bad art is just that generally speaking there is very little, agreement on what constitute constitutes, bad art or good art or art, there are matters of imagination technical skill inventive form significance expression and a host of other things that are


part, of making a work of art, art, when an artist doesn't have, the thought or offer nothing meaningful to the viewer or is incredible or whatever the viewer is likely to find the art, bad


now I say this committed to the fact that artists can eat successful important and beautiful ways use crude or apparent


many adore, art there are views repetitively and very similar to a already established style art that is, regularism art that lack meaning art that is only there for the sake of being difference with no personality or art that shows a lack of self-awareness or


discipline that doesn't that don't adhere to the structure rules of what makes art good basically good art knows what is bad, art doesn't, okay if we can establish standard of some sort or another then we can never say that a work of art is magnificent


art try and fail is bad art, and that I suppose in the eyes of the beholder good that with recent resonate and work to engage the viewer into an experience one can always argue that it is subjective to the viewer


, history usually, weed out the best art from the rest time has a way of telling what stands the test of greatness often great art comes to light long after it is made and some of the celebrates pieces lose their place in popularity they just don't stand


the test of time, there is a place that can help you to put back up into perspective it is not just fill up or, ugly art or art that seems to have no points


so to me I strongly is saying that, art, I mean that err


can art be bad if everyone liked it or enjoy yes I think so because otherwise if art is good or bad, dependent entirely on how people react to it, so that is my viewpoint is that


art, there is no, I mean that to me that I think that err there is no, bad art ah, that's my conclusion, alright, what about err <P2>roy</P2> any


any view you want to add on, hello <P2>roy</P2> cannot hear


maybe to me I add on is that I think that, err, art sometimes it it might be people might err


err if if I, find that it it's bad because sometime it might uh, you don't have a proper guidance then the , bad influence to the young kids must they they don't understand what is to some people is a bad


art but, don't have a proper guidance to the youngster it might lead to a, err uh, bad growing up so, I find that err, to me I says that, there is a bad art


ya correct, ya correct ya but that's why I say


there is a bad art, art, but not really all are, bad art, must be selective so especially to the young generation and the younger age need a, err older, people to do the guidance the parents or whatever uh guidance so there is a bad


art uh surrounding us, okay err for instance like uh some just take as a painting okay the pen painting some


artist they like to draw naked photo naked picture so for me I find that's for a youngster if they don't understand what is called artistic or whatever they they might get a bad influence so this is what I said


there are some bad arts surrounding


err ya


or maybe, or maybe to me at my age the generation and your age there is a gap, to me I more to the oriental side and more traditional and my mindset is not really open to the west so to me I'm thinking maybe ah my


my mindset is more close to the eastern side so I find that naked photo uh maybe for a youngster maybe they should up to the maybe at a, older age then they is the proper age for them to to learn on this that's why I said to our generation maybe the the different of generation different view of the


art yes different generation yes yes yes


ya maybe it's also depend on the education for my education I'm grown in a more traditional family that's why my thinking is more conservative I'm not so open-minded


I think it's also it's is is different people have different kind of thinking to me I always think that there is a bad, art, is surrounding us that is my point my view of a point, ya


so maybe for you young generation you're growing in a different society that's why your mindset is different from my age , I am in in the in the in the uh maybe in the err


fifties years fifty so that's why, is more conservative ya


ya okay, uh, we have uh all different view alright , so err, it's all right I think my point is I still


, stand on, the point that, the bad art is, surrounding us alright


okay then what about you, yes sorry again


sorry again what's your question


stop I press the centre stop ah, there only one button only leh, so I just press ah, ya okay


ya, yes started already


ya no you so you saying so to me I I is saying that is yes ah, art are, irrelevant to ordinary


ah, so singaporean is known not err I mean that, only so that means that no singapore no singaporean kids is only know how to, study right so I'm uh the no right


ya just now you were saying that yes you say that singaporean appreciate the appeal right so I'm ya you saying that is yes lah to me I'm saying that it's no, because nowadays the kids they don't really appreciates the


the culture of this art, they only know how to uh play the computer then only how to do the study so they don't really appreciate on all these art, that's why that is my point that the art


art is going downwards, right, but to you you're saying that it is lah, correct or not


oh what I meant is that, nowadays the singaporean kids they are not really appreciate the art


so the majority most of them they, they always tends to, goes to the computer games, they going to play on the physical, on the game side they doesn't appreciate on the, art they


about aesthetic all this uh, uh not really, to them is important, so do you agree on this


ya lah that's why just now I saying that lah is all our culture is extreme ah focus on the max all these they always focus on all these thing so most of the people here they aim to become a engineer accountant banker doctor all these thing so that's why since they were young is have been drilled into the head that


they must be a good grade to become a to get a good job so, they always go to the study they didn't go to the the second subject like the aesthetic, they always focus on to get a good result


so lots of uh singaporean parents also, also forcing their child to get good grade they didn't, to uh balance their study if want to balance the study by right they should, err


to focus on more at, to uh bring them go for some, err aesthetic subject dance theatre to have some music, all this thing but nowadays our


as we find that the singaporeans, parents they are more interested in have, a, good grades study for their kids


of course there are some, of course there are some exceptions


to singaporean participate in the art but it is, it is uh it's due to the lack of importance, surrounding it, most singaporean who are passionate about the arts will often go abroad to either further their study or find a good job


since singapore doesn't have much to offer in the art industry, so there is a recognisable lack of art production in singapore so the art science in singapore could be enhanced by attracting international artists into the country and promoting


southeast asia art landscape, another issue could be the lack of public interest according to the, uh national art council survey, two O in two O one six only four in ten, singaporean expressed interest in art and culture event


however eight in ten singaporean acknowledged the value and benefit of engaging in art and culture, this issue and, either the art, industry will take times to dissolve and


to dissolve and have yet, to take root however the public address the importance of incorporating, up into our, into our society so art is starting to pick up in recent years with the country effort to be open and receptive towards arts


okay to me I find that , our, I find that our singapore, singapore, doesn't really appreciate art even that in the education side for instance like let's say ah, you see I'm from err


and I'm working in uh MOE so I can see that the they they didn't have these uh, periods err the subject, err much concentrate on the aesthetic subject


if you compare to uh western I can see that they are , they are they giving the student more teaching hour on aesthetic part our singapore the aesthetic, development for the student is don't seems to be increased


the , in one week the most they only had one session so one session usually is between uh thirty minutes, per week so I don't think so our government


really that trying to groom singaporeans to go in uh, to to go into this uh, err uh art, so aesthetics so I find that, our singaporean really don't really appreciate the art


ya no I still disagree I find that, our singaporean, they don't really have, we we don't have much like a theater we don't have, is you you can be count


I think it's less than, five less than ten you you don't really can see and any theatre surroundings in singapore so, the and and also that, it's not every time is be is being fully booked


and, for I'm in the MOE I uh can see that the students, is less, less than twenty percent of the student is really really keen because sometime these students they go to see the, err the performance of the arts


is always is, school called it as a compulsory if not they would not go so I find that ours singaporean young kids or even the parents sometimes we called they also not very supporting so


I find that, is it's very hard our singaporean really don't appreciate the, the art, alright so ah okay


okay yes okay


many ideas ideas that technologies, have been expressed through art that have advanced other fields for example without the artists such as #da vinci# study and drawing the anatomy of carnivores


and all the anatomical artists that follow medicine would not be what it is today, without the history of topic and thereby the study of how optical illusion is processed in the brain


so art therapies would not exist without art, architecture will be far more difficult now without the ability to design and draw, physiology philosophy would, suffer without art


history would suffer, without art object to refer to et cetera et cetera the list goes on and on as an artist the idea of not being able to produce anything at all is to silence say ideas thoughts and feel feelings


art is also a way to observe and understand the world, enjoyment of art, for the viewer is a way to cope with the, grind, of the day to day, art sure but still


important to society on the whole, if, you go to japan, err I mentioned japan because I think they are the most artistic people in the entire world they even find joys and art in making and drinking tea each and


every aspect of their lives are, some, forms of art, and I believe they respect that too as, in from breakfast to dinner, form food to straight from food to streets everywhere


where there are various forms art, even when our first people were drawing, in the campus of spain they did it to pass down knowledge they make those to, preserve their


s, assistance and so on, now yes some pieces of art, art is, definitely expensive and only of the rich, but there's also a reason behind it there's a story for another time


so bottom line is you don't need to have bundles of riches to be artistic, you don't even need to be very artsy and or super tendance to be an artist you need is love for life and things and imaginative mind to see things artistically


so there's no need to be a luxury, and not a necessity


cannot hear you <P2>roy</P2> I think you put to mute eh, ah, okay


to me I still insist that, art is not a luxury, and because I think that the art is important because we can make life more meaningful as a thing would be trained us more attentive then


, and we know the art is around us and and this is this is not unnecessary it is it is a necessity but is not a luxury


alright, right, so , I believe majority most of in our society most of them will take it uh, as a, err will take it as uh I mean that uh like to mitigate like to try to improve uh


a, err to have more social society more social uh, err, life and not take it like a a luxury so , it, you still


believe in that, err the art, is a luxury


I mean that if is certain, to me is I find that if, if in need you need to do you need to spend on it you will go for it, so if you think that it's important to you and you will go for it and you will not take it as a luxury


that is the view of point if, that certain, certain point of view that you, see you think that it is uh, important to you, definitely we don't take treat it as a luxury


ya


alright I agree with you because I have been, err many years ago I I I ever I travel to these italy and I visited Michelangelo, I think in the, the uh


the uh sistine chapel and the rest I find that, , the drawing of his work is fantastic, and to me I find that, , it's not a luxury if I can afford


to find his art, or picture I find that, in my lifetime I I will appreciate it and I'd like to have his picture in my house if I if I can afford but it's, it's very expensive so err to me I find that


on certain thing like this like like you said, it is an art of a picture of this Michelangelo is worth it to get it so to me I find that it's not a luxury if I can get that picture, so in different or art different value in my


to me it's different art different value yes


no no no that's why I say if it's up to the limit that I I can affordable and I'm still that, it to me I find that it's important but I will not, I will not, use up all my thing only my capability if I can afford to buy that is my additional


err collection I take it as a collection of these art additional, ya ya, err


, , no no a certain, certain art is, it's not a luxury your point you said that is a luxury to me I say that is not a luxury because I find that art, art that art to me that


it made my if I, have the the art, in display in my house it makes I my house is so, gorgeous and it's so nice you know so it become, and it it it it become not a luxury item in my house it become a important thing in my house


you know the view of point of this it become the picture is is an important thing to my house that I show it to all my friends my relative and if not become a luxury thing is a very important thing to show to the people


so this is a different point, you know ah


yes yes is it important is not err yes it is a need to me it's a necessity but is not, a, a luxury become that's why I say it can change different view and, different things, it will be it will change so I think this our subject okay I think that's it for our topic ya


okay


red right okay I try again, ya okay so the the app must be running the whole time lah oh shit okay okay


oh no because my information ah is everything is on the phone, ah oh boy ya , don't know , so I think can use the computer lah oh boy


alamak , so I'm supposed to be proposition


so I'm supposed to agree with that statement okay important to say, so , I feel it's important to and ah okay important to save the


plants and animal species which are in danger of extinction because , I think morally is right ah that you have to save the plant and animal species, ya plant and animal species is morally you have to save them


I I think one of the the reasons why uh it's important to save, plants and animals is uh, is the medicine, for instance like uh its particular drug, which was found in uh south america, uh which were happened to be the anti-malaria drug of choice until the nineteen forties


and because this plant is extinct, uh we're not able to find a a, of of your drug of choice ah, so if so similarly there are other plants


uh, which which can you know solve cure problems medical problems, so if at but at this point we do not know what the plants that you know so but if we allow them to go extinct, then we lose those resources forever you see that's where the problem is


this is in if if we manage to you know uh get the plant or find the animal and we somehow still managed still cannot manage to you know save them, but, what if, for instance uh in an area where, you know uh the plants we do not know of these plants


and you know we we do not look after the environment and subsequently these plants die of you know we never knew that, you know such resources will available to us, in that sense you know I'm saying, I I get what you mean if if if you know this uh it is bland you know the you may should get whatever resources we can you know that


and we manage to use them but what if for plants with which have no idea of it we we never know it existed in the first place, find the remote parts of the world where you know but rainforest just keeps burning and you know, all these endangered plants


dies off ya I mean for instance ah


ya but unfortunately I ya I again I mean but I'm I'm not sure whether we are using uh, uh, plants to to get medicines while we using uh synthetic means like you know chemicals and to to get medicine so


the source of the medicine might, might might might changed, from natural source to uh, to a more synthetic form


they expects is is you cost uh money to to uh save the tigers but there's also, uh tourism as well which the tigers can bring, as like at singapore zoo tiger the white tigers are the attractions


of the zoo so the revenue you know I mean from the tigers to bring in, so it could also balance of in that sense lah


actually why why do we need to, to have a priority between saving this over that, isn't it possible that we can save both instead of one


the one I was I was reading about is uh if a particular uh and the just species go extinct, uh, the other animals uh, will will increase in numbers, so so for instance like uh


uh uh, I'm not sure about tigers lah in general but if I uh I know if the the predators uh are extinct then, ya then the , that the the other rodents and all this ya


bacteria, bacteria carrying animals, unwanted animals will grow in numbers, references they did a survey in kenya that uh the absence of large animals zebras giraffes and elephants impacts the ecosystem


such as of of the observed that the rodents uh you know grew in numbers were overwhelming and that became a bigger problem in fact,


ya so the the the animals and the large animals and you know the the rodent the the rodent populations is kept in check by these larger animals like cats for instance even cats they have been putting down the last, I got how many years ago that too many cats they put down all those cats and they put all those cats you see the rise of uh you know


because they don't want singapore doesn't want too many cats, so when there're too many cats around you don't find rats around but when they you know the, countries saw there were too the government saw too many cats, and you put down you know so many cats just to control the cat population


you see the rise of rodents and all this stuff, so they has to has to be a balance of things ah I mean ya so in this case coming back to this so the extinction of large animals which usually go extinct, might create a problem with you know


the pest coming in ah, if there's a balance ya, ya so there's a balance of things if the larger animals you know, we can sort of save them


the rhinoceros the tigers and all that that that will keep they you know, there'll be balance of the eco ecosystem


ya ya ya that's what you say is true is selective lah so no no rodents I we don't intend to save them for somehow they seem to be resilient and seem to grow in numbers ah


but then because the dinosaur has already be extinct I think the the fear that we do not want the situation where you know, where our where are we may our children in in the future to think that you know or uh you know that we haven't done enough


that couldn't we have done more to save for instance tigers, so you know in that sense I think this current generation one they trying their best to you know not be the culprit lah where you know the future generation will start blaming this particular generation or shouldn't you have done more to save the tigers


so I think that's where you know the the population admitted the world at large wants to uh, try to save these animals, so the pandas the you know the rhinoceros and all that so do you want that them to be another dinosaurs ah


did I know the cost and all that you you know it it it it takes to to to preserve and all that stuff but I think, I don't know morally or you know we just want to keep them for you know


so that everyone else knows that you know, the dinosaurs and all these guys have been saved that


so uh environmental concerns and economic growth cannot coexist, I'm supposed to agree this with this statement right, that it cannot coexist sia


cannot coexist, wait ah cannot coexist, so I'm looking at coexist because, uh


whenever you have economic growth, it will affect the environment, I think it's easier to to have economic growth like cutting down of trees, uh, that is what we've been doing all along, uh which which which which


which in that sense uh has economy environmental problems sia, so if you want to have economic growth, uh, you you, have environment will suffer as as a result


the thing now for instance I mean singapore I think is doing doing a pretty good job both uh combining both of them economic growth and uh and environmental environment friendly place, but places like china where it is uh power hungry the the the the population is growing in numbers and then india as as as well lah


uh, it's very hard because you need to have a lot of energy if I mean if since because the population is growing they need more and more energy resources and the country is country country is growing as well, so because of that the carbon carbon footprint increases as well, so they need to have more power stations


and that if it's you know that chinese uh the the the air, it's getting from bad to worse, ya ya so it's it's not really possible in china I don't know somehow the, uh, ya is is affecting the environment over in china I think maybe in other parts of the world as well india as well


where that where the country is growing


I think there's a imbalance ah that's why the world is you know is lopsided now, so because they're developing economies are not exactly concern with the environment, uh, and the consumption of natural resources I think we are more focused on on trying to uh


develop the economy


but the if the government is being, uh remunerated for, for the growth in GDP, the government will, will have will will will be focusing more on, uh


economic growth than the environment and then the environment, so because they, uh, since they are paid that way, they do not really there's a reason why you know most countries are not really bothered about, uh


the the uh environment, they're more concerned about economic growth at the expense of, the environment, only the scandinavian countries, singapore and you know few other countries uh you know trying to make a balance trying to achieve a balance but most other countries like china even US now


don't really bothered by environment, because it takes cost it costs a lot of money to you know to to to switch to other other sources, when you know when when you can just you know use whatever they've been doing now


or increase a number of power stations for instance, instead of you know resorting to you know something like it ah I don't know ah green energy and something cleanest the cleaner source, it's gonna to cost a lot of money I I don't think we getting enough energy from it


the only viable source at this point is nuclear, and nuclear as you know it's ya uh dangerous in that sense so it's a bit it's a bit that of the tough balance ah so if given a choice I I think government is going to go for economic growth


