How would you respond to this opinion? : i think the benefits of globalization outweigh the negatives that impact the environment. globalization improves the global economy, expands knowledge, and free trade. negative impacts on the environment include an increase in consumption of products, affecting the ecological cycle. it also includes pollution caused by factories polluting the environment. the fact is, the amount of benefits to globalization an negate the negative impacts to the environment.

While Globalization is needed for the world to continue to grow technologically, i believe that environment is needed more. Even though we all love technological advancement (as it makes life easier), i believe that there should be a limit to the amount of resources used, as we have a limited-supply of resources in the world. Advancement that do not have a clear purpose to helping the people and nature should not be used, as alternatives can be found that is more eco-friendly.

While I am not for stagnation, i believe that we should always re-use what we can, and find ways that are much more simplified and do not use as much of our limited resources, while making our daily lives easier. After all, is that not the point of technology?, to use less for more.

Our lives are also connected to the environment. For example, the trees are needed to help change carbon-dioxide into oxygen for humans and animals. Technological advancement may need the areas that are forested, and may result in a deduction of the amount of oxygen in the air, leading to our own demise. However, if we are able to harness the usage of technology, and be able to adapt them as to not harm our environment too much, i am for expansion.

Destruction of the environment can also lead to the us having the colonize else-where, as the earth becomes more unlivable, forcing us to have to find means of living else-where, which, in a sense, spur technological growth. But why try to find a remedy, when you can avoid the problem?

In the end, it is up to the people, the company, and the government to decide. Would it be best to continue the destruction of the environment to make life easier, or would it be best to preserve what little nature we have left, though stagnation occurs?

hope this helps

ur mom

explanation: