Economy Over Environment

What do you think is more important, the economy or the environment. I understand that we are planting 3 trees for everyone we cut down but think of the ecosystems that we are destroying. In my opinion we should be worrying about the environment because the economy will always be an issue. This question is mostly for Canadians (we just got out of recession in 2008).

 

It's kind of like saying what's more important, doing well on your tests or completing your homework.. they're both essential, so I don't really see how you can place one over the other.

 

Economies fluctuate, that is just an economic cycle. Once you wipe out the environment you can just bring that back as easy cyclically. Both aspects are important, but as our resources begin to dwindle and our population increases dramatically there needs to be heavy thought put into conservation - because the environmental processes work in a chain and if you break a link it could mess everything up. I am not a tree hugger, but it is important to realize the impact the environment has on us a humans and how when it is gone there is no easy way to bring it back.

 

If you take the economy over the environment, then you are exceptionally short sighted. If we destroy the environment, that could be it for us and lots of other life.

 

I believe that the environment because we are depleting source after source, things like water and gas isn't going to renewable. So I think that the environment outweighs the economy.

 

What's more important the intelligence of a human or the life of the human?


China is a great example of this. They have ravaged their environment and will not recover within 200 years. It's pretty obvious that the environment should outweigh the economy.

 

Imagine if every country did that, Canada is the second biggest country in the world this could create major problems.

 

Environment all the way. Apparently the world is 200 trillion in debt? The economy will always be messed up IMO.

 

The only reason the economy is screwed up is because of governmental policies, or, socialism! Environmentalism is merely another form of socialism. You will never solve the problem of the economy and the environment with socialism, they tried that in the past, and millions of people died.

What is socialism/communism? Loosely, it's the doctrine that holds that man cannot be economically free because this would result in exploitation, monopolies, recessions, depressions, and so on. All of these, are obviously bad. What about environmentalism? Loosely, it's the doctrine that holds that man cannot be economically free because this would result in the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, and so on. You cannot possibly have an effective environmental regime without using the same method bygone socialists used, ruling by force with a central planning organisation.

Why do people hate capitalism so much? If the whole world (consumers) can't solve a problem, what on Earth makes you think a select few corrupt bureaucrats can? Think of it this way. There's always an equilibrium point, we aim for that, and that equilibrium point comes about due to market forces. If you think a central planning organisation can do it, look up the economic calculation problem.

The only way to truly save the environment is to get rid of government socialist policies, and the only way to do that is to bring back capitalism. Once you bring back capitalism, NOT ONLY do you improve the economy, but you also improve the environment! The question is phrased in a poor way, why choose one when we can have both.

 

i think a good balance between the two is needed. now, im not some guy living in the coal country, hellbent on sucking every living resource out of the ground that we can, but we should use what weve got. at least in the us, the government has put WAAAYYYY to many regulations on oil, gas, and coal companies. these are our cheapest sources of energy, and in a time like this, we need to take advantage of them. because with a good economy comes more people with money to invest in clean energy, and more money for the government to grant research and development money to the green energy companies that need them. it all works hand in hand. if we just stick with dirty energy, we arent gonna have a economy to work with. there wont be enough food, clean water, it just isnt a smart thing to do. but if we dont use some of what we have right now, we arent gonna have enough money to get these big green energy initiatives going. i still think nuclear is the way to go though...

 

No, just no.

Communism, or at least Marxist communism says that there is an eternal struggle against those who have and those who have not. It is social theory that holds that the only way to solve this eternal struggle is for those that have not to overthrow the minority of those that have.

Socialism is economic and political theory that says that a centrally planned government works towards the ideas of solving this class struggle through the dispersal of resources, wealth, et al equally among the citizens.

