Philosophical Debate #3
2 views
Skip to first unread message
MD
Dec 1, 2010, 12:22:58 PM12/1/10
to Pacifica APES
Here is our next debate topic: It is possible that the world is facing
its sixth mass extinction due to human activities that reduce
biodiversity. The debate topic is this: Can countries tell other
countries what its environmental regulations should be? Consider this:
we, meaning humans, have evolved technologically (bombs,
transportation, genetics, materials, etc) to where our activities have
an extreme impact on our environment. We are all connected more than
ever now. Is is fair for one countries activities to be allowed that
have detrimental effects on others, even though it is benefiting that
country?
Do some research to back up your opinion and be ready to discuss next
Wednesday.
its sixth mass extinction due to human activities that reduce
biodiversity. The debate topic is this: Can countries tell other
countries what its environmental regulations should be? Consider this:
we, meaning humans, have evolved technologically (bombs,
transportation, genetics, materials, etc) to where our activities have
an extreme impact on our environment. We are all connected more than
ever now. Is is fair for one countries activities to be allowed that
have detrimental effects on others, even though it is benefiting that
country?
Do some research to back up your opinion and be ready to discuss next
Wednesday.
Taylor Weik
Dec 2, 2010, 3:16:12 AM12/2/10
to Pacifica APES
Today, we live in a society dominated by inventions and developments,
where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
on the environment: http://www.writearticles.org/Articles/Environmental-Issues-Demands-Our-Serious-Attention-1238.html
where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
on the environment: http://www.writearticles.org/Articles/Environmental-Issues-Demands-Our-Serious-Attention-1238.html
Michelle
Dec 3, 2010, 3:02:15 AM12/3/10
to Pacifica APES
Other countries should be able to intervene in other countries'
affairs, and create laws to make sure that biodiversity is not
reduced, if it will benefit humans in the long run. If countries do
not enforce rules to keep problems from occurring, the there are going
to be a lot of problems that we will have to face sooner or later.
Countries should enforce these laws by charging the country that
breaks the law $1 million-$5million dollars.
On Dec 2, 12:16 am, Taylor Weik <dancegur...@msn.com> wrote:
> Today, we live in a society dominated by inventions and developments,
> where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
> using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
> the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
> in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
> but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
> are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
> affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
> uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
> positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
> right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
> future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
> environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
> Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
> on the environment:http://www.writearticles.org/Articles/Environmental-Issues-Demands-Ou...
affairs, and create laws to make sure that biodiversity is not
reduced, if it will benefit humans in the long run. If countries do
not enforce rules to keep problems from occurring, the there are going
to be a lot of problems that we will have to face sooner or later.
Countries should enforce these laws by charging the country that
breaks the law $1 million-$5million dollars.
On Dec 2, 12:16 am, Taylor Weik <dancegur...@msn.com> wrote:
> Today, we live in a society dominated by inventions and developments,
> where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
> using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
> the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
> in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
> but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
> are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
> affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
> uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
> positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
> right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
> future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
> environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
> Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
Lauren!
Dec 5, 2010, 9:16:24 PM12/5/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that other counrties have all the right to intervene
when the time is necessary. If a country is posing a threat and a
species or supply is at risk then the world should practice the
precationary principle and save that which can still be saved. The
country, using the supplies or endangering animals, should be held
accountable for their actions and realize that they are not the only
country on this planet. Environmental regulations are important and
should be enforced to a certain extent. I propose some type of rule or
mutal understanding that supplies and the environment are shared among
all nations and must be protected by all means. How these rules would
be imposed, I'm not quite sure and would be open to suggestions? There
are treaties and organizations which work to protect and govern the
environent such as the UNEP, but from my research I found there are
only about 300 employees.
Other countries do have a right to say something and bring
attention to the situation because one countries actions are
intertwined with the rest of the world. Even though this is a massive
planet we are all attached one way or another and must learn to
compromise and be considerate of the others we share this earth with.
Whether the particular country is benefitting from their actions or
not they need to be thinking on a global level and also think of the
long term effects.
when the time is necessary. If a country is posing a threat and a
species or supply is at risk then the world should practice the
precationary principle and save that which can still be saved. The
country, using the supplies or endangering animals, should be held
accountable for their actions and realize that they are not the only
country on this planet. Environmental regulations are important and
should be enforced to a certain extent. I propose some type of rule or
mutal understanding that supplies and the environment are shared among
all nations and must be protected by all means. How these rules would
be imposed, I'm not quite sure and would be open to suggestions? There
are treaties and organizations which work to protect and govern the
environent such as the UNEP, but from my research I found there are
only about 300 employees.
Other countries do have a right to say something and bring
attention to the situation because one countries actions are
intertwined with the rest of the world. Even though this is a massive
planet we are all attached one way or another and must learn to
compromise and be considerate of the others we share this earth with.
Whether the particular country is benefitting from their actions or
not they need to be thinking on a global level and also think of the
long term effects.
Vivian P
Dec 5, 2010, 10:03:00 PM12/5/10
to Pacifica APES
I agree with Lauren on how one country's actions can affect the rest
of the world. It would be unfair for one country's activities to
benefit themselves without any consideration of whether or not it
would be harmful to other countries. Countries should be able to tell
other countries what its environmental regulations should be without
threatening. We, as the people of this earth, can work together as a
team to improve the environment. If one country chooses not to
cooperate and their activities cause detrimental effects then they
should be able to take the responsibility and see the negative effects
of their activities. If we work together and enforce environmental
regulations, we can prevent future issues before they get out of
hand.
of the world. It would be unfair for one country's activities to
benefit themselves without any consideration of whether or not it
would be harmful to other countries. Countries should be able to tell
other countries what its environmental regulations should be without
threatening. We, as the people of this earth, can work together as a
team to improve the environment. If one country chooses not to
cooperate and their activities cause detrimental effects then they
should be able to take the responsibility and see the negative effects
of their activities. If we work together and enforce environmental
regulations, we can prevent future issues before they get out of
hand.
