On Balance the World is Changing for the Better

I hope this can be an enjoyable experience for the both of us. Arguments:1. Less people die. My opponent correctly suggests that, in recent years, children and infants have died less frequently from disease. This is due to great advances in medicine. However, those great advances in medicine have also brought other, much less desirable, effects. Thalidomide: Thalidomide was first sold in Germany as an over the country drug in 1957. It was used in the hopes that it would prevent morning sickness in pregnant women, which it did. Unfortunately, however, it had the side effect of deforming the limbs of unborn children whose Mothers had taken the drug. Of the 10,000 children born with limbs that were malformed because of the drug, only 5,000 survived. Thalidomide was a case of drug companies destroying the lives of 10,000 people without malicious intent. It was also, as my opponent will doubtlessly point out, over 50 years ago. Whilst this is true, there are much more recent, yet less infamous, issues with the advances of medicine which have undoubtedly made lives worse. One example of this is in a BBC news report from 2006:[1] 'Six men remain in intensive care after being taken ill during a clinical drugs trial in north-west London. The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug at a research unit based at Northwick Park Hospital when they suffered a reaction. Relatives are with the patients, who suffered multiple organ failure. Two men are said to be critically ill. 'This shows that the advancement of medicine has not necessarily made lives better, in fact, it could be said that, although more people now survive diseases, their quality of life is lower. An example of this would be the euthanasia debate. In the past, your doctor would help you survive disease until the point where you were in insufferable pain which could not be alleviated. At this point, your doctor could, and often would, make the decision to ease your passing with an overdose of drugs (normally morphine) with your consent. [2] 'Throughout classical antiquity, there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony, and physicians complied by often giving their patients the poisons they requested. 'This was made illegal in the UK in 1961, meaning that those suffering from a painful, debilitating and terminal disease may not make the decision to end their life with help if they're unable to do it alone. This is not just in the UK, euthanasia is illegal in almost every country in the world. [3] 'As of 2014, euthanasia is only legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. 'Despite even this, the increase in world population is not inherently a good thing in itself. It has led to oppressive but necessary policies such as the Chinese one child policy, which has seen the murder of many young girls in the hopes that the parents will have a son. Thus, my argument is that whilst life expectancy has gotten longer, quality of life has not.2. Better technology for everybodyMy opponent again correctly suggests that technology has not only improved over the years, but has also become more available to the average peasant (citizen). However, this is not necessarily a good thing. My opponent asserts: 'Not to mention we have much cheaper methods than trains--with our new subways all around--and better airplanes--from Wright's first to now, fighter jets and humongous airliners-- transportation is cheaper, easier, and faster than ever. With better transportation, countries can trade more easier, and people can get from place to place easier as well. The world is definitely changing for the better with these technological innovations. 'This is all very well and good, however, the increase in 'better transport' has massively increased the consumption of oil and other natural resources all around the world. Here we see the increase in diesel consumption per year in just the USA. This data only goes up to the year 1998, however, I can tell you that the fuel consumption in the year 2013 in just the USA [4]'about 134.51 billion gallons1 (or 3.20 billion barrels) of gasoline. 'This tremendous increase in the use of natural resources has resulted in a tremendous increase in greenhouse gases emmitted into the atmosphere, notably carbon dioxide. As you can see here, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially from 1960-2010. This is resulting in a 'warming' on a global scale. An effect that is commonly known as 'global warming. 'This has resulted in the extinction of countless species and will result in the extinction of countless more. [5]'Polar bears have started drowning as they have had to swim longer distances between ice flows, and the U. S. Geological Survey has predicted that if the Arctic ice cape continues melting at its current rate, “two-thirds of the world's polar bear sub-populations will be extinct by mid-century. ”7 Of course, it is not just the polar bear that is affected—one study predicts that a quarter of land animals and plants could become extinct because of global warming over the next 45 years.8'[6]'Parmesan and most other scientists hadn't expected to see species extinctions from global warming until 2020. But populations of frogs, butterflies, ocean corals, and polar birds have already gone extinct because of climate change, Parmesan said. 'My opponent implies that communication has become easier in the past few hundred years with the invention of increasingly better, more convenient and inexpensive telephones, right up to the mobile phone. I would agree with him, but that does not mean that the quality of communication has gone up. In fact, I would argue that the quality of communication has definitely gone down. I want to transport my reader back to a time that is no longer in living memory. A time where telephones did not exist and the easiest form of long-range communication was a letter. I want to transport my reader back to the 1830's, to a young girl called Victoria, who would later be known as Queen Victoria. She wished to write her sister, whom had gone to live with the Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a letter. It had been many years since she had been allowed to see her sister, and after writing the letter she waited excitedly for a reply. Can you imagine her dismay when, a few days later, she opened an envelope addressed to her from her sister to see nothing but the letter 'K' written upon an almost blank piece of paper? This, of course, never happened. The cost of sending a letter, whilst not expensive, was costly enough to ensure detailed communication with ones friends and loved ones which invoked a feeling of closeness that is not as often seen in the communications of today. This is primarily because now, with the invention of social media and texting, it is so incredibly easy to lose the sense of connection that communication held in the time of letters. Lengthy and structured replies are no longer seen as important, formality is an art that is often no longer understood or seen to be necessary. The phenomenon of the 'K' response is often wrote about, it is well recognised for its rude abruptness, yet many people still continue to use it because, with the invention of easier communications, there is little practical reason not to. Thus, I argue that whilst the quantity of communication has increased, the quality of communication has gone down. As has, therefore, the quality of friendships and relationships. More arguments next round. Sources: [1]. http://news.bbc.co.uk...;[2]http://euthanasia.procon.org...;[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://www.eia.gov...;[5]http://www.greeniacs.com...;[6]http://news.nationalgeographic.com...;