Deep Ecology Aff (1ac) [v.2]

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 1 of 1

The Case for Deep Ecology (Index) Intro............................................................................................................................................2 Precursory Devlopment...............................................................................................................3 A. Contention 1: Resolutional Analysis................................................................................................. 3 1. Should: .....................................................................................................................................................................3 2. Environmental policy: ...........................................................................................................................................3 3. Shallow Ecology: ....................................................................................................................................................3 4. Deep Ecology: .........................................................................................................................................................3

B. Criterion (or Framework) ................................................................................................................. 4

Contention 2: The Link ...............................................................................................................5 The United States military is already preparing for resource wars...................................................................5

Contention 3: Analysis................................................................................................................6 This embodies the mindset of shallow ecology.......................................................................................................6

Contention 4: Impact...................................................................................................................7 The mindset of shallow ecology threatens every ecosystem on Earth and our extinction ..............................7

Contention 5: Alternative............................................................................................................8 …deep ecology’s mindset is this: Rather than having consumerism drag us along, evaluate ecosystem impacts and alternative action. ................................................................................................................................8

Contention 6: The Application ....................................................................................................9 The ballot is key here –..............................................................................................................................................9

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 2 of 2

Intro When Thomas Jefferson finished drafting the Declaration of Independence 233 years ago, he and the other Founders risked their lives and took a monumental step toward freedom. They launched the revolution that resulted in our independence from Britain and, ultimately, our own unique government. Unlike a monarchy, America’s democratic republic was founded on an idea, rather than an accident of geography or a tribal identity. But for people in other countries, the government existed first, and rights flowed from the government. Our government is a reflection of the people; it is a government from the bottom up. Our basic rights do not come from the state. They are inherent in us. U.S. Senator Jon Kyl [R-Arizona; elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994 and re-elected in 2000 and 2006, after having served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. As the Republican Whip, he is the second-ranking member of the Senate Republican Leadership and responsible for building support on key issues. He serves on the Senate’s Finance Committee, where he is the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, and on the Judiciary Committee, where he is the ranking Republican on the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security], “CELEBRATING THE FOURTH OF JULY”, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 29, 2009, http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=315158

It is important to recognize the merit and truth in Jon Kyl’s words – government is a reflection of the people. As the people subject to authority, we must hold morals and values in their proper place and with the proper treatment; not doing so would make us guilty of allowing others without such morals and values to influence government, making us guilty of the long-term effects of such a process. This leads us to affirm the resolution and to stand Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 3 of 3

Precursory Devlopment A. Contention 1: Resolutional Analysis The most important thing in today’s debate round is the resolution, which is why we offer Contention 1: Resolutional Analysis as the next section of our case. First, there are two important words we need to define in the resolution: 1. Should: “used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions” (Oxford American Dictionaries, 2k9) 2. Environmental policy: “Official statements of principles, intentions, values, and objective which are based on legislation and the governing authority of a state and which serve as a guide for the operations of governmental and private activities in environmental affairs.” [Definition Source: EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, 2k9) (The Agricultural Thesaurus and Glossary, first released by the National Agricultural Library in 2002)] Now let’s define two phrases essential to the case: 3. Shallow Ecology: Shallow ecology is the mindset characterized by this phrase: “We need to take care of Earth’s resources for the next generation.” (def derived from Naess, founder of the ecologic mindset) 4. Deep Ecology: Deep ecology is the mindset characterized by the phrase “Wilderness has a right to exist for its own sake.” (also derived from Naess)

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 4 of 4

Precursory Devlopment B. Criterion (or Framework) Now that we’ve interpreted the resolution, let’s establish our Criterion (or Framework) for the round, or the lens with which we ask that the round be viewed through. The case we will be advocating today is not a conventional case – normally, the affirmative team supports a specific government policy; this year, it would be a government environmental policy. However, it is important to recognize that debate frequently operates in a made-up world: voting affirmative or negative doesn’t actually change a government policy. Therefore, our criterion is to view the round through a lens of real-world impacts – things that actually do impact the real world: our actions, the words we use, our presuppositions, and most importantly, our mindsets. Instead of presenting a plan and using the made-up world concept of fiat to pretend like it actually passes, we’re going to instead identify a mindset problem that the government and people have (the Link and Analysis), explain why it’s a problem (the Impact), and how we should change our environmental view accordingly (the Alternative).

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 5 of 5

Contention 2: The Link Let’s start off with Contention 2: The Link, or a certain something that government is doing. That certain something is resource wars. According to Dr. Tom Clonan of the Irish Times in Sept. 2008: The United States military is already preparing for resource wars Dr Tom Clonan [Irish Times Security Analyst. He lectures in the School of Media, DIT], “US generals planning for resource wars”, Published by the Irish Times, September 22, 2008, http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0922/1221998220381.html, brackets in original ANALYSIS: The US military sees the next 30 to 40 years as involving a state of continuous war against ideologically-motivated terrorists and competing with Russia and China for natural resources and markets, writes Tom Clonan AS GENERAL Ray Odierno takes command of US forces in Baghdad from troop surge architect Gen David Petraeus, America has begun planning in earnest for its phased withdrawal. The extra brigade combat teams - or battlegroups - deployed to Iraq by Petraeus have already withdrawn and a further 8,000 troops have been diverted to Afghanistan. In January, the next president of the United States will conclude America's timetable for withdrawal in final negotiations with the Iraqi government. Further evidence of America's future military intentions is contained in recently published strategy documents issued by the US military. Under the auspices of the US department of defence and department of the army, the US military have just published a document entitled 2008 Army Modernization Strategy which makes for interesting reading against the current backdrop of deteriorating international fiscal, environmental, energy resource and security crises. The 2008 modernisation strategy, written by Lieut Gen Stephen Speakes, deputy chief of staff of the US army, contains the first explicit and official acknowledgement that the US military is dangerously overstretched internationally. It states simply: "The army is engaged in the third-longest war in our nation's history and . . . the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has caused the army to become out of balance with the demand for forces exceeding the sustainable supply." Against this backdrop, the 90 page document sets out the future of international conflict for the next 30 to 40 years - as the US military sees it - and outlines the manner in which the military will sustain its current operations and prepare and "transform" itself for future "persistent" warfare. The document reveals a number of

profoundly significant - and worrying - strategic positions that have been adopted as official doctrine by the US military. In its preamble, it predicts a post cold war future of "perpetual warfare".According to its authors: "We have entered an era of persistent conflict . . . a security environment much more ambiguous and unpredictable than that faced during the cold war." It then goes on to describe the key features of this dawning era of continuous warfare. Some of the characteristics are familiar enough to a world audience accustomed to the rhetoric of the global war on terror. "A key current threat is a radical, ideology-based, long-term terrorist threat bent on using any means available - to include weapons of mass destruction - to achieve its political and ideological ends." Relatively new, "emerging" features are also included in the document's rationale for future threats. "We face a potential return to traditional security threats

posed by emerging near-peers as we compete globally for depleting natural resources and overseas markets." This thinly-veiled reference to Russia and China will, perhaps, come as little surprise given recent events in Ossetia and Abkhazia. The explicit reference in this context to future resource wars, however, will probably raise eyebrows among the international diplomatic community, who prefer to couch such conflicts as human rights-based or rooted in notions around freedom and democracy. The document, however, contains no such lofty pretences. It goes on to list as a pre-eminent threat to the security of the US and its allies "population growth - especially in less-developed countries - [which] will expose a resulting 'youth bulge'." This youth bulge, the document goes on to state,

will present the US with further "resource competition" in that these expanding populations in the developing world "will consume ever increasing amounts of food, water and energy". [paragraphs omitted] It states explicitly that the US military is preparing to fight continuous resource wars "for the long haul".

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 6 of 6

Contention 3: Analysis Now that we’ve identified what our general mindset is, let’s apply Contention 3: Analysis. On average, people’s mindset allows for resource wars. But what does that signify? According to Arne Naess, a Norweigan Philosopher and founder of deep ecology: This embodies the mindset of shallow ecology. Andrew Light [Assistant professor of Environmental Philosophy at New York University, and Research Fellow at the Institute for Environment, Philosophy, and Public Policy at Lancaster University, UK. He has edited or co-edited thirteen books, including "Environmental Pragmatism" (1996), "Social Ecology after Bookchin" (1999), and "Technology and the Good Life" (2000). He is also co-editor of the journal "Philosophy and Geography" and President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology] & Holmes Rolston III [University Distinguished Professor and Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University. He is often called "the father of environmental ethics" as an academic discipline and was feature in "Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment" (2001). He is author of numerous books including "Philosophy Gone Wild" (1986), "Environmental Ethics" (1988), "Conserving Natural Value" (1997), and "Genes, Genesis and God" (1999). He is past president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics], “Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)”, Page 267: Chapter 20: The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects by Arne Naess [Norweigan philosopher and founder of deep ecology and ecosophy], Published by Wiley-Blackwell, August 23, 2002, ISBN-10: 0631222944, ISBN-13: 978-0631222941 B. Resources Shallow Approach: The emphasis is upon re- sources for humans, especially for the present generation in affluent societies. In this view, the resources of the earth belong to those who have the technology to exploit them. There is confidence that resources will not be depleted because, as they get rarer, a high market price will conserve them, and substitutes will be found through techno- logical progress. Further, plants, animals, and nat- ural objects are valuable only as resources for humans. If no human use is known, or seems likely ever to be found, it does not matter if they are destroyed.