Nicole.U
Dec 6, 2010, 11:46:13 PM12/6/10
to Pacifica APES
Here in the US today, our society has an agency to protect our
environment, the EPA. Through my research, I have found that there is
a Nationational Environmental Protection Act that "requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making
processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions." In some way,
other countries are allowed to interfere with eachothers environmental
laws. I think that this is a great idea because one thing a country is
doing could impact our whole world. They might not see what they are
doing as wrong, but another country might and shed a new light on the
situation. With all of the new technology in the world there has been
a lot of improvements, but also a lot of negative effects. Some
including pollution and loss of energy. I know the US has a huge
pollution rate and maybe with the help of other countries we could
reduce this. Conservation of our natural resources is a huge thing all
over the world. Some countries are lacking certain resources more than
others. With the collaboration of different countries environmental
agencies we could see our faults and try to improve. I think that the
NEPA is a good step foward to our hopes of telling other countries
what their environmetal regulations should be. You just have to put in
an Environmetal Impact Statement to be reviewed by other federal
agencies and your voice can be heard.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html
environment, the EPA. Through my research, I have found that there is
a Nationational Environmental Protection Act that "requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making
processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions." In some way,
other countries are allowed to interfere with eachothers environmental
laws. I think that this is a great idea because one thing a country is
doing could impact our whole world. They might not see what they are
doing as wrong, but another country might and shed a new light on the
situation. With all of the new technology in the world there has been
a lot of improvements, but also a lot of negative effects. Some
including pollution and loss of energy. I know the US has a huge
pollution rate and maybe with the help of other countries we could
reduce this. Conservation of our natural resources is a huge thing all
over the world. Some countries are lacking certain resources more than
others. With the collaboration of different countries environmental
agencies we could see our faults and try to improve. I think that the
NEPA is a good step foward to our hopes of telling other countries
what their environmetal regulations should be. You just have to put in
an Environmetal Impact Statement to be reviewed by other federal
agencies and your voice can be heard.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/index.html
aaz...@hotmail.com
Dec 7, 2010, 12:47:41 AM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
The problem we face is not a national one it is a problem for the
species as a whole and it must be faced by everyone. There is one
major obstacle to our fighting this problem as a unified species and
that is Nationalism. Normally no country or national leader would
want any foreign influence on policies made by their country, this
however is not a normal situation. As Mr. Doucette stated, this is a
problem that could lead to the extinction of our species as a whole
and therefore normal behavior and policy hardly apply. We as a
species cannot hope to survive if we do not unite on the issue of
environmental preservation. I can say that I would rather have other
countries trying to influence us than face extinction and I truly
believe that working together and if needed even coercing other
countries is the only way to survive as a species.
species as a whole and it must be faced by everyone. There is one
major obstacle to our fighting this problem as a unified species and
that is Nationalism. Normally no country or national leader would
want any foreign influence on policies made by their country, this
however is not a normal situation. As Mr. Doucette stated, this is a
problem that could lead to the extinction of our species as a whole
and therefore normal behavior and policy hardly apply. We as a
species cannot hope to survive if we do not unite on the issue of
environmental preservation. I can say that I would rather have other
countries trying to influence us than face extinction and I truly
believe that working together and if needed even coercing other
countries is the only way to survive as a species.
katie
Dec 7, 2010, 12:51:45 AM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
I agree that countries should be able to regulate each others actions
in regard to the environment. This does not mean we will tell other
countries how to run their government, but when it comes to the
environment we should all be on the same page. Throughout the decades
humanity has made great advances in many fields, such as fossil fuels
and weaponry, and alternate sources of energy. With the progress of
science we now know the effects and consequences of our negative
actions on the environment. As a species we greatly impact the
environment and we KNOW the consequences, so as a species we should
work together to protect our environment. The environment is our home,
the only place we have. This isn't about civil freedoms or rivalry and
competition between countries, it's about ensuring we still have a
home worth living in in the next few decades.
in regard to the environment. This does not mean we will tell other
countries how to run their government, but when it comes to the
environment we should all be on the same page. Throughout the decades
humanity has made great advances in many fields, such as fossil fuels
and weaponry, and alternate sources of energy. With the progress of
science we now know the effects and consequences of our negative
actions on the environment. As a species we greatly impact the
environment and we KNOW the consequences, so as a species we should
work together to protect our environment. The environment is our home,
the only place we have. This isn't about civil freedoms or rivalry and
competition between countries, it's about ensuring we still have a
home worth living in in the next few decades.
Helen Tran
Dec 7, 2010, 1:33:26 AM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Every country in the world affects one another. No matter how far
apart, we all live together on one planet. Earth is home to everyone
and I think it is only fair that countries regulate one another in
ways of encouraging a sustainable Earth for future generations. I
agree with Nicole about EPA. I believe that each country should have
some kind of environmental regulation. No country will ever be able
to enforce laws at other countries but they need to understand that
what happens in one country can potentially and gradually affect many
other countries in later years. The decrease in biodiversity can be a
dangerous sign and may even lead to the extinction of a population.
It is important that we do everything we can to prevent this from
happening while it isn't too late.
apart, we all live together on one planet. Earth is home to everyone
and I think it is only fair that countries regulate one another in
ways of encouraging a sustainable Earth for future generations. I
agree with Nicole about EPA. I believe that each country should have
some kind of environmental regulation. No country will ever be able
to enforce laws at other countries but they need to understand that
what happens in one country can potentially and gradually affect many
other countries in later years. The decrease in biodiversity can be a
dangerous sign and may even lead to the extinction of a population.