I think push the push the the the environment questions to the next generation maybe, but I don't think so you know it seems like you know humans is such that they they are more you know driven to success on their mind that makes big house and makes big car


so unfortunately the environment has to suffer for it lah, so I don't think it's possible to coexist ah, I mean although ideally everyone likes to you know, likes it to be you know to to to be in harmony but


in reality everything is possible,


references if there like if back in the eighties and nineties if, they had done here, done efforts to to make it, uh, to to to have you know to put environment concerns in the upfront and the forefront of it and it have a balance of it we wouldn't have this


problem now itself the reason why we having problems now is is because, eighties and nineties everyone will just you know trying to have economic growth at that expense of, the environment


this we having this problem because of ya we haven't been done doing anything, in fact the environment that we keen the environment at the expense of, economic growth, for instance the cars uh the number there're one point three two billion cars apparently


and buses and trucks in two thousand and sixteen where any only zero point zero seven of them were electric, so that tells you that you know, I don't think we are going in the right direction


but even earth day you mentioned that how many how many of us I mean truly ya try our best to observe, oh they even earth day itself I think many of us just ignore the whole thing, carry on business as as as usual


yet the changes made ya I mean you said that fewer I mean the people are starting to be more aware and all that, ah to suture but I think culturally we are not, uh, and they are still not there yet is it not not everyone is on board with the idea of saving earth


there's probably only a few you know a few of them who is trying their best to save the earth where whereas the majority of us are just trying to you know, uh, carry on life as as usual, so I don't think that's, that's you know most of us at you know just


trying to go for economic growth instead of you know, of saving the environment it is a small number that is, trying their best to save the environment which I don't think it's it's possible, where majority of of us are if trying to for economic way for economic growth even governments as well like you know china they want to build the next


uh they want to you know the expansion plans you know that they need more and more energy resources, so if you see that the country itself they are losing, they need more resources you know trees are villagers and all that trees are being chopped off to replace with uh mega cities


so and then the rich the rich the chinese are were getting wealthier will want to have you know bigger houses and all that, so that is expense of so china you know like, fifty years ago and china now has has gone through drastic changes


and so as a result if you see that the even if you said that, uh earlier point you mention about the the, people are dying I mean, china and you know the other developing developed countries know that people are getting health problems, but the government still is going ahead with it


at the expense of it just like singapore, like uh in the west in the all the islands we have the jurong island where all the refineries are going on I heard people in the west side you know they I don't know how far is true but it says that you know they are more susceptible to uh to to to breathing problems because the air over there is not exactly clean the government knows about it but


you know you don't have a choice you see when government wants to grow when government wants to get into this oil and gas industry, and so if they went to west side you know folks you know uh suffer from, health problems like asthma the government just you know


if you just still go ahead because it's there's no choice they want economic growth, so as much as possible they try to you know, mitigate the the effects and the risk of it but, you still have to go ahead with it


there was even talk of having a a nuclear plant in singapore, but that was I think not wasn't feasible will stay with that found out then was dropped, but, I mean the end of the day they still want it economic growth it's still looking at energy resources I mean if for countries to grow in numbers


we need more we need more energy so where we're going to get more energy from (ppc) be it the be it more power stations you know, if you gonna grow our population you need all those you see, so that has to something has to give way and only way something is gonna give in is the energy the environment lah


when more power stations of course the the air, the air gonna be poorer air quality will be poorer, so it's quite a tough balance I don't think it's, doable ah I feel


is it possible to protect the environment when many countries


require increasing amounts of, ya everyone okay, ya I think is


similar to the previous one, I don't think it's possible to protect the environment, uh, because uh, ya I'm supposed to agree


is it possible to protect the environment so I'm, suppose to say oh I'm supposed to switch side now holy cow


oh my goodness , I'm gonna lie say yes it's possible to protect the environment


but actually tech, you actually you can do it if by technological advancement


uh I mean they've got cleaner sources like solar and nuclear, the problem is not much efforts have been uh going on, to to uh, to see the benefits of it and nuclear is a very good source


it has a very little carbon uh footprint, the problem is uh of of accidents which which might occur, so if if if we I think if you put more resources into cleaner source uh I mean solar they've been going on for so long but I am not sure whether it is really viable unless


more research has to be done I mean they are seeing like you know, solar panels is in on top of a lot of the buildings and all that, but how much of it, at what costs uh it still it still is, still debatable lah


but I think nuclear is the way to go because it it brings a lot of energy, but I think we still need to do a lot to prevent accidents from happening I know the bigger countries are looking at at at nuclear even singapore as well


but I think nuclear is a good alternative source, if we can prevent it from accidents from happening, because it doesn't have it doesn't produce carbon much carbon footprint, so it's actually a good source usually a lot countries are looking at nuclear the only problem is


how do we make it safe, so safe that you know we do not have accidents if we can prevent accidents when happening I think I think we have, I think we it was you have a good chance of uh protecting the environment


while the same time increasing their mass energy to progress


the I think now the government is pushing for reducing uh food waste, and to have err recycling and all these efforts, are, shows that we are trying to at least reduce the amount of energy we use instead of


I mean we're going to increase the amount of energy but is with all these efforts we probably might not need as much energy if we do not need as much energy, it is as a result we can save the environment


(hmm)


but in the case of plastics I think the we're trying to reduce the usage of plastics, not entirely but I think we're making progress in the area I mean is if they did not, using straws I think plastic bags are not been issued as well, so I think we're trying to reduce the plastic usage ah


I like the I there was a point about uh cleaner cars electrical cars used until now if I think they're more electrical cars driven on the road, there're more stations for them to be to charge them and all that so I think I think in in in other countries they the more developed countries like china and US I think there's a big push to developing uh of creating


electric cars, I think with, going forward and you can you know brand it, brand it nicely I think, the electric cars will be the thing of the future


ya that's true but you use, , I think ya it's through electricity right


but I think the government is trying to like for instanceto singapore government we are known as a garden city because we're building a lot of trees and all this, so is to so hopefully to lower our carbon footprint, and to protect the environment and air that we breathe as well


I think kids of these days uh in schools they are learning about uh the environment and how to save so hopefully you know they're trying to inculcate that the culture


of you know environment comes first, so hopefully when they are adults they have that mindset, of protecting the environment the environment is important, to save


so like kids of this uh generation if the younger kids you notice they always talk about how can we protect the environment so if if you noticed that they are actually very keen in in their recycling projects and all these, and schools are pushing very hard in all these


so I think maybe not in our generation but the next generation a generation after I think, we have we were able to uh protect the environment, while the same time ya maybe we are no need as much


I think we are trying to, I think at the moment we are trying to reduce it reduce the amount of energy be used so that's why we have earth day and all these to reduce the, the the energy usage then subsequently you know if you can reduce enough and we get more of those trees being planted and all these


then I think we can receive you know we can we can safely say that we can protecting the environment, so I think we have to work towards uh reducing the energy that's what I think that's what the government is trying to do the earth day and all these, uh measures are taken to reduce the amount of energy


there we can have a balance of it


I know of countries like uh like peru and all that they actually are, charge people, uh who actually pollute the who pollute the, so and so if you have uh I don't know draconian laws like this


then maybe it's possible, but only a few countries are doing it like peru, uh tunisia I think they have those as well, but, ya if if if I think I think this this this period of time the COVID


nineteen period I think everyone is realising how, uh you know how nice it is to to have a uh a nicer environment a cleaner cleaner environment so I I'm, hoping that you know over time after this I'm not sure this COVID will even go away because there are other germs and diseases which will come around


so everyone is you know is cautious about about, uh about, uh I don't think I don't I don't think the economy will really open up and and but not need as much energy, as previously we talked of, so because of that uh the environment you know can could be saved as well could be protected


I I went by the old school I wrote on paper, ,


okay uh the seriously okay as an opposition I, disagree I mean I would say it's important but it's not important enough uh, daily okay daily if I were to ask anybody right have you ever thought about saving plants animal species from extinction I will tell you that it never come across the line


and , normally okay normally plants and animals species they extinct also because of the of uh human intervention and also it's also because of human intervention we would have a limitation on the this the extinction


but then again they extinct for reason and uh it's also because of survival of fittest and uh evolution, uh animals have certain I mean animals and plants those survive they will be lasting for a long time and and those that doesn't uh then they will get extinct and those that survived actually they will evolve to something to something uh greater or better in order to survive the later on or the years


so uh how important I I disagree about it being important uh but of course uh it will still be something in the people's lists of consideration to to save them from extinction


