industrialization (1 Viewer)

[fireice]

hi,
in a third world country,what are we going to prioritize?environmental protection?or industrialization?

 

[Squawker]

fireice. :2wave:​

I think industrialization. The people in third world countries need jobs, and money to provide the material wealth to take care of themselves. Starve now, or die of some environmental boogie man 50 years from now isn't a hard choice to make.

 

[Pacridge]

hi,
in a third world country,what are we going to prioritize?environmental protection?or industrialization?

Welcome to Debate Politics!

 

[anomaly]

hi,
in a third world country,what are we going to prioritize?environmental protection?or industrialization?

We should emphasize industrialization, but really, I think you've got your choices mixed up there. In third world countries, the negative effects of capitalism are felt the hardest. For this reason, the USA should stop interfering with foreign countries' government, and let the people rule. I would advise the people to ither create a socialist economy, or to do everything in their power to make sure the peasants, farmers, and workers are treateed fairly while industrialization is taking place. Remember that even in the USA, our industrialization period coincided with a 'gilded age', where the economy was growing, but only at the expense of workers. All too often in 3rd world countries we see the industrializing effects of capitalism meaning the loss of land for thousands of peasants. I suggest socialism so that the peasants and farmers and workers will be protected as their country transitions (as they do make up the vast majority in 3rd world countries).

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

hi,
in a third world country,what are we going to prioritize?environmental protection?or industrialization?

Who is "we"? The inhabitants of whatever third world country is about to be blessed by the attention of the first world might well prefer that their country continue to be livable. The first worlders will likely not give a damn. The idea after all is to dump the filth elsewhere. (otherwise known as externalizing costs)

 

[bellisaurius]

Why not prioritize an aspect of environmental protection such as human health (clean drinking water, sewage, clean air) along with industrializtion? The build up in infrasructure should be useful for industry in formation and to encourage people to come into cities, thereby leaving swaths of land free to revert to a previous state.

One needs a strong economy to worry about some of the more esotheric aspects of environmentalism such as specific pollutant controls like benzene or minute quantities of arsenic, but not so much to have safe drinking water and air.

 

[RightinNYC]

One needs a strong economy to worry about some of the more esotheric aspects of environmentalism such as specific pollutant controls like benzene or minute quantities of arsenic, but not so much to have safe drinking water and air.

Well put. Standard environmental precautions aren't very expensive.

Although I think that industrialization is by far the more important.

 

[bellisaurius]

I agree, NY. You really don't have much if you don't have an industrial base (well, it is possible to have a service based economy. The Economist talks about India as a service based country in the most recent issue as an example).

I never considered myself an environmentalist until I read Lomborg. Now that I've seen it couched in terms of "So, what does this do for us (economically or morally) for the cost I spend?" I'm rather enamored with it.