It is important that we do everything we can to prevent this from
happening while it isn't too late.
joseph
Dec 7, 2010, 12:32:20 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that if it really has to come down other countries should
at least guide other countries to the right path of being
enviromentally safe.
There is only one world and if we let stuff like whale hunting, and
mass pollution
in other countries happen, then I think we part of the worlds
downfall if we just
stand here and do nothing about it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010220073234.htm
at least guide other countries to the right path of being
enviromentally safe.
There is only one world and if we let stuff like whale hunting, and
mass pollution
in other countries happen, then I think we part of the worlds
downfall if we just
stand here and do nothing about it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010220073234.htm
joseph
Dec 7, 2010, 12:33:43 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that if it really has to come down other countries should
at least guide other countries to the right path of being
enviromentally safe.
There is only one world and if we let stuff like whale hunting, and
mass pollution
in other countries happen, then I think we part of the worlds
downfall if we just
stand here and do nothing about it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010220073234.htm
On Dec 1, 9:22 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:
at least guide other countries to the right path of being
enviromentally safe.
There is only one world and if we let stuff like whale hunting, and
mass pollution
in other countries happen, then I think we part of the worlds
downfall if we just
stand here and do nothing about it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010220073234.htm
On Dec 1, 9:22 am, MD <sdoucette0...@gmail.com> wrote:
bobby...@aol.com
Dec 7, 2010, 12:35:00 PM12/7/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
Many people do not understand how bad the impact on the world is from what we do. I believe that countries should take what other countries do into account so that they totally understand why the earth is being so heavily impacted by this. We should make a law where they need to take these things into consideration.
-----
Sent from my Virgin Mobile.
-----
Sent from my Virgin Mobile.
drew
Dec 7, 2010, 12:39:57 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
if a disaster is about to occur someone must step up to stop it. this
meaning that it is legitimate for one country to intervene with
another in order to prevent harsh effects on the environment. we may
be different people and stand for different things but we all shares
this world and we must treat it right. but at the same time every
country is able to make there own rules. a simple solution would be to
have limited power; meaning that another country could intervene but
only to a certain extent. we don't want one country running the whole
world.
meaning that it is legitimate for one country to intervene with
another in order to prevent harsh effects on the environment. we may
be different people and stand for different things but we all shares
this world and we must treat it right. but at the same time every
country is able to make there own rules. a simple solution would be to
have limited power; meaning that another country could intervene but
only to a certain extent. we don't want one country running the whole
world.
Shelby Compton
Dec 7, 2010, 12:40:44 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
We are all inhabitants of the same earth, and we breathe the same air.
No country can protect its own air from the input of other countries,
short of putting a dome over the area (and if you've ever seen the
Simpson's movie, you know that's a bad idea). No one country should be
permitted to harm what belongs to everyone. Countries as a group
should be able to set limits and rules as to the amount of pollution
each is allowed to put out. If you shared a shirt with a friend, you
wouldn't allow her to go roll in mud and tear it up so you could never
wear it again. You would make sure that both of you would take care of
it and treat it with respect. In the same way, countries shouldn't
allow others to ruin the environment that everyone shares and has a
right, no, a duty, to protect. If you aren't willing to put limits on
other countries' pollution, you are willing to breathe whatever
chemicals they deem necessary to put into the atmosphere.
This website expounds on the effects of China's pollution on the USA.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6875757_effects-pollution-china-united-states.html
No country can protect its own air from the input of other countries,
short of putting a dome over the area (and if you've ever seen the
Simpson's movie, you know that's a bad idea). No one country should be
permitted to harm what belongs to everyone. Countries as a group
should be able to set limits and rules as to the amount of pollution
each is allowed to put out. If you shared a shirt with a friend, you
wouldn't allow her to go roll in mud and tear it up so you could never
wear it again. You would make sure that both of you would take care of
it and treat it with respect. In the same way, countries shouldn't
allow others to ruin the environment that everyone shares and has a
right, no, a duty, to protect. If you aren't willing to put limits on
other countries' pollution, you are willing to breathe whatever
chemicals they deem necessary to put into the atmosphere.
This website expounds on the effects of China's pollution on the USA.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6875757_effects-pollution-china-united-states.html
Nikki Bui
Dec 7, 2010, 1:35:18 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Hello fellow APES students,
My point of view on this debate is that we should have environmental
regulations. We should be able to control the biodiversity in other
countries and help prosper it, not harm it. I will discuss more in our
philosophical chairs debate. Thanks (=
My point of view on this debate is that we should have environmental
regulations. We should be able to control the biodiversity in other
countries and help prosper it, not harm it. I will discuss more in our
philosophical chairs debate. Thanks (=
Kaitlyn
Dec 7, 2010, 1:38:27 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
I think that it is morally right to intervene if another country is
killing the enviroment for their own profit or without thought of what
they are doing to the natural world. But I don't think that we should
force them to stop because I don't believe it would work that way at
all and create tension. If one country would want to intervene in
another, maybe they should just give them the idea that it is wrong
and get support from other countries to back them up. Cut off trade or
something.
> This website expounds on the effects of China's pollution on the USA.http://www.ehow.com/list_6875757_effects-pollution-china-united-state...
killing the enviroment for their own profit or without thought of what
they are doing to the natural world. But I don't think that we should
force them to stop because I don't believe it would work that way at
all and create tension. If one country would want to intervene in
another, maybe they should just give them the idea that it is wrong
and get support from other countries to back them up. Cut off trade or
something.