I as compared to if I want to do a comparison uh saving human is is more important than saving plants and animal species ah


okay


but the with advancement of technology if you talk about losing them forever we have our archival methods to I mean, to so called uh, uh preserve this uh maybe the DNA or the sample the cells or this uh


of these animals or plant species, so as long as that part if they have done that at least, uh even if let's say if they're extinct people uh can still go and dig up all this archive to to do the study and uh ya with technology I believe uh it still as possible to preserve this uh even though these animals or plants have extinct


(uh huh) okay cause uh I think I read somewhere that uh there's really like uh, millions of species out there research is still ongoing everyday is they still discovering new species


so and we how do I say ah uh as time goes on some of these species will evolve you see so I for for all you know there are those so called extinct species but actually they have evolved into something new


so evolution comes into place and those that extinct that's why we have historians, uh what called it uh archival uh, groups departments organisations out there that still keeps all this the museums so in that sense I feel that uh


I mean it's not that important I feel is to to save them it's it's more about uh retrieving these species, before their extinction at least so that you can have that preserved data and then uh with as technology advances uh


you know like those uh if maybe I watched too many sci-fi show they use just some small cell sample and then they manage to create something, so, and then they may make something new in order to combat, uh the modern uh modern let's say modern diseases cause even medicine also it has to evolve uh


uh of course they still the basis but it has to evolve uh with the time as well like certain medicine will not work with uh our current diseases now it has to be improvised in order to meet, the the diseases that we are facing uh in the world now if you are saying that we need know what is important to save them uh for medicine purpose even medicine is evolving


because uh in terms of extinction if you notice also there's no way to


to really stopped an extinction as time goes by unless uh there's really a lot of intervention into it and and usually the intervention alone is, even too costly or too much cause just to have that intervention I I don't know if you've heard about the there's this a global tiger recovery programme


uh it mentioned something like uh, it takes about hundred to two hundred million per year for next ten years to save tigers, one hundred to two hundred million dollars per year uh when you think about one hundred to two hundred million dollars per year to save the tigers your your thinking would be okay between saving my animal species plant species and human species


you might want to channel more of your resources to the human species uh and in fact, I mean for most uh every everybody's day to day life they don't really think so much about uh okay I need to save they will think about maybe ways to


generate or find alternative ways so that we don't end up using these animal species or kill out these animal species maybe they find alternative ways instead, so I ya it's just uh that's what I feel it's also


it's not really uh I mean it's something that we don't think off hand important that or I need to uh save plant and animals fishes in danger of extinction we but of course there are groups out there doing that so ya


okay (mmhmm), but uh ya with uh recording a video and and currently with COVID the the tigers are not bringing much for tourism but of course uh on video people will still go and find out uh actually videos


all those helps to preserve some of these data as well oh then of course collection of actual specimen ah but, still , !aiyo! if I'm going to compare saving plant and animal species from extinction versus uh saving our human species


human that would have a higher weightage I mean I feel that way ah it I feel that it it has a higher weightage if I'm going to compare between let say human to saving plant and animal species


ya even if you say save both right there's still one of them that is going to weigh more than the other one of them is still going to weigh have it have more importance over the other of course


we are supposed to what uh treasure or or uh, or save lives living things wherever possible but there are certain things that we just, is not beyond or or just beyond our ability or capabilities to to do the saving


so ya and uh with a survival of the fittest evolution or eventually if those that need to be extinct it will still extinct, uh but we have archival departments to make reference or or ya make reference to those uh extinct species and then maybe they were observe something similar in the current uh evolve species or studies


they can introduce introduce cats , , , I I I were I think I've ever read before uh what uh uh what it called rat burgers or something oh my gosh


so, I hope I don't come to a time where I have to try such thing


but uh ya okay oh sorry eh continue


okay but uh again because we are talking about saving plant and animal species uh I would say from from here I said it's more of selectives selective already because uh there are some animal species that you


may or may not want to keep in this world because we have animal species that are considered pests, uh would you want to uh save them from a danger of extinction as well


even for plant species there are those uh oh okay poisonous plants currently plants to some extent we want to have them save as well I mean by right uh we should be saving all the species but, uh in in reality it's difficult to to save all it's going to be selective and that's where we will see that


is a important and not important to some extent, in fact I I would say if you want to save specific or certain species for maybe medicinal uh purpose, perhaps but even then uh with technology now we as long as you can uh do the DNA coding you can uh uh do the uh genetic analysis


with current technology now we would be able to synthesise them even if it synthetic , it is needed for the future now because the future is going in that direction we, go into direction of AI we're go into direction to uh virtual reality


everything so, uh eventually some of this uh species if they cannot uh survive with the evolution of time it will still get extinct and it's just on our end to preserve maybe the data or archive it and do the study further later on when even when they're not around anymore


oh I ya my standpoint is still uh it's not not important like ya some activists will be against this uh standpoint uh because I if usually when you want to talk about importance we would also


I mean we would also compare against something normally how important or uh compared to what ya so how important it compared to what so, ya if I if when I looked at this uh I won't


it doesn't come immediately in my mind to think about saving the plant and animal species from extinction, and is more about preserving their species or uh getting the data at least in that way we are preserving them from extinction even though the actual thing have probably died off ya


okay is it despite not having dinosaurs now we still remember the dinosaurs so seriously actually you you are saying the dinosaurs have extinct uh yes they've extinct in real life uh on in in reality but


people still as long as they had actually gotten some of the data preserved or when they do mining they got those information they can actually uh so called regenerate we have jurassic park so


as for how do I say ah, ya uh basically in terms of resources to to actually channel a lot of resources through saving plant and animal species from the danger of extinction, it's a kind of uh it's kind of uh what you call that if I'm


going to go back to comparing what is even more important uh about our human uh civilisation and our own, species I would want to channel that resources there


okay (hmm) I I I kind of disagree with that actually uh, we can have both of them coexisting because uh okay economic growth actually would how do I say ah you will have


for when you have greater economic growth actually, there's even more room for improvement and uh ways to handle with uh environmental uh concerns like for example you have uh those uh organisation that goes into solar power or wind power generation to generate in the energy to generate energy


and uh these are actually uh considered uh, and more uh so called, environmental friendly because we are not uh going out to cut trees or what we are using the the resources that uh already available like wind and sun so this is actually actually uh useful for the uh for the country uh to have this kind of economic growth in this sense


uh of course not all uh economic growth, would or would have uh in this case this economic growth is actually having a positive impact on the environment, so I would say they can coexist uh it's all it's about balancing uh


balancing and and then now we have uh companies having this , uh something about the sustainability, uh what they are doing to in order to to make the company more sustainable uh and not be a environmentally damaging so they they have this uh equal equal part of the


of the uh company where they have to fulfil as well, because they know about the impact so I I don't see why they cannot coexist they, they can coexist but maybe probably one would get again it goes back to a weightage whether one would be


of a higher weightage as compared to the other but they can coexist,


okay but I guess is more towards the city state's or the those states right is highly or densely populated uh but then again actually things can be done or government can actually uh cause a lot is also on the government intervention


to to balance these two out uh about environment and the economic because uh these two actually uh it will affect each other actually cause if the environment is not good then uh it will also affect the economy people may not


want to go there and so if they are going to think about economic growth they also need to think about uh how is impact, on the environment uh were what you call that (hmm) will not have, this negative impact back on the economic growth so actually this two has to coexist in order to for for both the progress


and what still uh if you are going to develop the economy because like for example the resources in order for them to have the economic growth right is still from the environment, the resources so if if they are if they don't care about the environment eventually


the environment will have the negative impact on their economic growth and then they will be forced to look into doing something in order to improve or balance out the environmental effects of from the economic growth that they are trying to I mean to develop for their countries


so like I mean right now actually with this uh COVID situation we see a lot of a lot more environmental concern and awareness about it, uh and of course the economic is also affected


uh and uh and because of this they've been made to also what you call that I take a step back and have a look at okay oh what can I do to to because the economic growth is now still in a stand still, uh I mean not stand still but it's like a reduced in their growth because of the pandemic now


and that also uh make them because of the slow down they also have more time to consider the environmental impact that the economic growth has on the environment and how is also impacting the humans or everyone in general


so they can coexist uh, but of course uh if we need to have uh I mean, the government intervention would matter a lot uh the people behind the government as well so they can coexist I won't say that one one can exist and the other cannot both has to coexist because they have some inter-dependence on one another on each other


well we have the activist groups they, , the activist groups help to create awareness and uh, push the push the button to the government to do some intervention, because eventually if let's say if our environment suffers right the people will suffer and the people who drives the economic growth if they're suffering and they're dying the economic growth is going to uh go down downhill


so, there there there must be some balance so therefore these two have to coexist somehow, and uh find ways to, balance things out so maybe at one point of time we have economic growth with environmental environment uh suffering and then at another point of time your environment is going to prosper really well and then your economic


growth will suffer but eventually I mean they still have to coexist together uh because there's a there's a there's some uh interdependence between these two ya if one suffers the and the other uh I'm very sure the activist groups out there or


uh people out there that's going to create the awareness, to bring about the the the balance or some form of balance so so to that extent I have be I have feel that these two uh can coexist and uh they are going to coexist for a long long time as long as we are


as long as you are alive ya correct


but we are seeing more electric cars coming out uh there there are more conversion of a a friendlier so called a fuel for the or petrol for the for the vehicles


there's some uh solar powered cars as well a rechargeable battery so uh, I I believe there is a a way that amount I mean uh humans are innovative creative in their mind and they will when when their what you call that when their lives are being threatened even with economic growth if they were


fall back to some environmental concerns so we have uh, uh we have earth day okay earth day despite earth day, people switching off lights and all that uh businesses are still continuing uh so the ya economy is still running but is uh at the same time ya reducing our impact on the environment


so uh, these two I think recently also the government has been pushing a lot of uh awareness in terms of uh food and items wastage so this all uh actually have impact


on the environment and uh and I believe these two will have to coexist no matter what because uh one of them is going to affect the other uh likewise the other one will affect uh the first one


