more practice 2ac

7/31/2019 More Practice 2ac

1/24

ANTHRO

They say Extinction outweighs

Framing issue: the negs strict utilitarian calculus excludes the natural world you should

always prioritize an ethic that recognizes the value of the natural world.Katz 97 (Eric, Director of Science, Technology, and Society Program at the New Jersey Instituteof Technology, Nature as Subject 1997)

One approach within this conception of environmental philosophy would be to seekthese

"'environmentally appropriate " ethical principles in the direct

application of traditional ethical theories--such as utilitarianism,Kantianism, rights theory, or contractarianism--to the newly emerging problems of the environmental crisis. From this perspective,

environmental philosophy would be a version of a basic applied ethics. Its subject matter--the justification of environmental policies--

would be new, but the philosophical principles and ethical ideals used to analyze and solve these new problems would be the familiar

positions and ideas of Western philosophy. A rather different ap proach to environmental philosophy

would eschew the traditional ver sions of ethical theory and offer a radical

reinterpretation or critique of the dominant philosophical ideas of the modern age. From this critical

perspective, traditional ethical systems must be modified, expanded, ortranscended in order to deal with the fundamental philosophical issues raised by the existence of the contemporary

environmental crisis. The crucial change would be an expansion of ethical

thought beyond the limits of the human community to include the

direct moral consideration of the natural world. In these essays I have chosen this

second path. My basic critical idea is that human-centered (or "anthropocentric") ethical systemsfail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism. From this negative account ofanthropocentrism I derive my fundamental position in environmental ethics: the direct moral consideration and respect for the

evolutionary processes of nature. I believe that it is a basic ethical principle that we must respect Nature as

an ongoing subject of a history, a life-process, a developmental

system. The natural world--natural entities and natural ecological systems--deserves our moral consideration as part of theinterdependent community of life on Earth. Hence the title of this collection. I consider Nature as analo gous to a

human subject, entitled to moral respect and subject to traditional ethical categories. I do not anthropomorphizeNature; I do not ascribe human feelings and intentions to the operations of natural processes. I do not consider natural processes to

be sentient or alive. I merely place Nature within the realm of ethical activity. The basis of a moral justification of environmental

policy is that we have ethical obligations to the natural world, just as we have ethicalobligations to our fellow human beings. In these essays I explain and analyze this nonanthropocentric perspective in environmental

philosophy. Mass extinction is key to evolution.

Their anthropocentric impact calculus is just moral prejudicethe burden is on them to

prove why humans are the center of value.Regan 90 (Tom, Professor of Philosophy at NC State, Christianity and Animal Rights: TheChallenge and Promise 1990)


2/24

I addressed this question in a recent speech, reminding my audience of a few "extreme" moral

positions upon which we are all agreed: The murder of the innocent is always wrong. Rape

is always wrong. Child molestation is always wrong. Racial and sexual discrimination

are always wrong. I went on to note that when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the

examples just adduced, then one must oppose it absolutely. It is not a reformed, "more humane"

rape that an enlightened ethic calls for; it is the abolition of all rape that is required; it is

this extremeposition we must uphold. And analogous remarks apply in the case of the otherhuman evils I have mentioned. Once this much is acknowledged it is evident -- or at least it should

be -- that those who oppose or resist the animal rights question will have to do better than merely

attach the label "extreme" to it. Sometimes "extreme" positions about what is wrong are right. Of

course there are two obvious differences between the animal rights position and the other

examples of extreme views I have given. The latter views are very generally accepted, whereas

the former position is not. And unlike these very generally accepted views, which concern wrongful

acts done to human beings, the animal-rights position concerns the wrongfulness of treating

animals (nonhuman animals, that is) in certain ways. Those who oppose or resist the animal rights

position might seize upon these two differences in an effort to justify themselves in accepting

extreme positions regarding rape and child abuse, for example, while rejecting the "extremism" of

animal rights. But neither of these differences will bear the weight of justification. That a

view, whether moral or otherwise, is very generally accepted is not a

sufficient reason for accepting it as true. Time was when the shape

of the earth was generally believed to be flat, and time was when thepresence of physical and mental handicaps were very generally thought to make the people who

bore them morally inferior. That very many people believed these falsehoods

obviously did not make them true. We dont discover or confirm

whats true by taking a vote.The reverse of the preceding also can be demonstrated.

That a view, moral or otherwise, is not generally accepted is not a

sufficient reason for judging it to be false. When those lonely few firstconjectured that the earth is round and that women are the moral equals of men, they conjectured

truly, notwithstanding how grandly they were outnumbered. The solitary person who, in Thoreaus

enduring image, marches to a different drummer, may be the only person to apprehend the

truth. The second difference noted above is more problematic. That difference cites the fact that

child abuse and rape, for example, involve evils done to human beings, while the animal-rights

position claims that certain evils are done to nonhuman animals. Now there is no question that this

does constitute a difference. The question is, Is this a morallyrelevant difference -- a difference,

that is, that would justify us in accepting the extreme opposition we judge to be appropriate in the

case of child abuse and rape, for example, but which most people resist or abjure in the case of,

say, vivisection? For a variety of reasons I do not think that this difference is a morally relevantone. Viewed scientifically, this second difference succeeds only in citing a biological difference: the

victims of rape and child abuse belong to one species (the species Homo sapiens) whereas the

victims of vivisection and trapping belong to another species (the species canis lupus, for

example). But biological differences inside the species Homo sapiens do not justify radically

different treatment among those individual humans who differ biologically (for example, in terms of

sex, or skin color, or chromosome count). Why, then, should biological differences outside our

species count morally? If having one eye or deformed limbs does not disqualify a human being

from moral consideration equal to that given to those humans who are more fortunate, how can it

be rational to disqualify a rat or a wolf from equal moral consideration because, unlike us, they


3/24

have paws and a tail? Some of those who resist or oppose the animal-rights position might have

recourse to "intuition" at this point. They might claim that one either sees that the principal

biological difference at issue (namely, species membership) is a morally relevant one, or one

does not see this. No reason can be given as to why belonging to the species Homo sapiens gives

one a superior moral status, just as no reason can be given as to why belonging to the

species canis lupus gives wolves an inferior moral status (if wolves have a moral status at all). This

difference in moral status can only be grasped immediately, without making an inference, by an

exercise of intuitive reason. This moral difference is self-evident -- or so it will be claimed by those

who claim to intuit it. However attractive this appeal to intuition may seem to some, it woefully

fails to bear the weight of justification. The plain fact is, people have claimed to intuit differences

in the comparative moral standing of individuals and groups inside the human species, and these

alleged intuitions, we all would agree, are painful symptoms of unquestioned and

THEY SAY HUMANITY FIRST:

1. Humanity is not better than anything elsewe are part of a larger biotic community.

Harding 05 (Stephan, doctorate in ecology from the University of Oxford, a degree in Zoologyfrom the University of Durham, and has many years experience of ecological field research and of

teaching at University level. What is deep ecology,

http://biomimicry.typepad.com/bioinspire/files/BioInspire.23-01.31.05.pdf, date accessed: 7/22/11)

Notice that the experience was not looked for, expected or contrived. It happened spontaneously.

Something in the dying eyes of the wolf reached beyond Leopolds training and triggered a

recognition of where he was. After this experience he saw the world differently, and went on to

develop a land ethic, in which he stated that humans are not a superior species

with the right to manage and control the rest of nature, but rather that

humans are plain members of the biotic community. He also penned hisfamous dictum: a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability andbeauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. Arne Naess

emphasises the importance of such spontaneous experience. A key aspect of these

experiences is the perception of gestalts, or networks of relationships. We see that

there are no isolated objects, but that objects are nodes in a vast web of relationships.

When such deep experience occurs, we feel a strong sense of wide identification with what we are

sensing.This identification involves a heightened sense of empathy and an

expansion of our concern with non-human life. We realise how dependentwe are on the well-being of nature for our own physical and psychological well-being.

As a consequence there arises a natural inclination to protect non-human life.Obligation and coercion to do so become unnecessary. We understand that other beings,

ranging from microbes to multicellular life-forms to ecosystems and watersheds, to Gaia

as a whole, are engaged in the process of unfolding their innate potentials. Naess calls this

process self-realisation. For us humans,self-realisation involves the

development of wide identification in which the sense of self is no

longer limited by the personal ego,but instead encompasses greater and greaterwholes. Naess has called this expanded sense of self the ecological self. Since all beings strive in

their own ways for self-realisation,we recognise that all are endowed with


4/24

intrinsic value, irrespective of any economic or other utilitarianvalue they might have for human ends. Our own human striving for self-realisation is on

an equal footing to the strivings of other beings. There is a fundamental equality between

human and non-human life in principle. This ecocentric perspective contrasts with the

anthropocentric view which ascribes intrinsic value only to humans, valuing

nature only if it is useful to our own species .The new sense of belonging toan intelligent universe revealed by deep experience often leads to deep questioning, which helps

to elaborate a coherent framework for elucidating fundamental beliefs, and for translating thesebeliefs into decisions, lifestyle and action. The emphasis on action is important. It is action

that distinguishes deep ecology from other ecophilosophies. This is what makes deep

ecology a movement as much as a philosophy. By deep questioning, an individual is

articulating a total view of life which can guide his or her lifestyle choices. In

questioning society, one understands its underlying assumptions from an ecological

point of view. One looks at the collective psychological origins of the ecological crisis, and the

related crises of peace and social justice. One also looks deeply into the history of the West to find

the roots of our pernicious anthropocentrism as it has manifested in our science, philosophy and

economics. One tries to understand how the current drive for globalisation of Western culture and

of free trade leads to the devastation of both human culture and nature. This deep questioningof the fundamental assumptions of our culture contrasts markedly with the mainstream

shallow or reform approach. This tries to ensure the continuance of business as usual by

advocating the greening of business and industry by incorporating a range of measures such as

pollution prevention and the protection of biodiversity due to its monetary value as medicine or its

ability to regulate climate. Although deep ecology supporters often have no option but

strategically to adopt a reform approach when working with the mainstream, their own

deep questioning of society goes on in the background. This may subtly influence the

people with whom they interact professionally.

2. Dominate Rule is to preserve nature.

Marina 9 (Daniel, Sdertrns hgskola | Institutionen fr Kultur och Kommunikation,Anthropocentrism and Androcentrism An Ecofeminist Connection

http://www.projectsparadise.com/anthropocentrism-androcentrism/)

Environmentalism is the movement that works to end naturism. Environmentalists assert

that the domination of nature by humans exists and that this domination is

wrong . Some environmentalists carry out the work to end naturism from the discipline ofphilosophy. Environmental philosophy is work carried out within some philosophical

field mainly ethics that is motivated by the general goal of the environmentalmovement. Despite the differences between the various positions, there is one assumption

shared by most environmental philosophers, namely nature deserves moral consideration in its

own right. As Warren explains, mainstream Western ethics has traditionally neglected nature.

The standard notion has been that humans only have moral

obligations towards humans. Nature has merely had instrumental

value.Environmental philosophers endeavour to elucidate the connections betweenenvironmental problems and traditional philosophical conceptions. They set themselves

the task of identifying how naturism manifest itself in philosophy, that is, ofcountering when


5/24

philosophers deliberately or accidentally articulate the already privileged world of

humans maintaining its status over nature. Some of the environmental ethical positions are:

(1) the individualistic approaches of Peter Singer and Tom Regan: moral consideration is due to

all those individuals who possess the morally relevant capacities, namely sentiency

(Singer) and to be the subject of a life (Regan); (2) the holistic approach of Aldo Leopold whose

focus is on populations, species, ecosystems, and the biosphere: it is not only individual

animals that enjoy moral value, but also plants and the non-living elements of the

natural world; (3) deep ecology that expects humans to develop an ecological

sensitivity: a respect that reflects the fact that each organism is essentially related to

the other elements of the biospherical net and the fact that every life form possesses

an intrinsic value independently of the instrumental values that it may possess in the

eyes of a human beholder; (4) social ecology that identifies a structural and institutional

root of the environmental crisis, specifically a society that has been permeated by

authoritarian hierarchies and a capitalist market economy, and a natural world that has

been arranged in accordance with a hierarchal order of beings: it underlines then the vital

connection between social problems and environmental problems, that is, between the way

humans relate to humans and the way humans relate to nature. Ecofeminism is the approach that

merges the goal of the environmental movement with the goal of the feminist movement. Warren

explains that it does this because ecofeminists believe that both environmentalism and feminismhave their shortcomings, and that they should complement each other. According to her

environmentalists will not be able to fully and correctly understand, and consequently successfully

abolish, naturism unless they cease to disregard the connections existing between the domination

of nature and the domination of women. They will not be able to elaborate theories that do

not contribute to oppression unless they recognize the role and configuration of

oppressive conceptual frameworks and the conceptual connections between naturism and

sexism they give rise to. They will not be sensitive to the specific realities and perspectives of

women unless they admit gender as a fundamental category of analysis. Feminism needs, in a

similar way, to understand the connections between sexism and naturism.

THEY SAY PLAN HURTS HUMANS:

Humans are only excluded from nature by choicethe ethic of the AFF recognizes the

multiplicity of centers of value in nature.



Finally, I would like to summarize some of the reasons why anthropocentrism is open to

criticism. I shall focus on those that Val Plumwood adduces. According to her

anthropocentrism is basically a framework of beliefs and perceptions that generates a

myriad of illusions. Nature is perceived as discontinuous from the human realm, as subordinate, as

inessential, as a denied and disorderly Other, as passive, and so on. Anthropocentrism

disregards natures complexity, her uniqueness as a life-sustaining whole, and the

plurality of legitimate centres with genuine interests and needs that it comprises.

Humans are perceived as discontinuous from the natural realm, as


6/24

essentially rational, and are reduced to being masters and conquerors. Humans, as

physical and biological beings, can, of course, be allowed to remain

within nature. What anthropocentrism especially consigns to an area outside and abovenature is that part of the human self that is considered authentically human, i.e. rationality and

freedom. Human identity is in such a way construed in opposition to the natural, the

physical, the biological, and the animal, including those human traits associated

with animality, that the authentically human includes also the desire toexclude and distance from the nonhuman. This conception of the humanself as separate from, or if anything accidentally related to, nature together with the

conception of the nonhuman as inferior and antagonistic renders humanity a legitimate

oppressor and nature a means to human ends.Anthropocentrism disregards

humanitys vital dependence on nature, the essential character of genuinehuman traits such as the emotions and the body, as well as other attitudes towards

nature than that to master and conquer it.

THEY SAY HUMANS SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT:

2 Points on this:

1. Extend or Williams 10 card that talks about how we once had a

big ocean theory and that ideology has now been driven outward

into space

And 2. They have it backwardshuman centered actions destroys the natural otherthe

plan solves.



These three terms suggest a spatial image. Something, in this case humanity, is situated at the

centre of something. There are numerous settings in which humans can be claimed to occupy

the centre. For example, an anthropocentric cosmology would claim that humanity

occupies the physical centre of the universe.31 In environmental philosophy the termsare mainly applied to morality. Here I shall analyze the ways in which humans are said to

occupy the privileged spot of that specific universe. The starting point shall be Val Plumwoods

liberation model of anthropocentrism. I am beginning with Plumwood because she offers a detailed

account of what centrism and anthropocentrism is. Plumwood defines centrism as a structure that

is common to and underlies different forms of oppression, like colonialism, racism, and sexism.

The role of this structure is to generate a Centre and the Periphery,

an oppressor and the oppressed, a Centre and the Other. The shared features are:

1. Radical exclusion: Those in the centre are represented as


7/24

radically separated from and superior to the Other. The Centre isrepresented as free from the features of an inferiorized Other, and the Other as lacking

the defining features of the Centre. Differences are exaggerated to the point of preventing or

hindering any sense of connection or continuity, to the point that identification and sympathy are

cancelled.32 2. Homogenization: Those on the periphery are represented as

alike and replaceable. Similarities are exaggerated and differences aredisregarded within that group. The Other is not an individual but is related to as a

member of a class of interchangeable items.33 Differences are only acknowledged whenthey affect or are deemed relevant to the desires and well-being of those in the centre. 3. Denial:

The Other is represented as inessential. Those in the centre deny their own dependency

on those on the periphery. 4. Incorporation: Those in the centre do not admit the autonomy of

the Other. The Other is represented as a function of the qualities of the Centre. The Other

either lacks or is the negation of those qualities that characterize those in the centre, being these

qualities at the same time the most cherished and esteemed socially and culturally. 5.

Instrumentalism: Those in the centre deny the Other its independent

agency. Those on the periphery are represented as lacking, for instance, ends of its

own. The Centre can consequently impose its own ends upon them without any conflict.TheOther becomes a means or a resource the Centre can make use of

to satisfy its own needs, and is accordingly valued for the usefulness the Centrecan find in it. A second reason for beginning with Plumwood is that all the iniquitous senses of

anthropocentrism that I have come across in the literature can, I think, be identified as either

instrumentalism or denial. Warwick Foxspassive sense of anthropocentrism would be an example

of denial. In this sense he speaks of anthropocentric ecophilosophy as one that focuses

on social issues only, on interhuman affairs and problems. For these environmentalists the

nonhuman world retains its traditional status as the background against which the

significant action human action takes place.34 According to them the

environmental crisis would then be solved within that human sphere by ensuring thewell-being of humanity. There would be no need to deal with the way humanity relates to

nature. The other senses would be examples of either instrumentalism or of outcomes of instrumentalism: AndrewDobsons strong anthropocentrism (The injustice and unfairness involved in the instrumental use of the non-human world35); the

account Robert Sessions gives of how deep ecology describes the anthropocentric attitude ((1) Nonhuman nature has no value in

itself, (2) humans (and/or God, if theistic) create what value there is, and (3) humans have the right (some would say the obligation)

to do as they please with and in the nonhuman world as long as they do not harm other humans interests36); Tim Haywards

account of the ethical criticism of anthropocentrism (The mistake of giving exclusive or arbitrarily preferential consideration to

human interests as opposed to the interests of other beings37); Andrew Dobsons description of what environmentalists consider a

basic cause of ecological degradation and a potential cause of disaster (Concern for ourselves at the expense of concern for the non

human world38); and Warwick Foxs aggressive sense of anthropocentrism, according to which

anthropocentrism is the overt discrimination against the nonhuman

world.

CEDE THE POLITICAL

The political is already cededonly a radical form of politics can regain it from

transnational companies and political technophiles.Best 6 (Steven, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas El Paso, RevolutionaryEnvironmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Total Liberation 2006)


8/24

George W. Bushs feel-good talk of progress and democracy, given an endless and uncritical

airing by mainstream corporate media, masks the fact thatwe live in an

unprecedented era of social and ecological crisis. Predatory transnationalcorporations such as ExxonMobil and Maxxam are pillaging the planet, destroying

ecosystems, pushing species into extinction, and annihilating indigenous peoples and traditional

ways of life. War, globalization, and destruction of peoples, species, and ecosystems march in

lockstep: militarization supports the worldwide imposition of the "free market" system,

and its growth and profit imperatives thrive though the exploitation of humans, animals, andthe earth (see Kovel 2002; Tokar 1997; Bannon and Collier 2003). Against the mindless

optimism of technophiles, the denials of skeptics, and complacency of the general

public, we depart from the premise that there is a global environmental crisis which is

the most urgent issue facing us today. If humanity does not address

ecological problems immediately and with radical measuresthat target

causes not symptoms, severe,world-altering consequences will play out overa long-term period and will plague future generations. Signs of major stress of the worlds

eco-systems are everywhere, from shrinking forests and depleted fisheries to vanishing wilderness

and global climate change. Ours is an era of global warming, rainforest destruction, species

extinction, and chronic resource shortages that provoke wars and conflicts such as in Iraq. While

five great extinction crises have already transpired on this planet, the last one occurring 65 million

years ago in the age of the dinosaurs, we are now living amidst the sixth extinction crisis, this time

caused by human not natural causes. Human populations have always devastated their

environment and thereby their societies, but they have never intervened in the planets ecosystem

to the extent they have altered climate. We now confront the end of nature where no natural

force, no breeze or ripple of water, has not been affected by the human presence (McKribben

2006). This is especially true with nanotechnology and biotechnology. Rather than confronting this

crisis and scaling back human presence and aggravating actions, humans are making it worse.

Human population rates continue to swell, as awakening giants such as India and China move

toward western consumer lifestyles, exchanging rice bowls for burgers and bicycles for SUVs. Thehuman presence on this planet is like a meteor plummeting to the earth, but it has already struck

and the reverberations are rippling everywhere. Despite the proliferating amount of solid,

internationally assembled scientific data supporting the reality of global climate change and

ecological crisis, there are still so-called environmental skeptics, realists, and optimists who

deny the problems, often compiling or citing data paid for by ExxonMobil. Senator James Inhofe

has declared global warming to be a myth that is damaging to the US economy. He and

others revile environmentalists as alarmists, extremists, and eco-terrorists who

threaten the American way of life. There is a direct and profound relationship between global

capitalism and ecological destruction. The capitalist economy lives or dies on constant growth,

accumulation, and consumption of resources. The environmental crisis is inseparable fromthe social crisis, whereby centuries ago a market economy disengaged from society and

ruled over it with its alien and destructive imperatives. The crisis in ecology is ultimately a

crisis in democracy, as transnational corporations arise and thrive through the destruction of

popular sovereignty. The western environment movement has advanced its cause for over three

decades now, but we are nonetheless losing ground in the battle to preserve species,

ecosystems, and wilderness (Dowie 1995; Speth 2004). Increasingly, calls for moderation,

compromise, and the slow march through institutions can be seen as treacherous and

grotesquely inadequate. In the midst of predatory global capitalism and biological

meltdown, reasonableness and moderation seem to be entirely unreasonable and


9/24

immoderate, as extreme and radical actions appear simply as

necessary and appropriate. As eco-primitivist Derrick Jensen observes, We must

eliminate false hopes, which blind us to real possibilities. The

current world system is inherently destructiveand unsustainable; if it cannotbe reformed, it must be transcended through revolution at all levelseconomic, political,

legal, cultural, technological, and, most fundamentally, conceptual. The struggles and changes

must be as deep, varied, and far-reaching as the root of the problems.

And Radical environmental movements are more effective at creating change our

evidence is comparative.Best 6 (Steven, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas El Paso, RevolutionaryEnvironmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Total Liberation 2006)

Revolutionary environmentalism is based on the realization that politics as usual just wont cut

it anymore. We will always lose if we play by their rules rather than invent new forms of

struggle, new social movements, and new sensibilities.The defense of the earthrequires immediate and decisive: logging roads need to be blocked, driftnets needto be cut, and cages need to be emptied. But these are defensive actions, and in addition to these

tactics, radical movements and alliances must be built from the perspective total

liberation. A new revolutionary politics will build on the achievements

of democratic, libertarian socialist, and anarchisttraditions. It will incorporate radicalgreen, feminist, and indigenous struggles. It will merge animal, earth, and human standpoints in a

total liberation struggle against global capitalism and its omnicidal grow-or-die logic. Radical

politics must reverse the growing power of the state, mass media, and corporations to

promote egalitarianism and participatory democratization at all levels of society

political, cultural, and economic. It must dismantle all asymmetrical power relations and

structures of hierarchy, including that of humans over animals and the earth. Radical

politics is impossible without the revitalization of citizenship and the re-politicization of life, which begins with forms of education, communication, culture, and

art that anger, awaken, inspire, and empower people toward action and change.

And The political is already cededthe plan is the last hope for radical change in the face

of environmental destruction.Best 4 (Steven, professor of philosophy at Texas El Paso, From Earth Day to Ecological Societyhttp://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/FromEarthDay.htm, date accessed: 7/27/11

Homo sapiens have embarked on an insane, destructive, and unsustainable path of existence.

The human species is driving off a cliff at 100 miles an hour without

brakes ,and yet people live is if the most urgent issue of the day is Janet Jacksons wardrobemalfunction or who will win American Idol. There is much talk about national security but

nothing is said about the basis of all security environmental security. Problems like global

warming, desertification, and food and water shortages will wreak havoc throughout


10/24

the planet. As Homeland Security turns ever-more fascist, environmentalists are vilified as

eco-terrorists and legal forms of activism are criminalized under the Patriot Act. While

Ashcroft prosecutes activists working to help the planet, corporate eco-terrorists continue to

pillage and plunder. Meanwhile, Americans, who make up less than 5% of the worlds

population, consume 30% of its resources and produce 25% of total greenhouse gas

emissions. Whatever forces striving to save the environment are doing, it is not to ward off

corporate and state Pac-men greedily devouring the planet. National environmental

organizations such as the Sierra Club are tepid, compromise-based, reform-oriented

bureaucracies unable to challenge corporate and state power, and grass-roots forces

are not great enough in force and numbers.We are in the midst of a major

ecological crisis that stems from a social crisis rooted in corporate

power and erosion of democracy. In Greek, the word crisis means decision,suggesting that humanity, currently poised at a critical crossroads in its evolution, has crucial

decisions and choices to make concerning its existence on the planet. Human identity, values,

ethics, worldviews, and mode of social organization need major rethinking and

reconstruction. In Chinese, crisis means both calamity and opportunity. In a diseased

individual, cancer often provides the catalyst for personal growth. As a diseased species,

human beings can perish, survive in dystopian futures prefigured by films like Mad Maxand Waterworld, or seize their opportunity to learn from egregious errors and rise to

far higher levels of social and moral evolution.The Human Plague The crisis in human

existence is dramatically reflected in the 1996 film, Independence Day. The movie is about hostile

aliens with no respect for life; they come to earth to kill its peoples, devour its natural resources,

and then move onto other planets in a mad quest to find more fuel for their mega-machines and

growth-oriented culture. The film is a veiled projection of our own destructive habits onto

monstrous beings from another world.We are the aliens; we are the parasites who live

off the death of other life forms; we are the captains of the mega-machines that are

sustainable only through violence and ecological destruction. We do to theanimals and the earth what the aliens do to human life -- the only difference is, we have no

other planet to move on to, and no superheroes to save us. We are trapped in a Dawn

of the Dead living nightmare where armies of hideous corpses,

people thought long dead and buried, walk again with a will to

destroy us.The dead represent all the waste, pollution, and ecologicaldebts accrued to our growth culture that we thought we could walk away from

unscathed and never again face.But we are waking up to the fact that the

dead are storming our neighborhoods, crashing through our doors

and windows, and hell-bent on devouring us .In his article entitled A Plagueof Human Proportions, Mark Lynas frames the crisis this way: Within the earth's biosphere, asingle species has come to dominate virtually all living systems. For the past two centuries this

species has been reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an infectious plague envelops its host.

Three hundred thousand new individuals are added to its numbers every day. Its population of

bodies now exceeds by a hundred times the biomass of any large animal species that

has ever existed on land since the beginning of geological time. The species is us. Now

numbering more than six billion souls, the human population has doubled since 1950. Nothing like

this has happened before in the earth's history. Even the dinosaurs, which dominated for tens of

millions of years, were thinly spread compared to the hairless primate Homo sapiens. Thus, a


11/24


12/24

environmentalist? Where industries, the state, and toxic nihilists of ever stripe want

those who care about the environment to bear stigmas such as kook, wacko, un-

American, and even terrorist, being an environmentalist must become a badge of

honor.To be an environmentalist is to realize that one is not only a citizen of human society, one

also is a citizen of the earth, an eco-citizen. Our community includes not only our society

with other human beings on a national and international scale, but also our relations to

the entire living earth, to the biocommunity. We need to act like we are citizens and not

conquering invaders. We have not only a negative duty to avoid doing harm to the

earth as much as possible, but also a positive duty to help nature regenerate.

Util CrayPolicy decisions directed at maintaining human survival through whatever means willencourage genocide, war, and the destruction of moral valuesCallahan 73 Co-Founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University (Daniel, TheTyranny of Survival, p 91-93)

The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power.But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and politicalevils have been committed against the rights of individuals , including the rightto life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decadesfueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter whatthe cost to other social needs . During World War II, native Japanese-Americans wereherded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld bythe Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that athreat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survivalof the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner ofsurvival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementaryhumanrights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in thename of survival: the destruction ofvillages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that

survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value.The main rationale B. F. Skinneroffers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society isthe need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that weoverthrow almost every knownreligious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the genepool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forcefulprohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traitsfrom marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause ofsurvival no good byour misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically baseddiseasesas diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of populationand environment, one can do nobetter than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedicationto survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplategovernmentally enforced abortions and adenial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted population-controlpolicies. For all

these reasons itis possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a

"tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group isnot willing to inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties ordignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, torecognize the danger whensurvival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only aboutthe need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goesdeeper than that. It is directedeven at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed toreach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroyother fundamental human rights and values. The

potential tyranny survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, ofwiping out all other values . Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking adestructivesingle-mindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. Ifboth biologically and psychologically,the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the preconditionfor any and all human achievements, and if no other rights makemuch sense without the premise of a right


13/24

to lifethen how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, inthe process,destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if theprice ofsurvival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made toensure that survival. It would be thePyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat ofall defeats if, because human beings could not properly managetheir need to survive, they succeeded in notdoing so.

Utilitarianism disregards respect for the individual and perpetuates societal inequality

by evaluating utility as a wholeFreeman 94 (Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University ofNorth Carolina (Samuel, Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn,pp.313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

The inclusion of all sentient beings in the calculation of interests severely underminesthe force of any claim that utilitarianism is an "egalitarian" doctrine, based in somenotion of equal concern and respect for persons. But let usassume Kymlicka can restore his thesis byinsisting that it concerns, not utilitarianism as a general moral doctrine, but as a more limited thesis about political morality.(Here I pass over the fact that none of the utilitarians he relies on to support his egalitarian interpretation construe the

doctrine as purelypolitical. The drift of modern utilitarian theory is just the other way: utilitarianism is not seenas a political doctrine, to be appealed to by legislators and citizens, but a nonpubliccriterion of right that is indirectly applied [by whom is a separate issue] to assess thenonutilitarian public political conception of justice.) Still, let us assume it is as a doctrine ofpolitical morality thatutilitarianism treats persons, and only persons, as equals. Even in this formit cannot be that maximizing utility is "not a goal" but a "by-product," "entirely derivedfrom the prior requirement to treat people with equal consideration " (CPP, p. 31)Kymlicka says, "If utilitarianism is best seen as an egalitarian doctrine, then there is no independent commitment to the ideaof maximizing welfare" (CPP, p. 35, emphases added). But how can this be? (i) What is there about the formal principle ofequal consideration (or for that matter occupying a universal point of view) which would imply that we maximize theaggregate of individuals' welfare? Why not assume, for example, that equal consideration requires maximizing the division of

welfare (strict equality, or however equal division is to be construed); or, at least maximize the multiple (which would resultin more equitable distributions than the aggregate)? Or, why not suppose equal consideration requires equal proportionatesatisfaction of each person's interests (by for example, determining our resources and then satisfying some set percentage ofeach person's desires) . Or finally we might rely on some Paretian principle: equal consideration means adopting measures

making no one worse off. For reasons I shall soon discuss, each of these rules is a better explication of equal consideration ofeach person's interests than isthe utilitarian aggregative method , which in effect collapsesdistinctions among persons. (2) Moreover, rather than construing individuals' "interests" as their actual (orrational) desires, and then putting them all on a par and measuring according to intensity, why not construe their interestslexically, in terms of a hierarchy of wants, where certain interests are, to use Scanlon's terms, more "urgent" than others,insofar as they are more basic needs? Equal consideration would then rule out satisfying less urgent interests of the majorityof people until all means have been taken to satisfy everyone's more basic needs. (3) Finally, what is there about equalconsideration, by itself, that requires maximizing anything? Why does it not require, as in David Gauthier's view, optimizing

constraints on individual utility maximization? Or why does it not require sharing a distribution? The point is just that , tosay we ought to give equal consideration to everyone's interests does not, by itself,imply much of anything about how we ought to proceed or what we ought to do. It is apurely formal principle,which requires certain added, independent assumptions, to yield any

substantive conclusions. That (i) utilitarian procedures maximize is not a "by-product" ofequal consideration. It stems from a particular conception of rationality that is explicitlyincorporated into the procedure. That (2) individuals' interests are construed in terms oftheir (rational) desires or preferences, all of which are put on a par, stems from aconception of individual welfare or the human good: a person's good isdefinedsubjectively, as what he wants or would want after due reflection. Finally (3), aggregation stemsfrom the fact that, on the classical view, a single individual takes up everyone's desires asif they were his own, sympathetically identifies with them, and chooses to maximize his"individual" utility. Hare, for one, explicitly makes this move. Just as Rawls says of the classical view, Hare"extend[s] to society the principle of choice for one man, and then, to make this extension work, conflat[es] all persons intoone through the imaginative acts of the impartial sympathetic spectator" (TJ, p. 27). If these are independent premises


14/24

incorporated into the justification of utilitarianism and its decision procedure, thenmaximizing aggregate utilitycannot be a "by-product" of a procedure that gives equal consideration to everyone'sinterests. Instead, it defines what that procedure is. If anything is a by-product here, itis the appeal to equal consideration. Utilitarians appeal to impartiality in order to extend a method ofindividual practical rationality so that it may be applied to society as a whole (cf. TJ, pp. 26-27). Impartiality, combined withsympathetic identification, allows a hypothetical observer to experience the desires of others as if they were his own, andcompare alternative courses of action according to their conduciveness to a single maximand, made possible by equal

consideration and sympathy. The significant fact is that, in this procedure, appeals to equalconsideration have nothing to do with impartiality between persons. What is really

being given equal consideration are desires or experiences of the same magnitude. Thatthese are the desires or experiences of separate persons (or, for that matter, of some othersentient being) is simply an incidental fact that has no substantive effect on utilitariancalculations. This becomes apparent from the fact that we can more accurately describe the utilitarian principle interms of giving, not equal consideration to each person's interests, but instead equal consideration to equally intenseinterests, no matter where they occur. Nothing is lost in this redescription, and a great deal of clarity is gained. It is in this

sense thatpersons enter into utilitarian calculations only incidentally. Any mention ofthem can be dropped without loss of the crucial information one needs to learn how toapply utilitarian procedures. This indicates what is wrongwith the common claim thatutilitarians emphasize procedural equality and fairness among persons, notsubstantive equality and fairness in results. On the contrary, utilitarianism, rightly construed, emphasizes

neither procedural nor substantive equality among persons. Desires and experiences, not persons, are the proper objects ofequal concern in utilitarian procedures. Having in effect read persons out of the picture at the procedural end, before

decisions on distributions even get underway, it is little wonder that utilitarianism can result in suchsubstantive inequalities.What follows is that utilitarian appeals to democracy and thedemocratic value of equality are misleading . In no sense do utilitarians seek to give persons equal concernand respect.

Owning oneself is a moral imperative utilitarianism imposes interpersonalobligations to society, which destroys moralityFreeman 94 (Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University ofNorth Carolina (Samuel, Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn,pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

Kymlicka distinguishes two interpretations of utilitarianism: teleological and egalitarian.According to Rawls'steleological interpretation, the "fundamental goal " (LCC, p. 33) of utilitarianism is notpersons, but the goodness of states of affairs. Duty is defined by what best brings about these states ofaffairs. " [M] aximizing the good is primary, and we countindividuals equally only because that maximizes value.Ourprimary duty isn't to treat people as equals, but to bring about valuable states ofaffairs" (LCC, p. 27). It is difficult to see , Kymlicka says, how this reading of utilitarianismcan be viewed as a moral theory. Morality, in our everyday view at least, is a matter ofinterpersonal obligations-the obligations we owe to each other. But to whom do we owethe duty of maximizing utility? Surely not to the impersonal ideal spectator . . . for he


15/24

doesn't exist. Nor to themaximally valuable state of affairs itself, for states of affairs don't have moral claims." (LCC, p.28-29) Kymlicka says, "This form ofutilitarianism does not merit serious consideration as a political morality" (LCC, p. 29).Suppose we see utilitarianism differently, as atheory whose "fundamental principle" is "to treat people as equals" (LCC, p.29). On this egalitarian reading, utilitarianism is aprocedure for aggregating individual interests and desires, a procedure formaking social choices, specifying which trade-offs areacceptable. It's a moral theory which purports to treat people

ON FWK

1. We present the round as both a political proposal for ethical change with

the justification by critical thinking

2. Predictable Ground is to arbitrary to be considered ground

3. Proposal is done by the USFG

4. We meet we are resolved that the USFG should do the plan

5. Should is the adoption of the aff plan

6. We agree the USFG is all 3 branches

B. Violation: the aff is affirming the res through the plan and out interp of

development.

C. Ground: the plan is both a philosophical proposal and a political one,

the neg still has ground in that they can run politics diasds, ks, relations

ect.

And 2. The neg actually gains more ground in that they are able to run

more args if we are supposedly not topical.

Education: we increase education with critical thought

2. Critical analysis is key to construct personal opinions.

3. Our interp allows for a free state of thinking with no boarders

4. The negs interp of education with boarders justifies racial boarders and

genocide. The Nazis prove.

Limits: we meet the limits of there interp, the plan is an ethical and

political proposal.

Predictability inevitable: 1. they are always able to claim the neg will never

be able to predict the case until the round starts


16/24

2. Predictability is arbitrary: no way to determine what standards should

be set for predictability

Voters:

1. Competitive equality means nothing, the neg can do whatever they want

we dont force them to run their theory

2. Honor not a voter: the same can be said for them they only run illegit

args theres no honor in that

3. The ballot must be evaluated according to the affs framework of an

ethical standard.

ON POLITICS

Theory

Our interpretation is that the plan is only a statement of desirability.

There are several net benefits

1. Fiat solves the link requires the least means necessary for change,

which minimizes the DA by half

2. No Link the plan is a statement of desirability, not means questionsof means are unimportant without specific evidence

3. A logical policy maker can do both without consequence the plans

political consequences occur post implementation, not prior

4. Senators dont switch votes on the plan they default to their base and

compartmentalize issues

5. Capital isnt key no ev highlights the primacy of space issues to critical

factions

6. Concerns of DA are not intrinsic to the plan, fiat allows us to assume the

plan wont cost political capital.

And the Negs search for purely political issues triggers out dispo planet

adv in the 1a bc the neg sill puts purely human benefits first our fwk is


17/24

simply that you the judge must evaluate what is best for the earth not

necessarily just for humans. This links into our solvency because the only

way to actually solve extinction of humanity is to implement an

environmental policy or our plan.

This goes to show how our Impacts of destruction of the earth clearly

outweigh the negs human extinction impacts.1. No link plan wont disrupt congress, The DA would require a special

session of congress and that would for sure be unpopular.

2. Empirically Denied: Over 40 countries have nuclear weapons and there

has never been a nuclear war between 2 countries who both have nuclear

weapons.

3. Space policies popular despite fiscal pressures

Raju and Bresnahan, 11 (4/20/11, Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Politico, Shooting for the moon amid cuts,http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html)

For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASAs

space mission remains sacred in Congress .A handful ofpowerful

lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon or even Mars that they

effectively mandated NASA to spend not less than $3 billion for anew rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by the president last week . NASA has repeatedly raisedconcerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket but the new law expresses Congresss will for the space agency to

make a massive heavy-lift rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo.

Congressional approval of the plan all while $38 billion is being

cut elsewhere in the federal government reflects not only the

power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the

enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and

Boeing in those states.

4. WINNERS WIN.

Singer 9(Jonathan -- senior writer and editor for MyDD. Singer is perhaps best known for his various interviews with prominent politicians. His interviews have includedJohn Kerry, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tom Vilsack. He has also also interviewed dozens ofsenatorial, congressional and gubernatorial candidates all around the country. In his writing, Singer primarily covers all aspects of campaigns and elections, from polling andfundraising to opposition research and insider rumors. He has been quoted or cited in this capacity by Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, The Politico, and others.My Direct Democracy, 3-3-09, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428 )

From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of

his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10

approve of the job he's doing in the White House. "What is amazing here is how much

political capital Obama has spentin the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart,

who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.htmlhttp://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.htmlhttp://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428


18/24

of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart

gets at a key point.Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up.

To an extent that's true.But it's important to note, too, that political capital

can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President

expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to

enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed,

that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama,whowent to the matto pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition

of the Republicans on Capitol Hill,and is being rewarded by the American public

as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll,his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic

Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing

in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent

place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent

blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point,with

President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious

actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a

result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there

appears to be no reason not to push forward on anythingfrom universalhealthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.

(ADD IMPACT TURN OR NO IMPACT CARD HERE)

GET NEW NO LINK ARGS

ON DISPO PLANET

Space manufacturing treats Earth as disposable planetByerly, former staff director of the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the U.S. House of

Representatives, 86

(Radford, Jr., p.91, Beyond spaceship earth : environmental ethics and the solar system, Ed.

Hargrove)

Finally, the NASA report suggests that a space manu-facturing facility would have major social and philosophicalbenefits. The report states that "the spirit of the American people has taken an introspective turn. Many are no longer

convinced that unexplored horizons still exist. Predictions of global calamity are commonplace . . . however, establishing

an SMF opens new horizons with the recognition that planet Earth is just one poten-tial source of matter and energy.

Recognition of the availability of lunar and asteroidal materials and the abundant energy of the Sun can revitalize the

traditional American belief in growth as a positive good and can generate a new spirit of adventure and optimism. It is

unnecessary to speculate on the directions of growth and its various dimensions because it is clear that American society

would continue its historic tradition of exploring new horizons and avoiding stagnation in an ever-changing Universe."

In other words, manifest destiny can be resurrected. Let me quote a little more on the putative socialbenefits of a space manufacturing facility: "On a more fundamental level, the proposed mission is species-survival


19/24

oriented. Earth might at any time become suddenly uninhabitable through global war,

disease, pollution or other man-made or naturalcatastrophies. A recent study has shown that an asteroid collisionwith Earth could virtually turn off photosynthesis for up to five years ... the proposed mission assures the continued survival of

the human species by providing an extraterrestrial refuge for mankind. An SMF would stand as constant proof that the fate of

all humanity is not inextricably tied to the ultimate fate of Earth."

These words generate several reactions. On the one hand, their naivete is charming. They recall the New Yorker cartoon by

James Thurbcr in which a hostone who today would be called an arrived "yuppie"is serving wine to his dinner

guests. He says, "It's a naive little wine, but I think you'll be amused by its impertinence." Optimism is good; if we don't

have some optimism we will spiral downward in negativism. On the other hand, the report is striking in its naivete. Its

authors seem totally oblivious of the fact that we already have a perfectly good space manufacturing facility, one to which weare well adapted. It is called Earth, and we could, if we chose, take care of it. Thus, the authors completely ignore the basic

question: If we can't learn how to take care of Earth, then how can we learn how to take

care of a space manufacturing facility in orbit around Earth?

Modernitys ideology of anthropocentrism otherizes nature and reinforces the structural

violence of the status quo causing extinctionZimmerman, University of Colorado, Boulder Professor of Philosophy, 2002

(Michael, Encountering Alien Otherness in The Concept of the Foreign, ed. Rebecca Saunders

accessed: 7-06-11, pg4-5http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_Alien_Otherness.pdf) TJL

Recently, concern about foreign immigrants has grown in Western countries to which people from poorer countries (including

former colonies) are flocking to escape political oppression and to find work. For many tourists, encountering otherness--

distinctive clothing, different skin color, odd cultural practices, unusual cuisines--is the whole point of traveling. Having those

exotic others immigrating to one's own country is another matter altogether, however. Politicians frequently try to

gain political power by turning foreigners--and even citizens who can be portrayed as sufficiently

other--into scapegoats for the country's woes. In the U.S., for example, immigrant-bashers play on the fearsthat some people have about losing their jobs to immigrants, even though job loss is more often due to decisions taken by

powerful transnational economic interests. Even people not immediately threatened by outsiders will often join in disparaging

or expelling them. People tend to project mortality and evil onto outsiders, aliens, others. By dominating or even destroying thedeath- and evil-bearing other, the dominant group feels as if it has conquered death and evil.10 Due to surging human

populations, rapid shifts in capital investment and economic structures, environmental degradation, and greater ease of travel,

mass migrations will only increase.Given the destructive capacity of current weapons, humanity

may either have come to terms with otherness, or else risk destroying itself. Just as

people have used differences in skin color, religion, gender, cultural practices, language, ideology, and

economics to justify violence against other humans, people have also used differences

between humans and other life forms to justify needless violence against plants, animals,and entire ecosystems. For centuries, people have claimed that one trait or another--from tool using to linguistic ability--

demonstrates human superiority over other life. The nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny proclaimed that a

united American people (white, of European descent) was bound to "develop" the continent's natural resources from

coast to coast. Modernitys ideology of anthropocentric humanism, which others nature by depicting it solely as an

instrument for human ends, generates enormous ecological problems. In recent decades, the dark side of modernity has comein for deserved criticism. Despite its undeniable problems, however, modernity has also made possible great improvements

in political freedom, material well-being, scientific knowledge, and human lifespan.

ON FRONTIER

The notion of Manifest Destiny is a form of imperial expansionism that is evidence in

space exploration. This cosmological rationale leads to the inevitable genocide and

violence
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_Alien_Otherness.pdf)%20TJLhttp://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_Alien_Otherness.pdf)%20TJL


20/24

Jimson, 92[Thomas, Reflections on Race and Manifest Destiny, http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/Americas/manifest.txt]

This sums up much of the rhetoric of the mid 19th Century philosophy of Manifest Destiny. In re-reading the

various quotes and passages in Reginald Horsman's work, I gained a clearer understanding of this very

important, yet often "ignored" aspect of the creation of the American psyche. Manifest Destiny is

really a multi-faceted excuse for slavery, conquest, and genocide. It is the point at which

racism, religion, and politics can meet and form a unified front and aunified philosophy for the ignoble aim of world empire. Manifest Destiny (a term coined inthe 1840s by John O'Sullivan) can only be understood in the context of race and the philosophy of Anglo-

Saxonism that was rampant from the mid 19th Century onward in Europe and North America. The

notions of inherent human equality(biological and cosmological but not cultural) and

the Biblical unity of humanity that had reigned over the Age of Enlightenmenthad gradually

given way to theories of polygenesis and inherent human inequality.The processof scientific classification of nature by Euroamericans, had by the 19th Century culminated in the

classification of humanity itself into separate races with innate qualities of inferiority and superiority. This

process is typified by the "science" of phrenology which so revolutionized the 19th Century's view of human

relations. Phrenology was not simply the "scientific" examination of the relationship between skull size and

intelligence -- it was also the study of brain/skull size in relation to MORALITY, both of which supposedly

resided in the frontal and coronal parts of the brain; Euroamericans having the largest coincidentally enough

So Euroamericans were not only more intelligent than non-whites, they were also correspondingly more

moral than other types of humanity, with more moral institutions and laws than any other type of human

beings; it, in fact, could be derived from phrenology that morality is a unique feature of the Euroamerican

stock of humanity, lacking in the darker races. Any similarities between Euroamerican institutions and those

produced by non-Euroamericans were explained away as being the product of white blood having been

introduced at some point in their history. Science would be the explanation for the slavery of the Africans

and the extermination of the Indians. "It is not our fault, we are not murderers and thieves, we are merely

fulfilling scientific principles of superiority. In factwe are not killing Indians, they

simply cannot survive civilization. It is an inherent fault within them, it has nothing to do

with us."This is what made Manifest Destiny such a powerful force in

empire building. It placed the responsibility of the destruction of

nations and peoples on the victims themselves, not on the

perpetrators of it. The power of Manifest Destiny lied in the fact

that it created a cosmological rationale for genocide, taking theresponsibility out of the hands of the individual. When you set about to dispossess a people of their land and

source of livelihood, unless you have no conscience at all, one must find an excuse to safely hide from the

truth of the pain and suffering you are inflicting on innocent peoples. In the era of Manifest Destiny and

Anglo-Saxonism the excuses were varied but most boiled down to the simple fact that if, indeed, these

people were human beings (which is questionable), then they were in fact a lesser

type of humanity who had no rights to life, land, or liberty. They could not use the land likeAnglos, so they had no right to it; they had no civilizations, so they had no right to their own political

institutions; their lives were not worth that of an Anglo, so they had no right to life. Any suffering

felt by them is of their own making, or simply a byproduct of their inferior nature whenplaced in contact with the superior Euroamerican types of humanity. The fault resided with them not the

Euroamericans. The fault was that they lived in contact with Euroamericans -- Natural Law dictated the rest.


21/24

Present conditions were used as proof that this was indeed the divine order.Anglos were the master of the non-Anglos therefore it was their nature to be masters. Non-Anglos were subservient to

the Anglos, therefore it was their nature to be servants. Circular arguments were the order of the day. The terms

used to describe the genocide are also very telling is this context -- terms such as melting, receding, shrinking,

dwindling, disappearing, vanishing. Most of these have connotations of natural processes, like the melting of the snow

or the receding tide. None of them have any type of active component. They are all devoid of conscious effort. They

"happen" under their own auspices without any intent. These terms are used consciously or unconsciously to, again,

lift the burden from the perpetrators of mass murder, thievery, and genocide and place it solidly on the shoulders of

the victims, or even more pointedly, on God. They also serve to halt any type of reflection on the realities of

expansion. How can one stop the snowfrom melting in the sun? How can one stop the tide from receding from theshore? These are all processes that are beyond human design. They are Divine processes, natural process, scientific

process, that are completely absent of human will or intent. Another excuse to hide from genocide and global

dispossession of non-Euroamerican peoples was the myth of expansion ridding the world of tyranny and despotism. It

made it quite easy to think of expansion in the context of spreading freedom and civilization to the rest of the world

that lived under despots and tyrants, spreading culture and philosophy, knowledge and science, to the unlearned

masses -- bettering the world with Euroamerican genius and technology. The march of conquest was not genocide,

slavery, and dispossession; it was the Peace Corps of the 19th Century.There are, as one might expect, inherent

contradictions in the propaganda of Anglo-Saxonism. All non-Euroamericans were savage, brute, warlike, and

ferocious -- Euroamericans, contrastingly, were peace-loving, humane, civilized, moral, just, and bringers of freedom

giving institutions. Yet when the mood was inviting, the formally negative attributes placed upon non-Euroamerican

peoples were all of a sudden some of the most positive aspects of the Anglo-Saxon race. Instead of being brute,

warlike, or savage, these attributes when used in the context of Anglo-Saxons conferred upon them heroic qualities;

the heroic conqueror, the exterminator of inferior races, replenishing the world with superior institutions and peoples.

The personification of this image of the Anglo-Saxon race was Alexander The Great. The U.S. had a somewhat

"boyish" quality, of impetuousness, quick temper, youthful virility, yet with a golden heart. The inherent contradictions

of this dual image of the Anglo-Saxon race are clear. Anglo-Saxon aggression and violence was virile, manly, and

heroic; violence on the part of Indians conversely was savage and barbaric -- proof of their animalistic qualities that in

turn provided further excuse for more "manly" violence on the part of the Anglos. Indians murdered women and

children, proof of their irredeemable savagery -- Anglo-Saxons simply expanded, women and children "receding"

before them.Manifest Destiny is, of course, much more than what is presented

here . What I find most intriguing about it, however, is how a broad concept can combine

many others into a unifying theory. This is what strikes me as being the

power Manifest Destiny had on the American psyche. It gave a holistic andDivine rationale for what in any other era would have been simple conquest and empire

building. It is what also made Euroamerican expansion uniquely cruel and genocidal. With the advent of racismand social Darwinism, extermination and supplantation replaced simple imperial designs. This is only one aspect of

Manifest Destiny -- mostly psychological -- there is obviously much more to it, yet I do not think one can overestimate

the power philosophy plays in human affairs. A philosophy such as Manifest Destiny once internalized in

the culture, is never really abolished, it merely adapts to the present conditions and

transforms itself into a suitable logic for the times.

Astroenvironmentalism demands rethinking our RISK CALCULUS

reject each instance of violation to realize a new precautionary

ethic. This is a PREREQUISITE for SURVIVAL

Viikari, 07

[Lotta, Master of Laws (LL.M.), University of Lapland, 2001. Licentiate of Administrative Sciences,

University of Joensuu, 2006. Doctor of Laws, University of Lapland, 2007.U Researcher, Northern
http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/RESEARCH/The_Northern_Institute_for_Environmental_and_Minority_Law.iw3http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/RESEARCH/The_Northern_Institute_for_Environmental_and_Minority_Law.iw3


22/24

Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre. The Environmental Element in Space

Law. SM]

The technological progress which has made space activities possible is admittedly impressive. Unfortunately

we have not proven equally successful in the learning lessons of terrestrial history regarding the

importance of environmental protection. While decades of space ventures have led to significant

advances in technology for the benefits of humans, they have also witnessed increasing space-related

environmental problems. The world space community has long known that space activity contributes to

pollution and contamination of the environment. Furthermore, thespace environment is farless resilient than the Earth, as many parts of outer space cannot regenerate afterdisturbances in the way the terrestrial environment typically does. Nevertheless, especially at the beginning

of the space era, all human space activities were so challenging that nearly any method seemed acceptable

for placing objects in outer space. Although space has become far more accessible to us and the general

attitude to environmental questions has changed quite dramatically, utilitarian policies

have disproportionately dominated space activities until today. This

gradually led to substantial environmental threats that constitute increasing

hazards to the environment of our outer space as well as to human space activities

and even to life on Earth .Although environmental hazards on Earth already pose a variety ofthreats, these threats often do not affect the particular operation which causes them but endanger otherspace (and even terrestrial activities indiscriminately. This is a manifestation of the tragedy of the commons

problem: benefits of individual space missions accrue to the entities conducting these activities but the

detrimental impact of space exploitation can usually hamper all those involved in the sector (and even

others. Given the typically high short-term costs of curbing environmentally harmful effects of the use of outer space,

it is no surprise that many of the relevant stakeholders can be hesitant to take measures to prevent environmental

degradation. A related concept if that of free riders, referring to entities which benefit by the actions of others

without sharing any of the responsibility or cost. Such an approach often seems particularly tempting in situations

where substantial costs (such as those of combating environmentally harmful consequences of space activities must

be paid not but the benefits generated by the efforts will mostly be realized inly in the future. This narrowness of the

time horizon appears to be a feature alarmingly widespread within humankind today. The free-rider problem is

particularly tricky where the commons are concerned and thus intrinsically relates to all space activities, making

conflicts in this sector even more complicated and difficult to resolve. It can considerably diminish the will of some

states to adopt environmentally more benign management practices: as long as the benefits of regulated

development of the use of outer space accrue more or less equally to all actors irrespective of their behavior, some of

them will feel little incentive to accept any restrictions. Of course, if most of the relevant stakeholders take such a

stand, curbing the environmental problems will be impossible. Even when there are only a few free-riders, their

irresponsible behavior can at worst frustrate genuine efforts by the majority. It does not seem very likely that the

traditional state community will- at least in the near future- be able to treat many global environmental

problems with the efficacy these problems appear to require. There is no reason to expect the situation

to be any better as regards the environmental effects of human activities in outer space.The future of

Earth and near-Earth outer space- and hence also that of humankind- appears gloomy unless a new

environmental consciousness soon starts to emerge. As concerns the space sector, positive indications are

provided by the efforts of some states and international organizations to alleviate environmental degradation of outer

space. For instance, in the case of space debris, there is an increasing awareness of the seriousness of the problemand both the governmental sector and the industry have made efforts to mitigate the hazard by developing

procedures and standards for the operation and design of space missions. However, although unilateral action is a

step forward, it does not alone suffice to remedy the proliferation of the debris.The effects of

human activities on the global commons of outer space have all the

potential to be severe, irreversible, and wide in scope. At the same time, thetragedy of the commons problem renders many strategies adopted nationally or by a limited set

of states for combating adverse environmental consequences of space activities ineffective.
http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/RESEARCH/The_Northern_Institute_for_Environmental_and_Minority_Law.iw3http://www.arcticcentre.org/InEnglish/RESEARCH/The_Northern_Institute_for_Environmental_and_Minority_Law.iw3


23/24

ON SOLVENCY

To begin ethically questioning Humanitys place in the universe and our relationship with

nature. Voting aff is key to solving the ongoing ecological crisis on Earth and the universe

abroadPeters, Professor Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign, and Hung Department of Education, National Chiayi University, Taiwan, 09

(MICHAEL A and Ruyu, Policy Futures in Education Volume 7 Number 3 2009, Solar Ethics: a new paradigm for

environmental ethics and education?, http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?

j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_web) page 324-325, accessed 7/8/11 by LGK

When space exploration opens a vast and grand world beyond our planet, when the storiesof the universe have started to be unfolded, when fascinating secrets of the cosmos are being revealed, when the destiny of

our Earth is found to be closely related to the other planets and the Sun, when the environmental crisis on the

Earth alerts us to re-examine the human/nature relationship, some questions demand ourexploration: What is the relationship between human beings and nature when the nature we know is no longer limited to our

own Earth? What is an appropriate relationship between human beings and nature when environmental changes on Earth

sound an alarm about a sustainable human/nature relationship? These questions bring us to an attempt to envisage an ethics

which may lead us towards a wider sustainable frame of mind: a solar system ethics. Solarethics is an ethical frame of mind which may help to reposition human beings within

nature. Don Cupitt published a small book entitled Solar Ethics in 1995, in which he points out that what drives him to think about solarethics is moral anxiety or even panic about contemporary moral problems. For him, the present social and moral disorder makes explicit thefailure of the traditional moral philosophy, whether it be emotivism or moral objectivism or realism. It is the starting point to conceive of a new

ethics. Thus he states: if you agree that tradition has failed, and that moral philosophy as we have been doing it has been addressing itself to allthe wrong questions; and you further agree that we need a moral philosophy better fitted to our cosmology and our culture then you may beready for solar ethics. The Sun sees no reason at all to apologize for making such an exhibition of itself all the time; it simply is its ownoutpouring self-expression ... It has no inwardness; that is, it is not inwardly subject to something unseen that is authoritative over it. It does

not experience the moral order ... it is purely and only affirmative. It coincides completely with its own joyous, headlong process of self-exteriorization ... (Cupitt, 1995, pp. 8-9)

The space community should create ethical guidelines that preserve spaceBillings 97

[Linda, More than 30 years of experience in the field of communication and 25 years of experience

in aerospace Ph.D. in mass communication specializes in research, analysis, and commentary on

space policy, and the history of rationales for space exploration. Frontier Days in Space: Are they

Over? http://lindabillings.org/papers.html

Instead of profit, what the space community should be attending to

in developing long-term exploration plans are the social, political,

ethical and even spiritual ramifications of extending humanpresence into space . Fundamentally, what space exploration is about is not profit-but evolution,revelation and inspiration. Explorers are driven by a desire to discover which transcends the urge to conquer, the

pursuit of trade, writes Robin Hanbury-tenison.7 Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins has observed that exploration

produces a mood in people, a widening of interest, a stimulation of the thought processess.8 Such efforts as NASAs

Discovery programme a series of low-cost missions to study planets, moons, asteroids and comets embody the true

spirit of exploration. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (abandoned by NASA in 1993) and search for

extrasolar planets epitomize the spirit of exploration as well. Patricia Nelson Limerick has recommended

that the space community abandon the frontier metaphor. But at the same time she acknowledges that it is an

enormously persistent and determining patter of thought. Ultimately, it may not be feasible to expunge the frontier

metaphor from the public discourse about space exploration. But it certainly is possible and practical, to re-examine it
http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_webhttp://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_webhttp://lindabillings.org/papers.htmlhttp://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_webhttp://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_webhttp://lindabillings.org/papers.html


24/24

as a motivating force for space exploration. What is the space frontier? It might be

useful to think of the space frontier as a vast and distant sort of

Brazilian rainforest, Atacama Desert, Antarctic continent a great unknown that

challenges humans to think creatively and expansively, to push their

capabilities to the limits, a wild and beautiful place to be studied

and enjoyed but left unsullied. Curiosity is what brought humans out of caves, took them

across oceans and continents, compelled them to invent aeroplanes and now draws them towards the stars.The broad, deep public value of exploring the universe is the value of discovery, learning and understanding;

thus the space frontier could be a school for social research, a place where new societies could frow and

thrive. This is the space frontier: the vast, perhaps endless frontier of intellectual and spiritual potential

more practice 2ac

Documents