Indeed
Dec 7, 2010, 1:41:28 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Shirley
Dec 7, 2010, 1:43:31 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
i think countries should intervene other countries when it poses a
threat to the world.
threat to the world.
Priscilla Tran
Dec 7, 2010, 1:46:21 PM12/7/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
I believe that it is wrong and inhumane to harm life in the environment. We as Americans should have the right to prevent damage that is being done to our environment by other countries by setting regulations. I also believe that America should also listen to other countries and be open-minded to their advice. If another country is preventing biodiversity by hunting endangered species,we should try to set regulations in return for benefits from us. Other countries should also be able set regulations for us that they think may prevent biodiversity.
melody somang
Dec 7, 2010, 1:47:28 PM12/7/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
yes countries should tell other countries what its environmental
regulations should be. since we as humans all have one home, earth, we
should do whatever we can to keep it safe so we can keep living in it.
regulations should be. since we as humans all have one home, earth, we
should do whatever we can to keep it safe so we can keep living in it.
Indeed
Dec 7, 2010, 1:51:58 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
No county has the right to play the role of "World Policemen". What
would happen if we force regulations in a 3rd world country who's
economy is soley based on a mining industries? Would we forcibly make
them quit this industry and leave the country in economic turmoil
would happen if we force regulations in a 3rd world country who's
economy is soley based on a mining industries? Would we forcibly make
them quit this industry and leave the country in economic turmoil
Emily Lavigne
Dec 7, 2010, 6:29:40 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
I don't think that countries should be allowed to tell each other what
to do. Yes, the environment is important; but what is the point of
having individual counties if in the end we are all going to be forced
to obey the same rules? I don't think that one country should ever be
able to force another into doing anything. I think that if countries
fully understand the effects that their actions may be having on the
environment, then they should be responsible and stop their actions,
but they should not forced into stopping. In the end, each country
should make the decisions for themselves. We do not need to be "world
policemen" and act as though we can decide how to run the world. It
isn't any one country's job to decide how others will be run, we
should make sure that ours is run in a way that is not detrimental to
the environment before we decide to tell others what to do.
to do. Yes, the environment is important; but what is the point of
having individual counties if in the end we are all going to be forced
to obey the same rules? I don't think that one country should ever be
able to force another into doing anything. I think that if countries
fully understand the effects that their actions may be having on the
environment, then they should be responsible and stop their actions,
but they should not forced into stopping. In the end, each country
should make the decisions for themselves. We do not need to be "world
policemen" and act as though we can decide how to run the world. It
isn't any one country's job to decide how others will be run, we
should make sure that ours is run in a way that is not detrimental to
the environment before we decide to tell others what to do.
Katherina Nguyen
Dec 7, 2010, 7:23:00 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Other countries should be allowed to intervene.
megan friese
Dec 7, 2010, 8:07:07 PM12/7/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
i agree other countries should be allowed to intervene. if nothing were done, it could cause many problems to our environment, thus effecting us. im not sure what the limit or 'rules' should be on intervention but we can't just sit back and watch our country or any other country abuse our world.
Jenniee (:
Dec 7, 2010, 8:52:51 PM12/7/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
I believe that other countries could not fully intervene, but not just ignore it. They could offer their opinions on what could be done, and they could be supportive and understanding of the other country's choices. There is no way that a country would be able to fully convince another country to do what they want to, even if it is to protect their environment, but it is also not moral to sit back and continue to let a country continue with their destructive (to the environment) ways.
jennyma...@aol.com
Dec 7, 2010, 10:41:08 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Yes, I think other countries should be able to intervene. We all live
on the same planet, use the same resources, and must act all together
to maintain and sustain this planet. It's not fair for one country to
destory a non-renewable resource or cause an extinction of a speices.
It's every countrys' job to secure and manage the activities of other
countries when it comes to enviromental issues. it is very important
that all countries work towards a common goal which is to save and
protect the enviroment. In order to sustain our planet we must observe
other countries actions.
It would be a good idea for each country to have some sort of
enivromental regulation group of form of protection that's enforced
by their government. It's very important that we keep our planet safe
for future generations.
on the same planet, use the same resources, and must act all together
to maintain and sustain this planet. It's not fair for one country to
destory a non-renewable resource or cause an extinction of a speices.
It's every countrys' job to secure and manage the activities of other
countries when it comes to enviromental issues. it is very important
that all countries work towards a common goal which is to save and
protect the enviroment. In order to sustain our planet we must observe
other countries actions.
It would be a good idea for each country to have some sort of
enivromental regulation group of form of protection that's enforced
by their government. It's very important that we keep our planet safe
for future generations.
donald lamy
Dec 7, 2010, 11:19:50 PM12/7/10
to Pacifica APES
Yes it is a countries right to tell another what to do to change for
the better of the planet as a whole. Even the US needs to be told what
to do. http://www.prlog.org/10449030-worlds-top-10-biggest-polluting-countries.html
this shows that we are the second worst country in polluting.
the better of the planet as a whole. Even the US needs to be told what
to do. http://www.prlog.org/10449030-worlds-top-10-biggest-polluting-countries.html
this shows that we are the second worst country in polluting.
christine Dao
Dec 8, 2010, 12:13:10 AM12/8/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
In my opinion, i believe that countries should be able to tell other countries what its environmental regulations should be because everyone should work together to think of better ideas to keep our environment safe to live in. Even though i think countries could tell other countries what there idea is but they should make sure that it wont cause a drastic change or harm in the population and biodiversity.
Rochelle Weerackoon
Dec 8, 2010, 12:34:45 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that other countries have the right and even obligation to
tell other countries what their environmental regulations should be.