, what well uh they say even if there's one person doing it is better than none !aiyo! I but I believe now with the awareness of earth day there are more people actually observing earth day actually there are more people uh going out to camp in the


dark and uh having the natural moonlight uh to !oops! to, ya to !oops! oh dear the sorry the appen has stopped I don't know so is ah ya correct


yes the computer uh recording is still running so do I do I don't, oh okay so ya


why was I on the earth day ya ya uh


but uh but I won't say that the government uh uh because they have not abandoned the what you call it the concern for environment the fact that let's say for example now NEA is what giving out seeds


for for people to plant to have their own plants or to plant their own uh uh sustainable food so in a way actually they are looking into the environment concern despite the economic growth, in fact now with the economic growth slowing down uh they have they have this uh so called uh space of time to to to think about the environmental effects


and actually like this pandemic actually it it did uh make people realised that now with less people going out uh with uh with all these uh with telecommunicating and all that you you have uh less pollution to the environment


and economic will still have to continue so these two can coexist it's not that they can't coexist uh eventually it's still about trying to find a good balance between the two


okay


but you're doing on the agreeing side right so, now you are switching sides


okay but uh ya uh, is it possible K since I have to disagree and go against what everyone's doing so it's not possible because like uh like what you mention about the accident so uh accidents can happen anytime unaware uh without you knowing


it can happen so, like the nuclear in Fukushima for example uh there's no way to protect the environment when that happened, it infected the the marine life uh it infected the livelihoods and the lives of people around there uh of course some of them mutated we will show on to know cause a nuclear energy uh uh has has been known to cause mutation


so, it's not possible to protect it uh ah unintentionally accidentally something will happen and uh the environment will be negatively affected


so uh and uh populations are growing regardless so the increasing amount of energy the government definitely will will the pump or find ways to get even more energy, and uh just to count on uh so called a environmental friendly sources like uh wind energy solar energy is not enough oh uh


nuclear energy actually is uh I feel it's not so environmental friendly well of course it generates a lot of energy but to protect the environment is as difficult that there's definitely there's definitely uh impact on their environment uh


negative one and ya so that one is uh unavoidable so it's it's not possible to protect the environment when when we have many countries requiring all these increasing amount of energy, even the slow growing countries they need a lot of an energy to to to maintain the sustainability in the country


so ya


but it's about preventing the accident so basically accident will happen is uh whether the how do I said the frequency of the accident, because uh we we will never know when an accident will happen


and uh you know like the case of the Chernobyl uh nuclear uh breakdown that one that that whole area is affected until like nobody it be it becomes a non inhabitable no nobody can uh stay anymore in that area


because it's so badly affected uh Fukushima at least they're still trying their, best to to what you call that uh bring up that uh area so that people can still live but even then also people are scared to go and live back in Fukushima in the near the nuclear areas zone


because uh the impact is just like the Hiroshima nuclear bomb uh it takes a long time, to to to so, got uh bring back uh parts of the environment we could not even get back the original environment uh and for some cases like Chernobyl is a totally abandoned the area is no longer a place people would want to go and stay so


is a is a not possible to protect the environment uh we uh no matter what as long as uh as long as they say assume lah as long as uh we are alive definitely the environment will be impacted you can't protect it or all the time


uh and uh ya if one tries to protect there's definitely another that will impact affect the environment


but that goes back to the citizens , do you know the amount of uh rubbish found in the in the recycling bins for example that makes the things that is recyclable non-recyclable and they end up having to be burned uh and


uh at least they actually make good use of the burnt uh rubbish to be forming part of an island Semakau island, so that is that is one amazing thing I found from singapore that they actually use all this burned rubbish and put it uh as part of making an island


but then that part of making the island itself that space is also uh limited I think by uh in another twenty to thirty years there's no more, there's no more space to put all those uh or what you called burned rubbish to uh the landfill for this


so, if you want to say protect the environment we still we can't really protect the environment it's, of course the burning itself also there's the air pollution coming out uh


what you call that when we try to recycle certain things uh certain recycling will also cause some fumes to be emitted out, when they do when they try to maybe dissolve it or to make it into some like some plus like for example when they want to melt the plastics


there're some fumes that is being emitted out is going to the environment and you can't truly protect the environment in that case


uh yes and I've heard I'm not sure if you have heard about selective empathy like uh they say ya people are reducing straws what about the other plastics people are not reducing the other plastics they still and we are and we are totally dependent on plastics I for one I admit I am


relatively dependent on plastics, and when and then we have things like food uh food rescue and food waste uh item rescue and item waste when whenever we do some of this rescue we also use plastics so it's a it's not how they say ah plastics


we still need them even though is causing the uh negative impact on the environment so how are we going to uh find ways to channel this then or to reduce the negative impact so uh we can only reduce it but to protect the environment itself


uh it's unavoidable it's definitely going to be impacted or affected in negatively


okay but even electric cars uh needs a lot of energy to to run and how to get the energy, ya so so eventually you still you you can't truly protect the environment uh you it can reduce the negative impact on the environment and the environment itself uh actually will find


or ways to to heal itself is just like what we are facing now with the pandemic probably is the the earth's way to heal itself , and reduce human activities uh to reduce its impact on it


so to protect it it's not possible to reduce the negative impact uh with increasing amounts of energy required by the people uh yes we can, probably reduce it, but protection now uh it's just not possible whatever whatever we do definitely there's some impact to environment


even our breathing even or like people who are smoking that there's already an impact on the environment


but still even when they plant a lot more trees, it doesn't stop the people from having uh vehicles or ya people are still going to continue with uh their ways of getting more energy to progress forward


(ppc), so it's difficult to protect the environment I won't say ya it's you can only reduced it


, (ppc) uh, I think most of us uh I would say ya almost all of us will not


think of environmental environment first we will think of convenience first then when you come to convenience (ppc) you will go into using a lot more energy and the environment becomes secondary


so ya I mean like uh even using okay right now if you look at , like our our current current household or your generation now the they're using


a lot of energy you see the number of uh electrical appliances in your house you probably will have more than ten that would require energy even the fans the laptops the computers the handphone the TV the kettle the microwave oven the fridge the washing machine is


all requiring energy and with modernisation even more energy is required with technology and digitalisation even more energy is required, and uh would you be able to protect the environment uh I


