This conversation is closed.

Would you rather want economical improvements or environmental protection? Or both?

So far, I have believed in the saying that "Modern technology owes ecology an apology." Somehow, we humans have abused our use of Mother Earth in our thirst for easier lives, riches and power. And I just think, along with our need to improve human lives, we have to double think: our benefits and Mother Earth's as well.

Just wanted to engage in new ideas. :)

  • thumb
    Jun 3 2013: I feel that by improving the environment we can enhance our technology through the resources we get from mother earth.....but very sad to say this that we are going in opposite direction to achieve the technology heights rather we should work in a direction to protect both the economy & environment.
    • Jun 4 2013: and that's what earth is doing. i remember mahatma gandhi's line: "earth provides enough to satisfy man's needs but not man's greed."

      and as our economics teacher said: "man is a self-interested individual."

      tsk tsk tsk.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: Mahatma Gandhi never used the word environment protection however what he said and did makes him an environmentalist. Although during his time environmental problems were not recognized as such however with his amazing foresight and insight he predicted that things are moving in the wrong direction.What he advocated in place of industrialism and consumerism was a simple life based on physical labour. He implored people to live simply so that others may simply live. For he believed that earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need but not every man’s greed.
        • Jun 4 2013: thank you for that wonderful insight :)
  • Jun 2 2013: You are wise to be so young, and I like your expression, "Modern technology owes ecology and apology." I've tried to imagine a smarter technology whereby it complemented Mother Earth, instead of ignoring her needs. In this exercise of learning, I was brought to the depth of what really ails mankind, and it is mankind "Himself" as in male dominance. All of our troubles are steeped in a patriotic fervor; country against country, community against community, family against family, brother against brother. This has been a rhetorical pattern of behavior that must stop before we can focus on the needs of Mother Earth. Mother Earth comes first, something that the fast paced world has overlooked.

    Patriotic fervor is the creation of Man's desire to make war, not peace. The simple fact that war is profitable, peace is not, resonates clearly in every judicial and political acts performed by those in power. The real power still goes to the people, but the people are not organized. However, we are at a decisive precipice now in our history. With the Internet the people have the greatest chance of organizing in the history of mankind. The question is, are there enough of us with our heads out of the sand to make a difference?
    • Jun 4 2013: thank you. :)

      and about that last line: i really wish that i can go hands-on in my advocacy for mother earth. as in like thinking big and doing big.

      there have been a lot of environmental movements lately but the problem that branches out is the sustainability of their projects.
  • thumb

    W. Ying

    • +2
    May 31 2013: . My answer:
    .
    I want:
    (1) "Environmental protection"
    because it is necessary for keeping our DNA alive --- our life goal.
    (2) No "economical improvements" more than its Optimal Point (about 10% we have now),
    because they are all invalid (harmful) happiness leading us to human self-extinction.
  • thumb
    May 31 2013: both, of course. i know it's not easy to have both, but i think it's feasible.

    as for technology, we are the ones who created it and we are the ones using it, most of the time with no regards to present or future consequences.

    i think the question we should ask ourselves is: what do we really need to improve human lives? and we should start wit our own lives. for instance, do i need Google Glass or maybe i just need to read more books? do i need another car or some friends?
    • May 31 2013: you made an awesome point with your last paragraph :) made me reflect.
    • thumb
      May 31 2013: Questions First and Cheyenne,
      I wholeheartedly agree....we can have both. With new thinking, evaluation, and paradigm shifts, we can seriously decide what we want, and what we need as individuals, and as a global community.
      • Jun 1 2013: that's good to hear that you want a win-win situation, miss steen. :)
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2013: I think/feel it is ABSOLUTELY possible Cheyenne:>)

          As thinking, feeling, intelligent humans, we have the ability to continue with economical improvements AND be aware of our environment. We call ourselves the most intelligent of animals...........we need to use that intelligence for more than personal, financial gain:>)
        • thumb
          Jun 1 2013: Cheyenne,
          In my opinion, your topic has nothing to do with family courts, which Don Wesley likes to keep bringing into discussions regardless of the topic. I will clarify what I'm talking about regarding win-win in conjunction with the topic..."economical improvements or environmental protection? Or both?"

          I have served on local and regional planning commissions, development review boards, project review boards and transportation advisory committee for about 15 years. I observe the town and regional plans are improving, as we structure them in an effort to make it more clear that we want to encourage development that protects and benefits the earth.

          We used to see projects submitted that had absolutely NO plan to protect wetlands for example, whereas now we see the protection of wetlands incorporated into the plan. We are now seeing and encouraging permeable sidewalks, driveways and parking lots, rain gardens and more landscaping with the protection of the environment in mind.

          These kinds of improvements are win-win situations whereby we can have sustainable growth, which provides for, and encourages economical improvements AND environmental protection.....win/win:>)
  • Jun 4 2013: Give you self a chance to graduate first, then look for a good group to support. Maybe you could even make a career out of it. It's going to require millions of young people like yourself to contribute their time and energy into this endeavor. It's a big, big deal. It's our Mother we're talking about. I don't get the governments, the environmental groups, the wealthy elite, the Big Business, the Petroleum industry. All everyone wants is profit and to win the argument. Every politician only cares about getting reelected, they don't care about the people. Governments and Big Business should act like responsible parents, but instead, they act like little brats.
    • Jun 4 2013: maybe i could do both at the same time: start up with my advocacy and take up college.

      my sentiments exactly. thank you for sharing. :)
  • thumb
    Jun 1 2013: One hopes one doesn't have to choose, that what is good for the environment is good for the economy.
  • thumb

    . .