Obviously a country doesn't have to listen to the country that is
telling them to act differently. However by countries telling others
about its environmental regulations, it would make them realize that
they are possibly causing harm or a threat to others. In other words,
it informs a nation that it needs to change in order to keep people,
species, and all parts of life healthy. There is nothing wrong with
having countries tell others what their environmental regulations
should be; in a sense it is just a suggestion to country to change
the amount of air polluted. Moreover I believe that it is fair for one
country is allowed to do as they wish. There is no world dictator or
monarch to give orders. Nonetheless, I believe that this is wrong and
not right because it has terrible effects on the earth, everyone now,
and future generations. It is fair for a country to act this way, but
it is simply impossible to morally justify it.
On Dec 7, 5:52 pm, "Jenniee (:" <fueledbyjen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that other countries could not fully intervene, but not just
> ignore it. They could offer their opinions on what could be done, and they
> could be supportive and understanding of the other country's choices. There
> is no way that a country would be able to fully convince another country to
> do what they want to, even if it is to protect their environment, but it is
> also not moral to sit back and continue to let a country continue with their
> destructive (to the environment) ways.
>
tell other countries what their environmental regulations should be.
Obviously a country doesn't have to listen to the country that is
telling them to act differently. However by countries telling others
about its environmental regulations, it would make them realize that
they are possibly causing harm or a threat to others. In other words,
it informs a nation that it needs to change in order to keep people,
species, and all parts of life healthy. There is nothing wrong with
having countries tell others what their environmental regulations
should be; in a sense it is just a suggestion to country to change
the amount of air polluted. Moreover I believe that it is fair for one
countries activities to be allowed that have detrimental effects on
others, even though it is benefiting that country because every
country is allowed to do as they wish. There is no world dictator or
monarch to give orders. Nonetheless, I believe that this is wrong and
not right because it has terrible effects on the earth, everyone now,
and future generations. It is fair for a country to act this way, but
it is simply impossible to morally justify it.
On Dec 7, 5:52 pm, "Jenniee (:" <fueledbyjen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe that other countries could not fully intervene, but not just
> ignore it. They could offer their opinions on what could be done, and they
> could be supportive and understanding of the other country's choices. There
> is no way that a country would be able to fully convince another country to
> do what they want to, even if it is to protect their environment, but it is
> also not moral to sit back and continue to let a country continue with their
> destructive (to the environment) ways.
>
Jason Ross
Dec 8, 2010, 12:44:04 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that one country having more power in another country rather
than that specific country's own government could lead to major
political problems in the future. I do think however, that not making
any sort of change at all would lead to a masive enviromental
problem. Perhaps a modified system of checks and balances would be
best. For example, if one countries activities were damaging the
enviroment, then other, more powerful countries would have the power
to take action. This action doesn't have to be one country dominating
a smaller country though. A good solution would be the two(or more)
countries working diplomaticly to find a solution that everyone could
agree upon.
than that specific country's own government could lead to major
political problems in the future. I do think however, that not making
any sort of change at all would lead to a masive enviromental
problem. Perhaps a modified system of checks and balances would be
best. For example, if one countries activities were damaging the
enviroment, then other, more powerful countries would have the power
to take action. This action doesn't have to be one country dominating
a smaller country though. A good solution would be the two(or more)
countries working diplomaticly to find a solution that everyone could
agree upon.
Cortney Goodwin
Dec 8, 2010, 1:10:06 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
Humans are creating problems all over the world and they are partly
causing extinctions. If we truly want to conserve our environment then
we need regulations even if we have to create regulations in other
countries. I believe that if the environmentment is being threatened
then we have a responsibility to take action, and find a way to save
what is left. We can't just watch our human population destroy the
world right in front of our eyes. When enforcing these regulations
there must be some type of agreement among all the nations, and we as
humans must do what it takes to protect our environment because
without the environment there may no longer be humans.
Countries are developing new and more advanced technology every year,
and I believe that one countries activities should not be allowed if
it has detrimental effects on others even if it benefits them. When an
activity poses harm to the environment then it will become a chain
reaction and affect other countries. Once if threatens another country
they should have the right to intervene and stop the other countries
harmful activities. There are no benefits if it causes problems for
others because in the end they will soon be affected by their own
creations and activities. Overall, we as humans have a responsibility
to save the environment for future generations no matter what the cost
is.
Chan Kim
Dec 8, 2010, 1:14:49 AM12/8/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
Countries should be able to tell other countries about their environmental regulation since every countries are closely related to each other in environmental issues. Without the cooperation of every countries, it's hard to prevent the environmental damages by the human activities. Although it is possible that one country might benefit from such regulation, it is necessary in order to preserve the biodiversity in the environment. There should be international laws that require all countries to follow the regulation to limit the harmful damages to environmental as much as possible. Since all nations are so closely connected together, it would be difficult to enforce the law and prevent the human impact independently. If people are concerned about the nature, they should be able to compromise between the nations and come up with solutions that would help the environment.
Louis
Dec 8, 2010, 1:15:40 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
No country has the right to tell another what to do. This violates
what America stands for. When we intervene with other countries we are
prohibiting the advancements that could be beneficial to the global
population, but that is drowned out by Americans who support the
military industrial complex and feel we should be sticking our noses
and other body parts in other countries; quite simply, who gave
America the privilege to be the boss in every little thing? You cant
take a walk in a forest without upsetting the EPA or endangering
another species that would have been lost due to extinction. Darwin
would be up in arms if he found out we were trying to stop evolution
and survival of the fittest.
However, I digress; the obvious is overlooked. If the Americans, the
leader of the free world, the superpower of the globe, can drill for
oil in the gulf, destroy forests in place of oil fields and ultimately
bend rules and regulations to feed the profit hungry corporate CEO’s,
then why cant the little guy? If the US can do what ever it wants and
steps on the little guy because he is cutting down a tree, where do
the morals lie?
