I need help to argue that this statement is true...

Question

Extraction of resources - and the ideologies and histories that support extraction - is foundational to unsustainable development. A post-extractive economy, one that still utilizes resources (e.g., water, forests, etc.), but one that centers on alternative economic ideas is necessary for truly sustainable development.

This statement/information might or might not be true, that is not the point. I need to argue it in a way that is true with actual facts that could make it true.

Message from teacher: The main idea is that proponents of post-extractivism - which followed many new alternative development ideas like ‘buen vivir’ that I discuss in the lecture - think that large-scale extraction of resources - of water, trees, energy, etc. - is not the pathway for development. You are agreeing with them, making the case for alternative forms of development that may perceive of nature differently, less a commodity perhaps and more of something to take care of. 

Answer 1

There are several ways you could argue in favor of post-extractivism. I believe one of the simplest ways would be to outline how extractive economies will eventually run out of useable resources, slowing economic growth long-term even if the rapid extraction of resources is profitable in the short-term. A post-extractive economy would ensure that natural resources are managed and replenished as necessary in order to maintain a sustainable amount of the resource long-term, leading to steady and long lasting economic growth, which would eventually surpass the growth of an extractive economy.

There are also moral arguments you could make regarding extraction of resources, such as deforestation destroying animal habitats, excessive pollution harming humans and wildlife, or that unsustainable extraction of resources would leave little resources for future generations.