I don't think so we can't protect the environment uh we can only reduce the impact


you know but to achieve that balance , it's going to be a very it's going to be it's definitely a life a lifetime kind of task uh again


either way it still not going to protect the environment it's still going to have impacts on the environment whether we can get more positive impact on the environment rather than negative impact, so


ya and with our increasing population and government is encouraging us to increase population so, we and then different countries their needs are different and uh and also okay with technology actually


some countries with technology manage to reduce the the need for increasing amounts of energy maybe they find some better way for cleaner greener energy, but still uh despite all this right you will see that there will be impact on the environment it's not gonna to protect the environment or the environment will still have to suffer at our expense


and ya I know there's a concern for the new generation that's coming up that's why the new generation is, uh so called forced into looking into this uh but they know also that it's difficult to protect the environment because of the the needs the the needs that we have and and the conveniences that we want as time progresses


okay


alright so I'll just continue from there so the proposition actually stated that the cure for malaria comes from a tree if I'm not wrong but uh if I might ask what has started malaria in the first place wasn't it an actual animal species wasn't it a mosquito so in that case do we not have a line the drives through both


a positive variation of an animal species and we do obviously have a negative variation of a uh of an animal species how often is it that we actually look at at an animal in fact looked at lizards we look at cockroaches and we just think why you guys even here so we do have a very different perspective when it comes to various animals and when that is being said


do we not have a different approach with them in the first place why are we trying to have uh all uh all hail all animal kind of, uh an approach when in the end of the day we do have our own biases towards any animals and secondly when you look at ecosystems being the very organism or being the very organics that carries on the human behaviour or the human life and as stated by the proposition


the ecosystems are the ones that are actually helping us live a best life, do we see ourselves or do we find ourselves being, beside an ecosystem do we find ourselves being beside an active ecosystem only because it's been there since it's the test of time since it's been there since the start of time but rather it has actually been there because we have made an effort to do so it hasn't been there because we've gone and you know made ourselves stay beside it


it's been there only because our government and various bodies have tried and you know tried yet and yet again to actually build themselves up , and they've actually tried to put them over there , so that being said let us come back to uh my topic which is it is not important to save plant and animal species


now if a species going extinct is the biggest concern there are always alternatives to all of these species we're even finding many scientists is, finding ways to bring back uh you know extinct species and finding ways to bring them back from the life so first thing what they do is they look at existing animal species and see if there are any similarities also very close symbolisms that can be brought back to life


and at that point of time what we have to ask ourselves is if there are alternatives to extinct species, won't we be won't we be finding another alternative for which are going to be extinct in the future, so for example we are always going to be able to find replacements for the same


according to a new study published by the journal nature ecology and evolution after analysing the populations of more than three hundred and thirty thousand seed bearing plants around the world , the study authors have found that three plant species have gone extinct on earth every year since the nineteen hundreds this is a rate that roughly five hundred times higher than the natural extinction rate for those types of plants


so if we're going to find plants getting extinct at such high rates do we want to cheat ourselves in believing that that anything they were going to do is going to help all these plants so once again I would like to reiterate it is not important to save plant and animal species and we should just let them be the way they are


alright so uh it was indeed a very good point where the grey whales extinction almost uh close to extinction the yellowstone uh national park was uh you know it led inadvertently towards uh the rise of beavers and so on and so forth


but let's look at humans uh at a larger picture are we still the hunter gatherers that we were once are we still the people who have been you know eating out of the lakes by fishing by ourselves are we doing everything that we had been doing as our ancestors had , we have modernised ourselves we have actually proven that we have no need of the ecosystem so far we're able to create every single gas there is we're able to create very likely or very similar uh elements that are actually enough for us to you know survive for many more years to come


so the question that arises out of all of this is is it really really important to save plant and animal species now the ecosystem being uh an all holistic and a wholesome environment for humans to live in it's it's really a very beautiful day yes it sounds very very delight but at the end of the day are we going to go for that


no we would prefer being in our flats we would prefer being in our high rise buildings we are still living in a very beautiful life where we go to the supermarket and we get fish, now if we were to go and you know condemn or condemn the people who actually hunted grey wolves once upon a time grey wolves were hunted for their fur because we needed uh you know a shelter to stay in we needed


clothes to be comfortable in the winters so they were hunted so why was it right then and why is it wrong now when grey wolves are being hunted for the sport does it matter than we had been doing it uh for survival then and does it matter that we are doing it for fun now at the end of the day, they were never important we had a use for them one way or another for our own benefits now if you're going to say that it's selfish then again survival of the fittest wasn't it the animal kingdom or wasn't it humans in the beginning that actually had uh put to uh that that phrase to uh act


and if you are going to continue saving these plants and animal species we're in fact going to go against a natural proceedings of the world now give me a listen for example if an animal or a plant species is capable of evolving their way of life according to their changing surroundings which is what evolution is based about


survival of the fittest was the mantra of their animal kingdom and of our entire ecology as a matter of fact, they will be able to survive regardless of whether we help them or not and if they are unable to survive at the end of the day the weakest link is kept out of the chain isn't that all that is that matter why are we trying to actively play a part or why we trying actively to disrupt the ecology that they are having at the end of the day if they're able to save themselves


let them save themselves humans need not have, uh an opinion or humans need not have, an extra say in that is what I believe in


alright so if I might just clarify for us to actually understand about uh animals or plant species we would have, have to, bring them into studies so for example if we were in a led if I and uh you and I were scientists we would actually find ourselves bringing in plant species you will find ourselves bringing in animal species


now could I just check if you would remember would we not be actually disrupting their ecosystem should we actually be bringing them out of it if they belong in a certain place how many scientists or how many people who do research just look at them from a very, far perspective and look at them and observe them that is pretty much only based uh which would mean to say the observatory skills that they would observe uh the animals looking at how they live their lives and looking at how the hunt and so on


but apart from that that the research just doesn't end with that the research goes further where they do end up bringing them into the lab and we just have them testing and everything, now when we say that it is important to save plant and animal species, we would have to first afore idealised the fact that leaving them by themselves would be the ultimate way of saving them in the name or in the facade of saying that we are researching them you are bringing them into labs how many cosmetic companies in todays world still carry out animal testing a lot of them still do


and a lot of them for example MAC Cosmetics what they do state is that they do not believe in animal cruelty but for them to sell their products in china for example they still do state that, the country that is would uh that would be uh china china claims or china states that they require these tests in order for the cosmetics to pass the approval and for cosmetics to be sold in china


so when that is the case at the end of the day do you not believe that those who believe and those who state that they are trying to save plant and animal species, only try to do so wherever they are comfortable with or wherever their threshold lies so for example I would save animal or I would save plant species as long as they are not beneficial to me


now if they were to be proven that they're beneficial to me this could even be selfishness in the form of saying that the ecosystem is healthy and and humans are healthy thereby, so it could be that if I am going to benefit out of them then in that case yes it is important to save them whereas my stand would be that it is not important to save them and just leave them be they can be wherever they are but at the end of the day if we are to say that they are not important to save which is what I'm saying


it's very simple it's either the fact that I believe that I might use them as part of the animal kingdom so for example if I was a hunter gatherer I would hunt and I would go out to hunt either wolves for the fur or either elks for their meat I would hunt them and I would say that very responsibly that I am hunting them because I am feeding myself


whereas people in current uh globalised world and current globalised countries, do continue hunting animals do continue using them for scientific researchers everything so how do you, differentiate between scientists who use science to save these plants and animals and how do you differentiate between scientists who are using them just for further


uh usage in cosmetics or usage in meat and so on and so forth science as a whole will not be able to hold responsibility for saving these plant and animal species it is just a facade yet again


alright so the proposition does have very noble thoughts at their base of uh speaking and that is very admirable but however let us just look at once again the selfishness that lies beneath just because we do not need a certain uh plant or a certain animal species does not mean that another person doesn't need it


well then again it is selfishness either for yourself or for a family member or for your society, it just matters the same to them at the end of the day they will be destroyed is it not you either destroy them so now look at how I would be called selfish from my point of uh perspective


from my point of debate now for companies to actually harness uh these plants and animal species for companies to actually make use of these plants and animal species, to the extent that they get eroded to the extent that plants are depleted or animals


are wiped off the face of earth it could be for uh horn uh for their horns for their ivory horns for their trunks and for their uh fur there are so many ways for these animals and for these plant species to just go extinct, now you use it for inverted comma noble talk such as medicine and so forth and we do see the same thing in those illegal tradings or in this uh illegal traffickings they state that the powdered


ivory horns or the ivory uh tusk of an elephant has medicinal benefits now would you then be okay with those trafficking you wouldn't why is it not that you wouldn't be then it is just because of your ideas and morals but at the end of the day the plant and animal species are depleting


so that being the case why do we not let them uh deplete themselves at the end of the day how will they be able to survive in a global economy where animals in the names of human beings are just trying to get each other, out and anyone's just trying to earn money and in that case wouldn't it be better for plant and animal species to just be off the face of the earth and leave human beings to fight amongst themselves which is what where we are going to do anyways


thank you


alright so uh let just let's just look at the topic again so uh environmental concerns and economic growth


can co-exist is what I would like to state in today's uh opposition, uh now let's look at it many pragmatists and realists believe that both economic growth and environmental concerns cannot co-exist peacefully now rightfully so for their own valid reasons either the person believes that economic growth is better or one person believes that environmental concerns are better and thus both of them should not coexist


now would it not be valid uh if I might ask uh the member of proposition when you state the countries who do not manage their economic growth properly they wouldn't, uh you know be able to actually handle both uh parallels wouldn't the solution, then we need to have them to actually manage it well why do you go and state uh you know outrageously that they both can't co-exist why would we not be looking for a solution to see how and where they can be equally balanced in in fact for them to actually co-exist at the end of the day so now