If anything it should be the other countries who stop the us from
depleting the world of quality air, water and a future without radio
activity. Other countries should be left to do as they desire; if
someone was up in arms over the US’s actions how would we react? We
are the biggest the strongest the fastest the wisest the tallest the
smartest and the bravest; who wants to mess with us?
Leave them alone and let them do as they wish.
what America stands for. When we intervene with other countries we are
prohibiting the advancements that could be beneficial to the global
population, but that is drowned out by Americans who support the
military industrial complex and feel we should be sticking our noses
and other body parts in other countries; quite simply, who gave
America the privilege to be the boss in every little thing? You cant
take a walk in a forest without upsetting the EPA or endangering
another species that would have been lost due to extinction. Darwin
would be up in arms if he found out we were trying to stop evolution
and survival of the fittest.
However, I digress; the obvious is overlooked. If the Americans, the
leader of the free world, the superpower of the globe, can drill for
oil in the gulf, destroy forests in place of oil fields and ultimately
bend rules and regulations to feed the profit hungry corporate CEO’s,
then why cant the little guy? If the US can do what ever it wants and
steps on the little guy because he is cutting down a tree, where do
the morals lie?
If anything it should be the other countries who stop the us from
depleting the world of quality air, water and a future without radio
activity. Other countries should be left to do as they desire; if
someone was up in arms over the US’s actions how would we react? We
are the biggest the strongest the fastest the wisest the tallest the
smartest and the bravest; who wants to mess with us?
Leave them alone and let them do as they wish.
lauren
Dec 8, 2010, 1:19:30 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
The Precautionary Principle should be applied to any country when a
devastating retribution could result from one country's ignorance or
spite. Hands with power need to have a global perspective and
acknowledge mistakes. Therefore, if something a country is doing hurts
the rest of the world through a domino effect, any other country
reserves the right as a part of this planet to intervene.
devastating retribution could result from one country's ignorance or
spite. Hands with power need to have a global perspective and
acknowledge mistakes. Therefore, if something a country is doing hurts
the rest of the world through a domino effect, any other country
reserves the right as a part of this planet to intervene.
Kami
Dec 8, 2010, 1:43:08 AM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
All human beings live on the same planet, so we are all connected.
What happens in China or Africa will definitely effect the US, even if
the effects of their actions take a little while to reach us. Also, if
countries are irresponsible they may get rid of certain species that
can be found only in their country. I think that there should be
universal environmental regulations to insure that these issues are
addressed and to protect our environment. Some countries, especially
developing ones, would have trouble adjusting to the such laws, so it
would be better if the laws focused on providing assistance instead of
punishing countries that break the law.
What happens in China or Africa will definitely effect the US, even if
the effects of their actions take a little while to reach us. Also, if
countries are irresponsible they may get rid of certain species that
can be found only in their country. I think that there should be
universal environmental regulations to insure that these issues are
addressed and to protect our environment. Some countries, especially
developing ones, would have trouble adjusting to the such laws, so it
would be better if the laws focused on providing assistance instead of
punishing countries that break the law.
captain alyssa
Dec 8, 2010, 2:35:19 PM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
sorry for posting it on the wrong page!
I am completely for the interaction of other countries when it comes
to environmental decisions. People have reduced themselves from humans
into races and nations, and no longer recognized that we are all
humans, sharing this planet, after all. What effects one country will
effect another, and if one sees an environmental threat from another,
they should be able to stop it.
Here is a link to an article about the immense environmental problems
caused by China: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html
Now, I'm not singling China out or accusing them of being the only
country doing harm to the environment, but this is a prime example. My
opinion, in the simplest terms, is that we need to stop thinking and
planning as separate countries--as if we all aren't sharing this
beautiful world.
So, yes. Countries should have justified say in global affairs,
perhaps a voting system could be enacted but that would also pose even
more questions.
I am completely for the interaction of other countries when it comes
to environmental decisions. People have reduced themselves from humans
into races and nations, and no longer recognized that we are all
humans, sharing this planet, after all. What effects one country will
effect another, and if one sees an environmental threat from another,
they should be able to stop it.
Here is a link to an article about the immense environmental problems
caused by China: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html
Now, I'm not singling China out or accusing them of being the only
country doing harm to the environment, but this is a prime example. My
opinion, in the simplest terms, is that we need to stop thinking and
planning as separate countries--as if we all aren't sharing this
beautiful world.
So, yes. Countries should have justified say in global affairs,
perhaps a voting system could be enacted but that would also pose even
more questions.
Shane Goodwin
Dec 8, 2010, 10:27:00 PM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that it all depends on the situation. If we allow any
country to participate in activities that may seriously damage the
enviroment and our planet, then we are just dumb. We need to take into
consideration that some activities do affect the enviroment negatively
and their may be side affects, but we cant just let countries destroy
our planet for their own benefit. We should decide as United Nations
whether activities going around the world are okaye. If a country is
in trouble, and absolutely needs to do something that may cause some
enviormental impact, then it is obviously necessary for them to
initiate whatever plan they have ready. But we cant just let anyone do
as they please. Ya its true that their are many different countries
and that they have many different beliefs, but when it comes to our
planet as a whole, we can't just sit around and let others destroy it.
