• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

A "Cynical" Debate: Antarctic Exploitation

If you don't already know what a Cynical Debate is, check out the info here: https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=206703

Cynical Debate #2

Topic: Should the present ban on exploiting the resources of the Antarctic be maintained?
For a cynic, you sure seem to like to ask loaded questions. "Exploiting" is a loaded word, so you're biasing your question from the start.

Personally, I think it's a ridiculous ban. We need to preserve the ecosystem there, as it's one of the most amazing and scientifically interesting in the world, but simply banning the acquisition of resources isn't the way to do it. Surely with our technology, there's a "friendly" way to acquire these resources that doesn't disrupt the ecosystem.
 
For a cynic, you sure seem to like to ask loaded questions. "Exploiting" is a loaded word, so you're biasing your question from the start.

Personally, I think it's a ridiculous ban. We need to preserve the ecosystem there, as it's one of the most amazing and scientifically interesting in the world, but simply banning the acquisition of resources isn't the way to do it. Surely with our technology, there's a "friendly" way to acquire these resources that doesn't disrupt the ecosystem.

I'm just trying to get some serious debates up and running to prove to the admin that a "serious topics" forum or subforum would be popular. I also just love the debate. And also, if I'd used words like enterprise or capiatlisation instead of exploitation it would still have the same bias connotations. Thanks fo your input into the discussion.
 
I'm just trying to get some serious debates up and running to prove to the admin that a "serious topics" forum or subforum would be popular. I also just love the debate. And also, if I'd used words like enterprise or capiatlisation instead of exploitation it would still have the same bias connotations. Thanks fo your input into the discussion.
"Should the present ban on the acquisition of Antarctic resources be maintained?"

That question is unbiased.
 
Do we need the resources right now? As far as I'm aware, we do not, so I think it's best that we just leave it, at least for now. I like pretty environments as much as the next person, but I'm also fine with sacrificing the environment for our survival.

That said, if the ban was lifted, that would open up another can of worms about the questions of ownership.

the Antarctic Treaty freezes, and most states do not recognize, the land and maritime territorial claims made by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom (some overlapping) for three-fourths of the continent; the US and Russia reserve the right to make claims; no claims have been made in the sector between 90 degrees west and 150 degrees west; the International Whaling Commission created a sanctuary around the entire continent to deter catches by countries claiming to conduct scientific whaling; Australia has established a similar preserve in the waters around its territorial claim
From here.
Territory claims are barely recognised now - I doubt that will change once people start mining there.
 
No, its keeping nations from having valuable resources that could be used for God knows what. There could be many mysteries to the earth held there deep within the ice, and some life forms from the early years of the earth may be there perefectly preserved in the ice. We should harvest all we can.
 
For now. Since we all know that Antarctica is very rich in oils, fossils, food(I mean sea food), etc. we should reserve it for future times(or unless Russia and the Middle East ran out of oil...). The problem is, many nations will try to scavenge first if the ban were lifted. Notably US and Russia.
 
Yes, I think the ban should be kept as is. By the time we would actually "need" the resources available in the Antarctic we'll probably be a lot more organized all round and not need to take them. There's already a massive push to go green so when the oil has gone from every where else there won't be a great enough need to take it. On the fish side, fishermen, as I saw on a tv program the other day, throw away 50% of there catch because there isn't a great enough need for the lesser popular fishies. If this was more organized and we ate all of the fish caught we wouldn't ever need any more than we already have.
 
Back
Top