in order to improve either of these two aspects one does not have to be compromised at one, so these years it does result in a lot of discomfort from people who do view that their side might require more uh in order to function but then again is that the truth so first of all the relationship between economic growth and environmental concerns may not be considered or thought of as a downward spiral


which would basically be that uh in order for one to be uh better the other doesn't have to go down the other just has to be equally complimentary and equally better , so with greater economic growth this would spur greater innovative processes and a general advancement in technology and as such clean energy can actually be developed into a more reliable and better source of energy


and reliable means of extracting such energy sources can also be derived which essentially means that hard to reach energy sources like the reserves of oil in shale rock can now be extracted without an exorbitant costs, so an example would be germany germany is a developed country we all know that uh and it's also a pre-eminent economic power in central europe which has an EPI that is environmental performance index it's ranked sixth in the world where they ranks how well the country's on general performance and high priority environmental issues into broad policy areas


so the first would be protection of human health from environmental harm and protection of ecosystems so basically as what the proposition had said people who developed uh uh concerns and so on they would be the first and the ecosystems uh uh environmental benefits will be the second


right and this is because germany has been continuously adopting systems where it uses alternative source of energy and just to ensure that all of these energy sources do not get depleted on regular so when germany, who has an uh uh initiative to take and when germany a country like germany makes sure that it harnesses various sources of energy to make sure that each of them don't get depleted overboard


all I would say is that it is back I mean the subject then back leads to a country on whether the country has an ability number one and whether it has the initiative in the first place to exercise such caution so that it would be able to balance both its economic growth and both its energy sources or its environmental concerns as well so I rest my case for the time being


okay so uh that was a very valid concern raised by the proposition so when you actually look


at uh countries uh when you have actually categorise them as non-extractable uh non-extractive and extractive so you have high income uh companies and you have sorry countries and you have low income countries and accordingly their methods of economic growth would be various that is absolutely true


but at the end of the day can we beg to not differ on the fact on the simple fact that yes environmental concerns are a big thing but can we do without economic growth in today's globalised rate in today's uh countries index standings and where countries are looking to provide better livelihoods for their citizens is it possible for our country


to then state that economic growth is not a concern of mine it is impossible for any country it could be even a high income come a country or it could be a low income country then again it everyone is, gathering towards everyone is running towards an economic growth it could be even the first or the highest and the most powerful country on earth they would still be looking towards becoming better themselves


so then again we cannot do without economic growth but can we do without it environmental concerns as well yes we can and that is why I am here to state that we can make sure that we look toward a solution where environmental concerns and economic growth can co-exist now


a country which even though might be high income or low income they do have different or various careers so even though many asian countries are thought of to have uh farming and industrialisation in terms of uh agriculture, we also do see them paying a lot of attention and uh you know putting a lot of research methods into practice where they look at more sustainable ways to grow uh their crops and more sustainable ways to actually have their entire business sectors uh evolving


and when we look at uh countries which that you stated are high income countries who'll focus on the manufacturing, they are the ones who are actually uh resulting in more of uh environmental pollution if you could say and thereby creating industrial waste and industrial sewage and so on


but they have the ability and they have the privilege to actually research and make sure that they come up with better alternatives, and they also come up with better environmental solutions when their companies are in charge and when their companies are responsible for creating such sewages and such industrial wastages so then again isn't there a balance even there even a country that has low income


does try to get up ahead in the economic growth ladder and at the same time they do also try to preserve the environment because at the end of the day that is what is feeding them their rice bowl and at the same time when we look at high income countries even though they are the ones who are creating that much of manufacturing uh wastages and that much of environment pollutions


they are also the ones who are actually coming out with a lot of uh solutions in terms of their scientists in term in term of their research teams as well, so there is a very healthy balance at the point being, however we would definitely be seeing a bit of discrepancies you might either see environmental concerns taking a higher lead or we might see economic growth taking a higher lead in either of these countries


but at the end of the day combined balance uh in the ecosystem across the earth across all of these countries would be something that is uh viable and would definitely be something that can be work towards


alright so that was a very uh good you know argument put forth the stance was very simple and it was just the fact that, fossil fuel should be kept where they are and science uh should be giving us good news instead of bad news and we're definitely contributing to global warming and countries are also just being selfish now let's just look at the simple way of life uh I mean we're all aware of very basic business ideologies and so on supply meets demand


the more there is a demand there are people who are going to look to supply towards that demand isn't that the very uh, like uh underlining of uh life itself where we require something we look towards people who fulfil that requirements and as such countries are


looking at how they can satisfy their citizens now you just stated that a uh the the survey stated that no country in this entire world is providing its citizens with their requirements sustainably, now let me ask you do you think that people who are living in those countries as citizens do you think it matters to them no it doesn't matter to them for them it is whether their requirements are being met yes or no if it's yes they are happy if it's not they're unhappy and they ask for more and some people even if it's yes they do ask for more at the end of the day


so when you look at it from a policymaker's point of view when a when a policymaker tries to do their best, they would have to be the ones who are taking the initiative in the first place so when I talked about germany yes germany might not have been giving it's kind of uh its citizens their sustainably uh met requirements like what you just said


but at the end of the day germany did make a significant change and it did make a significant positive change that help its entire environment as well and that is why its' ranking, number six on the EPI like I said that just now so then again is it not up to the policymakers so when you say that policymakers are being selfish and they do not take things into concern


yes it might be the case for them but then again is it possible for them to be initiative, yes there is nothing that stops them so much there might be things to deter them there might be things to maybe convinced them otherwise that they you know might not have that much of resources and so on and so forth but at the end of the day it lies in the initiated that they can take and yet again it just proves the point that yes it can be balanced so when it looks at


and we look at technology and market-based solutions yet again do we not look at solutions from a point of view from a crisis perspective so we look at a crisis we look at how their response level do with this and then we give them a solution, so if a farmer were to come to you and say that their crops are not growing up and they want their crops to actually yield uh perfect uh results within the next week or the next month or so


with the solution not be a fast solution which might not have exactly perfect effects to the environment as well so that is how today we have many fertilisers and pesticides which are harmful for the soil in the long run which are harmful for the environment in the long run but do yield results in the short term


so yes we are met with such opportunity so at the end of the day it is not the selfishness of the policymakers it not the selfishness of corporates but rather it is the selfishness of the normal men who wants to yield his results and that to rightfully so he might have economic benefits by doing that he might have economic responsibilities towards his family


yes everything is true but then again it is a win-win situation where which also requires an equal balance if the responsibilities taken up, yes a policymaker has to come up with the initiative and then again yes the one who is receiving those policies has to take the initiative to understand them as well how many of us actually actively take


uh times moment to actually distribute our rubbishes uh in terms I mean uh categorise our rubbishes in terms of the ones that are biodegradable the ones that are plastic the ones that are food waste the ones that are wood the ones that are paper, we don't do that and if we don't do that who are we to point fingers at a policymaker and state the you haven't done that they have done their job by putting it down on the roads they have done their jobs by putting all of these colour-coded rubbish bins


but are we doing our jobs by making sure that those rubbish beans are adequately and appropriately filled we don't, so at that point of time let us come and take a look at job opportunities because then again who is benefiting out of that it is the normal men so we're looking at the case of job opportunities it is also possible to incorporate both economic and environmental concerns there is no such thing as just economic growth in terms of jobs


there are also environmental concerns so when there is an environmental concern it definitely leads towards a job so in the process of creating more employment opportunities, job opportunities will be created even then due to environmental issues, so even though it remains a relatively new industry because only now have we been uh uh uh duly uh recognising the evil effects of whatever we have been doing so far and yes we might have been selfish thus far but does that mean that we have to just go on with the same mentality know it doesn't so further on


more people are actually able to further develop the expertise and experiences and thereby secure a wider range of well-paying jobs so this could be in the form of wildlife rangers it could be in the form of health or safety security and environmental officers, thereby this actually gives a lot more opportunities for higher employment


so where there is a productive paying job, where you're allowed to do more definitely the the amount of attention given to that sector increases as well so the more you create jobs in the environmental concerning sectors, you will find people understanding more you will find the people more interested they would take up education relating to that you would see more people in biology in ecology going into that rather than engineering or banking for saying so


and then again wouldn't that actually be fully utilised due to the low and unemployment there again will lead to economic growth so overall yes it's a very balanced society and at the end of the day everything the drives it forth is the amount of initiative taken


just one second I'm just uh saving the one for my mother's one


okay so I believe that my proposition was so overwhelmed to the amount of damage done on earth that even she for a second disbelieve that you know it is possible to protect the earth which is definitely true isn't it so it is definitely impossible , to protect the environment when many countries require increasing amounts of energy to progress a very simple question to everyone uh on the table today


will any country decline their need for economic growth in today's world would any country decline their necessity for their economic growth in terms of their citizens or would any citizens let's just go down all the way to the very grassroots level, would any citizen say that no I'm done I'm good with the amount of money I have I'm good with the amount that I've saved for my children and they're gonna be doing just fine so everyone can just be wherever they are and let's not earn any more money


no one is going to decline so everyone is always looking to one forward everyone is looking always to look towards any other way of development they they could have it could be a career advancement it could be even them shifting countries it could be them shifting companies , then and there again no one is willing to stay in their status quo no one is going to stay wherever they are everyone's uh always looking to move forward so there again let me just uh ask my uh let me just uh refer to my propositions argument


where yes she did say that there's a misuse of natural uh earth and our natural resources in two ways beautifully explained, firstly the pollution of natural resources and secondly the depletion of natural resources, let us look at the pollution, now would it be right to say that if someone were to give you a glass of water with just a drop of poison the balance of the water or the remaining drops are safe for consumption no they wouldn't be so then again you are polluting the entire glass of water and when doing thereby so


would you not just destroy the entire water glass of water by itself so pollution, just cancels out the entire natural resource so there been said when we have so much of haze in today's environment and we are seeing and we are not even able to see the person who's beside us would we be even trying to do anything to save that there is no way to save it it's done and dusted that's there and there again we have the second category of misuse which is depletion


so when you deplete then again you have a glass of water and someone drinks half of the glass of water and tells you, to quench your thirst with the other remaining half but for how many days would you be able to quench your thirst would it be for the year or would it just before the next second it would be done so that again that natural resource is done and dusted as well so how is it possible that we will be able to protect the environment when in fact we are unable to protect ourselves in today's


uh current scenario of everyone running in a rush towards something we are so, caught for time we're so caught up for time we're so like caught up at a loss for words itself and how do we claim that we can actually protect the environment now there are different alternative sources of energy that are used in the world currently to generate power so while other sources are being discovered all the time none of them have reached a stage where they can be used stably


to provide the power to help more than life functions now all of these different sources of energy are used primarily to produce electricity, why electricity because the world runs on the seeds of electrical reactions to whether you're talking about the car you're driving or the light you're turning on just buy a switch of hands or all of these are different sources of energy added the storage of electrical power


which is then sent out to different locations by a high powered lines , so there are categorised I mean sorry these are categorised as either renewable energy sources, uh like uh my partner's already spoken about uh like uh renewable energy sources which uh include uh solar energy wind energy hydro power from flowing water and geothermal energy and on the other hand we have non-renewable energy sources which include the likes of petroleum hydrocarbon gas liquids and coal et cetera


so let's break down the necessities for energy so why do humans in today's context requires so much of energy why do we even require the basic need of energy to function, we can categorise into personal societal and industrial, so on a personal level we require food to even uh survive in our daily lifestyles require food to move about


and that is energy in itself how do we source our food do we go out and do we hunt them like the hunter gatherers of our ancestral uh uh people or do we just go to the supermarket where as we can notice from the very first step in which is filled with huge light which is filled with fridges


everything consumes energy thereby our personal consumption no matter us eating it does actually have a very biggest source of energy usage and then again I will uh enlightened more on this in my upcoming uh portions but then again let me just move on to the societal


as a society for us to get to our workplaces for our children to get to our workplaces regardless of whether you take uh the personal transport of car or the personal transportation of bikes then again the public transportation of buses and trains every single thing runs on energy so how do you claim that we can actually protect the environment


when first of all energy does go and create a downfall in all of these natural resources within the environment and also then buy or as uh and also thereafter gives off so much of negative uh by products in terms of pollution and so on, where humans on a basic need so much of energy to function are we willing to make the sacrifice in the first place for environment to be good we aren't and thereby do you think it's even possible to protect the environment


when we have such a big requirement and such increasing amounts of requirements that are never going to be depleted in the first place,


alright so that was a very uh like you know concise and detailed argument that I have to appreciate now but however let us just look at the Beijing olympics that took place in two thousand and eight uh if I'm not wrong, yes so two thousand and eight the Beijing olympic and that was when uh you know uh my proposition stated that they to cut down on the number of cars as an aftermath to make sure that


uh there was uh uh less of a carbon footprints left and everything but let us just look at one simple fact, why was the Beijing olympics conducted in Beijing and what did Beijing do in order for the olympics to be conducted first of all there was a very huge uh advertising campaign even before all of this started by McDonald's McDonald's was on a roll McDonald's was just throwing out every random products McDonald's was revamping their entire menus


to suit the whole Beijing theme and when McDonald's did that what was that McDonald's idea what was McDonald's driving force was it to create uh economic cohesiveness or was it just to create much more uh happy smiles at the end of the day it was to create economic cohesiveness McDonald's wanted to increase the based power and wanted to increase the economic growth


that it had in its china outlets and that was what they had achieved McDonald's wanted more global recognition wanted more brand power and that was what it had achieved by doing so, and that again isn't that economic growth that drove McDonald's to do all of this was there anything that required McDonald's to actually have and demonstrate the love for environment and that McDonald's emphasise on that and would have emphasised any so if there wasn't any benefit toward it


so for example McDonald's would have done everything but would it have done so if there wasn't any benefit to it were if there weren't any appreciation for it so if anything, any global environment uh say the efforts that are taken are only taken in order to appease a few minorities


to appease the governmental policies that require a certain percentage of green uh evaluation to be done within a company or a certain percentage of greenness to be shown within the company so let us then look at the olympian villages which housed all of the athletes and all of the people who took part in the Beijing olympics


what was the use of energy there were people living in caves over there were people living uh in places where there were only trees and uh large to be seen no they were all living in state of the art facilities that require high amounts of energy to sustain each and every shell or each and every break over there I could say


it was all filled with air conditionings yes to uh facilitate every athlete that had come all over from the world and why was it done so why wasn't the message of uh, the environment and protecting the environment to spread over there why wasn't that everyone had, uh to fulfil a certain amount of uh redemption in terms of


uh you know having a very comfortable lifestyle over there why wasn't environmental protection emphasised then and there was it no it wasn't so all of this even the fireworks, yes we do have recreational value towards that but doesn't the air get more polluted thereby just for the feast of your eyes would you like you air to be unbreathable that was what happened and then again tourists from all over the world


had to travel to Beijing and that was what made Beijing the olympics such a big deal the fact that there were so many people millions of them coming from all over the world to witness and within the country itself to witness such a great uh a great occurrence as well, but all of this let us look at the breakdown of transportation does anyone walk by feet there's anyone swim by their arms through the seas no they all take flights they take ships they take uh buses and trains and so on and so forth everything contributed by energy


to do so and there by we can actually just conclude that the Beijing olympics no matter yes you have done everything everything's an achievement everything's an accolade yes and there after you had actually lower the uh number of cars driving won't lead to reduce the carbon footprints but then again how did the carbon footprints get there was it not by their sheer aloof


and uh their sheer approach to just not looking at the environment altogether so now let us look at hydro electrical cars hydro electrical cars were a very good and is very good I might say uh an alternative to normal cars that are you know running on gasoline and so forth but then again


hydro electrical cars what do they run on hydroelectric stuff right okay and how the hydroelectric stuff I mean where does it get derive from it comes again from energy so at the end of the day, yes efforts are by very noble minds I must say efforts are there by very efficient and uh efficacy made in minds yes there are


people who actually come up with all this solutions but then again does it get a mass reception does it get a mass positive reception from people do many people jump on that bandwagon as frequent and as energetically they would, to jump on any bandwagon for example the Beijing olympics would there be the same amount of reception when it comes to that


and now let me just drive your attention a bit towards the industrial revolution, now the industrial revolution remains to be one of the biggest things in the human civilised uh years and it remains to be one of the biggest time periods where everyone uh saw ideas revolutionising and there was a modernisation uh you know works were recognised and people were put to rest everyone had a better thing


what was the driving force behind the industrial revolution, was it number one the environment no it wasn't was it the protection of environmental benefits such as the air such as the earth such as the fire or anything, no there wasn't any protections in mind then again it was the laziness of humans they wanted more work to be done in less time thereby giving many people a lack of jobs yes it did lead to an initial rise in jobs so many people had to find themselves learning all these different technical uh


terms in these different technical skills and thereby a lot of people went towards those workshops yes it did but then again, what about those peoples who were who were not able to mechanise themselves what about those people who weren't able to modernise themselves and move forward what about them at the end of the day that is very very little regard given to humans themselves and only if you talk about humans can we even go and talk about the environment


and humans who actually care about other humans were the ones who came up with the hydro electrical cars were the ones who came up with, the different uh number license plates that could go on the road at a very given time so it might interest you to know that there are cars there's a number system that is followed when only certain cars are allowed to be on the road at any given day so that is to reduce the pollution is the pollution reduced