Environmentalism is a social movement focusing on the conservation of the environment. You are attempting to demonize those who wish to protect the environment by labeling them socialist. It appears that your study of environmentalism and it's substance is lacking severely. If you look it is actually the conservatives and the right wing that has done a lot for the environment. Nixon issued the Clear Air Act among other environmental protection acts. Many of the conservatives are staunch environmental supporters because they're also the hunters and the fishermen. It is those profiteers that seek the lowest overhead and the easiest/cheapest way that destroy the environment.

So I can't take this argument seriously when it is clear your research and understanding of these concepts are minimal at best.

 

We could debate the meaning of these ideologies all day.

There are many permutations of communism, though they are all largely the same. Are you saying that Communism does not seek to abolish capitalism, and does not advocate public ownership of all the factors of production for the primary reason that the bourgeoisie exploit the proletariat? I did say loosely at the beginning by the way, and it's true, in a capitalist society there will be a class system, and there will be inequality. Communists don't want that, so they do x y z.

As for Socialism, there are even more permutations! They again, are all largely the same, but instead of all the factors of production being owned publically/by the government, some are owned privately. While the eradication of class conflict is a large part of socialism, it is also, in modern times, to remove exploitation, monopolies, and so on. Socialists believe that all these bad things will happen if the economy was capitalist, so therefore we must have a central planning organisation to make all these decisions for us.

Anyway, I don't particularly want to get into a debate about what these ideologies are, as you clearly have a better understanding than me on them. This however does not detract from my argument, for, I'm arguing essentially that environmental protection in the forms of laws, which are by there very nature anti-capitalist make the environment worse.

While I haven't represented environmentalism in the best light, unless you are a free-market environmentalist, which most environmentalists are not, the only way you achieve your goals is through laws, and so on, which are by their very nature anti-capitalist, which I equate with socialist. Environmentalists think that we must protect the environment, and we will initiate force on those who damage it! There is nothing wrong with thinking that we should protect the environment, it's rather, those who are so vociferous in protecting the environment, and in their advocation of all these laws and policies to protect it, they actually end up destroying it!

You can only protect the environment if you have sufficient resources to do so. Humans ALWAYS prioritize themselves above the environment. If you were starving, and you saw a deer, I dare you to tell me that your first thought would be the protection of that species. No, you'd want to eat it. As much as you may want to have a lovely garden, or a wealth of species on the planet, you need to be able to afford it. You cannot possibly afford it if you are starving, malnourished, and trying to simply survive. The only way to stop people from being in this situation is the economy to grow, for economic growth to occur. Once people are well fed, and not fighting for survival everyday, only then can they focus on their lower order wants, such as the environment. Legislation, namely economic legislation that seeks to protect the environment actually makes it worse by virtue of it slowing down economic growth, and making it harder for people to survive.

I'll talk about environmental legislation, which I equate with socialist like policies, or more precisely anti-capitalist. I'll just look at simple economic legislation, fuel taxes, land taxes, etc. Gee, I wonder what this does, it eventually increases the price of consumer goods. Most troubling are the inelastic ones, and the necessities of survival, such as land, food, and so on. Cost of living goes up, and this affects the lower class the most as they have less disposable income, can save less, can't purchase a house, etc, etc.

Look, when you think about it, only the rich people care about the environment. Poor people, typically don't give a fuck. Ask the starving kid in Africa whether he cares about CO2 levels. He'll care about his malnourished self than environmental protection. Environmental legislation, is essentially forcing people to divert their consumption towards environmental protection. This is simply outrageous, imagine if someone proposed a legislation that everyone must own a Rolex watch. How ridiculous, only rich people can afford Rolex's, a poor person would surely starve if he was forced to buy a Rolex, much like how a poor person would starve if he was forced to pay for environmental protection. O, maybe this example is too extreme, how about we enact legislation that forces people to maintain a good garden with numerous plants to increase C02 intake from photosynthesis thus decreasing the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air. The absurdity is still there, environmental protection is not a higher order want, and forcing people to purchase it means they must forgo other higher order wants.

