Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

This is not an issue I have thought of much since college, so I expect this to be a nice refresher. Overview I am first going to outline PRO’s argument as I understand it; so that we can clear up any misunderstandings right away. I will be paraphrasing for purposes simplicity and space; I am not trying to redefine PRO’s argument. 1A: Governments exist to help their citizens 1B: Economic growth helps the citizens C: Therefore, governments should work toward economic growth 2A: Developing nations do not contribute significantly to environmental degradation 2B/C: Developing nations should not be expected to fix the problems caused by other nations First of all, I would like to point out that neither of these two arguments, either individually or together, necessarily lead to PRO’s initial claim that “Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability. ” Argument 1 concludes that economic growth is to be valued, and Argument 2 concludes that developing nations need not solve the problems caused by other nations. Nowhere is it even suggested that economic growth should [a] be valued higher than environmental sustainability. Argument 1A This argument claims that the role of a government is to act in the interest of its citizens. PRO here asserts that we are concerned with “western liberal democracies,” but I see no reason to restrict the discussion to such a subdivision of the various world governments, as neither the title of the debate, nor PRO’s first round definitions require, or even suggest, such a limitation. I will be challenging the assertion that the purpose of the existence of governments is to serve their citizens. There are many different kinds of governments, and each country has put its own personal spin on the particular kind of government by which it is governed. I don’t challenge PRO's assertion regarding my own government, in the Western democracy in which I live, the United States. However, there are forms of government that do not exist to serve their citizens. For instance: In an Absolute Monarchy, the word of the monarch is law. He or she is not restricted by any statute or duty to anyone. While it may be true in practice that it is in the monarch’s best interest to (at least partially) serve his or her citizens, there is no requirement [2]. In a Theocracy, a deity is considered the head of state, and therefore, the will of the god is the purpose of the government, not the interests of the people [3]. In a Totalitarian Government, the ideology of the regime in power is the supreme purpose of the government, not the well being or interests of its people [4]. I feel that three examples of forms of government that do not meet PRO’s definition of the purpose of a government are sufficient to show that Argument 1A fails. Argument 1B I do not dispute anything PRO wrote in Argument 1B Argument 1: Conclusion While I agree with PRO that economic growth helps citizens (1B), the failure of Argument 1A shows that there is no reason a government should follow that course. Also, as I noted previously, even if Argument 1A held, there is no requirement that the nation in question must value such development over economic sustainability. Argument 2 I don’t find it necessary to fully address Argument 2 at this point, because I feel it is largely irrelevant. 2A claims that developing nations do not contribute significantly to environmental degradation, and 2B goes on to claim that for this reason, said nations shouldn’t be expected to “resolve the world’s environmental problems,” as PRO puts it. I concede 2B (less developed nations should not be expected “resolve the world’s environmental problems”), but reserve the right to readdress 2A if I feel it will contribute to the debate. Overall Conclusion I have shown that the purpose of government is not necessarily to benefit its citizens, as PRO asserted. Therefore, even though I agree that economic development is generally beneficial to the citizenry, it is not necessarily the purpose of the government to pursue that course of action. I would also like to restate, that even if we accept all of PRO’s arguments, it only follows that the governments being discussed should value economic development, not that they should value such development over environmental sustainability. Definitions: [a] I have purposefully used Wikipedia heavily as a source to meet PRO’s requirement that sources be “easily accessible. ” As PRO utilized Wikipedia as a source in Round 2, I hope that my own Wikipedia sources meet PRO’s vague requirement of accessibility. Should: “used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness [1]” Sources: [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . https://en.wikipedia.org... Notes: