Natives cont’d

AT Alt doesn’t solve case cont’d (oceans and heg)

Oceans: Their ethics make Ocean destruction inevitable, like oil pipes- indigenous interpretations here open the avenue to an Ocean ethic, means we solve relations to marine life bestDeloria 2012 (Vine, The Metaphysics of Modern Existence Pg. 180-182, Originally Published 1979, Vance)Viewed in the ordinary legal context, the Salt River Water Users’ case involved a technical point of procedure, but its inherent theories illustrate a fundamental point with respect to the place of the natural world in a legal context. The point of departure for such an analysis sidesteps the

legal question of human rights to ask about the legal status of the water itself. Water is a life- giving element of the physical universe. We cannot live for an extended period of time without it. Neither can the plants, animals, birds, and other life-forms that always cluster around watercourses. Water, even in a desert area, supports more life than our species, and appropriating water from a stream or river assumes that humans will use a certain proportion of the flow of the water but that they will leave the stream relatively intact for use by the rest of the creatures. The Colorado water doctrine , particularly the subsidiary idea of saving water by adopting more

efficient methods of use, understands water only as a representation of property in the legal sense. It

completely eliminates the intuitive sense of life and emotional content that makes water important

as an element of universal life and reduces it to a quantifiable income-producing entity . If we carry the

theory advocated in the Salt River Water Users’ case to its logical conclusion as a legal right that can be enforced, in the future a large corporation could arrive in a desert valley and completely replace the river system by an interlocking network of pipes that would deliver water to each user having a water right, reserving all of the “created” or “recaptured” or “waste” water for its own use. Theoretically at least, our present view of the natural world has no place for natural features and entities themselves . Physical entities that support life, such as air, water, and land, are conceived in a legal sense as if they had no existence apart from the human legal rights that have been attached to them. We could easily and legally destroy all vestiges of natural

life without ever violating the constitutional provisions regarding the protection of property . Our present

conception of property revolves around our use of it, not around its existence as an element of the universe in its own right. Nature has no rights of its own in our legal system. If our legal system reflects our view of reality, then we believe that we exist over and apart from the physical world . That our courts have not yet reached that abstract but very logical conclusion is partially due to the conservation movement. Early in this century, various public figures recognized that unless the government made an effort to

preserve parts of our natural heritage it would soon be destroyed by uncontrolled exploitation of resources. Proponents of conservation have introduced into American social thinking the idea that natural resources have more than a commercial use. They have argued, for example, that natural resources can be appreciated for their recreational value; that recreation can be

as valuable a resource as the profits derived from destructive economic exploitation. This point of view has been verified in recent decades. As affluence has worked its way down the American social and economic structure, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, more and more Americans have spent their summer vacations in national parks and recreation areas. The

number of visitors to the Grand Canyon, the Tetons, Yosemite, the Black Hills, and other prominent natural attractions

has increased dramatically every year. The interest in recreational activities in a natural surrounding was not a profound philosophical or religious movement that recognized a value in natural entities themselves, but it did indicate that the aesthetic values of American society could be expressed as a function of nature as well as an appreciation of paintings, music, and other forms of art. Spokespersons for groups interested in conservation of natural resources were unable to frame their arguments in terms that would expand the consciousness of American society to include the inherent dignity of nature. At best, the conservation movement saw nature as a means of providing an emotional outlet for human frustrations. Yet in 1966, an important

conservation figure, Aldo Leopold, wrote in A Sand County Almanac, “There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it,” i ndicating that he was aware of the deeper issues represented in our relationship with nature. He added that land was still property in the minds of

most Americans, and that entailed people taking privileges from the land but acknowledging no corresponding responsibility or obligation. “ The extension of ethics to this third element in the human

environment is , if I read the evidence correctly, a [] evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity .”2 The

contemporary interest in ecology seems to partially fulfill Leopold’s prediction.

Heg: Sure we don’t put ‘Merica at the golden throne but

A refusal to see the grave means inevitable nuclear destructionChurchill ‘3Ward Churchill, 2003, “Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader,” Questia, Page xivOne wonders whether the transformative process evident in postwar Germany might not yield similarly constructive results if undertaken through a reversed sequence in the contemporary United States. In theory, rather than international trials serving as the catalyst for a radical reinterpretation of national history, hence national character, a reconfigured history might serve to galvanize popular initiatives culminating in international trials (and/or domestic trials evoking international law). 29 A sur-mounting of America’s well-nurtured public evasion of such “unpleasantness ” is of course necessary, as it so obviously was in Germany, yet it seems possible that the means are already at hand . Taken together with a growing awareness that there are likely other, much heavier shoes ready to drop unless Americans show signs of getting their house in order—biochemical weapons? a nuclear device?—9-1-1 may well have injected the essential element of self-interested incentive to change. 30

And extend Street- their politics don’t make the US a leader, we model how we treat people abroad after colonialism- means there’s only a risk our perception will be better if we do the alt, solves ills of heg cause we’ll be a moral. Turns out people don’t like “leaders” who enforce violent paradigms abroad (ie colonialism).

AT Extinction different from futurismThe K still indicts to your discourse, your fetish with extinction is the definition of futurism. We’ve already witnessed extinction- indigenous culture like the Navajo language. The drive for survival will justify limitless destruction upon individual cultures until we are so homogenized that life has no meaning.

And genocide outweighs all impacts; culture gives meaning to lifeShort 10(Damien, PHD and director of human rights at London University, November 2010, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Cultural genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach, accessed 7/14/15) CHThe second element of Lemkin’s prior formulation, vandalism — the destruction of culture — was now a technique of group destruction.42 Lemkin’s central ontological assertion here was that culture integrates human societies and consequently is a necessary pre-condition for the realisation of individual material needs. For Lemkin, culture is as vital to group life as individual physical well-being : So-called derived needs, are just as necessary to their existence as the basic physiological needs....These needs find expression in social institutions or, to use an anthropological term, the culture ethos. If the culture of a group is violently undermined, the group itself disintegrates and its members must either become absorbed in other cultures which is a wasteful and painful process or succumb to personal disorganization and, perhaps, physical destruction....(Thus) the destruction of cultural symbols is genocide...(It) ‘menaces the existence of the social group which exists by virtue of its common culture’.43 ‘This quotation gives us clues to Lemkin’s conception of genocide. He was more concerned with the loss of culture than the loss of life, ’44 as culture is the social fabric of a genus . Indeed, in Lemkin’s formulation, culture is the unit of collective memory, whereby the legacies of the dead can be kept alive and each cultural group has its own unique distinctive genius deserving of protectio n .45 National culture for Lemkin is an essential element of world culture and nations have a life of their own comparable to the life of an individual. On this point Lemkin wrote: The world represents only so much culture and intellectual vigour as are created by its component national groups. The destruction of a nation, therefore, results in the loss of its future contributions to the world. Moreover, such a destruction offends our feelings of morality and justice in much the same way as does the criminal killing of a human being: the crime in the one case as in the other is murder, though on a vastly greater scale.

AT Util good

Their mode of util always defers indigenous populations- we are a minority. Voting AFF means I never get to tell my story, means our lives don’t matter.

And reject utilitariansim, it causes mass marginalization Odell, 04 – University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack, Ph.D., “On Consequentialist Ethics,” Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98-103)A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity , b oth act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does is to elaborate objection (H).

Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the concept of "justice ." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial

goods, satisfying the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the

distinction between persons."· One person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

Food

AT No scarcity/alt causes d/b:

They say the crunch is coming now but we post date Connor by 2 years, and the double bind doesn’t go away. I’ll talk about the alts later.

AT Drones solves alts

They say drones solve but they never isolated a clear link as to how drones stop droughts or people mismanaging food- drones can’t solve for alt causes.

AT Research disproves defenseAll they say is that lack of food= war. That might be true but their impacts are inevitable if alt causes abuse the crops in the first place, I’ll discuss those causes later.

Resource wars burnoutBennett and Nordstrom 2K (D Scott and Timothy, Department of political science at Penn State, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44:1, “Foreign policy substitutability and internal economic problems in enduring rivalries”, ProQuest, 2000)Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue when faced with internal

problems. Military competition between states requires large amounts of resources , and rivals require even more

attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be reallocated to the domestic economy . In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to be most important and attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate

active problems. Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of

continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things, this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the United

States.

Boost neuters alt causeNo, a boost in tech would hyperbolize alt causes- AFF doesn’t alter humyn misuse of food, inefficient crop harvesting techniques, and the poor facilities that spoil the food it contains.

AT we’re not precision or Monsanto

They practically cede Bunge- drones can’t solve for food because farming culture distrusts new tech, means voting AFF doesn’t even mean they adopt drones cause fear of other farming corporations stealing their info. Farmers empirically don’t use drones efficiently either cause they’re complex. Plus any risk that they do misuse the information turns the AFF cause it spurs unwanted competition- causes seed and land price spikes, this destabilizes crop profits

And you are too precision farmingGriekspoor ’13 (P.J. Griekspoor, “Precision Agriculture Seen as Big Winner in Drone Technology”, http://farmprogress.com/story-precision-agriculture-seen-big-winner-drone-technology-9-96113, March 21, 2013)The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is U nmanned A erial V ehicle flights , according to a new report from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International. Kansas, already a leader in research on the vehicles that are expected to see explosive growth when integration into national airspace begins in 2015, ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the report says, with the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs between 2015 and 2025. The greatest area of growth indicated by the report will be in precision agriculture , which is slated to

grow 10 times that of the public safety market for UAS.

AT Wind Pollination solves bees

Food impacts non-unique case honeybees; other foods depend on themTheir author, Dailey 8 (Kate, “Why Are Bees Dying?”, Newsweek, 6-14, http://www.newsweek.com/id/141488/output/print)Are we doomed? The short answer is no. Human beings don't need honeybee pollination. Most of the plants that

provide calories for the human population tend to be wind pollinated cereals, like wheat and corn and rice. But once you have an economy improving and the standard of living improving and the diet improving, you start seeing the introduction of meat and dairy products, and both of those require forage crops that are honeybee pollinated . When an economy starts improving, you start seeing melons, fruits, berries--all of these are bee pollinated. The point is, human survival does not depend upon honeybee pollination, but quality of life in a developed economy does. So you can live without honeybee pollination , you just don't want t o. Compare the diets in a country like Canada, the United States, and Great Britain with diets in a country like Nigeria, Sudan, or Malaysia. You don't have the preponderance of meat and dairy and fruit and vegetables in developing countries like you do here. That difference is defined by bee pollination.

AT Bees already deadExtend Wines, honey bees are alive but are dying in California cause drought. Honeybee farm owners agree we’ve lost about 40%, means we have a BEElievable source- we post date them too, err NEG.

AT Oil spills inev but drones stahp them

Agreed spills are inevitable- means any risk of an impact is non-unique

And spills don’t cause harm in the first place, adaptationHunt – No date cited(Alex Hunt, no date cited, the senior technical advisor to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, “Effects of Oil Spills,” http://kjpt.msa.gov.cn/ckfinder/userfiles/files/%E6%BA%A2%E6%B2%B9%E7%9A%84%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D.pdf, date accessed 6/28/13, Woojae)

Experience from past spills shows that : ¶ Damages may be profound at the individual level¶ Populations are naturally resilient to acute impacts ¶ Natural recovery processes are capable of repairing damage ¶ Ecosystem structure & function is typically restored ¶ Many impacts are documented in the scientific literature¶ Not all effects of spills are completely understood¶ Overall scale and duration of impact can usually be deduced¶ Polarization of the scientific community is common & balanced views are rare¶ Does significant damage occur?... sometimes yes, sometimes no… depends on many factors¶ Measures of impact¶ Breeding success¶ Productivity¶ Biodiversity¶ Overall function¶ Marine ecosystems are able to cope with severe natural perturbations : tropical storms, tsunamis, el Niño events ¶ Widespread mortalities occur, but systems are able recover

Norms

AT We don’t cause conflictPublic drones can still cause conflict- cross apply Pugliese from the K- transparent drones still do bad things and set the stage for militarism to assault non-whites, means there’s only a risk the AFF would discriminate against people and cause conflict.

AT Kaplan card sucksIf Kaplan doesn’t apply this puts them in a double bind:Either the conflict will be entirely in the USA which means no extinction cause the government wouldn’t nuke itself (…probably)Or the conflict has to be somewhere else which oppresses other races and guns down civilizations by nature of being in that area.

It doesn’t matter if Kaplan isn’t about drones, they ceded that no other countries challenge our power drones or no drones, means there’s no risk of war.

Solvency

AT Implied solvencyThey claim implied solvency but this is a bad model for debate because we don’t know if the AFF will actually do anything- implementation uncertainty means you err NEG.

They ceded that their “probability” puts them in a double bind:Either the card is specific to drones, which means the AFF already happened and voting AFF does nothingOr it’s not specific to drones which means they can’t claim solvency over them.

AT Reforms don’t solveExtend Whitlcok, they really do solve, Obama aleady signed a reform limiting the agents that would trigger their impacts like the DoD, FBI, and military forces.

Their Carr evidence only says the drones should be limited, which is what the FAA did two years later, post date err NEG. Ceded that the government already checked unrestrained drones, means there’s no damage to the industry.