Its our ONLY planet. We need to take care of it, whether it be by an
agreement or by force. This is no laughing matter people. We need to
act now~
> >> > Wednesday.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
country to participate in activities that may seriously damage the
enviroment and our planet, then we are just dumb. We need to take into
consideration that some activities do affect the enviroment negatively
and their may be side affects, but we cant just let countries destroy
our planet for their own benefit. We should decide as United Nations
whether activities going around the world are okaye. If a country is
in trouble, and absolutely needs to do something that may cause some
enviormental impact, then it is obviously necessary for them to
initiate whatever plan they have ready. But we cant just let anyone do
as they please. Ya its true that their are many different countries
and that they have many different beliefs, but when it comes to our
planet as a whole, we can't just sit around and let others destroy it.
Its our ONLY planet. We need to take care of it, whether it be by an
agreement or by force. This is no laughing matter people. We need to
act now~
>
> - Show quoted text -
Monica Pham
Dec 8, 2010, 10:38:43 PM12/8/10
to apes-d...@googlegroups.com
Louis says we would be violating what we stand for if we interfere with other countries, but interfering has been happening for decades already. That's how wars occur and though interfering may seem morally wrong and violate "what america stands for," allowing the degradation of our earth that is shared among billions of humans is worse. If we think about allowing other countries to do whatever they like and not interfere because it goes against our own government, then should we never have interfered with Hitler's genocide? However I do agree with Louis that America itself is one of the largest contributors to the world pollution. Although I feel that countries should have the right to involve themselves with the environmental issues of other countries. According to
http://www.prlog.org/10449030-worlds-top-10-biggest-polluting-countries.html the United States is ranked second out of the world's top ten biggest polluters and the other countries are also the top countries in the world. These countries are the strongest, most powerful most developed and populated.As if we don't already have everything for ourselves, lesser and more underdeveloped countries cannot protect themselves from the rapidly changing climates. We need to understand that although we still have to regulate ourselves, we need to put in a bigger effort and show there is an actual dramatic change, and propose to other countries to also put in more effort in cleaning up the pollution.
Vivian P
Dec 8, 2010, 11:55:31 PM12/8/10
to Pacifica APES
This is an add-on to my previous post. I was the 4th person to post on
this discussion.
websites:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050314_silver_ocean.html (on
coal burning in Asia)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061018_polluted_places.html
(talks more about how coal burning affects China's residents)
On Dec 2, 12:16 am, Taylor Weik <dancegur...@msn.com> wrote:
> Today, we live in a society dominated by inventions and developments,
> where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
> using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
> the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
> in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
> but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
> are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
> affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
> uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
> positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
> right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
> future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
> environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
> Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
> on the environment:http://www.writearticles.org/Articles/Environmental-Issues-Demands-Ou...
this discussion.
websites:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050314_silver_ocean.html (on
coal burning in Asia)
http://www.livescience.com/environment/061018_polluted_places.html
(talks more about how coal burning affects China's residents)
On Dec 2, 12:16 am, Taylor Weik <dancegur...@msn.com> wrote:
> Today, we live in a society dominated by inventions and developments,
> where technology reigns supreme. Countries all across the world are
> using this new technology in thousands of ways, whether it be altering
> the genes of a fruit fly in Germany or creating new and improved bombs
> in the United States. Technology may be helpful for its benefactors,
> but what is good for them may not be good for the other countries. We
> are all connected, and as environmental unity suggests, one thing
> affects the other. You can't have it one way where something a country
> uses will only affect that one country. Everyone is affected, some
> positively and some negatively. I agree that countries should have the
> right to establish environmental regulations with one another to avoid
> future conflict and turmoil. With these rules set, not only can
> environmental damage be avoided, but a war may be avoided as well.
> Here is a link to an article discussing the effects new technology has
> on the environment:http://www.writearticles.org/Articles/Environmental-Issues-Demands-Ou...
Louis
Dec 9, 2010, 12:20:51 AM12/9/10
to Pacifica APES
Shared or not, no “thing”, country or badge, can force an independent
entity to change. As Monica has said, the forcing of a country to
chance is to speak of war. But, thinking that there is a reason to
stop what’s happening is completely outrageous; unless everyone that
has posted has bought into the viral insanity that our world is being
engulfed by the fires of hell. Let’s be real and address the facts as
they come. Sure we can quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and say that the oceans and atmosphere have been changed for
the worst. But that cannot be linked to human activities. Even more so
sophisticated satellites, advanced to detect degree change to the 0.01
degree centigrade, have continuously measured the troposphere and have
not been able to find any indication of change in temperature in its
twenty three year history.
So if humans cannot be linked to global warming, then why is it that
humans are being blamed for this extinction and this change in nature?
Is not nature capable of balancing even the slightest of activities?
And where is the evidence to show that the growth of one nation is
destroying the others? How is Saudi Arabia’s oil exporting hurting
other countries and contributing to the “detrimental” effects that
“are taking place”. All we fear is that there is a species that is no
longer competitive in the world that will die off just as nature
intended. Extinction is as natural as volcanoes, thunderstorms and
child birth. But what happens is some environmentalist who is upset
about a tree being killed for homes which would benefit twenty
thousand would be homeless people. The selfish actions of neo-liberal-
animal-saving groups have lead to most of the widespread belief that
has captivated people of the world.
But even worse than nature is the country who wants to dominate and be
the police. Who can enforce laws without overstepping a boundary
unless that boundary was taken from the entity in the first place?
If the principle of the free world even exists, then those who wish to
be a part will gladly do so, and those who do not wish to will not. It
seems like a simple solution to me, the greatest time of growth for
our country was in its isolationist period where we did not become
involved with affairs of other countries because we just did not care.
And it is that way of thinking that allows for growth in many new
ways. As a “free world” countries must mind their own business.
On Dec 8, 7:38 pm, Monica Pham <mochax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Louis says we would be violating what we stand for if we interfere with
> other countries, but interfering has been happening for decades already.