 

Anti-capitalist isn't socialist and socialism isn't in all forms anti-capitalists. Consider for a moment Anarchist. Most anarchist believe in common ownership instead of private ownership, even Anarcho-Capitalists are proponents of common ownership of property and common ownership is part of economic-left philosophy.

What do you suggest? Deregulation of all industry so that you create no minimum standard? Environmentalism isn't profitable in the short term and free markets don't work on long term goals, they focus on short term equilibriums that fluctuate with the market. What stops a mill of some sort, let's say a steel mill from polluting a river when it is easier and more cost effective to just dump all of their pollutants into the river? Proposing a complete deregulation would help the economy and help the environment is ridiculous and idealist at it's best. It would devastate the environment in favor of an economic boost.

Take the industrial revolution that occurred in the US during the 19th century - there were little to no regulation. What we remember from that era is the failure for owners to provide adequate safe working environments and the exploitation of a child labor force. Also this encouraged the formation of monopolies that led to meany of the late 1800's leaders to enact those anti-trust laws and begin trust busting as it was called. There were many loop-holes in these laws that just allowed for the trusts/monopolies to break up into smaller companies but retain their hold on the market. This problem wouldn't be solved until later. What is the saying about history? Those who don't learn from it are bound to repeat it - or something along those lines. We know the consequences of deregulation of industry, but I do concede the fact that over regulation constricts the growth of industry but a fair amount of regulation protects the workers and the environment.

I also concede that there are some regulations that have become ridiculous. Including gas and crude oil taxes, but if you destroy the environment for short term profit then there is little to no chance of getting it back. We would have to invent advanced terraforming. I mean you can't deny the effects of mis-use of the environment. Look at the Sahara - it has expanded massively over the last century or two. The polar ice caps are melting at an exponential rate, faster than what would naturally. The Amazon is being deforested by unregulated slash and burn agriculture.

I believe the solution to the environmental problem is education and mild regulation that doesn't constrict the industries but doesn't promote cost cutting measures that severely damage the environment. We don't get another chance at this. We get one go around.

 

In terms of the United States, economy should be addressed first and foremost as the environment can't be addressed without proper funding, approval, etc.

 

In my opinion America's best option is having a world government therefore they can't be in debt to other countries. If the world had a world government it would be easier to deal with the economy in my opinion.

 

I would say the environment is more important than the economy. The environment can not so easily be replaced.

 

It doesn't work like that at all
First of all before a world government would be established each country would most likely have to sort out an agreement regarding debt because you can't just tell said countries to fuck off and lose their money
Second it's actually against the US's interests because suddenly programs designed to help the poor are exported completely, effectively the poor in the west get completely raped and large portions of the third world won't pay federal income tax due to being below the threshold, basically enabling a large amount of untaxed economic movement to be supplemented with benefits, especially at the beginning of such a program, where people could increase their net worth a thousand times in a single day, inflating the market out of all proportion to anything.

 

When I retire, I'm going to live in a cabin in the mountains and grow and hunt for my own food. No troll, I'm serious.

Whatever I'll be doing before that, I'll be trying to keep my ecosystems and nature as clean as possible. Electric vehicles, solar panels, and what not.

 

Definitely environment over economy. If the environment where we are living is destroyed then there is no role of economy.

Although its my personal opinion but its very much valid.

 

Warning, I have not read anyone else's posts except for the initial post.

The question is redundant, since in a competitive market with free commerce, prosperity for the economy and a healthy environment is inevitable. This is clearly shown through property rights and the free market. If someone tries to pollute an area that is privately owned, for example multiple homes near a river, then if a firm were to pollute that river, they would be violating those homeowner's property rights and would be subject to prosecution. Only when property is owned by the state is when such pollution is deemed justifiable and allowed. Furthermore, it's natural for people to care about the environment since they live in it. This truth encourages firms to innovate technology to allow for clearer means of production. This however is not the case in any other economy that is not competitively free market with the non coercion axiom and property rights enforced. Concluding, the question is redundant because through a capitalist economy the environment is protected.