danny Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Deep, man. Its just the truth. What you are sugesting is that some developing contrys ahve the right to advance them selves at the expense of others. Can just imagine Haggis talking to people from the south pacific. Im ever so sorry that your island is now under water, but on the bright side China and India have developed. Its only fair you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wesley Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Its just the truth. What you are sugesting is that some developing contrys ahve the right to advance them selves at the expense of others. Hell no, it's not like our western countries did that for hundreds of years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Its just the truth. What you are sugesting is that some developing contrys ahve the right to advance them selves at the expense of others. Can just imagine Haggis talking to people from the south pacific. Im ever so sorry that your island is now under water, but on the bright side China and India have developed. Its only fair you know. So China and India aren't allowed to develop, yet America and other western countries are allowed to continue to pollute the atmosphere at a much higher rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaggis Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Hell no, it's not like our western countries did that for hundreds of years! Thankyou. I'm glad someone can see the point I'm making. Danny, how you expect the developing world to adhere to the same conditions western countries should be adhering to is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Developing countries are still way behind developed countries in terms of pollution per person. (And yes that does matter, you can't criticise a country for being larger than another.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Hell no, it's not like our western countries did that for hundreds of years! We didn't have the knowledge/technology we do now back then. Just because we have a sketchy past, doesn't mean it's right for others to do it. Although for all I know they are making an effort to reduce their emissions. It's a global problem, and something that every country needs to act on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The fact that we screwed up doesn't give them a guilt free pass. Developing countries are now building their electrical infrastructure and have the knowledge of past experiences of developed countries to help them be more energy friendly. Its not ok for China to build coal plants like their mushrooms when NOW there's better alternatives to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Thankyou. I'm glad someone can see the point I'm making. Danny, how you expect the developing world to adhere to the same conditions western countries should be adhering to is beyond me. I can see your point. But its just not valid. What we did in the past and what other countrys are doing now are two totally different things. People used to do lots of things in the past that dosent mean they have a place in the modern world. Germany had a govenment that killed millions of Jews that dosent mean it would be ok for China or India to do it today. And advancing at a rate which is destroying the world is just the same. China and India ARE Going to be two of the most important countrys in the world in the future. If by being greener makes it take a few extra years they should just accept that. We cant change how we developed, but they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 (edited) It's not about halting anyone's development, it's about adjusting development to accommodate a much more ecologically viable solution which as I mention on the other page is MUCH easier to instigate in developing countries since they are prone to rapid change. In the long term it would benefit them anyway. What exactly do you mean by 'development' anyway? That's a pretty ethnocentric view as it is. Development isn't necessarily teleological. Edited May 19, 2009 by Daft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkjak Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 No way. You cannot expect developing countries to adhere to the same rules as already developed ones. That just wouldn't be fair, and just isn't feasible at all. How would you expect them to develop if they have to adhere to the same rules? It's just not possible. Western countries should be setting down the guidelines and abiding by them, and when countries such as China are at a level of development where they can cope with such guidelines, then they can and should be enforced. They HAVE TO follow the same guidelines as us. It's cheaper for them to do get it right from the beginning than to change later. Why let them have the same bad habbits that we do, and then when they become a big problem for the environment (and get life standards approacing our own) tell them to change at an enourmous economical expense? Why not teach them to be the way we wish we could be in a near future? Why not enable them to catch up to, or even outrun us? Being kind to the environment doesen't need to be expensive and it doesen't need to be bad to the local industries. You can be cheap and eco friendly and you can be cheap and the biggest environmental chriminal in the world. A Polish made Fiat 125 P cost about the same as an east German Trabant. Wanna know the fuel mileages? A Fiat consumed about as much as a western VW Golf, while Trabant consumed about as much as a Hummer H1! Why the F**K did the Trabant remain in production? TWO reasons: plan economy and people didn't really know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 They HAVE TO follow the same guidelines as us. It's cheaper for them to do get it right from the beginning than to change later. Why let them have the same bad habbits that we do, and then when they become a big problem for the environment (and get life standards approacing our own) tell them to change at an enourmous economical expense? Why not teach them to be the way we wish we could be in a near future? Why not enable them to catch up to, or even outrun us?Being kind to the environment doesen't need to be expensive and it doesen't need to be bad to the local industries. You can be cheap and eco friendly and you can be cheap and the biggest environmental chriminal in the world. A Polish made Fiat 125 P cost about the same as an east German Trabant. Wanna know the fuel mileages? A Fiat consumed about as much as a western VW Golf, while Trabant consumed about as much as a Hummer H1! Why the F**K did the Trabant remain in production? TWO reasons: plan economy and people didn't really know better. SOmeone who sepaks sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts