Tournament: Victory Briefs Tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood CH | Judge: Stephen Babb
JAN FEB 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL AC
I AFFIRM.
I OFFER A DEFINITION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRY.
DEVELOPING COUNTRY
UN DEFINITION- Educational Pathways International explains:
According to the UN, a developing country is a country with a relatively low standard of living, undeveloped industrial base, and moderate to low Human Development Index (HDI). This index is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, and other factors for countries worldwide. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, and has been used since 1993 by the United Nations Development Programme in its annual Human Development Report.
I VALUE MORALITY
Bernard Gert, “The Definition of Morality,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, March 14, 2011
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition
Among those who use “morality” normatively, all hold that “morality” refers to a code of conduct that applies to all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it. In the normative sense, morality should never be overridden, that is, no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral considerations. All of those who use “morality” normatively also hold that, under plausible specified conditions, all rational persons would endorse that code. Moral theories differ in their accounts of the essential characteristics of rational persons and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would endorse a code of conduct as a moral code. These differences result in different kinds of moral theories. Related to these differences, moral theories differ with regard to those to whom morality applies, that is, those whose behavior is subject to moral judgment. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have those features of human beings that make it rational for all of them to endorse morality, viz., fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.g., God.
THE STANDARD IS UTILITARIANISM
THERE ARE 2 JUSTIFICATIONS.
Julia Driver, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The History of Utilitarianism, March 27, 2009
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. Though not fully articulated until the 19th century, proto-utilitarian positions can be discerned throughout the history of ethical theory. Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced. What distinguishes utilitarianism from egoism has to do with the scope of the relevant consequences. On the utilitarian view one ought to maximize the overall good — that is, consider the good of others as well as one's own good. The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is also distinguished by impartiality and agent-neutrality. Everyone's happiness counts the same. When one maximizes the good, it is the good impartially considered.
THEN
UTILITARIANISM HAS TO BE PREFERRED- SINCE IT IS ENDS-BASED, IT PROVIDES A CLEAR-CUT WAY TO ANALYZE A CASE, AND IS THE BEST WAY TO EVALUATE IMPACTS
Albert Filice, San Jose State University Some Reasons to Favor Utilitarianism
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/albert.filice/courses/phil61/s4/Some20Reasons20to20Favor20Utilitarianism.pdf
Utilitarianism doesn’t rely on vague intuitions or abstract principles such as Kant’s theory.
Instead, you assign plus points to what will bring about happiness and minus points to what will
bring about pain. Once you implement some simple arithmetic, you can determine whether your action will produce more (or less) happiness for the affected population than the alternative actions that are available. Given the simplicity of utilitarianism, people can determine what makes people happy or which policies to promote in order to benefit society as a whole.
CONTENTION 1- PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN BIODIVERSITY.
FOR CLARITY, I OFFER A DEFINITION- BIODIVERSITY
American Heritage Dictionary
http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=biodiversityandsubmit.x=60andsubmit.y=19
The number and variety of species found within a specific geographic region.
A. DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT LEADS TO LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
Jennifer Trowbridge. “The Significance of Biodiversity- Why we should protect the natural environment.” Serendip Studio from Bryn Mawr College. 2001 http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1692
In evolutionary theory, it has become clear that the greater the diversity that exists within a family or genus, the more likely it is to survive environmental change. Thus, evolution depends on biodiversity. However, humans have been the main cause of recent rapid "evolutionary" change. Ecosystems are being destroyed, animals and plants becoming extinct, and biodiversity is being lost due to increased human activity. Although environments would be shifting and evolving regardless of human influence, it is necessary to understand that humans are causing the rate of change to become particularly dangerous. Environmental conditions are changing so quickly that individual species as well as entire ecosystems are struggling, and often failing, to adapt. For these reasons, it is very important that we protect biodiversity and the natural environment.
B. IT IS EMPIRICALLY PROVEN THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES INCREASE BIODIVERSITY
Kleijn et. al. “Mixed Biodiversity Benefits of Agri-Environment Schemes in Five European Countries.” Ecology Letters, 9: p. 243-254. 2006. http://www.iee.unibe.ch/unibe/philnat/biology/zoologie/content/e7715/e7918/e8497/Kleijn_EcolLetters_2006.pdf
In all countries, except for the Netherlands, species density of plants and one of the anthropod groups was significantly higher on fields with agri-environment schemes compared with control fields (Fig. 2). In both Germany and Switzerland, bee species density was significantly enhanced on fields with agri-environment schemes. The establishment of 6-m wide grass margin strips in the UK enhanced species density of grasshoppers and crickets and in Spain the species density of spiders was raised where measures to enhance steppic birds (Table 1) were implemented. All anthropod groups that had increased species density on fields with agri-environment schemes were also found in higher abundances.
C. IMPACTS
FIRST- BIODIVERSITY IS NECESSARY TO SUSTAIN LIFE
California Biodiversity Council, a division of the California Government. “What is Biodiversity?” 2008. http://biodiversity.ca.gov/Biodiversity/biodiv_definition.html
Everything that lives in an ecosystem is part of the web of life, including humans. Each species of vegetation and each creature has a place on the earth and plays a vital role in the circle of life. Plant, animal, and insect species interact and depend upon one another for what each offers, such as food, shelter, oxygen, and soil enrichment. Maintaining a wide diversity of species in each ecosystem is necessary to preserve the web of life that sustains all living things. In his 1992 best-seller, "The Diversity of Life," famed Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson -- known as the "father of biodiversity," -- said, "It is reckless to suppose that biodiversity can be diminished indefinitely without threatening humanity itself."
THEN
THEN- BIODIVERSITY IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EXTINCTION
Richard Margoluis, Biodiversity Support Program 1996, http://www.bsponline.org/publications/showhtml.php3?10)
Biodiversity not only provides direct benefits like food, medicine, and energy; it also affords us a "life support system." Biodiversity is required for the recycling of essential elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. It is also responsible for mitigating pollution, protecting watersheds, and combating soil erosion. Because biodiversity acts as a buffer against excessive variations in weather and climate, it protects us from catastrophic events beyond human control. The importance of biodiversity to a healthy environment has become increasingly clear. We have learned that the future well-being of all humanity depends on our stewardship of the Earth. When we overexploit living resources, we threaten our own survival.
AND
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY OUTWEIGHS ALL OTHER IMPACTS
Richard Tobin The“ Expendable Future.” 1990 p. 22
Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.” Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war. As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations.” The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.
CONTENTION 2- RESOURCE EXTRACTION LEADS TO VIOLENCE AND MASS DEATH
A. RESOURCE EXTRACTION IS BASED ON VIOLENCE
Liam Downey et al. associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Eric Bonds doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Katherine Clark graduate student in environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, "Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation", Organic Environ. 2010 December, vol. 23(4):417-445.
The evidence presented in this article clearly demonstrates that armed violence is associated with the extraction of many critical and noncritical natural resources, suggesting quite strongly that the natural resource base upon which industrial societies stand is constructed in large part through the use and threatened use of armed violence. The evidence also demonstrates that when armed violence is used to protect resource extraction activities, it is often employed in response to popular protest or rebellion against these activities. These findings, and the theoretical model set forth in this article, extend prior sociological thinking and research on the environment in several important ways. First, as we previously noted, very few environmental sociologists have examined armed violence and militarism, and those that have done so have generally restricted their attention to the direct environmental consequences of weapons production, military activity, and war. Thus, this article establishes more clearly than prior environmental sociology research the degree to which armed violence underpins the current ecological crisis.
AND
THE DOWNEY STUDY EMPIRICALLY PROVES THE STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN RESOURCE EXTRACTION AND VIOLENCE
Liam Downey et al. associate professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Eric Bonds doctoral student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Katherine Clark graduate student in environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, "Natural Resource Extraction, Armed Violence, and Environmental Degradation", Organic Environ. 2010 December, vol. 23(4):417-445.
Of course, there would be no point in doing this if resource extraction activities were rarely associated with armed violence. Thus, in addition to developing our theoretical argument, we also demonstrate that an important empirical link exists between natural resource extraction and armed violence. To establish this link, we use a recent National Research Council (NRC; 2008) study to identify 10 minerals that are critical to the functioning of the U.S. economy and/or military (platinum, palladium, rhodium, manganese, indium, niobium, vanadium, titanium, copper, and rare earth elements) and then ask whether the extraction of these minerals has involved the use of armed violence at any point in the past 10 to 15 years. We define armed violence as violence and threatened violence perpetrated by military, police, mercenary, and rebel forces, and thus we investigate violent acts such as military and police forces beating, arresting, or firing weapons at protestors, the use of mercenaries to provide mine security, the forced removal of local populations, and the use of forced labor to carry out resource extraction activities. We supplement this descriptive, but decontextualized, analysis with a set of case studies that examine more fully the violent activities associated with the extraction of two of these minerals (manganese and copper) and then briefly discuss examples of armed violence associated with the world’s three largest mining companies, with African mines that receive World Bank funding, and with petroleum and rainforest timber extraction. Presenting these case studies and briefly discussing these companies, mines, and nonmineral resources allows us to (a) empirically evaluate aspects of our theoretical model that we are otherwise unable to evaluate, (b) address a slight bias in the critical mineral data that we discuss in a subsequent section of the article, and (c) illustrate more clearly some of the ways in which violence is associated with natural resource extraction.
B. RESOURCE EXTRACTION DIRECTLY CAUSES WAR
Philippe Le Billon. “The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflicts.” School of Geography, Oxford University. Political geography 20- 561-584. 2001. http://www.cddc.vt.edu/ept/eprints/ecowar.pdf
Throughout the 1990s, many armed groups have relied on revenues for natural resources such as oil, timber, or gems to substitute for dwindling Cold War sponsorships. Resources not only financed, but in some cases motivated conflicts, and shaped strategies of power based on the commercialisation of armed conflict and the territorialism of sovereignty around valuable resource trading networks. As such, armed conflict in the post-Cold War period is increasingly characteristic by a specific political ecology closely linked to the geography and political economy of natural resources.
C. IMPACTS
FIRST- WAR DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT AND THUS BIODIVERSITY
Levy et al. and Sidel, (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007
Finally, war and the preparation for war have profound impacts on the physical environment (see Chapter 5). The disastrous consequences of war for the environment are often clear. Examples include bomb craters in Vietnam that have filled with water and provide breeding sites for mosquitoes that spread malaria and other diseases; destruction of urban environments by aerial carpet bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan during World War II; and the more than 600 oil-well fires in Kuwait that were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops in 1991, which had a devastating effect on the ecology of the affected areas and caused acute respiratory symptoms among those exposed. Less obvious are the environmental impacts of the preparation for war, such as the huge amounts of nonrenewable fossil fuels used by the military before (and during and after) wars and the environmental hazards of toxic and radioactive wastes, which can contaminate air, soil, and both surface water and groundwater. For example, much of the area in and around Chelyabinsk, Russia, site of a major nuclear weapons production facility, has been determined to be highly radioactive, leading to evacuation of local residents (see chapter 10).
AND
WAR OUTWEIGHS OTHER IMPACTS BECAUSE OF ITS INNUMERABLE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES
Levy et al. and Sidel, (Barry Levy- Adjunct Professor of Community Health at Tufts University School of Medicine, Victor Sidel- Professor of Social Medicine at the Albert Einstein Medical College, War and Public Health, Edition 2, 2007
War accounts for more death and disability than many major diseases combined. It destroys families, communities, and sometimes whole cultures. It directs scarce resources away from protection and promotion of health, medical care, and other human services. It destroys the infrastructure that supports health. It limits human rights and contributes to social injustice. It leads many people to think that violence is the only way to resolve conflicts—a mindset that contributes to domestic violence, street crime, and other kinds of violence. And it contributes to the destruction of the environment and overuse of nonrenewable resources. In sum. war threatens much of the fabric of our civilization.
