Db8rox 1nc

Case, one off. The case debate: 1) Livestock contribute more to GHG emissions than industrial manufacturing – overwhelms your solvency. Reuters, December 1 2006 “Cattle Cause Most Global Warming”, (http://www.financialexpress. com/old/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147739)

Who is contributing most to global warming? Dumb cattle and not emissions from factories and power plants, says the United Nations. The increasing world population, a new UN report warns, would lead to further increase in the number of livestock as demand for meat and milk increases and that would mean emission of more greenhouse gases. Not only that. Cattle are also a major contributor to land degradation and pollution of water, the report says. The livestock business, the report says, is among the most damaging sectors to the earth's increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Stressing that cattlerearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, the UN has called for improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions. 2) The affirmative has yet to provide any type of statistics about how much oil or other energy resources they save, compared to the entirety of US energy consumption. Means the aff plan is a drop in the ocean and they're not going to be able to win any kind of substantial impact. 3) The affirmative fails to take into account problems of systemic failure in vertically integrated bureaucracies which may well end in more corruption than we see in current state-level programs. The burden of proof is on the 1AC to prove that increased management actually increases solvency – you have zero evidence on this question. 4) You don't get to claim "state-level programs" as part of your solvency unless you identify a method for the federal government to fund its own new program and state-level programs simultaneously, and evidence for what the states would do with more environmental money. You do none of these in the 1AC. 5) Michigan's bottle bill is stressful on retailers and hasn't created broad-based support for recycling. South Bend Tribune 2008 [Editorial, "Michigan's bottle bill needs broader look," November 19, 2008 http://www.bottlebill.org/news/articles/2008/MI-11-19-MIsBBNeedsBroadered.htm] Now that the state's residents are increasingly turning to nonfizzy drinks and tossing away more than 1 billion of those containers each year, effort to control that trash makes sense. Tweaking the

container law, however, may not be the best way. awkward for consumers, and a burden on retailers who already are stressed in the state's economic downturn. Further, the issue ought to be examined more broadly given the considerable change in social consciousness on litter and recycling in the past 30 years. Michigan, the first state in the nation to pass a container law, still has the lowest overall recycling rate among the Great Lakes states. Only 37 percent of Michigan residents have access to curbside service, well below the regional 65 percent average The current law is

and national 50 percent average.

The money to modify an already costly returnables program might be better spent on demonstration projects with the potential for wider environmental benefit. 6) The "pilot project" in the 1AC isn't – Michigan doesn't do the plan, it just has a 10-cent tax on soda bottles. And, the K.

A. The link debate. The affirmative’s desire to manage the world is guided by enframing, a mode of understanding the world that assumes we can reveal and classify everything. McWhorter explains in ‘92: [Ladelle, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies Department of Philosophy University of Richmond, Heidegger and the Earth, p.4-5] Every academic discipline, whether it be biology or history, anthropology or mathematics, is interested in discover, in the revelation of new truths. Knowledge, at least as it is institutionalized in the modern world, is concerned, then, with what Heidegger would call revealing, the bringing to light, or

Revealing and concealing belong together. Now what does this mean? We know that in order to pay attention to one thing, we must stop paying close attention to something else. In order to read philosophy we must stop reading cereal boxes. In order to attend to the needs of students the coming to presence of things. However, in order for any of this revealing to occur, Heidegger says, concealing must also occur.

we must sacrifice some of our research time. Allowing for one thing to reveal itself means allowing for the concealing of something else. All revealing comes at the price of concomitant concealment. But this is more than just a kind of Kantian acknowledgement of human limitation. Heidegger is not simply dressing up the obvious, that is, the fact that no individual can undergo two different experiences simultaneously. His is not a point about

