations develop in the same manner as the first world did.

The planet will be fine and life will survive, people (especially the poor and those in third world countries) will be the ones who suffer most from environmental catastrophes.

People first, but sustainable development is a part of this. We can't continue to have a rising population, rising demand whilst having a decreasing supply of resources. So unless we find some very cheap way of getting materials from space (which is very unlikely anytime soon), things will change one way or the other (either by accepting that this trend cannot continue and creating a sustainable amount of demand or by increasing demand until the tipping point is reached and enough people die off that the others can live. The former is obviously more preferable).

[Icefrisco]

This doesn't even make sense. By cutting down pollution, increasing the amount of arable land (and therefore food supply) and increasing parkland for tourists environmentalism is helping people. Environmentalism rarely clashes with humanitarian issues, it only clashes with corporations or unrestrained energy use. Environmentalism brings with it an increased standard of living becuase of the decrease in pollution, increase in farming, and tourist money that comes from parks.

[Ulyaoth]

Well if you only consider having food as all you need for a good life. I was more thinking in the lines of industrializing/modernizing all people, and simply making sure they don't starve to death.

[bushbush]

they are actually not mutually exclusive...

protecting environment can bring in SUSTAINABLE development. In China for example, massive industrialization with no regard for environment brought heavy pollution to water and caused great deforestation. Both of which will end up hurt economic development due to the cost and damages they bring to standard of living among the Chinese people.

[Ulyaoth]

they are actually not mutually exclusive...

protecting environment can bring in SUSTAINABLE development. In China for example, massive industrialization with no regard for environment brought heavy pollution to water and caused great deforestation. Both of which will end up hurt economic development due to the cost and damages they bring to standard of living among the Chinese people.

But the point is, it's impossible at present times for the whole world to live the lives of even a lower middle-class westerner without destroying the environment in the process let alone that we'd be out of resources as well and then have to revert back in technology or quickly find some new materials to use for various things.

[JustShoveJayOhBe]

people... not enough to have a planet if you don't deserve having a planet

[tkubic46]

Preserving Liberty, Freedom, Rights, and Self-Determination.

[Sun Devil]

How about the economy gets fixed, so we dont get overwhelmed with even more poor people.

[Strattios]

Neither. My focus is myself and my family. Then getting down to the freedoms of my fellow law abiding Americans.

[Pickle_mole]

its really telling about a persons character and what they are willing to do if they choose to protect a rainforest over a country filled with other human beings.

[Bovril]

I think sensible enviromental policies are absolutely key, but only in as much as they help people. Since global warming will disproportionately harm the world's poor, protecting the environment is a key issue for poor countries, perhaps moreso than rich countries. So whilst helping poor people is more important to me, I'd like to do it, in part, by reducing global warming.

Incidentally, the assumption that devellopment requires massive increases in pollution is due in part to a misconception of what devellopment should be about. For me devellopment should be about rising peoples' standard of living. Sweatshops, strip mines and irresponsibly intensive agriculture might like good on balance sheets, but they're not so great for the people who have to work in them or live near to them. I often don't class them as devellopment at all because of this.

[Tominokar]

By protecting the environment by working with local communities, we are helping 'the poor'.

There's no such decision as 'rainforest versus the people'. The rainforest creates rainfall, prevents soil erosion, provides food for hunter-gatherer communities, and stores carbon, preventing it from escaping into the Earths atmosphere and causing climate change. It's a win-win.

It's wealthy ranchers, miners and logging companies that would lose out.

[molonthegreat]

I don't care if the people in the third world is starving or if the rainforests that are cut down and i can't really decide which one that would gain me the most. But if the people in the third world would become richer costs for labour would probably increase and i don't like that becuase i want to buy things as cheap as possible . On the other hand those environmentalist freaks wants to tax the hell of anything that will hurt the environment and other bad things they want. But i think it's better with the environmental because i want cheap labor.

[skag]

I don't give a about environment

Ooooh oh wales gonna die .... oh ... and ?

People who spend time trying to save environment should think a little about human real problems first

The only thing that matter in environment is :
1/ the supply we can get from it, and the wise use of it
2/ do not pollute, but not because of environent, but because it's a problem for human well beign and heatlh

[Nimthill]

I don't give a about environment

Ooooh oh wales gonna die .... oh ... and ?

People who spend time trying to save environment should think a little about human real problems first

The only thing that matter in environment is :
1/ the supply we can get from it, and the wise use of it
2/ do not pollute, but not because of environent, but because it's a problem for human well beign and heatlh

Ooooh oh humans gonna die in third world .... oh .... and?
Your argument doesn't really hold because you apparently don't care about whales, and do care about humans. Plenty of people who don't see it that way. Tbh, I couldn't care less about people dying thousands of miles from where I live. Would I stop it if I could? Yes. Do I care? No.

Plus, I think a pollution is a very 'human real problem' due to the massive implications it will have on our society if the hits the fan.

[Akhil_The_Great]

the most economic efficient use of money would be giving vitamin C and Iron tablets to poor people, because they help fight off disease. (even economists agree, its more usefull then providing expensive AIDS drugs)

plus more people die from malnutrition too, that would solve that problem too,
maybe giving out free condoms would help the third world too

[shalis]

Theres actually a way to help both. Alot of the polution and deforestation currently occuring could be lessened or even abolished altogether if there was a push worldwide for the legalization of hemp.

There is a reason why hemp has been illegal for the last 70 years and it has nothing to do with the fact that it makes you laugh and eat like a pig. 1 acre of hemp produces as much paper as 4.5 acres of trees, hemp also is a annual crop vs the several years needed to replace those trees. Hemp fiber was used for clothing for thousands of years and is stronger and more durable than cotton, indeed the main reason why hemp is illegal now adays is cause the company that produced Nylon (DuPont) didn't like the competion of something that you can grow in your back yard. Hemp can also be used to produce plastic in a much less toxic process than using petroleum. Methanol alcohool an environmental safe alternative to fossil fuels is als produced from hemp. Hemp seeds have 2 of the 3 fatty acids needed for human consumption, its the only vegetable to do so. The list goes on.

If you want the full story go to www.jackherer.com/chapters

shalis

[Eastern Roman]

Just wondering what's more important to people, to improve the lives of people(ie, poor in first world countries, and third worlders in general) or protecting the environment by cutting off pollution, protecting forests and endangered animals that people may want to hunt and cut down for farming or mining or whatever.

At present I believe it's the case that if all of the world lived at a western level, we'd be out of resources quickly. I also see people all the time that complain about global warming, wanting the west to massively reduce pollution and such, but at the same time wanting to allow China and India and such to have no regulations basically, with the note that they should be given free range to industrialize/modernize.

protect People oR Environment ?

we try protect to protect the environment in order to save the planet and the creatures who live on it.

Protecting the Environment is part of protecting humanity not only the poor people, all of us........