Humanity's tendency towards commodification of things ought to be resisted.

Thanks, Pro.RE: We've been inculcated the West’s ways are supreme... Is it ethical to impose our eroding way of life upon others?People willingly commodify and trade their labor and resources to become developed and escape the abject poverty known as being third-world or non-developed. They could live without commodities if they chose to, as people do in western societies like ours by living off the grid in places like Alaska. Eroding is the opposite of developing. We are a developed country. RE: We fail to see our commodification of daily life has eroded social values & sense of civic duty for the past 30 yrs. This is a subjective opinion. No examples were provided for me to respond to. RE: With our standard of living in declining, we are now in revolt using minorities & immigrants as scapegoats for our state. We are not declining. Immigrants are flocking to this country specifically to escape poverty, as trade and commodification has allowed us to flourish. RE: Our views toward [prostitution] are within the frame work of our culture. Others have an alternative view, and that’s the point; honoring other cultural norms.I don't see a point here at all. My point was that people (even within the same culture) have subjective and differing perspectives and values. I've explained twice that some people value sex as something emotional, intimate and special that ought not to be commodified, whereas other people believe sex is just another form of physical labor because they do not value sex the same way. Therefore they have no qualms with sex being commodified. I've outlined that it's ridiculous to expect people to share the same values on things like sex (art, or anything else) and therefore to prevent people from trading their own resources is both immoral and impractical.Pro has not responded to my argument.RE: The commodification of natural resources is Western ideology; its infection into other countries has resulted in slavery.Pro's #60 source claims that exploitative labor = slavery which is a slight exaggeration. Indeed that sources another source (#3) in which Brazilian workers describe slave-LIKE conditions. Brazil is not a developed country. "Brazil is still considered a developing country due to its low gross domestic product, low living standards, high infant mortality rate and other factors" [1]. This seems to imply that developed countries, i.e. those with elaborate commodification provide the best living conditions. According the U.N., the least developed countries in the world include gems like Bangladesh, Somalia, Uganda, Liberia... you get the idea [2]. Perhaps if these countries invested in commodities, markets would be established that offer things like medical care and other services that indicate a high standard of living, safety and care.RE: The push for a global economy has finance & industry taking/polluting land.People have been displaced since the inception of humanity for various reasons, long before mass commodification. Yet commodification has also allowed us to respond to natural disasters, disease, and other things that have plagued humanity and threatened our lives. Vaccines and other tools to save lives are the result of commodification so it works both ways. I've been saying we need to weigh the pros vs. cons. Commodification does have its cons, but has also allowed us to save and improve lives beyond measure.Further, the concept of ecological modernism, which sees technology as key to solving big environmental problems, is getting a lot of attention which can help solve some of our current problems [3].RE: States or investors often violently take lands for profit; often land grabs are done with military force.Communist, anti-capitalist countries that don't seek to profit have historically been some of the most violent. People go to war for reasons including but not limited to power, religion, pride, allegiances, and to secure resources even in societies without commodification. Indeed this is highlighted by warring tribes in the NON-westernized, non-commodified societies in Africa and Asia that my opponent highlights as being superior to our western way of life. RE: Trade & communication was not simultaneous.I never said that it was. It is an indisputable fact (confirmed by his very own sources on speech) that man has traded with one another since prehistoric times. My point was that people trade/commodify because it is convenient -- otherwise they would not trade. Humans are introduced to new things like exotic food, tools and ideas through commodification and trade. Yes you can and do communicate these things, but commodification and capitalism promotes trade BEYOND basic survival. I could easily survive without ever having tried a Florida orange, but commodification gives me the opportunity to try that and innumerable other things in life. I've explained that just because some people are poor and cannot afford all of life's luxuries, does not change/deny that many people DO get to have those things specifically because of commodification -- and that poor people would not experience them without commodification either. RE: My point is commoditization of the intangibles of life or of resources that results in harm to others should be resisted.That is not the resolution of this debate, though commodification of resources has improved the quality of life for many people. W.H. Hutt’s Theory of Idle Resources explains how idle resources are being wasted - that is not being used to their potential or in the most beneficial way [4]. Moreover, Pro should specify what harm he is referring to. Commodification is about voluntary trade, indicating preferential trade. RE: Indigenous people lose their egalitarian ways which establishes value of land, concepts of community property & social order. Once again this is voluntary. People who prefer to live simpler lives can/do choose so. We have Amish people and other groups living in egalitarian collectives within the U.S. The culture of Americans has significantly evolved since the Natives were here. Many people would prefer our lifestyle and culture - that is our popular music, food, religion, health care, education system and innumerable other luxuries such as air conditioning, boats, etc. vs. the Native American lifestyle. Some of us prefer capitalism to egalitarianism. Pro should not presume his preference or perspective on which culture is "better" is shared by all. I think undeveloped countries have mostly undesirable culture. RE: The major point was we are not better off due to commodification; but are getting poorer. That is 100% false. Despite inflation (which compares cost in numerical value only), we are undoubtedly richer, that is wealthier in what we can buy as time goes on. That goes for all groups in the U.S. including the poor. Plus the disparity in global economic inequality continues to decrease [5]. Outside of major hiccups such as the Great Depression... when commodification was at an all time low... we have continued to produce, create and thrive. RE: Continued overseas commodification egregiously exploits workers & environment. I've asked Pro to explain how a third world person's life would be better off without commodification - specifically in regard to education and medicine. He hasn't done so and he won't be able to. Instead he notes that socialized countries have better health care which is not only false as capitalist medicine prevails [6] but it's also irrelevant. Said socialized countries are all WESTERN countries with lots of commodities - the same western cultures that Pro has condemned throughout his entire round. The best medical care comes specifically at the cost of commodification by Pro's very own examples. Once again his arguments and examples are self-defeating. 1.2 out of 7.2 billion people live in poverty meaning more than 4/5 are not poor. But what does poverty mean? It refers to limited access to things such as food, medicine and education. So once again I ask how people in undeveloped, impoverished countries would have better/more access to these things without commodification. RE: Our values are NOT the values of other cultures & imposing ours unto others is ethically questionable.They can choose to reject our culture. Pro complained earlier about rampant immigration into more developed countries. Why would people flock to developed countries that have strong markets and luxuries + opportunity? That doesn't sound like unethical "force" to me. RE: The commodification of social interactions negates sense of civic mindedness & community.Pro gives a slew of examples of things he finds unethical, i.e. renting wombs. What he sees as immoral "renting wombs" another person sees as a beautiful act of service that fulfills an important demand -- like carrying the child of someone who might not be able to for health reasons. Earlier Pro noted we have different cultural views. Obviously we have different values as individuals as well. Just because Pro finds some things immoral doesn't mean we should be expected to share his values. He condemned my "selfish" way of thinking by saying his concerns are not my problem. Yet if I hate chocolate, does that mean Pro should be forbidden from eating it? No. So let's not buy into his manipulated proposition that having different preferences somehow dooms us as a culture or society. We have Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists and everything in between. Differing values is a fact of life regardless of commodification.Pro has not proven the existence of absolute morality, or that people's subjective preferences should inhibit the improved quality of life through trade for others. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...[5] http://tinyurl.com...[6] http://tinyurl.com...