"This House Believes that individuals have a moral obligation to prioritise the future of humanity over their Prosperity today."

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: ""This House Believes that individuals have a moral obligation to prioritise the future of humanity over their Prosperity today."". Your opponent's style: Tejas Subramaniam

I'll argue FOR the proposition that individuals have a moral obligation to prioritize humanity's future over their prosperity today. Here's my opening argument: --- **We are living on borrowed time, and the bill is coming due.** Every dollar we hoard today is stolen from our children's tomorrow. Climate change, biodiversity collapse, and resource depletion aren't distant threats—they're happening now, accelerating faster than our comfortable lifestyles can adapt. Global carbon emissions hit a record 41.6 billion tonnes in 2024, up from 40.6 billion tonnes last year [1]. We're literally breaking records for destroying our planet while debating whether we should care about tomorrow. The math is brutal: at current emission rates, there's a 50% chance we'll consistently breach 1.5°C warming in just six years [1]. That's not some distant future—that's within the lifespan of a smartphone contract. Every SUV purchased today, every private jet flight, every decision to prioritize short-term comfort over long-term survival is a vote for civilizational collapse. This isn't about sacrifice—it's about basic survival instinct. Our prosperity means nothing if we're prosperous on a dead planet. The wealthy who think their money will insulate them from climate chaos are deluding themselves. Floods don't check bank accounts. Droughts don't spare the rich. When food systems collapse, your portfolio becomes worthless paper. We have the moral obligation to act because we have the power to choose differently, and our children will inherit the consequences of our selfishness or our wisdom. The choice is ours—but only for the next few years.

**You're asking people to sacrifice their lives for a fantasy future that may never come.** Look, I get the emotional appeal—save the children, save the planet. But you're essentially demanding that working families choose between paying rent today and some theoretical climate catastrophe decades away. That's not moral, that's cruel.Right now, 692 million people are living on less than $2.15 a day [1]. That's not some abstract future crisis—that's children going hungry tonight while you're asking them to worry about carbon emissions in 2050. You want moral obligation? How about the moral obligation to the mother in Bangladesh choosing between medicine for her sick child and food for tomorrow? Your climate timeline is decades away, but poverty kills today. Every day we delay economic growth to chase your green fantasies, real people suffer real consequences. The developing world needs industrialization, not sanctimonious lectures about sacrifice from people who've never missed a meal. And here's the kicker—economic prosperity is what enables environmental protection. Rich countries clean up their act precisely because they can afford to. Poor countries burn whatever they can find because survival trumps sustainability. Your moral crusade keeps them poor and the planet dirty. You're asking people to choose between feeding their families and saving the world. That's not moral—that's privileged guilt demanding others pay the price for your conscience.

make like a WSDC Final, following the AREI Argument model format

**ASSERTION: Your moral crusade ignores the brutal mathematics of survival** You're demanding that 700 million people living on less than $3 per day [1] sacrifice for a climate future that may never arrive. That's not moral leadership—that's privileged guilt demanding others pay the price. **REASONING: Economic development is the prerequisite for environmental protection** Every wealthy nation followed the same path: industrialize first, clean up later. Britain didn't worry about carbon emissions during their Industrial Revolution—they built the prosperity that eventually allowed them to afford environmental protection. China lifted 800 million people out of poverty through exactly the industrialization you want to deny the remaining poor. Your climate timeline spans decades, but poverty kills today. Every day we delay economic growth to chase green fantasies, real children go hungry while you worry about theoretical temperature increases. **EVIDENCE: The prosperity-environment correlation is undeniable** Rich countries have cleaner air and water precisely because wealth enables environmental investment. Poor countries burn whatever they can find because survival trumps sustainability. The Environmental Kuznets Curve proves this: environmental quality deteriorates initially with economic growth, then improves as societies become wealthy enough to prioritize clean technology. **IMPACT: Your moral framework condemns billions to perpetual suffering** You're asking a mother in Bangladesh to choose between medicine for her sick child and carbon reduction. That's not moral obligation—that's moral bankruptcy. 3.4 billion people live on less than $6.85 per day [1]. Your climate crusade keeps them trapped in poverty while you sleep soundly in your climate-controlled home, having solved your conscience at their expense.