> That's how wars occur and though interfering may seem morally wrong and
> violate "what america stands for," allowing the degradation of our earth
> that is shared among billions of humans is worse. If we think about allowing
> other countries to do whatever they like and not interfere because it goes
> against our own government, then should we never have interfered with
> Hitler's genocide? However I do agree with Louis that America itself is one
> of the largest contributors to the world pollution. Although I feel that
> countries should have the right to involve themselves with the environmental
> issues of other countries. According tohttp://www.prlog.org/10449030-worlds-top-10-biggest-polluting-countri...
entity to change. As Monica has said, the forcing of a country to
chance is to speak of war. But, thinking that there is a reason to
stop what’s happening is completely outrageous; unless everyone that
has posted has bought into the viral insanity that our world is being
engulfed by the fires of hell. Let’s be real and address the facts as
they come. Sure we can quote the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and say that the oceans and atmosphere have been changed for
the worst. But that cannot be linked to human activities. Even more so
sophisticated satellites, advanced to detect degree change to the 0.01
degree centigrade, have continuously measured the troposphere and have
not been able to find any indication of change in temperature in its
twenty three year history.
So if humans cannot be linked to global warming, then why is it that
humans are being blamed for this extinction and this change in nature?
Is not nature capable of balancing even the slightest of activities?
And where is the evidence to show that the growth of one nation is
destroying the others? How is Saudi Arabia’s oil exporting hurting
other countries and contributing to the “detrimental” effects that
“are taking place”. All we fear is that there is a species that is no
longer competitive in the world that will die off just as nature
intended. Extinction is as natural as volcanoes, thunderstorms and
child birth. But what happens is some environmentalist who is upset
about a tree being killed for homes which would benefit twenty
thousand would be homeless people. The selfish actions of neo-liberal-
animal-saving groups have lead to most of the widespread belief that
has captivated people of the world.
But even worse than nature is the country who wants to dominate and be
the police. Who can enforce laws without overstepping a boundary
unless that boundary was taken from the entity in the first place?
If the principle of the free world even exists, then those who wish to
be a part will gladly do so, and those who do not wish to will not. It
seems like a simple solution to me, the greatest time of growth for
our country was in its isolationist period where we did not become
involved with affairs of other countries because we just did not care.
And it is that way of thinking that allows for growth in many new
ways. As a “free world” countries must mind their own business.
On Dec 8, 7:38 pm, Monica Pham <mochax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Louis says we would be violating what we stand for if we interfere with
> other countries, but interfering has been happening for decades already.
> That's how wars occur and though interfering may seem morally wrong and
> violate "what america stands for," allowing the degradation of our earth
> that is shared among billions of humans is worse. If we think about allowing
> other countries to do whatever they like and not interfere because it goes
> against our own government, then should we never have interfered with
> Hitler's genocide? However I do agree with Louis that America itself is one
> of the largest contributors to the world pollution. Although I feel that
> countries should have the right to involve themselves with the environmental
> the
> United States is ranked second out of the world's top ten biggest polluters
> and the other countries are also the top countries in the world. These
> countries are the strongest, most powerful most developed and
> populated.As if we don't already have everything for ourselves, lesser and
> more underdeveloped countries cannot protect themselves from
> the rapidly changing climates. We need to understand that although we still
> have to regulate ourselves, we need to put in a bigger effort and show there
> is an actual dramatic change, and propose to other countries to also put in
> more effort in cleaning up the pollution.
>
> United States is ranked second out of the world's top ten biggest polluters
> and the other countries are also the top countries in the world. These
> countries are the strongest, most powerful most developed and
> populated.As if we don't already have everything for ourselves, lesser and
> more underdeveloped countries cannot protect themselves from
> the rapidly changing climates. We need to understand that although we still
> have to regulate ourselves, we need to put in a bigger effort and show there
> is an actual dramatic change, and propose to other countries to also put in
> more effort in cleaning up the pollution.
>
Sherry
Dec 9, 2010, 1:10:26 AM12/9/10
to Pacifica APES
Although countries should be able to intervene and tell other
countries what
their regulations should be, it would be a difficult task. No country
would want
to be bossed around since they each have their own laws and policies.
Each
country is independent in their own way, even if their regulations are
a bit
different from the regulations of their surrounding countries.
However, if and
when the actions/regulations of the country are harmful to
surrounding
countries, the countries should definitely have the right to intervene
in
defense of their own country. Just because one country is benefiting,
it does not mean that it is a good thing. This link ells us when we
should
intervene: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_1204_Intervene,00.html
countries what
their regulations should be, it would be a difficult task. No country
would want
to be bossed around since they each have their own laws and policies.
Each
country is independent in their own way, even if their regulations are
a bit
different from the regulations of their surrounding countries.
However, if and
when the actions/regulations of the country are harmful to
surrounding
countries, the countries should definitely have the right to intervene
in
defense of their own country. Just because one country is benefiting,
it does not mean that it is a good thing. This link ells us when we
should
intervene: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_1204_Intervene,00.html
Kate
Dec 9, 2010, 10:18:52 AM12/9/10
to Pacifica APES
I believe that, although it would be nice if we could regulate other
countries and their damage to this world, it would be incredibly hard
to do so. unless we use the UN, which would be difficult to sway in
any direction about anything controversial like this, then it is
unlikely that we can change the way we interact with each other in
regards to the environment. I believe it is not reasonable to assume
we would be able to make a country write law pertaining to the
environment unless by sheer force.
countries and their damage to this world, it would be incredibly hard
to do so. unless we use the UN, which would be difficult to sway in
any direction about anything controversial like this, then it is
unlikely that we can change the way we interact with each other in
regards to the environment. I believe it is not reasonable to assume
we would be able to make a country write law pertaining to the
environment unless by sheer force.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages