scfi anthro k

8/11/2019 Scfi Anthro k

1/47


2/47

SCFI 2009 Anthropocentrism KProject Mayhem ___ of ___

2

Anthropocentrism K 1NC Shell (1/3)

A) Context & Thesis:At the root of all turmoil is the mindset of anthropocentrism. This human-first,technologically dominated mindset ruins our relationship to nature and makesecological crisis inevitable.Sivil, 01 (Richard Sivil studied at the University of Durban Westville, and a t the University of Natal, Durban. He has been lecturing philosophy since 1996."Why we Need a New Ethic for the Environment", Cultural Heritage 2(7): 103116 (2001))

Three most significant and pressing factors contributing to the environmental crisis are the ever increasing human population, the energy crisis, and the abuse

and pollution of the earths natural systems. These and other factors contributing to the environmental crisis can be directly linkedto anthropocentric views of the world. The perception that value is located in, and emanates from, humanity hasresulted in understanding human life as an ultimate value, superior to all other beings. This has driven innovators in medicineand technology to ever improve our medical and material conditions, in an attempt to preserve human life, resulting in more people be ing born and living longer.

In achieving this aim, they have indirectly contributed to increasing the human population.Perceptions of superiority, coupled with developingtechnologies have resulted in a social outlook that generally does not rest content with the basic necessities of life.Demands for more medical and social aid, more entertainment and more comfort translate into demands for improved standards of living. Increasing populationnumbers, together with the material demands of modern society, place ever increasing demands on energy supplies. While wanting a better life is not a bad

thing, given the population explosion the current energy crisis is inevitable, which brings a whole host of environmental implications in tow. This is not to say thatevery improvement in the standard of living is necessarily wasteful of energy or polluting to the planet, but rather it is the cumulative effect of these improvements

that is damaging to the environment. The abuses facing the natural environment as a result of the energy crisis and the fooddemand are clearly manifestations of anthropocentric views that treat the environment as a resource and instrumentfor human ends. The pollution and destruction of the non-human natural world is deemed acceptable, provided that itdoes not interfere with other human beings.It could be argued that there is nothing essentially wrong with anthropocentric assumptions, since it is natural, eveninstinctual, to favour ones self and species over and above all other forms of life. However, it is problematic in thatsuch perceptions influence our actions and dealings with the world to the extent that the well-being of life on thisplanet is threatened, making the continuance of a huge proportion of existing life forms "tenuous if not improbable"(Elliot 1995: 1). Denying the non-human world ethical consideration, it is evident that anthropocentric assumptions provide a rationale for the exploitation of thenatural world and, therefore, have been largely responsible for the present environmental crisis (Des Jardins 1997: 93).Fox identifies three broad approaches to the environment informed by anthropocentric assumptions, which in reality are not distinct and separate, but occur in a

variety of combinations.

The "expansionist" approachis characterised by the recognition

that nature has a purely instrumental valueto humans. This value is accessed through the physical transformation of the non-human natural world, by farming, mining, damming etc. Such practicescreate an economic value, which tends to "equate the physical transformation of resources with economic growth"(Fox 1990: 152). Legitimising continuous

expansion and exploitation, this approach relies on the idea that there is an unending supply of resources. The "conservationist" approach, like thefirst, recognises the economic value of natural resourcesthrough their physical transformation, while at the same time accepting the fact thatthere are limits to these resources. It therefore emphasises the importance of conserving natural resources, while prioritising the importance of developing the

non-human natural world in the quest for financial gain. The "preservationist" approachdiffers from the first two in that it recognises theenjoyment and aesthetic enrichment human beings receive from an undisturbed natural world. Focusing on the psychicalnourishment value of the non-human natural world for humans, this approach stresses the importance of preserving resources in their natural states.

All three approaches are informed by anthropocentric assumptions. This results in a one-sided understanding of thehuman-nature relationship. Nature is understood to have a singular role of serving humanity, while humanity isunderstood to have no obligations toward nature.Such a perception represents "not only a deluded but also a very dangerous orientation tothe world" (Fox 1990: 13), as only the lives of human beings are recognised to have direct moral worth, while the moral consideration of non-human entities isentirely contingent upon the interests of human beings (Pierce & Van De Veer 1995: 9). Humanity is favoured as inherently valuable, while the non-human

natural world counts only in terms of its use value to human beings. The "expansionist" and "conservationist" approaches recognise an economic value, while the"preservationist" approach recognises a hedonistic, aesthetic or spiritual value. They accept, without challenge, the assumption that thevalue of the non-human natural world is entirely dependent on human needs and interests. None attempt to movebeyond the assumption that nature has any worth other than the value humans can derive from it, let alone search fora deeper value in nature. This ensures that human duties retain a purely human focus, thereby avoiding thepossibility that humans may have duties that extend to non-humans. This can lead to viewing the non-human world,devoid of direct moral consideration, as a mere resource with a purely instrumental value of servitude. This gives riseto a principle of total use, whereby every natural area is seen for its potential cultivation value, to be used for humanends(Zimmerman 1998: 19). This provides limited means to criticise the behaviour of those who use nature purely as a warehouse of resources (Pierce & VanDe Veer 1995: 184).


3/47


3


B) Links1. The preoccupation with economics, development, and the need to combat povertyis inherently anthropocentric - It trades off with a more ecological worldview.

ARC in 2006( November 7-8, Alliance of Religions and Conservation, Norway Conference: Details of the sessions,(http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=275

The Brundtland report acknowledged the need to combat povertyand, at the same time avoid environmentaldegradation. The reports scenario of sustainable development suggested a win-win situation for both the poor and theenvironment. This assumption has,however, often provenproblematic, as the notion of sustainable use of natural resources mayimply that a given population is excluded from using the resources in question. Hence, the idea of conserving or preserving natural resources maycontradictthe ambition of achieving development. In practice, such tensions have often resulted in problems related to unequal power relations and even open clashesbetween distinct groups of actors.

Evidently, one of the reasons for such antagonism lies in the fact that different actors have distinct and sometimesincommensurable interests. A person who depends for a living on harvesting or farming a given piece of land is likely to observe the prospect of strictconservation differently than a person who is no t engaged in such activities. The importance of positioning is no less relevant in the case o f organisations,institutions and enterprises, whose agendas may also represent conflicting interests across the globe.

With the growing global concern for the environment and development, the relationships between the various interests and values atplay become rather complex. One axis of significance is the philosophically elaborated distinction between anthropocentric versusbio- oreco-centricworldviews. While the concept of sustainable development tends to be taken as anthropocentric in that it emphasises theneed to combat povertyas a primary, global objective, an eco-centric perspective, by contrast, places emphasis onecological sustainability and tends to disapprove of measures for economic development. The notion of conservation is oftenassociated with this perspective, in that the goal explicitly implies preservation of (the natural) status quo.

2. Assumptions about poverty are social constructed. We must understand poverty interms of our alienation from nature.Plling-Vocke 05. (Bernt, Master of International Relations. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, The End of Poverty: The globalization ofthe unreal and the impoverishment of all,http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdf)

Poverty, measured in terms such as purchasing power, is socially constructed. Just the fact that it represents thecontemporary status quoin international poverty discussion does not mean that it is by any means natural. Poverty is whathumans make of it. I do not want to argue that the poor are not really poor, which they often are, both in absolute andrelative terms, but to illustrate that poverty, as we know, perceive and understand it, is often constructed. Themainstream conception of poverty could equally well contain the strength of communities, the intactness of nature orthe freedom from excessive work. It might be too romantic and simplistic to imagine the aforementioned Tanzanian subsistence farmer cracking

jokes about the poor, lonely, western individual; poor in terms of kin relations, in terms of an alienation from nature by all-encompassing office-work and eternally purchasing short spurts o f happiness at the mall, especially if we compare the personal outcome in the face of a diseases as malaria orHIV/Aids.
http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=275http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=275http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=275http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdfhttp://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdfhttp://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdfhttp://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdfhttp://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=275


4/47


4


C) Impact:Without addressing ecological concerns, the aff cannot solve for any impacts,poverty will be exacerbated, and destruction of the environment is inevitable.

Hwang 00(Kyung-Sig Hwang Department of Philosophy, Seoul University)

The third view, which will be defended here, is that there is no need for a specifically ecological ethic to explain our obliga tions toward nature, that our moral

rights and duties can satisfactorily be explained in terms of traditional, human-centered ethical theory.[4]In terms of this view, ecology bears onethics and morality in that it brings out the far-reaching, extremely important effects of man's actions, that much thatseemed simply to happen-extinction of species, depletion of resources, pollution, over rapid growth of population,undesirable, harmful, dangerous, and damaging uses of technology and science - is due to human actions that arecontrollable, preventable, by men and hence such that men can be held accountable for what occurs.Ecologybrings outthat, often acting from the best motives, however, simply from short-sighted self-interest without regard for others livingtoday and for those yet to be born, brings about very damaging and often irreversible changes in the environment,changes such as the extinction of plant and animal species, destruction of wilderness and valuable naturalphenomena such as forests, lakes, rivers, seas. Many reproduce at a rate with which their environment cannot cope,

so that damage is done, to and at the same time, those who are born are ill-fed, ill-clad, ill-sheltered, ill-educated.

D) Alternative: Vote negative as an act of criticism.

Voting negative can politicize the environment and to promote a non-anthropocentricethic by challenging the discourse of the 1AC. Sapontzis, 95 (S. F. Sapontzis Professor are California State University, Hayward, Longbeach. Deputy editor of Between the Species: A Journal ofEthics. The Nature of the Value of Nature 1995 http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html)

[5] Finally, if the motivating concern about the value of nature really is practical, it must be political. In order toovercome the environmental crisis, we must convince peoples and governments to change their behaviors andinstitutions in the ways necessary to achieve that end. If the peoples and governments which are devastating natureare anthropocentric, then environmentally enlightened anthropocentric arguments have an immediate relevance topolitical debates concerning environmentally significant practices. In contrast, arguments employing ideas of theoverriding, objective value of nature are politically irrelevant until these anthropocentric, nature-devastating peoplesand governments come to believe that nature has such value. While neither task is easy, convincing peoples andgovernments to change their fundamental value systems seems a far more problematic and time-consuming taskthan convincing them that continuing their nature-devastating practices is contrary to their anthropocentric values.Especially in a time of crisis, pursuing the less problematic and time-consuming course of argument is the course totake to make a real, political difference. Consequently, the practical motivation of overcoming the environmental crisisdoes not direct us to establish the overriding, objective value of nature; rather, it directs us to develop politicallycompelling, anthropocentric arguments for environmentalism.
http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#4http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#4http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#4http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#4


5/47


5

Anthropocentrism K 1NCExtra Alt

Alternative: only advocating oikeiosis,the doctrine of belonging, and biocentricallyrecognizing that human beings are part of a shared community of life allows us toestablish harmony with nature while also preserving human individualism anddignity.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animalsin the History of Western Philosophy, http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ7GP8dcmLQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=anthropocentrism+poverty&source=bl&ots=gynWaPQxR5&sig=eTFYqqtZ5_BbNh62mWplFyR0Vl8&hl=en&ei=biFhSvLpFNCTlAft1OWeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


6/47


6

Ecological K of Poverty

Ecology is intrinsically intertwined with human sociology and history.OConnor in 97. (James. Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Economics in the Department of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz.Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. http://books.google.com/books?id=4_cYGQ2BafUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=natural+causes)


7/47


7


Solutions to poverty within the affirmatives capitalist framework ignore theimmanent contradiction between self-expanding capital and self-limiting nature.OConnor in 97. (James. Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Economics in the Department of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. http://books.google.com/books?id=4_cYGQ2BafUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=natural+causes)


8/47


8


The alternative is to embrace ecology and find environmental justice for personsliving in poverty through radical socioeconomic change.OConnor in 97. (James. Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Economics in the Department of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. http://books.google.com/books?id=4_cYGQ2BafUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=natural+causes)


9/47


9

Anthropocentrism K2NC Overview

Our K is essentially about the affirmatives prioritization of helping homo sapiens living in povertyrather than realizing that ecology is the primary question when determining the causalities andimplications of poverty as a socio economic construct. The concept of anthropocentrism is the

determination that all aspects of the biosphere have value according to human terms contrary toidea that nature can never be disposable because its preservation is always worth the same. Thiscontrols the affs discourse in all traditional aspects of environmental policy. The development ofthese ideas not only inhibits the affirmative solvency, but turns the case making their impactsinevitable.

As such, the negative proposed oikeiosis- the process of belonging to the biosphere- as a means tocreate belonging for all aspects of the natural world.

As such, the negative proposed a political alternative which would use understanding rather thantotally denial of anthropocentrism. This solves because it is transcending totalizing depictions on

both sides so that we can reach common ground and it proves that meaningful action comes beforethe spoken word.


10/47


10

2NC Linkwall (Generic)

Anthropocentrism is the use of the non human world for human purposes and is passed onthrough discourse.Turner, Summer 09 (Rita Turner UMBC: An Honors University in Maryland The Discursive Construction of Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics;Summer2009, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p183-201, 19p. 2009 EBSCO http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=106&sid=6c27a5b4-37cc-45d1-92e8-

1efc915f4205%40sessionmgr110&bdata=JmxvZ2lucGFnZT1sb2dpbi5hc3Amc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#db=aph&AN=42988162#db=aph&AN=42988162)

Our businesses, policies, and lifestyles cause unexamined consequences for other people and other living beings,and exact sweeping destruction on the very ecosystems which support all life, including our own. A major factorcontributing to this destructive behavior is the anthropocentric character of the dominant Western world view, whichconceives of the nonhuman living world as apart from and less important than the human world, and whichconceptualizes nonhuman nature-including animals, plants, ecological systems, the land, and the atmosphere-as inert, silent, passive,and valuable only for its worth as a resource for human consumption. This anthropocentric conceptual framework isconstructed, transmitted, and reproduced in the realm of discourse, in all of the modes and avenues through whichwe make and express cultural meaning.We need to make explicit the ways that mainstream Western and American discourse promotesanthropocentrism and masks, denies, or denigrates interdependence, and we need to find ways to reformulate and reframe our discouse if we are to produce thesort of ecological consciousness that will be essential for creating a sustainable future.


11/47


11

2NC Linkwall (Superiority)

Anthropocentrism is using resource conservation for the benefit of humans and hasmade homo sapiens conquerors.

Li, 96 (Huey-li Li University of Akron On the Nature of Environmental Education (Anthropocentrism versus Non-Anthropocentrism: The IrrelevantDebate 1996 Philosophy of education society. http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/96_docs/li.html)

Specifically,Aldo Leopold argues that "we have a well articulated human-to-human ethic; what we need is a comparablehuman-to-land ethic."[10] Here, Leopold refers to "land" as an ecosystem which includes soils, waters, plants, and animals. In critiquing thehuman exploitation of nature, Leopold considers that it is important to "change the role of Homo Sapiens fromconqueror of the land-community to plain members and citizens of it ."[11] Similarly, Naess promotes "deep ecology" inorder to move away from what he calls anthropocentric "shallow ecology" which is only concerned with resourceconservation and pollution control for the protection of humans. Naess claims that a genuine ethical concern forenvironmental issues must go beyond a pursuit of human interests. In his own words, "A new ethic, embracing plants and animals aswell as people, is required for human societies to live in harmony with the natural world on which they depend for survival and well-being."[12] Accordingly, heproposes the principle of biospherical egalitarianism, proclaiming that all the members in the ecosphere share equal

rights to live and blossom.

Modern science has reframed nature anthropocentrically such that it has beenpushed beyond the ontological boundaries of reality.Plling-Vocke 05. (Bernt, Master of International Relations. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, The End of Poverty: The globalization ofthe unreal and the impoverishment of all, http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdf)

Our modern regard of nature reached an unprecedented scale with the enlightenmentproject, and the rise of the scientificworldview. Ever since, the world seems to operate according to certain clear, calculable, and unchanging laws, not by the whims of any living, sentientbeing318. Jeffrey Sachs feels deeply indebted, as all of us who work toward a brighter future are intellectually indebted to the awe-inspiring geniuses of the

Enlightenment, who first glimpsed the prospect of conscious social actions to improve human well -begin on a global scale319. With the rise of thewestern, modernist project, nature ceased to be either beautiful or scary, but merely there, ready to be used byhumans, for humans320, Sale argue. It became de-mystified and was interpreted as slave and raw material321, Arne Naess

adds. For radical environmentalists as them, Sachs vision of anenlightened globalization a globalization of democracies,multilateralism, science and technology, and a global economic system designed to meet human needs322 istroublesome.If Sachs program of development allows each and everyone of humanity tojoin in on the rising tide ofglobalization, non-human life will be drowned out.When Rene Descartes, often claimed to be the father of modernity, started doubtingeverything he could manage to doubt, arithmetic and geometry stood out as more certain than sensual perceptions323, and the cornerstone for Sachs

enlightened globalization was placed. For Descartes, it become impossible to appraise the world by intuition, and the method of critical doubtbrought to completion the detachment of man from nature, the dualism of man and the rest of nature that reservedgoals and purposes for humans alone324. For Descartes, reasoning and science allowed a reduction of chemistry and biology to mechanics, thusthe process by which a seed develops into an animal orplant is purely mechanical325, therefore animals are automata326. Nowadays, modernsciences, indebted to the enlightenment project, often portray nature along the lines of a meaningless and colourlesscollision of lifeless atoms falling through the void327. By comparison, only humans have minds and bodies, whileanimals have only bodies328. Industrialism and urbanization have transformed experiences of nature, as the earth

itself is sold in plastic bags and, for many urbanized city-dwellers, contact with unmediated nature is contained inparks, where ironically the sense of danger resides in encounters with ones fellow citizens.The constructed reality of urbanlife is confirmed by contrast with lesser realities as Disneyland, but in essence, the real is no longer real329. Furthermore, the rampant urbanization led to theestablishment of national parks, but since parks are limited, they often cannot qualify as areas of what Arne Naess describes as friluftsliv330, because heavyusage in the era of mass tourism severely restricts what friluftsliv is about; one cannot walk off path, camp wild, prepare food except in provided grills and soon331. Naess remarks that instead of entering a realm of freedom, one feels that one is in some kind of museum ruled by angry owners. Additionally, a highlyunnatural outfitting pressure exists, and norms about equipment replacement are impressed upon and accepted by large sections of the popu lation, therefore

people swallow the equipment hooklengthen their work day and increase stress in the city to be able to afford the latest 332. If this is in accordancewith what we, en-masse, regard as nature, the real is once again no longer real.


12/47


12

2NC Linkwall (Superiority)

Virtue ethics are anthropocentric because they contend that animals lack therationality requisite to moral virtue.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals

in the History of Western Philosophy, http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ7GP8dcmLQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=anthropocentrism+poverty&source=bl&ots=gynWaPQxR5&sig=eTFYqqtZ5_BbNh62mWplFyR0Vl8&hl=en&ei=biFhSvLpFNCTlAft1OWeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


13/47


13

2NC Linkwall (Economics)

Although nature is necessary to improve human welfare, our conceptualization ofrights and economics contributes to ecological destruction.Plling-Vocke 05. (Bernt, Master of International Relations. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, The End of Poverty: The globalization of

the unreal and the impoverishment of all, http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdf)For Jeffrey Sachs, nature is one sort of capital required to improve human well-beingon a global scale. With such an almostuniversally shared attitude, it is true that modern industrial people, in practice at least, presume that there are nomoral issues involved in (their) treatment of animals and forests, Andew McLaughlin assesses293. Concerning nature, wehave no option but to use humans as a point of reference, and if nature would be attributed with inalienable rights,we would be unable to avoid ethical dilemmas, sceptical environmentalist Bjoern Lomborg puts forward. Instead of inalienable rights,people attribute preferences towards nature, following few rational schemes, as sometimes emissions are cut to savesea-bed dwelling animals, while at the same time we slaughter cattle for beef294. On the other hand, economies are thedominant factor in determining a societys interaction with all of nature, and the compelling need to secure a living byearning wages propels most people to participate in activities that they might otherwise avoid, but cannot, as theireconomic system rewards ecologically destructive practices, Deep Ecologist McLaughlin appears to counter to such claims295. If weassume that the traditional cultural beliefs and practices of much of the world are favourable to the norms of the deep ecological movement296 and our modernways of regarding nature are wrong, spreading the word of Jeffrey Sachs universal ladder o f development will globalize incentives for humans to participate in

activities that they might otherwise avoid.

Both capitalism and socialism are fundamentally anthropocentric economic systems.Plling-Vocke 05. (Bernt, Master of International Relations. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, The End of Poverty: The globalization ofthe unreal and the impoverishment of all, http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdf)

Under capitalism, nature can be privately owned. Most of nonhuman nature is regarded as stuff which can beowned and disposed of as a right of the owner. It is disenchanted of intrinsic value and viewed as raw materialsand raw resources306thus, as Jeffrey Sachs puts it, natural capital(ought to provide) the environmental services needed by humansociety307. Consequently, nonhuman nature is not seen as what it is but as what it might become308. The whale isntprimarily a whale, but either a steak or something to showcase to buzzing video-cameras from around the world.Under capitalism, the future is frequently discounted, and economic rationality requires that the distant future bedisregarded309. Scarcities of resources tend to fasten their depletion, unless a business is remodelled, as in the case of whales. Economic rationality canonly be overcome with sufficient wealth and a desire for a sustainable yield, but capitalistic economies will not likely be ecologicallyrational310. The whale might have gotten away, but it is the exception. There are no grounds to assume that socialism, as analternative to contemporary capitalism, would embrace nature any different, as there is no compelling reason tobelieve that a society evolved beyond human relations involving domination would also automatically rejectdomination over the rest of nature311. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, Karl Marxonce stated, prompting Garrett Hardin to challenge And then what?312

The development of economic policies are also done for personal gain- that of themajor corporations.Corten, 02(David C. Korten BA in psychology from Stanford University and MBA and Ph.D. degrees from the Stanford Business School Global 6 BillionPeoples Summit, June 22, 2002, University of Calgary BEYOND THE GLOBAL SUICIDE ECONOMYhttp://www.pcdf.org/2002/Gobal6Billion.htm)

By contrast, those of us who live in the real world of people and nature experience a deepening crisis of such magnitude

as to threaten the fabric of civilization and the survival of the species. Where corporate globalists see the spread ofdemocracy and vibrant market economies, we see the power to govern shifting away from people and communitiesto financial speculators and global corporations dedicated to monopolizing the worlds markets and resources in theblind pursuit of profit. We see corporations replacing democracies of people with democracies of money, self-organizing markets with centrally planned corporate economies, and spiritually grounded ethical cultures withcultures of greed and materialism.
http://www.pcdf.org/2002/Gobal6Billion.htmhttp://www.pcdf.org/2002/Gobal6Billion.htmhttp://www.pcdf.org/2002/Gobal6Billion.htm


14/47


15/47


15

2NC Linkwall (Rhetoric)

Even a framework of deontological ethics is anthropocentric because it assumes thatthe death of a person has a greater prima facie harm than the death of a million dogs,leading to xenocide.

Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy a t Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animalsin the History of Western Philosophy, http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ7GP8dcmLQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=anthropocentrism+poverty&source=bl&ots=gynWaPQxR5&sig=eTFYqqtZ5_BbNh62mWplFyR0Vl8&hl=en&ei=biFhSvLpFNCTlAft1OWeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


16/47


16

2NC Linkwall (Util)

Focusing on utilitarianism, inherent value, and subjective human capacitiesempirically disfavors animals because they are tailored to humans.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals



17/47


17

2NC Linkwall (Util)

Utilitarian calculus excludes nature, guaranteeing disregard, and thus destruction ofnature, unless it directly affects humanity.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animals


Utilitarian calculus is inherently anthropocentric because it assumes that humanity isat the center of the universe.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animalsin the History of Western Philosophy, http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ7GP8dcmLQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=anthropocentrism+poverty&source=bl&ots=gynWaPQxR5&sig=eTFYqqtZ5_BbNh62mWplFyR0Vl8&hl=en&ei=biFhSvLpFNCTlAft1OWeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


18/47


18

2NC Linkwall (Util)

Preventing suffering to nonhumans is only virtuous to the extent that it benefits thehuman acting to prevent suffering.Steiner 05. (Gary, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University,Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status of Animalsin the History of Western Philosophy, http://books.google.com/books?id=RJ7GP8dcmLQC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=anthropocentrism+poverty&source=bl&ots=gynWaPQxR5&sig=eTFYqqtZ5_BbNh62mWplFyR0Vl8&hl=en&ei=biFhSvLpFNCTlAft1OWeDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


19/47


19

Political Alt Solvency

Our policies have developed greater inequalities in classes and we must consider the effects of theneoliberal polices.Westerfield, 04 (Robert E. Westerfield New York : Nova Science Publishers, 2004 Current Issues in Globalizationhttp://books.google.com/books?id=_Y-

mnYHFmioC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=anthropocentrism+socio+economic+inequality&source=bl&ots=tPa9ulUD7K&sig=hgWFzrnVHJjkL8W9z72Z6w65KkE&hl=en&ei=JttgSti5DuKFmQepqZnoDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7)


20/47


20

Oikeiosis Alt Solvency

An environmental ethic must include the greater environment.Sivil, 01 (Richard Sivil studied at the University of Durban Westville, and at the University of Natal, Durban. He has been lecturing philosophy since 1996."Why we Need a New Ethic for the Environment", Cultural Heritage 2(7): 103116 (2001))

It is clear that humanity has the capacity to transform and degrade the environment. Given the consequences inherent in having such capacities, "the needfor a coherent, comprehensive, rationally persuasive environmental ethic is imperative"(Pierce & Van De Veer 1995: 2). Thepurpose of an environmental ethic would be to account for the moral relations that exist between humans and theenvironment, and to provide a rational basis from which to decide how we ought and ought not to treat theenvironment. The environment was defined as the world in which we are enveloped and immersed, constituted byboth animate and inanimate objects. This includes both individual living creatures, such as plants and animals, aswell as non-living, non-individual entities, such as rivers and oceans, forests and velds, essentially, the whole planet Earth. Thisconstitutes a vast and all-inclusive sphere, and, for purposes of clarity, shall be referred to as the "greaterenvironment".In order to account for the moral relations that exist between humans and the greater environment, an environmental ethic should have asignificantly wide range of focus.

Only embracing the environment can help mitigate natural disasters.

Maxwell 08. (Annie Maxwell is the Chief Operating Officer of Direct Relief International. From August 2005 to October 2006, she was seconded to theUnited Nations Office of theSpecial Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, as Partnerships and Outreach Officer. The Role of the Environment in Poverty Alleviation,http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents /environment_role.pdf)The tsunami response posed immense challenges for those in the affected countries and the members of the international community who responded. More than

three years later, there are many lessons to be learned for future humanitarianresponse efforts.The Tsunami Evaluation Coalition(TEC), a collaborative of representatives from donor countries, UN agencies, the Red Cross, and nongovernmental organizations, published five excellent

thematic joint evaluations and a Synthesis Report that explore many of these issues.2Among the most interesting and important is thefailure of many actors to integrate environmental considerations successfully into the recovery, and the reasonsthese critical issues were ignored.While some have argued that environmental issues were not incorporated because the environment is not valuedas important or as a sign ificant issue in the world of international development, the evidence suggests the contrary. Although environmental conservation andprotection were formerly viewed in opposition to international development, that tension has lessened over the past thirty years (Galizzi, 2006). Indeed, theenvironment has come to be recognized as central to development, as is clearly evidenced by the modern sustainable

development approach (Galizzi, 2006). The tsunami revealed in dramatic fashion the powerful role that the condition of theenvironment plays in determining the consequences of natural hazards, and the correlation was not lost on those struggling to respond

and rebuild. During the tsunami, the environment proved that it could serve as a natural protectorate. Communities where mangroves, coral reefs, and naturaldunes were cared for were spared the most devastating ravages of the tsunami. In Sri Lanka, researchers found that intact coral reefs played an important role.

In one rather dramatic example in the town of Peraliya, where the coral reef had been destroyed, water came 1.5 kminland, smashing a passenger train and killing 1,700 people (Liu et al., 2005). The old, crushed rail car became one of the more tragiciconic images of the tsunami. Down the coast in Hikkaduwa, where the coral reef had been protected, the tsunami hit the shoreminimally, coming in only 50 meters, and it killed no one (ibid.). While there are dramatic examples of coral reefs playing a role in protectingcoastal communities, mangroves are the more prominent and widespread exampleof the benefits o f holistic environmental management.Satellite images from before and after the tsunami offer visual evidence of the protective power of these trees. Those communities with protectedmangrove forests along the coastline fared far better(UNEP, 2005). In India, researchers found that areas in theCuddalore district with coastal vegetation were less damaged than others that had been environmentally degraded(Danielsen et al., 2005). The tsunami demonstrated an obvious physical connection between environmental protection anddisaster risk reduction.


21/47


21

Impacts

Maintaining current worldview threatens humanity in multiple ways. Fritjor Capra,Philosopher, 1995(Deep Ecology in the 21st Century)It is becoming increasingly apparent that the major problems of our time cannot be understood in isolation. The

threat of nuclear war, the devastation of our natural environment, the persistence of poverty along with progress evenin the richest countriesthese are not isolated problems. They are different facets of one single crisis, which isessentially a crisis of perception. The crisis derives from the fact that most of us and especially our large socialinstitutions subscribe to the concepts and values of an outdated worldview, which is inadequate for dealing with theproblems of our overpopulated, globally interconnected world.

Their will to act ignores the ecological destruction occurring all around us.Hwang 00(Kyung-Sig Hwang Department of Ph ilosophy, Seoul University)While our ability to affect the future is immense, our ability to foresee the results of our environmental interventions isnot. I think that our moral responsibility grows with foresight. And yet, paradoxically in some cases grave moral responsibility is entailed by thefact of one's ignorance. If the planetary life-support system appears to be complex and mysterious, humble ignoranceshould indicate respect and restraint.

However, as many life scientists have complained, these virtues have not been apparent in these generations. Instead they po int out, we have boldly

marched ahead, shredding delicate ecosystems and obliterating countless species, and with them the unique geneticcodes that evolved through millions of years; we have altered the climate and even the chemistry of the atmosphere,and as a result of all this-what?[18]A few results are immediately to our benefit; more energy, more mineral resources, more cropland, convenientwaste disposal. Indeed, these short-term payoffs motivated us to alter our natural environment. But by far the larger and more significant results, the permanentresults, are unknown and perhaps unknowable. Nature, says poet, Nancy Newhall, "holds answers to more questions than we know how to ask." And we have

scarcely bothered to ask.[19]Year and year, the natural habitants diminish and the species disappear, and thus our planetaryecosystem (our household) is forever impoverished.
http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#18http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#18http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#19http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#19http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#19http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#19http://www.eubios.info/ABC4/abc4304.htm#18


22/47


22

2NC Impact Calc

Their anthropocentric impacts of nuclear war and extinction ignore the systemicecological catastrophe as well as the constant nuclear war evoked on animals.Plling-Vocke 05. (Bernt, Master of International Relations. Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand, The End of Poverty: The globalization of

the unreal and the impoverishment of all, http://www.hockeyarenas.com/berntpv/jeffreysachs/endofpovertydeepecology.pdf)These world affairs are dark, and the old rough equivalency of GNP with Gross National Pollution still holds.280 Hundreds of millions of years ofevolution of mammals and especially of large, territory-demanding animals will come to a halt281 and perceptions, as by Jeffrey Sachs, that thatwhich is not of value to any human being is not of value at all, are egocentric.Newtons laws were made by Newton,but stones fall without him, and value statements are only uttered by Homo sapiens, but not necessarily the only va lues, just because values areformulated not by mosquitos in mosquito language282. Humanity uses its uniqueness and special capacities among millions ofkinds of other living beings for constant domination and mistreatment283, but life is fundamentally one284. Formillions of animals, disasters feared by humans are commonplace, as these animals live and die in a nuclear wartoday, locked away in laboratories and tortured for experiments285.A lack of identification leads to indifference286.Wilderness has become so scare that many national parks are so overloaded with people that extremely strict regulations havebeen introduced instead ofentering a realm of freedom, one feels that one is in some kind of museum ruled by angry owners287. Responsible participants of contemporary societies haveslowly but surely begun to question whether we truly accept this unique, sinister role we have previously chosen, our roles within a global culture of a primarily

techno-industrial nature288. How dire are these world affairs? The threat of ecocatastrophe has become apparent289. Apocalypse

now is happening all around, and only continued deterioration of human life conditions may strengthen and deepen the deep ecological movement,hopefully resulting in major changes in economic, political and ideological structures290.Then, human development might follow another path and abandonJeffrey Sachs ladder of modern, economic growth. The process is probably slow and its direction revolutionary, but its steps are reformatory291.

No matter the value of nature it can never be disposable because its perseveration isalways worth the same.Sapontzis, 95 (S. F. Sapontzis Professor are California State University, Hayward, Longbeach. Deputy editor of Between the Species: A Journal ofEthics. The Nature of the Value of Nature 1995 http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html)

Nature obviously has the material and productive sorts of derivative value in a wide variety of ways . While acting on some ofthese values involves interfering with, severely altering, and even destroying nature, at least locally and temporarily, acting on others requires preserving thatorder. For example, some environmentalists have emphasized the productive value nature has for many people in relation to their feelings of spiritual well-be ing,

and that is a derivative value that requires preserving nature. Similarly, as noted above, environmentalists also emphasize the originary valueof nature for the possibility of life on earth, and this is, once again, a value that requires preserving nature . Thus, even ifnature had only derivative value or even if nature's derivative value were its highest priority value, that would notimply that we should treat nature as a storehouse of disposable items.


23/47


23

Turns Case

Case turn: ecology is necessary for sustained poverty reduction.Halverson and McNeill 08. (Elspeth Halverson is a Programme Officer with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) EquatorInitiative. Charles McNeill is the Manager of the Environment Program Team within UNDP and of UNDPs Biodiversity Conservation andPoverty Reductionprograms. The Role o f the Environment in Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents /environment_role.pdf)

In 2002, ten years after the Rio Earth Summit, and between the two UN Millennium Summits of 2000 and 2005, the world gathered in Johannesburg, SouthAfrica, for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to further articulate concrete commitments for implementing Agenda 21.Agenda 21 is acomprehensive plan of action to be taken at all levels (global, national, local, and corporate) to address humanimpact on the environmentthat was agreed in Rio (1992). Among many agreements captured in the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI)there is the recognition by world leaders that sound and equitable management of natural resources and ecosystemservices is critical to sustained poverty reductionand achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (Johannesburg Plan ofImplementation, 2002). It is also worth noting that the Equator Initiative (described later in this overview) was crea ted before the Johannesburg World Summit asan effort to assess and learn from the record of achievement toward sustainable development of local level actors and communities. In advance of the WSSD, agroup of like-minded agencies and institutions came together to form the Poverty Environment Partnership. Involving UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, withnational governments, regional development banks, and the major environmental and development NGOs, this partnership is an in formal but influential networkthat aims to improve the coordination of work on poverty reduction and the environment within the framework of internationally agreed principles and processes

for sustainable development. The partnerships goal is to build a consensus on the critical links between poverty and theenvironment, particularly that better environmental management is essential to lasting poverty reduction by sharinginsights and best practice around mainstreaming environmental dimensions into development(UNDP/UNEP Poverty andEnvironment Initiative [PEI], n.d.). In particular, the Poverty Environment Partnership has the goals of(1) sharing knowledge and operationalexperience; (2) identifying ways and means to improve coordination and collaboration at country and policy levels; and (3)developing and implementing joint activities (PEI, n.d.). The PEP alliance launched a major policy document at the WSSD, entitled Linking Poverty Reductionand Environmental Management: Policy Challenges and Opportunities, which emphasized the need for policy and institutional changes to improve governance,increase the assets of the poor, improve the quality of economic growth, and reform international and industrial country practices (Department for InternationalDevelopment, 2002). With this report, the PEP alliance put forward pro-poor integrated poverty-environment policy approaches as a centerpiece for the MDGagenda.

Case turn: critical thought to reconceptualize the environment is key to solvepoverty. Policy experts agree.Halverson and McNeill 08. (Elspeth Halverson is a Programme Officer with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) EquatorInitiative. Charles McNeill is the Manager of the Environment Program Team within UNDP and of UNDPs Biodiversity Conservation andPoverty Reductionprograms. The Role o f the Environment in Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents /environment_role.pdf)

The2005 Millennium Review Summit also marked a critical turning point in the analytical and substantive debate onenvironment and development through a series of reports from prominent researchersand development institutions. Leadingenvironmental organizations, corporations, development and academic institutions, including UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, World Conservation Union(IUCN), International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the World Resources Institute, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Swiss Re, and Harvard

University, recently published findings that firmly place the health of the environment as central to lasting economicand social development.The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Perhaps most fundamentally, the Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment(MA) has irrevocably altered our understanding of the threats to the health of the worlds ecosystems andthe stark implications for human society. The MA was commissioned by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2000 and was authorized throughfour international environmental conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention to Combat

Desertification and the Convention on Migratory Species (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MA], 2005). The MA brought together the work of1,360scientific, technical and policy experts to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being(MA, 2005). It took place over five years, documenting, analyzing and reporting findings on four thematic clusters: condition and trends, scenarios, responses,

and subglobal assessments. The MA findings were published in 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Synthesis summarizes the findings in

the technical assessment reports of each thematic cluster. In a world that is becoming increasingly advancedtechnologically and, in the case of the developed world, detached from the natural world, it is easy to think that weare no longer dependent on natural systems. These natural systems, known as ecosystems, are defined as dynamiccomplexes of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment interacting as afunctional unit(Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992). The MA documents that this is not the case and that, in fact, society(both in the developed and developing world) is very much dependent on ecosystems for the services they deliverfor the foodand fresh water that keep us alive, the wood that gives us shelter and furniture, even the climate and air we breatheare products of the planets living systems.


24/47


24

Turns Case

Social hierarchy was only made possible by domination of the environment becausesurpluses empower class elites.Bookchin 05. (Murray, author, libertarian/socialist/environmentalist, The Ecology of Freedom)


25/47


25

Turns Case

Anthropocentrism is used to justify domination non-humans and inferior humans.Smith (Penelope Smith- Animal Communication Specialist http://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.htmldate NA)

Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has some serious

consequences for all life on this planet. It is calledanthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the universe. I referto this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the pinnacle of all forms of life. From theanthropocentric view, non-human beings that are most like human are usually considered more intelligent, for example,chimpanzees who learn to use sign language or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through touching electronic devices in their tanks.

Animals or other life forms that don't express themselves in human ways by language or in terms easilycomprehensible by common human standards are often considered less developed, inferior, more primitive ormechanistic, and usually of less importance than humans. This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals asobjects for human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb, unfeeling" non-humans can bedisregarded, mistreated, subjugated, killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their existence initself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind. Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them inpatterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect them more and treat them with more regard fortheir rights. However, this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy of

respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species. The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in whichmany humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different cultures, races, religions, orsexes. Regarding others as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty orelimination of them. Too often people label what they don't understand as inferior, dumb, or to be avoided, withoutattempting to understand a different way of being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or animals that are differentthan themselves as opportunities to expand their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.

The market mechanism damages ecology and attempts to solve poverty but entrenches it.Fotopoulos, 05(Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement. The MultidimensionalCrisis and Inclusive Democracy Chapter 7: The ecological failure of the growth economy http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/ss/ch7.htm)

However, apart from the fact that there is no way to put an objective value on most of the elements that constitute the environment (since they affect asubjective par excellence factor, i.e., the quality of life), the solution suggested, in e ffect, implies the extension of the marketisation process to the environment

itself. Thus, not only is it conveniently ignored that it is the market mechanism itself which is the problem, because from the momentit incorporated an important part of the environmentlandit initiated the eco-damaging process, but it is alsorecommended that the marketisation process has to be extended to the other parts of the environment(air, water, etc.) aswell! The outcome of such a process is easily predictable: the environment will either be put under the control of the economic elitesthat control the market economy(in case an actual market value can be assigned to it) or the state(in case only imputing a value is feasible). Ineither case, not only the arrest of the ecological damage isat leastdoubtful, but, also, the control over Nature by elites who aim to dominate itusing

green prescriptions this timeis perpetuated.The World Bank ignores of course the strong evidence suggesting that it is, mainly, poverty asdevelopment (i.e., poverty caused by development) which is causing the environmental degradation and not povertyas underdevelopment. This is particularly so, if we allow for the fact that it is the consumerist lifestyles of the rich thatare causing environmental degradation rather than those of the poor. Thus, the high income countries, where 15 percent of the worldpopulation live, was the cause of 49 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 and over 50 percent in 1997.
http://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.htmlhttp://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.htmlhttp://www.anaflora.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.html


26/47


26

Turns Case

American politics are working to further promote the social divide.Weir, 98( Margaret Weir Professor of Sociology and. Political Science at University of California Berkeley. The Social DivideP3 1998http://books.google.com/books?id=M-6_ndHumA8C&pg=PA510&lpg=PA510&dq=social+services+create+a+social+divide&source=bl&ots=NNjV1QnWOK&sig=AnECmNX9qCKwO_95RHplvh_UyJw

&hl=en&ei=UilhSpzlLpPGlAfatY2kDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1)


27/47


27

Solvency Turn

Climate change disproportionately affects the poor that the affirmative are trying tohelp. We must transcend anthropocentrism and face the ecological collapse going onall around us in order to solve.

Halverson and McNeill 08. (Elspeth Halverson is a Programme Officer with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) EquatorInitiative. Charles McNeill is the Manager of the Environment Program Team within UNDP and of UNDPs Biodiversity Conservation andPoverty Reductionprograms. The Role o f the Environment in Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents /environment_role.pdf)

No issue more strikingly illustrates the links between environmental management and social and economic conditionsthan climate change.The compelling economic case for action to mitigate climate change made in October 2006 by Sir Nicholas Stern shows howshortsighted and damaging inaction will be (Cabinet Office, 2006). The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report of February 2007 underscores theserious risks we face by ignoring impacts of greenhouse gas pollution. Work recently undertaken by Harvards Medical School, Swiss Re, and UNDP entitledClimate change futures: Health, ecological, and economic dimensions has also contributed to this understanding, especially in the global business community(Epstein and Mills, 2005). The report lays out in clear terms the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, the economy, and h uman health, with reference to thefact that developing countries will be most vulnerable to these impacts. By modeling scenarios that predict gradual warming with growing variability and increasedcatastrophic weather events, Climate change futures estimates the economic, environmental and human health costs of global warming. This study, funded inpart by Swiss Re, the largest reinsurance company in the world, differs from the others mentioned in this text in that it is driven by the corporate need to preparefor future business conditions in order to mainta in profit margins. The reports findings paint a dire picture for the unabated continuation of the current rate of

carbon dioxide emissions. For instance, rising temperatures favor the spread of infectious and respiratory disease (such asmalaria, West Nile virus, Lyme disease, and asthma), and extreme weather events or sustained changes intemperature or moisture regimes often catalyze outbreaks of other communicable diseases, the treatment of which iscostly and reduces economic productivity(Epstein and Mills, 2005). In fact, thirty new infectious diseases associated with changed or degradedecosystems have been documented since 1970, more than in any other period in recorded history. Climate change will impact directly on theenvironment, causing pest infestations, drought, flooding, forest fires, and bleaching of coral reefs, which will upsetthe delicate balance of ecosystems, endangering many species and driving others to extinctionand putting at risk ecosystemservices such as the provision of water and food (Epstein and Mills, 2005). In terms of direct economic impact in the short term, the greatest risks o f climate

change are the further augmentation of vulnerabilities in the energy sector. According to the scenarios presented, continued reliance on fossil fuelswill be affected by increased storms disrupting the operation of offshore oilrigs, pipelines, refineries, and distributionsystems, and northern pipelines will be disabled by melting tundra(Epstein and Mills, 2005). This scenario paints a picture of our alreadytenuous relationship with oil being rendered increasingly more so, bringing with it implications of shortages and international conflict. Not surprisingly, thepoor, especially in developing countries, are most vulnerable to these threats. Accordingly, every effort to catalyze economic andsocial development must also address environmental concernsand create durable livelihoods that will be responsive to the impacts

brought about by climate change. Climate change threatens to erase or even set back any development gainsof the past severaldecades unless serious mitigation efforts are taken and unless significant investments in helpingdeveloping countries anticipate and respond toimpending impacts are made. This critical body of workis called climate change adaptation, and it is further evidence of the globalrecognition that environmental issues canhave enormous implications on the quality of life of people everywhere, and they need to be taken intoaccount.


28/47


28

Solvency Turn

Their anthropocentric thinking ignores the power of nature, and natural disasters areinextricably linked to poverty.Herklotz 08. (Alena Herklotz is an Adam and Brittany Levinson Fellow in International Law of Sustainable Development, The Role of the Environment in

Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents /environment_role.pdf)The rise in the frequency and severity of natural disasters has been accompanied by a shift in their global perception,from a conception of catastrophes beyond human control to which people can only struggle to respond, to recognition that natural disasters are, infact, the product of risk accumulated through years of vulnerability and underlying hazards(Schipper and Pelling, 2006).Natural hazards, such as droughts, earthquakes and tsunamis, epidemics, floods, landslides, tropical storms,volcanic eruptions, and wildfires are affecting human populations more because people are simply more vulnerable(International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD], 2005). Poor planning, population growth, urbanization, and increasingenvironmental degradation create the high-risk conditions that invite and enable disaster(IISD, 2005). Most significantly,however, natural disasters are inextricably linked to poverty. Poverty and exclusion increase the vulnerability thatenables natural hazards to become disasters, which, in turn, swiftly eliminate development gains made in the fightagainst poverty: disasters triggered by natural hazards are a consequenceof development failure as much as failed development is a product of disasters(Schipper and Pelling, 2006).


29/47


29

Root Cause - Empirics

Empirics prove; anthropocentric thinking is exactly why Hurricane Katrina was sucha terrible natural disaster.Thompson 08. (Sacha Thompson is a Centennial Fellow with the Sustainable Development Legal Initiative of the Leitner Center for International Law

and Justice at Fordham Law School, The Role of the Environment in Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents/environment_role.pdf)

In October 2004, Joel K. Bourne published an articlein National Geographic depicting the devastation caused by a majorhurricane tearing through New Orleans.In his article, hundreds of thousandsof New Orleanians, many unable to evacuate before thestorm, are drowned or trapped on rooftops as storm surges drive walls of water over the citys levees.The floodwaters turnthe city into a cesspool o f contamination, toxic waste, decaying flesh, and disease. It is declared the worst natural d isaster in the history of the United States

(Bourne, 2004).As fantastic as this story seemed in 2004, the article is not entirely a work of fiction. Bourne interviewedseveral local engineers, fishermen, business owners, and scientists, all of whom agreed that Louisianas severelyeroded wetlandswhich protect the low-lying city of New Orleans from the severity of hurricanesmade Bournes disaster more of aninevitability than a possibility(Bourne, 2004). At 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, a high-intensity Category 3 storm,made landfall in Louisiana(Knabb, Rhome, and Brown, 2005) and wreaked havocon the city of New Orleans as if it used Bournesarticle for a blueprint.1 The destruction of Katrina was written all over the levee walls. New Orleans is aculturally rich and vital city carved outof the wetlands of the Mississippi Delta. Since its founding, it has been struggling to tame its surrounding

environmentnamely, to prevent the wetlands from swallowing the city whole. The massive feats o f engineering that keep New Orleans dry and prosperousare truly a marvel. Ironically, these human-made marvels also aided Hurricane Katrina to cause as much destruction as it did.The destruction of the wetlands, the growth and exploitation of the oil industry, a deeply rooted legacy of racism, andineffective governance jointly contributed to making Katrina the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.This chapter willexplore the role that each of these factors played in the disaster. It will also offer suggestions drawn from the lessons of other disasters that may aid a rebuilt NewOrleans in mitigating the devastation of the next, inevitable hurricane.


30/47


30

Root Cause - Empirics

Anthropocentric thinking in South Louisiana sacrificed biodiversity and wetlands inthe name of economic gain, and this paradigm was proven self-destructive.Thompson 08. (Sacha Thompson is a Centennial Fellow with the Sustainable Development Legal Initiative of the Leitner Center for International Law

and Justice at Fordham Law School, The Role of the Environment in Poverty Alleviation, http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/resources/documents/environment_role.pdf)

The deltaic process has made the southern Louisiana wetlands an incredibly prosperous region. It is home to one ofthe nations most vital port complexes, which include the Port of New Orleans. Through South Louisianas ports the bulkcommodities of U.S. agriculturecorn, wheat, and soybeansare sent around the world, and the bulk commodities needed for American industrysteel andconcrete, for instancecome into the country (Tibbetts, 2006: A41). The Louisiana coastline also produces one-quarter of the nations natural gas and one-fifthof its oil (Tibbetts, 2006: A41). The wetlands support a USD 300 million per year commercial fishing industry (Bourne, 2004). Tourism has also become a vitalpart of the Louisiana economy. Americans traveling to Louisiana spent approximately USD 8.1 billion in 2001 (USACE, 2004: MR 237). In 2000, recreationalfisherman spent USD 1.2 billion in the state of Louisiana, and in 2001, big-game hunters spent USD 446 million and wildlife watchers spent USD 168 million in

the state (USACE, 2004). Residents of the South Louisiana area were happy to reap the benefits of the areas resources,but they were not willing to endure the constant and destructive flooding necessary to sustain them.Today, SouthLouisiana is one of most intensively engineered places in the nation. Vast quantities of water are diverted or reroutedthrough a lacework of navigation corridors held in place by 2,000 miles of earthen, rock, and concrete levees (Tibbetts,2006: A41). Instead of depositing its sediment into the wetlands, the Mississippi River now carries the sediment into the

Gulf of Mexico, to the edge of the continental shelf, where it falls over an underwater cliff, never to be recovered (Fischetti, 2001).Blocking the flow of the river to the floodplainsand wetlands also blocks the arrival of the freshwater and sediment thatsustains these areas; without the deltaic renewal process, the wetlands will begin to subside and give way to opensaltwater(Tibbetts, 2006). This will cause loss of not only the rich biodiversity and natural resources but also the crucialnatural protection from inevitable hurricanes and storm surges.As early as 1950, geologistsbegan to document dramaticloss of land in the Louisiana coastal plainsas much as 80 percent of the nations total loss of coastal wetlands, amounting to 1,900 squaremiles from 1932 to 2000 (Tibbetts, 2006: A40). Louisiana is now losing approximately6,600 acres of wetland per year (Driesen et al., 2005), orone acre every twenty-four minutes(Fischetti, 2001).


31/47


31

AT Timeframe Perm

Poverty does not cause environmental destruction; the consumption patterns of thenon-poor are to blame.Satterthwaite 02. (David, Current chief researcher for the International Institute for Environment and Development, January, The Ten and a Half Myths

that may Distort the urban Policies of Governments and International Agencies.)MYTH 9 : Poverty is a major cause of environmental degradation Many international reports claim that poverty is a major cause ofenvironmental degradation,including the World Commission on Environment and Developments report, Our Common Future70and UNEPs Geo2000.71 There is very little evidence that this is actually the caseon a global scale e ither in rural areas72 or in urban areas. In urbanareas, it is overwhelmingly the consumption patterns of non-poor groups(especially high income groups) and the productionand distribution systems that serve them that are responsible for most environmental degradation. The urban poorcontribute very little to environmental degradation because they use so few resources and generate so few wastes.There is a strong association between environmental health problems and urban poverty and the confusion between environmental health risk andenvironmental degradation may explain why urban poverty is thought to contribute to environmental degradation. But the two should not be confused. Most

environmental health risks pose no threats to environmental degradation. Environmental degradation is usually understood in terms ofhigh use of scarce nonrenewable resources, damage or destruction of key renewable resources(such as soils and forests)and the generation of wastes that are not easily assimilated or broken down by natural processes.So lets consider the roleof urban poverty in each o f these.In regard to non-renewable resource use, most of the houses in which low income groups

live(and often build for themselves) use recycled or reclaimed materials and little use of cement and other materials with ahigh energy input. Low income households have too few capital goods to represent much of a draw on the worldsfinite reserves of metals and other non-renewable resources. Most low income groups in urban areas rely on publictransport (or they walk or bicycle) which means low average figures for oil consumption per person. On average, theyhave low levels of electricity consumptionon average, not only because those who are connected use less but also because a high proportion oflow income households have no electricity supply. So they are responsible for very little of the fossil fuel use that arises from oil,coal or gas fuelled power stations(and most electricity is derived from such power stations).In regard to the use of renewableresources, low-income urban dwellershave much lower levels of consumption than middle and upper income groups. They use much lessfreshwater, although this is more due to inconvenient and/or expensive supplies than need or choice.


32/47


32

AT Intrinsic Perm

(aff cuts out of consideration of inanimate beings)

Values should be extended to all sentient and inanimate beings. We must consider allbeings capable of need.

Sapontzis, 95 (S. F. Sapontzis Professor are California State University, Hayward, Longbeach. Deputy editor of Between the Species: A Journal ofEthics. The Nature of the Value of Nature 1995 http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html)

While I support a great many environmental causes, I doubt that the continuing devastation of nature is a logical consequence of anthropocentric value systemsand that we need to develop value systems imputing overriding, objective value to nature in order to overcome the environmental crisis. As long as peoplebelieved that nature was an inexhaustible storehouse of riches for fulfilling human interests, anthropocentrism could lead to indifference to the effects of humanactions on nature. However, now that we recognize the fragility of nature, the devastating effects on nature of our indifference to the effects of our actions onnature, and the dependence of the quality of human life on preserving nature, anthropocentric values should (logically) lead us to cease doing things which aredestructive of the natural order, insofar as the quality of human life depends on that order, and to start doing things which can undo the devastation already

wrought, where doing so would maintain or enhance the quality of human life. Understanding what changes in our behavior anenvironmentally enlightened anthropocentrism would require of us is doubtless not a simple matter and likely wouldnot require that every endangered species be preserved or that we all return to the sort of simple homesteader lifesome environmentalists seem to favor. However, that it would require us to do those things which must be done toovercome the environmental crisis is a logical truism, since that crisis is defined as a crisis for the biotic community on

which the quality, and even the fact, of human life depend. [4] Furthermore, attributing overriding, objective value to species,wetlands, and similar, endangered elements of nature is not the only alternative to anthropocentrism. Philosophers,such as Peter Singer, who have made a compelling case for the moral significance of the suffering and well-being of allsentient beings, human or otherwise, provide us with another alternative.1This alternative both avoids the conceptualdifficulties of attributing value directly to unfeeling, even inanimate objects and systems and also establishes awidespread source of non-anthropocentric values. Respecting the needs and wants of wild animals would likely directus to proceed even further along the path of doing no more damage to nature and of undoing the damage alreadydone than would environmentally enlightened anthropocentrism. For example, where it might be difficult to show that environmentallyenlightened anthropocentrism requires preserving the habitat of an endangered species, respecting the needs and wants of the w ild, sentient animals who inhabitthat area provides a ready basis for requiring such preservation.

(aff uses a specific ecological approach)

We must determine between the different ecological approaches: liberal environmentalism, social

ecology, and eco-socialism to handle the marketisation of the economy in terms of ecology.Fotopoulos, 05(Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement. The MultidimensionalCrisis and Inclusive Democracy Chapter 7: The ecological failure of the growth economy http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/ss/ch7.htm)

I would therefore prefer to classify the ecological approaches on the basis of whether they explicitly attempt or not asynthesis between, on the one hand, an analysis of the ecological implications of growth and, on the other, theclassical traditions which dealt with the marketisation element of the market economy, i.e. liberalism and socialism.On the basis of the latter criterion we may distinguish between the following ecological approaches:liberal environmentalism,[9] which is in fact a synthesis of liberal economic theory and environmental analysis,eco-socialism,[10] which emphasises the significance of production relations and production conditions in theanalysis of environmental problems and as such represents a synthesis of Marxist economic theory andenvironmental analysis andsocial ecology,[11] which sees the causes of the present ecological crisis in terms of the hierarchical structures ofdomination and exploitation in capitalist society and as such represents an explicit attempt for a synthesis oflibertarian socialism or anarchism with environmental analysis.

As regards the other approaches which do not aim, at least explicitly, to a synthesis with other traditions, what wemay call the pure ecological approaches,the case par excellence is of course the deep ecology approach whichfocuses almost exclusively on the ecological implications of the growth economy, although the appropriatedevelopment and sustainable development approaches may also be classified in this category.
http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html#19http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html#19http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html#19http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html#19


33/47


33

AT Perm

Four reasons anthropocentric focuses cannot be used as an environmental ethicAND other traditional methods fail because they are inherently anthropocentric.Sivil, 01 (Richard Sivil studied at the University of Durban Westville, and at the University of Natal, Durban. He has been lecturing philosophy since 1996.

"Why we Need a New Ethic for the Environment", Cultural Heritage 2(7): 103116 (2001))

I argue that anthropocentric value systems are not suitable to the task of developing a comprehensive environmental ethic.Firstly, anthropocentric assumptions have been shown to be largely responsible for the current environmental crisis.While this in itself does not provide strong support for the claim, it does cast a dim light on any theory that is informed by such assumptions. Secondly, anenvironmental ethic requires a significantly wide range of focus. As such, it should consider the interests of a widerange of beings. It has been shown that anthropocentric approaches do not entertain the notion that non-human entities can have interests independent ofhuman interests. "Expansionist", "conservationist" and "preservationist" approaches only acknowledge a value in nature that is determined by the needs andinterests of humans.

Thirdly, because anthropocentric approaches provide a moral account for the interests of humans alone, whileexcluding non-humans from direct moral consideration, they are not sufficiently encompassing. An environmental ethic needsto be suitably encompassing to ensure that a moral account is provided for all entities that constitute the environment. It cou ld be argued that the indirect moralconcern for the environment arising out of an anthropocentric approach is sufficient to ensure the protection of the greater environment. In response, only thoseentities that are in the interest of humans will be morally considered, albeit indirectly, while those entities which fall outside of this realm will be seen to be morally

irrelevant. Assuming that there are more entities on this planet that are not in the interest of humans than entities that are, it is safe to say that anthropocentric

approaches are not adequately encompassing. Fourthly, the goals of an environmental ethic should protect and maintain thegreater environment. It is clear that the expansionist approach, which is primarily concerned with the transformation of nature for economic return, doesnot meet these goals. Similarly, neither does the conservationist approach, which is a rguably the same as the expansionist approach. The preservationistapproach does, in principle satisfy this requirement. However, this is p roblematic for such preservation is based upon the needs and interests of humans, and "as

human interests and needs change, so too would human uses for the environment" (Des Jardins 1997: 129). Non-human entities, held captive bythe needs and interests of humans, are open to whatever fancies the interests of humans.In light of the above, it is mycontention that anthropocentric value systems fail to provide a stable ground for the development of an environmental ethic. It is fair to say that the success of theenvironmental movement is largely "a result of the power of anthropocentric arguments, for the general population began to realise that the degradation of thenatural environment would have serious consequences for human health, safety, and survival" (Katz 1999: 378). This is of little relevance when regarding thedevelopment of an environmental ethic, for the awareness raised by anthropocentric arguments is restricted to the consequences affecting humans alone.

Above I argued that anthropocentric value systems are unsuitable to the development of an environmental ethic.Traditional ethical theories (teleological, utilitarian, and deontological) were shown to be anthropocentric. This makessuch theories unsuitable to the development of an environmental ethic. Clearly a wider and more encompassing ethic is required, onewhich extends moral concern beyond human boundaries. What is required is a "change in the ethics, in attitudes, values and evaluations" (Zimmerman 1998:17), with the assumptions of an environmental ethic being "broader and more inclusive than the mere consideration of human interests" (Katz 1999: 378).Whether and how such an ethic is possible is the task of another paper.


34/47


34

AT Perm

Perm cannot solve- a respect of nature is inherently opposite than an embracing love and functionsanthropocentrically- saying a respect only came because an organism was deemed worthy of itaccording to human standards.

Taylor, 89( Paul W. Taylor is a philosopher best known for his work in the field of environmental ethicsHe is professor emeritus in philosophy at BrooklynCollege, City University of New York. . Respect for Nature-A theory of Environmental Ethics. 1989http://books.google.com/books?id=SzXwxu_PydUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s)
http://books.google.com/books?id=SzXwxu_PydUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_shttp://books.google.com/books?id=SzXwxu_PydUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_shttp://books.google.com/books?id=SzXwxu_PydUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s


35/47


35

AT Perm

Perm does not clarify the purpose of respect. It functions under anthropocentric terms ofpersonal value versus the non-controversial respect of consideration.Sapontzis, 95 (S. F. Sapontzis Professor are California State University, Hayward, Longbeach. Deputy editor of Between the Species: A Journal ofEthics. The Nature of the Value of Nature 1995 http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html)

[36] Third, the phrase `respect for nature' is frequently used in discussing environmental issues. `Respect' can refer to certain behaviors, whereit means `taking into account' or `not interfering with.' In these senses, `respecting' nature is non-controversial.But, asdiscussed above, `respect' also refers to feelings whose intentional objects have ideal value . Now, as already noted, it is non-controversial that some people find elements of nature to have ideal value, but controversy arises when it is claimedthat nature has such value independent of human beings. Such ideal value would require that there be a nonhumansubject or subjects of sufficient intellectual ability to entertain ideals for whom nature is the object of feelings ofrespect, and demonstrating that that requirement has been met is again difficult, at best.Furthermore, the imperativeimplications for us of nature having ideal value for some other subject or subjects are also not obvious.

Using nature for life survival depends upon the belief that all feelings and values are the same andlacks imperative significance.

Sapontzis, 95 (S. F. Sapontzis Professor are California State University, Hayward, Longbeach. Deputy editor of Between the Species: A Journal ofEthics. The Nature of the Value of Nature 1995 http://ejap.louisiana.edu/EJAP/1995.spring/sapontzis.1995.spring.html)

[34] A non-evolutionary variation on this position is that since living is a goal-directed process -- the goals being health andreproduction -- life itself establis

scfi anthro k

Documents