|
Post by Azan on Jun 17, 2005 21:24:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 17, 2005 23:23:16 GMT -5
Idk, I want to help the environment some, but not too much. I want industry to be able to move forward, but I know that at some point the line between industry moving and the environment will be crossed, one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jun 19, 2005 15:24:36 GMT -5
same here I voted for environment cuz I don't want to see it just disappear but then again I want more industries and new advancements but if I had to choose I would choose helping out the environment before we build more new industries.
|
|
Songstress
New Member
If he could sing it would be wonderful
Posts: 28
|
Post by Songstress on Jun 22, 2005 20:22:46 GMT -5
I want the environment around. If it wasnt there we would all be dead. So I am kind of glad that it is around.
|
|
EvilTrigun
Silver Member
"The man who wants nothing is invincible"
Posts: 260
|
Post by EvilTrigun on Jun 22, 2005 20:37:14 GMT -5
I know this is a helluva stretch, but bear with me:
The more industries we have, the faster we gain better technology, right? This technology could be anything from kitchen-ware to better tanks, or even the environment. I know eventually we will screw ourselves over if we ignore the environment, I don't want that. I just want maybe 60% focus on new industries and 40% focus on the environment. That's not even a good proportion, just an example. We must strike a perfect balance between industry and the environment, in my opinion. I personally think there needs to be either a revision of the question or some more options, because there's more to it.
If we go completely environmental, sure we'll have green trees and such, but if/when a major war breaks out we will have inferior technology. Think pistol vs. heavy chain gun, tank vs. nuclear missile. For better technology in general, we would have to import even more from other countries while exporting less due to low demand. This could screw up our economy.
On the other hand, if we go completely industrial, we will completely kill everything natural in the country. Sure, we'll have the best crap around and everyone will want it, improving the economy, but we won't have any place left to hike, any fields of green grass. We could cause many species to go extinct. We can't afford to lose something this valuable to our country.
Balance is the key...
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jun 22, 2005 20:45:00 GMT -5
Good to see you take an interest in debating for once, ET. And yes I agree with you that we need a balance. I think the balance should lean more towards the industrial side, because technology can be used to help the environment, but the environment can't be used (directly) to help technology.
|
|
EvilTrigun
Silver Member
"The man who wants nothing is invincible"
Posts: 260
|
Post by EvilTrigun on Jun 22, 2005 20:48:51 GMT -5
Yea, I'm pretty much waiting in all the RP's except for the Lands of Yrimmus, and for that I have a writers block at the moment.... so here I am
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 2, 2005 23:37:12 GMT -5
i see your point lobstrosity but what happens when we use all of our resources on technology and then not finish industrializing the world cuz we DIE from no trees or plants that help us live. I agree we need balance but I want a little more on the environmental side because it helps us live and grow, it's our habitat and it is the home to many other animals and to take that away would be stealing.
|
|
|
Post by Sad Baby Green on Jul 3, 2005 21:22:12 GMT -5
I agree with Chica on the last point. Without an enviroment how are we going to grow in industrys. Plus how are we going to survive without enough enviroment, animals will die off. There will be no places for homes. And all that polution what will that do?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 5, 2005 19:20:55 GMT -5
Well now, I didn't say we should get rid of the environment, did I? I want the balance to lean toward the industrial side, not completely only slightly. I want some money to go towards the environment, but just enough to keep the trees and plants alive while we focus on industry and technology that has the potential to help the environment in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 6, 2005 21:38:47 GMT -5
yes but while we are leaning to the industry side we are also effecting the environmental side! I know it will help in the long run but while we are building all the industries we are taking away the environment little by little adn that is why we should lean towards the environmental side. just slightly but enough where we aren't killing it slowly and yet still enough to help it by having industries, just not as many.
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 7, 2005 8:49:49 GMT -5
Who cares if we kill it slowly as long as it doesn't die all together? What I'm saying is we focus on technology and industry at the cost of environment. Then we help the environment every time it is apparent that it is in trouble, possibly using the technology we've been working on to do so.
|
|
|
Post by scifiqt on Jul 21, 2005 21:25:47 GMT -5
ok, so lets say we keeep what is left of the rainforest but destroyevry national resevoir and park and city park in the world. Would you be satisfied with that?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Jul 21, 2005 21:32:10 GMT -5
1. What's a national resevoir?
2. No because all parts of the environment are equal and should be destroyed and saved equally.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Jul 22, 2005 13:18:34 GMT -5
yes but that is hard to do when you have a planet covered in all of that. and I see what you mean about using the techonology for saving the environment but most of the technology that we are working on nowadays isn't for saving the environment so we are just killing it to make other things.
|
|