Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

Before I refute my opponent's statements, I would like to state my arguments. My value for this debate is UtilitarianismUtilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. [1] This is the best value for this round because the greater of the many would benefit the entire developing country as a whole, over just a small group of people. My first contention is the need for resources. "With no doubt, the key step to independence in each country is its ability in providing basic needs. Basic necessities, known as food, shelter, education . .. providing these necessities is fundamental for economic growth, technology advancement, and creating job opportunities in poor countries. "[2]Like the quote explains, the key step to a successful growing country is not being dependent on any other country for recourses. To pursue this, the country needs to be able to acquire their own resources. The most reasonable way to pursue this action is through extracting resources from the environment. Having these resources will most surely help the people overall because in order to have a strong country in general, they need to have all these necessities. "Absolute or extreme poverty is when people lack the basic necessities for survival" [3] In order to get these necessities, people need to obtain them and the best way to do this undoubtedly resource extraction. How would affecting the environment help the country? The ancient Roman's asked themselves this same question. Rome was named one, if not the most, successful civilizations of the ancient world. Their power was not only a strong military, but a strong engineering force. By building structures that would increase the quality of daily lives, people were proud to be part of Rome. Because of their ability to receive necessities of an empire, they were much more stable than the other barbaric groups of their time. "The Romans constructed numerous aqueducts to bring water from distant sources into their cities and towns, supplying public baths, latrines, fountains and private households. Waste water was removed by complex sewage systems and released into nearby bodies of water, keeping the towns clean and free from effluent. Aqueducts also provided water for mining operations, milling, farms and gardens. " [4] With these aqueducts, they obtained a major necessity: Water. By having these other advantages, they did not rely on other lands for resources because they can produce it themselves. If a country today were to arouse from independence, extracting resources, like the Romans did, would make them not rely on any other countries which would improve their own economy. By improving the economy, the people would be more successful and the country would also be more successful as a whole. My second contention is the stabilization of the country's economy"Economic stability refers to an absence of excessive fluctuations in the macroeconomy. An economy with fairly constant output growth and low and stable inflation would be considered economically stable. An economy with frequent large recessions, a pronounced business cycle, very high or variable inflation, or frequent financial crisis would be considered economically unstable. " [5] The article provided in [6] refers to creating economic stability as "to pursue monetary policy to achieve the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. " [6] The best way to have a stable economy is to have the maximum employment. In the situation the developing country is in at the moment, the best way to have a high employment rate is to create government resource extraction programs. Such programs such as mining would be able to not only provide jobs, but be able to have a resource income that can be used and distributed amongst the country to help increase the economy. When the resources are already obtained, the country would be able to trade the products with other countries to even boost their economic situation upward. Another way to ensure economic stability would be having a stable and staple food supply. By creating tools that would increase the amount of food produced, the country would be able to feed it's people so they can spend time more effectively. Referring to the definition provided by link 5, the definition of economic stability states that "an economy with very high or variable inflation, or frequent financial crisis would be considered economically unstable. " [5]. How would protecting the environment ensure a stable economy, or one without any financial crisis's? With the few characters I have left, I will attack my opponent's argument and will continue next round. "Violent actions might also include military conflict with groups that threaten resource extraction activities and foreign military aid and training to local police and military forces. ""who control natural resources may feel that they have no choice but to use violence or the threat of violence to protect their resource extraction activities. "How would my opponent know if violence would even be necessary to protect the resource extraction activities? By valuing utilitarianism, The country that would value resource extraction would have a greater popularity and few people would want to even rebel against the projects, knowing that it would affect the country as a whole over themselves. My opponent does not provide any evidence to support his or her claim. "Violence harms people, nations and environments. Its seems as if the stress of extraction and associated environmental degradation, erupts into violence which further degrades the environment and a kind of spiraling degradation occurs. "What violence? As stated in the above refutation, people would not revolt against an economy boosting government project. "armed violence plays a critical role in facilitating natural resource extraction"Once again, my opponent has not stated any evidence that violence is necessary for extracting resourcesThroughout the rest of my opponent's round one argument, he or she fails to provide evidence that violent actions would be necessary in extracting resources. I only have a few characters left to refute the rest of my opponent's argument, so therefore I shall do more in round 2. I await my opponent's response. [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://www.english-test.net...[3] . http://www.eapn.eu...[4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] . http://www.stlouisfed.org...