    • +1
    Jun 1 2013: Thanks for a very smart question:)

    Economical improvements and environmental protection are both essential for life and well being. It is only an improvement when they go forward hand in hand. When one is done at the expense of the other, improvement is undermined.

    A good Talk for your topic:
    http://www.ted.com/talks/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html
  • May 31 2013: I believe it is too difficult for us to sacrifice our economic lifestyle to improve ecology. Although it can be done, it would require a large shift in our social structure and views as a community on the way we live our lives, and I cannot picture people - as a whole - being willing to sacrifice their economic stability for an improve environment.

    I think the solution exists in the middle, where we find a way for ecology and economics to function dependently on each other. If the two operate as separate entities, then one operates without concern for the other. For instance, since the economy does not operate within the constraints of ecology, economists believe in "unlimited" growth. Yet unlimited growth is seen as possible only when considering economic goods. We need to begin to place a price/cost on ecological goods, and thus expand the scope of the economy outside of just the sphere of humanity into the sphere of the entire planet as a whole.

    Outside of the fundamental ideas of economics vs. ecology, I also deeply believe there are ways for us to potentially shift the way economic goods are produced, distributed, marketed, etc. in order for their to be both ecological and economic benefit, at the same time. We need to begin to find ways that we can produce goods with either minimal waste, or in a manner that allows waste to be transformed into a resource for other processes, whether that be ecological or economic. This is especially important because of the break-neck pace at which technology advances. If we want to maintain the pace at which we advance, we need to begin to factor in the environment into our technological innovations.
    • Jun 1 2013: so it's more like an integration of both. thank you for sharing. :)
  • May 31 2013: Interesting question. At first I say enviornmental but then I realized they are tied to each other. If we integrate them further so that to get the economical rewards we have to pay for the enviornmental it could be a win win. I can also see a mandatory enviornmental tie could cause a new economical field.

    Problem - world agreeing
    • Jun 1 2013: world leaders should really come up with a feasible solution. hehe. thank you :)
  • thumb
    May 31 2013: protecting the environment requires economic progress
    • May 31 2013: so you're considering the present time frame, sir pinter? because i think that if we haven't even progressed in the first place, we would still have protected the environment. but then again, we will not have ventured on with life to the fullest. :)
      • thumb
        May 31 2013: and have a child survival of 30%, life expectancy 25 years, population one million. this is unacceptable.
        • Jun 1 2013: integrating both would be a good idea but not for the absolutists. :)
    • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • May 31 2013: i'd like to point out a clarification, sir don. i do not quite understand your "We had better get out of "the survival state we are entering" or we won't survive without help from givers."

      so far, i got the gist that you are for mother earth. :)
      • Comment deleted

        • May 31 2013: thank you for clarifying, sir. and yes, i will watch the video :)
  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jun 1 2013: We must improve the economy and create jobs for everyone. While at the same time, we must protect the environment.

    I think that we have no choice but to pursue both at the same time. Technology has given us many tools with which to protect the environment. Not only this, but technology also improves the economy by bringing more products that people want to own into the marketplace.

    In many third world countries, there were no telephones for many years. With the cell phone, almost everyone, everywhere has a telephone. And they carry it inside their pocket or purse. That was science-fiction when I was a child. When my daughter was a child, only the exceptionally wealthy could own cell phones.

    But here is a curious observation for you. Most towns and cities in the U.S. A. have telephone poles with wires running everywhere. And in some older towns, the wires are/were like spaghetti going everywhere up in the air. It's ugly. Now, one or two cell phone towers can replace all of that. But still, many people like to use the old system. That means wires and telephone poles. So it is still ugly. And not so good for the environment. The poles were once living trees.

    I have family in the Philippines. And from what I hear, almost everyone who can afford one, has a cell phone. And no wires or telephone poles to mess up the landscape or destroy the view. So in this way, the Philippines is more advanced than the U.S.A. But that is a very small thing.

    Mostly people just want and need jobs. When people have jobs and can take care of their families, the economy remains strong. And so long as we protect the environment, we do not pollute the land and water. We must keep the Earth clean and safe for our children and their children to come.
    • Jun 1 2013: most of you really stay in the middle and i appreciate you sharing your ideas. thank you :)
      • thumb
        Jun 1 2013: I guess if by "middle" you mean BOTH take care of the Environment/Ecology AND do what is needed to have a strong economy, then, yes, that is good. :>)
  • May 31 2013: Both also
    • May 31 2013: what's bptj? :)
      • Jun 1 2013: Cheyenne thanks - I wondered if I was an idiot too. I mistyped both as bptj I just corrected it,but I didn't want to leave you alone on my blunder.
        • Jun 1 2013: ohh :) that's alright; thank you. :)