Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability.

Before I start with some rebuttals to Con’s arguments, I’d like to briefly answer a query that Con raised in the debate. What I mean by “accessible” is that I can easily access it within the limited amount of time (i. e. several hours) I have to pursue activities such as debating. This means pretty much anything on the Internet (provided I don’t have to sign up to access it/purchase it before reading it), provided you can give me the link. I’m just concerned about debaters who might post references to books or other material that I might not be able to get my hands on within the several hours of free time that I have. Okay, now that we’ve gotten housekeeping out of the way, here are my rebuttals: “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 1: I would like to clarify that my first argument does not merely prove that economic growth is to be valued. Argument 1 concludes that is the duty and role of the government to serve the interests of its people before anything else (and this includes fixing any environmental issues or contributing to the environmental sustainability of the country). Argument 2: The fact that developing nations do not need to solve the problems caused by other nations means that they do not need to dedicate their resources into solving these problems. This then means that developing nations should be putting only a limited amount, if any at all, of their resources into environmental sustainability. Given that spending on other issues, such as health care and national security remains constant, this inherently means that the government has more leftover resources to encourage economic growth, therefore fulfilling the definition of ‘prioritize’. I don’t necessarily see why my two arguments don’t lead to the claim that “Developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability. ” 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 It is in the best interests of the leaders of the country to ensure that its citizens are satisfied and content, and this includes ensuring that the most of its citizens are not living in poverty and that the majority of the population’s standard of living is appropriate. Regardless of whether the leader rules an absolute monarchy or totalitarian government, neglecting the needs and interests of the people leads to discontent among its citizens, which can ultimately lead to social turmoil and even a revolt or overthrow of the current system of government, which directly threatens the positions of power that the current leaders of the government have. This is most evidently shown through the unfolding of recent events in Egypt: one of the main reasons why both ‘President’ Hosni Mubarak (dictator of a kleptocracy) and the rulers of the Muslim Brotherhood (Morsi) was overthrown was because of the large waves of unemployed people that were fighting for a liberal Egypt. Both Mubarak and Morsi would have remained in their positions of power if they were not oblivious to the interests of the people. (Both Mubarak and Morsi were terrible dictators in the way that both tried to gain absolute power and total control over Egypt. Mubarak spent his entire time in power extracting resources from the Egyptian economy and giving it to himself, whilst Morsi, who was elected to power, tried to pass a decree that allowed him to bypass the constitution and Parliament. ) Both leaders were overthrown because of their inability to solve the economic recession that was affecting people at all levels of society, resulting in the huge wave of young, fervent unemployed people that tried to topple the authorities that were in control of Egypt. [1] [2] [3] Because, rationally and logically, most leaders would want to remain in a position of power, it is in their best interests to ensure that the interests of the people are served, at least to a certain extent, and this includes ensuring continual economic development to prevent high levels of unemployment and poverty. Argument 2 isn’t irrelevant? Side proposition has yet to prove why Argument 2 is necessarily irrelevant, so I rest my case. Conclusion I’ve proven that Argument 1 still stands, as well as why Argument 1 and Argument 2 combine to lead to the conclusion that developing nations should prioritize economic development over environmental sustainability. Side note: I have no idea why footnote (reference) 2 turns into a video that's embedded into the page, but the link's become invisible as a result. [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.youtube.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;