When revealing reveals itself as temporally linear and causally ordered, for example, it cannot simultaneously reveal itself as ordered by song and unfolding in dream. Furthermore, in revealing, revealing itself is concealed in order for what is revealed to come forth. Thus, when revealing occurs concealing occurs as well. The two events are one and cannot be separated. Too often we forget. The radiance of revelation blinds us both to its own event and to the shadows that it casts, so that revealing conceals itself and its self-concealing conceals itself, and we fall prey to that strange power of vision to consign to oblivion whatever cannot be seen. Even our forgetting is forgotten, and all traces of absence absent themselves from our world. The noted physicist Stephen Hawking, in his popular book A Brief History of Time, writes, “The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.” Such a theory, many people would assert, would be a systematic arrangement of all knowledge both already acquired and theoretically possible. It would be a theory to end all theories, outside of human subjectivity at all. Rather, it is a point about revealing itself.

which no information, no revelation could, or would need to, occur. And the advent of such a theory would be as the shining of a light into every corner of being. Nothing would remain concealed.

This dream of Hawking’s is a dream of power; in fact, it is a dream of absolute power, absolute control. It is a dream of the ultimate managerial utopia. This, Heidegger would contend, is the dream of technological thought in the modern age. We dream of knowing, grasping everything, for then we can control, then we can manage, everything.

Specifically, advocates of bottle bills reject the interaction of people with the world around them out of hand, replacing it with faith in successful management of incentives. Llanos 2005 [Miguel, the 1AC solvency author, March 3, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279230/ ] And what

about a low-tech approach of just educating the public to assume more responsibility, taking bottles home to a recycling bin instead of leaving them in a trash bin at a park? "It's unrealistic to think people are going to do that," Franklin says. "In this culture it just doesn't seem to happen." those plastic

B. The implications. To reveal the world as a manageable object, the affirmative must accept the loss of other modes of revealing; the logic of enframing therefore ultimately devalues everything in the world into a stockpile of commodities. McWhorter again: [Ladelle, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies Department of Philosophy University of Richmond, Heidegger and the Earth, p.6]

The danger of a managerial approach to the world lies not, then, in what it knows—not its penetration into the secrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission—but in what it forgets, what it itself conceals. It forgets that any other truths are possible, and it forgets that the belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of human management. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything. What is now especially dangerous about this sense of our own managerial power, born of forgetfulness, is that it results in our viewing the world as mere resources to be stored or consumed. Managerial or technological thinkers, Heidegger says, view the earth, the world, all things as mere Bestand, standing-reserve. All is here simply for human use. No plant, no animal, no ecosystem has a life of its own, has any significance apart from human desire and need. Nothing, we say, other than human beings, has any intrinsic value. All things are instruments for the working out of human will. Whether we believe that God gave Man dominion or simply that human might (sometimes called intelligence or rationality) in the face of ecological fragility makes us always right,

managerial, technological thinkers tend to believe that the earth is only a stockpile or a set of commodities to be managed, bought, and sold. The forest is timber; the river, a power source. Even people have become resources, human resources, personnel to be managed, or populations to be controlled. This managerial, technological mode of revealing, Heidegger says, is embedded in and constitutive of Western culture and has been gathering strength for centuries. Now it is well on its way to extinguishing all other modes of revealing, all other ways of being human and being earth. we

As a result, the affirmative begins to act like a “gardener,” removing undesirable aspects of the world for the protection of the rest. This call to action risks mass genocide regardless of the affirmative’s own politics. Szabo ‘2 [Matt Szabo, PhD Candidate in Geography at The University of Manchester, “Managerial ecology: Zygmunt Bauman and the gardening culture of modernity,” Environments, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2002, p. proquest]

the modern evolution of the managerial capacities of the modern state, coupled with advances in biological science, eventually transformed the vision of Frederick the Great into the real-world eugenic experiments of the 20th Century. As the future Nazi minister of Agriculture, R.W. Darre observed in 1930: He who leaves the plants in a garden to themselves will soon find to his surprise that the garden is overgrown by weeds and that even the basic character of the plants has changed. If therefore the garden is to remain the breeding ground for the plants, if in other words, it is to lift itself above the harsh rules of natural forces, then the forming will of a gardener is necessary, a gardener who . . . carefully tends what needs tending and ruthlessly eliminates the weeds . . . a people Bauman argues that while Frederick the Great was merely picking up on the philanthropic zeitgeist of the Enlightenment era,

can only reach spiritual and moral equilibrium if a well-conceived breeding plan stands at the very centre of its culture (Darre cited in Bauman 1991: 27). Bauman goes on to quote various

