Coe coe NEEDS HW HELP
Thread started by Coe coe buttaa
at 03.4.11 - 8:15 pm
So I pushed my finals to a sooner date so I could join yall in ATX and as a result, my HW load has dramatically increased by 1000%.. therefore, I need a little help in this discussion for an essay I need to write!
Anything helps as long as it's on topic and no pressure for responses... HELP! THANKS!!!
"Consider the following:
It seems evident that if developing countries adopt the same policies of resource exploitation and industrialization that Western nations have followed over the past 150 years, they will irreparable harm their natural environments and accelerate the pace of global climate change. Some environmentalists argues that First World countries should therefore encourage developing nations to voluntarily abstain from exploiting their natural resources. Social justice activists in developing nations respond by pointing out that industrialization and resource exploitation are often the only way to life Third World peoples out of poverty. If a Third World government chooses not to industrialize and develop its country's resources, this might be a gain for the environmental movement, but it also appears to be a loss for human rights and social justice. If a government decides to protect the natural environment over its people, and the people starve as a result, then hasnt that government violated one of its most basic obligations?
Discuss the tension between human rights and Wester-Style environmentalism. Several philosophers have attempted to resolve this tension. How do you propose to resolve conflicts in developing nations between saving nature and feeding people? Explain and defend your answer by discussing how these conflicts are dealt with by at least THREE of the following: Aldo Leopold, H. Rolston, Social Ecology, Ecofeminism, Environmental Pragmatism"
This entire argument assumes that Industrialized nations have the right to dictate how a 'lesser' (by their terms) sovereign nation should use their own resources. Wisdom is usually garnered through mistakes, specifically the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Industrialized nations know the problems with resources exploitation because it they themselves who used such techniques to become industrialized. Therefor, one can argue that the nobility of these environmental goals are disingenuous in regards to the development of the country they are purported to help.
Since the beginning of time resources are what is needed to develop 'things'. Any 'thing' be it a building, food, money itself, a hospital, a power plant, telecommunications and a classroom are made from natural resources. If you are to disallow a country from using their resources you are disallowing that country to develop. It is as if a parent expects a child to grow without feeding it. In the most ridiculous example this same child could tell you that a strategy type video game is based on how fast you can harvest resources and build your army. Without resources you have no 'things', without such things, without commodities to trade, you are stagnant.
However, the wisdom is true that if you exploit your resources you will lose them. So the clear answer is to not exploit. Yet, here we run into the same disingenuous problem of a parent teaching a child not to do something while they themselves do what it is they preach against. Many industrialized nations have found their 'environmentalism' through the resource gathering outside their borders. Their resources are imports, their products are imports, so it is they themselves who fuel resource exploitation, just not in their lands.
So what is it then, do you protect the land or provide for your people by using the resources at hand? Simple environmentalism would purport that no good can come from the wholesale of the land, but humanitarianism would favor the lives of those the land can serve. This conflict is the source of our oil woes in the Middle East, oil woes in Africa, fishing stock declines in the Oceans, and deforestation nearly everywhere. The goals of all these endeavors are not to pillage, but to provide. Yet how to provide without pillaging, that is the key.
The answer is a compromise. To take what you can while still allowing the land to recover, to grow again, to provide again. The biggest problem though is that this type of resource management is less profitable. To industrialize you must produce, you must grow, and be it technology you don't have or the knowledge to build it yourself; cost money. With less profit you will grow much less slowly. Not only does balance between humanity and the environment need to be struck, but in it's purest essence it is about managing growth vs death. In a world where stocks are traded in picoseconds to move money from A to B and people can bet against you, to favor somethings decline for their own growth, growth is king.
The compromises biggest problem is supporting it. As it is difficult to teach a child that a reward will come after hard work, it is even harder to be both the parent and the child simultaneously as an industrialized nation must be and realize that hard work is its own reward. This own reward is sustained life, or the avoidance of death. The sheer fact you still have it and have not lost it is the reward. In a world of rampant materialism it is no surprise that sustainability is a hard sell. The reward is nothing more than stability.
In the end, if industrialized nations really believe the environmental cause they are pushing then they must be the teachers of it. While is may be too difficult to truly lead by example, a developing country offers a clean slate. A developing country can be held by the hand, taught, with the right investment develop into something that can then do the same for others. Yet again though there is the same problem. What is the reward for the industrialized nation if it gets no return off its investment. The answer is then the solution they are selling, their gift in return is the gift they give, stability. Not money, not gold, not oil, but stability. Stability to provide a world for your people where they can exist without the tensions of people at war fighting for resources. It's nearly the hardest sell of all, to sell something for nothing but a mere absence of problems.
I say you just Zerg rush the fuck out of them and win already. Screw them for being a n00b.
Yeah, that's my hippy bullshit take, enjoy. You can pay me in 4LOKO
03.4.11 - 9:08 pm
The industrialized Western nations should create a green fund for any third world nation that signs into a policy of on non-industrialization and resource exploitation. This fund could cover the third world nations food and basic infrastructure (roads, basic housing, basic gas and electric for established cites, etc.). The real purpose to policy would be to great a basic utopia of food and shelter for all third world nations that agree to keep their nations lands as a somewhat of a natural wildlife preserve, a global park service of sort. The population of these third nations should have the explicit right to migrate or become citizens of these parent nations and citizens of the parent nations should have rights to be able to live in these human preserves as long as they agree to keep to a basic standard of living without non-industrialization or resource exploitation.
Yes, it sounds like a idealized head in the clouds concept with the current economic problems facing the industrialized Western nations. Imagine if we could have nation preserves or even sections of our own Countries that create an Eloi type economy. Would you give up the Facebook Tweeting Five Dollar Coffee Gas-infused Hummer World to live in a basic society of living and revert back to the days of bicycle transportation, a basic variety of goods and services, a more human interaction based society with less Sponge Bob?
03.5.11 - 12:26 am