Environmental Sustainability Debate

Previously published in The Grape, Spring 2009.

Last week, students gathered in Wilder to watch a debate between two groups of students concerning whether a capitalist, growth-based economy is inherently unsustainable. Sophomore Paia Dalke and junior Marcelino Echeverria argued for the pro side, while seniors Lucas Brown and Colin Miller argued against this proposition in favor of the government.
The event was held in a traditional American Parliamentary Style debate. A spokesperson from each side presented their argument and the other member of their team provided a rebuttal after the other team had had a chance to speak.
Event organizer and moderator, sophomore Shannon Ikebe, planned the event in conjunction with freshman Sarah Bollinger who served as the official timekeeper. Ikebe explained that the event, a part of Eco-Olympics Week, was inspired by an Environmental Justice Exco he took last spring. A debater in high school, Ikebe was interested in bringing a form of debate to campus. “Eventually I’d like to see an organization just for student debates,” said Ibeke.
Selecting students to participate was easy for Ikebe. “So I knew Lucas and Paia personally so I contacted them. I could sort of predict which side they would pick to be on and I was right. Lucas found Colin, who was a good friend of his. And for the affirmative team Paia said she would do it so I contacted the Oberlin Radicals… and Marcelino responded,” he said.
Dalke’s reason for participating in the debate was uniquely different for her peers. “I’m doing a private reading on issues of food access and community building so I wanted to incorporate it with some of the stuff that I’d been doing,” she said.
Echeverria, an Environmental Studies major, is involved in many other radically charged political groups on campus. His “strong alliance with natural systems” served as inspiration for participating in the debate.
The most striking thing about Dalke and Echeverria’s presentation was the special guest they brought in to speak, Dalke’s own Jade Plant.
“Basically the point of Marcelino and my argument was capitalist based econ does not take into account natural systems or natural patterns and so as a way to like show something tangible I wanted to show and I think like I get frustrated and irritated with what is cotton mouth. Which is just like academic jargon, bargain, and largon and fills people’s mouths up and so I was just going to bring in soil but then I wanted something tangible and I realized soil is only part of the system so I thought I’d bring in the plant as part of the demonstration,” said Dalke.
Brown and Miller’s argument was grounded more in theory and statistics in contrast to their more emotionally influenced counterparts. Both groups presented a solid understanding of their argument, resulting in very little sway in audience opinion.
“I got so many questions from people leading up to this debate asking how I could get up on stage and fake an argument. I guess it was surprising to be that they assumed that anyone interested in the environment would be a communist or at least anti-communist. Hopefully what we were going for was a greater understanding of why someone who cares about the environmental would be in favor of capitalism,” said Brown.
Ikebe admitted that, despite being the moderator for the discussion, he came into the discussion with strong views about the topic.
“I think capitalism sucks. You can quote it. Capitalism is inhumane. I think it’s very antipathetic to people’s wellbeing,” said Ikebe.
Ikebe said, “In the future that’s the only type of event I’ll be organizing because that’s the kind that people really like.” He guesses that approximately 80 students attended the function.