20th Century scientists who made the connection between gardening and offered to society by a marriage of eugenics and social engineering (1991: 2729). It is the common drive towards instrumental control rather than a shared politics that unifies the various protagonists cited, and, crucially, it is the ubiquity of such controlling visions within 'well-intentioned' scientific and political thinking generally -- the application of results-driven scientific methodologies to the social realm -- that motivates Bauman's broader critique: Let us emphasize that none of the above statements [from various scientists] was ideologically motivated; in particular, none of them was aimed specifically at the Jews. . .The quoted scientists were guided solely by the potential improvements

proper and uncontested understanding of the role and mission of science -- and by the feeling of duty towards the vision of good society; a healthy

were guided by the hardly idiosyncratic, typically modern conviction that the road to such a society leads through the ultimate taming of the inherently chaotic natural forces, and by systematic, and ruthless if need be, execution of a scientifically conceived rational plan society, an orderly society. In particular, they

(Bauman 1991: 29).

Worse, continuing our technological commodification of the world around us will destroy our ability to authentically be in the world, reducing us to a state of ontological damnation worse than nuclear war. Zimmerman '94 [Michael E., Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University, Contesting Earth’s Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity, p.119-120] Heidegger asserted that human self-assertion, combined with the

eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein.53 Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might "bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth."54 This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one's soul by losing one's relation to God.

it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur an ontological clearing through which such life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity's one-dimensional disclosure of entities virtually denies them any "being" at all, Heidegger apparently thought along these lines:

the loss of humanity's openness for being is already occurring.55 Modernity's background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent

The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity's slow-motion destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people with the aim of providing material "happiness" for everyone by reducing nature to pure energy.56

would be as good as dead. But most of them could not agree that the loss of humanity's relation to being would be worse than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never "disclosed" by humanity.

C. The alternative. The text: Refuse the affirmative call to action. Frantic attempts to solve are inevitable for technological thinkers. The only way out is to embrace the paradox that seemingly ‘doing nothing’ brings within us in order to cultivate a new understanding of action. McWhorter concludes: [Ladelle, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies Department of Philosophy University of Richmond, Heidegger and the Earth, p.6]

Our usual response to such prophecies of doom is to ignore them or, when we cannot do that, to scramble to find some way to manage our problems, some quick solution, some technological fix. But over and over again new resource management techniques, new solutions, new technologies disrupt delicate systems even further, doing still more damage to a planet already dangerously out of ecological balance. Our ceaseless interventions seem only to make things worse, to perpetuate a cycle of human activity followed by, ecological disaster followed by human intervention followed by a new disaster of another kind. In fact, it

would appear that our trying to do things, change things, fix things cannot be the solution, because it is part of the problem itself. But, if we cannot act to solve our problems, what should we do? Heidegger's work is a call to reflect, to think in some way other than calculatively, technologically, pragmatically. Once we begin to move with and into Heidegger's call, and begin to see our trying to seize control and solve problems as itself a problematic approach, if we still believe that thinking's only real purpose is to function as a prelude to action, we who attempt to think will twist within the agonizing grip of paradox, feeling nothing but frustration, unable to conceive of ourselves as anything but paralyzed. However, as so many peoples before us have known, paradox is not only a trap; it is also a scattering point and passageway. Paradox invites examination of its own constitution (hence of the patterns of thinking within which it occurs) and thereby breaks a way of thinking open, revealing the configurations of power that propel it and hold it on track. And thus it makes possible the dissipation of that power and the deflection of thinking into new paths and new possibilities. Heidegger frustrates us. At a time when the stakes are so very high and decisive action is so loudly and urgently called for, Heidegger apparently calls us to do- nothing. If we get beyond the revulsion and anger that such a call initially inspires and actually examine the feasibility of response, we begin to undergo the frustration attendant upon paradox: how is it possible, we ask, to choose, to will, to do nothing? The call itself places in question the bimodal logic of activity and passivity; it points up the paradoxical nature of our passion for action, of our passion for maintaining control.

The call itself suggests that our drive for acting decisively and forcefully is part of what must be thought through, that the narrow option of will versus surrender is one of the power configurations of current thinking that must be allowed to dissipate. But of course, those drives and those conceptual dichotomies are part of the very structure of our self-understanding both as individuals and as a tradition and a civilization. Hence, Heidegger’s call is a threatening one, requiring great courage, “the courage to make the truth of our own presuppositions and the realm of our own goals into the things that most deserve to be called in question.” Heidegger’s

work pushes thinking to think through the assumptions that underlie both our ecological vandalism and our love of scientific solutions, assumptions that also ground the most basic patterns of our current ways of being human. And the choice to refrain from political action allows us to access a new form of responsibility that allows us to act without embracing the logic of Enframing. Meyer ‘98 [Linda Ross Meyer (Professor of Law, Quinnipiac Law School; J.D., Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley), “Is Practical Reason Mindless,” Georgetown Law Journal, January, 1998]

Above all, for all law we need a new/old account of responsibility, based on a new/old understanding of the essence of being human -- an account that does not require an all-powerful will of a self-conscious thinker. Perhaps one is available to us from the past. Heidegger himself points part of the way -- responsibility is grounded in responding to what is already there, what is not within our control. Freedom is not infinite possibility, but only those finite possibilities opened by our past. This does not negate choice; rather, it means that we have a choice that is sufficiently limited to be choosable. What is the relation of this new understanding of humanity to law? It is that we are neither victims nor predators. Rather, we are beings with limited choices, beings who are responsive to the world, attentive to what reveals itself to us. How we can incorporate these truths into law remains to be "seen." Nothing more "practical" can be done until we know what possibilities are open to us. We who try to engage in this work must try to be quieter, so that we can listen more carefully and see more clearly. n128

n129

n130

n131

D. The framework. Ontological questions precede questions of policy because without understanding who we are in the world, we cannot make meaningful use of the information available to us. Olivier 7 (Bert, Professor of Philosophy at the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, “Nature as ‘abject’, critical psychology, and ‘revolt’: The pertinence of Kristeva,” South African Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 2007, pp. 443–469) In the light of this, any

responsible human being who has taken note of the current state of affairs cannot and should not avoid making use of every possible medium to create and expand an informed awareness of the situation, as well as a sense of urgency and the need to act, among as many people as possible. In my experience, mere ‘factual knowledge’ is not sufficient to have the desired effect of galvanising people into action — in the present ‘information age’, people with access to media (that is, the vast majority of people on the planet) are ‘better informed’ than in any previous era, but arguably just as apathetic as ‘informed’, judging by the deteriorating condition of natural resources.3 Rather, therefore, by

placing ‘information’ about the precarious state of the earth in the context of not only a philosophical-theoretical but also, crucially, a critical-psychological interpretation, people are afforded the intellectual, psychological, and ethical4 means to appreciate what all this information means for them and for other creatures on the planet. And, negatives should be able to choose framework for the round: 1) Key to check back aff prep time – affirmatives have non-limited prep time while negatives have to research every possible affirmative – neg choice checks back aff side bias. 2) 1NC indictments of the affirmative's assumptions destroy the foundations of the affirmative's truth claims – our kritikal arguments are responsive to the affirmative and therefore should receive full weight in the round. 3) Claims that the affirmative provides a “net benefit” over the status quo through political action are fundamentally managerial in nature because they assume that the affirmative can produce lasting benefit through their political action. This means that the K functions as an indictment of the affirmative framework in the 1AC, so they have to beat the K to access their framework.