Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

I have noticed that DDO puts any links to videos in the upper right corner; it happened to me the one time I linked to a video. This is apparently the way the website is written. Finally, I would like to thank PRO for clarifying his point on “accessible” sources. Accessibility can mean easy to understand, so the clarification is welcome. Argument 1 Originally, PRO claimed that it was the duty of the government to “place the needs of its citizens first. ” I showed how this is not necessarily the case, so PRO has reasserted his claim as such: “It is still in the best interests of the leaders of the government, regardless of the style or form of government that exists in the country, to prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability[. ]” This is a slightly different claim than the one presented in PRO’s original arguments. He has not challenged my rebuttal, but rather he has changed his claim from the “the government’s role and duty” to the “best interests of the leaders. ” As I have already addressed the former, I will now address the latter. It is in the best interests of the leader to keep their citizenry happy only if they fear that their well being and/or power might be in danger. It will cite two examples: During the 1770s, King George, a monarch, did not place a high priority on his subjects living in the Americas. This poor treatment eventually led to the colonies declaring their independence and what we in the United States call the Revolutionary War [1]. King George continued to rule the British Empire until he died in 1820 [2], so his poor treatment of the American colonists certainly didn’t cost him personally. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is known to have a terrible human rights record. Drawing on sources from the reign of Kim Jong-Il, we can see that individuals were punished not only for crimes, but for their political opinions, or even the crimes and opinions of their families’ [3]. Also, there are documented cases of forced-labor camps where prisoners, including political prisoners, are worked (in some cases) to their death [4]. Kim ruled North Korea from 1994 until his death in 2011; he paid no personal cost for the mistreatment of his citizenry that his government performed, and was able to remain in power until his death at the age of 70 [5]. There two examples show that the treatment of the people a leader rules over, may not be relevant to that particular leader’s interests. Therefore, any claim that any particular leader should be taking choosing one policy over another because it is best for the citizenry fails because this is clearly not always the case. Argument 1: Overview I showed how PRO’s claim that governments have a duty to take care of their subjects fails. This point has not been challenged, and it stands. PRO’s second contention on the matter is that leaders should do what is best for the people because it is in their own best interest. This argument also fails because, as I have shown, it is not always the case. Finally, PRO has not demonstrated that Argument 1 necessarily leads to his conclusion that “Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability,” despite his claims that he has. He has suggested how it could be the case, but he did not show why it must be the case. Argument 2 PRO has continued to make an excellent case that developing nations need not dedicate resources to solve the environmental problems caused by other nations; however, this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the priorities of nations singly, and whether or not environmental sustainability should rate higher or lower than economic development. We are not talking about groups of nations or environmental sustainability on a regional or global scale. Now, if I were to make the case that Nation A must commit resources to sustainability because Nation B is polluting the river, Argument 2 would need to be properly addressed. However, I am not making that case, so Argument 2 continues to be irrelevant to the discussion. Conclusion PRO has not addressed my point that governments do not necessarily need to put the needs of their citizens first; that point stands. Instead, he has chosen to argue that it is in the leader’s best interest to look after the needs of their people; I have shown this to not always be the case. PRO has also not demonstrated how Argument 1 necessarily leads to his conclusion; he has just reasserted that it does. Argument 2 continues to be irrelevant because I am not making the case that one nation should pay for another nation’s environmental mishandling. Overall, PRO has not shown that developing nations have an obligation to place higher priority on economic development than on environmental sustainability. Sources: [1] . http://www.history.com... [2] . http://totallyhistory.com... [3] . http://www.hrw.org... [4] . http://www.hrnk.org... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...