write a short debate that conservationists are better than developers
Answers
When we hear the word “heritage,” the first few images most likely to be visualized are of things, places, and structures frozen in their original grandeur. Ageless against time and unaffected by the change, “heritage” implies an agent of nostalgia that takes us back to the magnificence of what once was.
But what once was, was not always what has been. Our earliest ancestors, who date back to prehistory, did not yet have the tools to construct elaborate structures, nor had architectural design that evolved to levels of artistic acclaim. Functionality was their most urgent and frank intention. Our ancestors thrived using what they did have: the surrounding environment.
And that’s something we might not have for long.
As the human population exponentially increased, our needs have become more varied and needlessly complicated. One requirement that has not changed is that of our predisposition to explore the world. And as our collective imagination evolved, so did the possibilities the environment latently harbored.
The consequences of our fatal eagerness for change and apathy to long-term repercussions tinges every lunge towards development with suspicion. With the undeniable threat of environmental catastrophe, grabbing news headlines almost invariably, the environment has earned and deserves our sympathy. More and more people have begun advocating for its conservation, but opposing forces have also stalled these efforts.
Because in our current state, the world is permeated by grey areas. Pro-environment voices receive pro-development counterarguments. The cycle of weighing the pros and cons will go on indefinitely as we consider both sides — human and environment — of the equation, to find the balance that will allow us and our planet to prosper. But we can no longer ignore the impact we have on our environment when the effects of our intrusion into nature leap across every part of life.
A significant issue that plagues the Philippines is the state of our mining industry. Mining may even be considered the definitive mode of environmental exploitation. In the simplest terms, it is the extraction of natural resources. For all of its perceived promises of providing jobs, bolstering the working class, propelling technological advancements, and attaining economic prosperity, the industry’s astounding detractors far outweigh its benefits. Mining in the Philippines has been worrisome, with many mining corporations operating with illegal work permits that put even more pressure on our resources. This allows our abundance of untapped mineral resources to be extracted past approved standards since the movements of these illegal operations are not being monitored thoroughly enough for them to receive corresponding sanctions. Mining has also been shown to impede indigenous people’s rights to their lands and is responsible for displacing many communities from their home.
Recent reports have also released alarming statistics on the safety of environmental conservationists in the Philippines. We rank among one of the most dangerous countries to pursue a pro-environment agenda, which has undoubtedly stalled many ecological reforms.
The Philippines also hosts other environmentally sensitive issues, one being infrastructural development. A recent project that has met resistance from environmental groups is that of the NLEX road extension, which, unfortunately, includes the clearing of thousands of trees. While the environmental damage cannot be understated, we also have to ask if this is a necessary evil to commit. We have to evaluate the project’s promises and objectives, and if such a sacrifice is unavoidable, not only for the improvement of our transportation system and road infrastructure but for the lives of affected commuters. Do we gain anything from inflicting more cruelty upon the environment? It seems like a question with a single obvious answer, but the truth of the matter is that it isn’t the only question that needs to be raised.
If you had asked me this before, I would’ve been vehemently against the ongoing road construction, but insight from my environmental science professor challenged my perspective on it. The road extension’s purpose of reduced travel time is also accompanied by multiple ecological benefits that often elude public consciousness. When travel time is reduced, so do vehicular emissions, minimizing both atmospheric damage and even, respiratory health issues that can stem from the ingestion of toxic air particles. It might not seem very significant, but once the math is done, the numbers are telling.