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 7 of 7

Contention 4: Impact Our next contention is Contention 4: The Impact. Why does it matter that our mindset is one of shallow ecology? Why does our mindset even matter? Our mindset matters because our morals greatly affect those around us and how we treat the earth. By having this mindset of shallow ecology, we are threatening not only the earth, but our very existence. According to Bill Devall, professor sociology, & George Session, professor of philosophy: The mindset of shallow ecology threatens every ecosystem on Earth and our extinction Bill Devall [professor of sociology at Humboldt State University. Guest lecturer and featured speaker at universities in the United States and Australia and at national and international environmental conferences] & George Sessions [professor of philosophy at Sierra College, Rocklin, California], “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered”, CHAPTER 6: SOME SOURCES OF THE DEEP ECOLOGY PERSPECTIVE, page 127, Published by Gibbs Smith, January 19, 2001, ISBN-10: 0879052473, ISBN-13: 978-0879052478, italics in original Protection of wilderness and near-wilderness is imperative. While primal peoples lived in sustainable communities for tens of thousands of years without impairing the viability of ecosystems, modern technocratic-industrial society threatens every ecosystem on Earth and may even be threatening to drastically change the pattern of weather in the biosphere as a whole. Technocratic-industrial society is moving into areas of the planet never inhabited by humans before, including the oceans and the Antarc- tic continent. Tropical rain forests in Asia, Africa, South and Central America, Oceania and Australia are under attack by an unprecedented array of technology and plans for exploitation and development.28 Tropical rain forests contain the greatest biological diversity of any type of ecosystem on Earth. The Eleventh Annual Environmental Report to the President (1980) concluded: A most serious threat to the biosphere is the rapid disappearance of tropical forests. In many tropical forests, the soils, terrain, tempera- ture, patterns of rainfall, and distribution of nutrients are in precarious balance. When these forests are disturbed by extensive cutting, neither trees nor productive grasses will grow again. Even where conditions are more favorable to regrowth, extensive clearance destroys the ecological diversity of tropical forests. These forests are habitat for the richest var- iety of plant and animal species on earth.29

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 8 of 8

Contention 5: Alternative Now that we’ve identified our mindset and the problem with that mindset, we need to choose a philosophy to replace it – this is done in Contention 5: The Alternative. But why? Why do we need t o change? Don’t we know what the problem is already? Well, yes, we do know the problem. But The reason we can’t just leave it is because that wouldn’t fix the problem! We need to change our ways. Instead of having the mindset of shallow ecology, we should replace it and have the mindset of deep ecology. According to Arne Naess, the Norwegian philosopher… …deep ecology’s mindset is this: Rather than having consumerism drag us along, evaluate ecosystem impacts and alternative action. Andrew Light [Assistant professor of Environmental Philosophy at New York University, and Research Fellow at the Institute for Environment, Philosophy, and Public Policy at Lancaster University, UK. He has edited or co-edited thirteen books, including "Environmental Pragmatism" (1996), "Social Ecology after Bookchin" (1999), and "Technology and the Good Life" (2000). He is also co-editor of the journal "Philosophy and Geography" and President of the Society for Philosophy and Technology] & Holmes Rolston III [University Distinguished Professor and Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University. He is often called "the father of environmental ethics" as an academic discipline and was feature in "Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment" (2001). He is author of numerous books including "Philosophy Gone Wild" (1986), "Environmental Ethics" (1988), "Conserving Natural Value" (1997), and "Genes, Genesis and God" (1999). He is past president of the International Society for Environmental Ethics], “Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies)”, Page 267: Chapter 20: The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects by Arne Naess [Norweigan philosopher and founder of deep ecology and ecosophy], Published by Wiley-Blackwell, August 23, 2002, ISBN-10: 0631222944, ISBN-13: 978-0631222941 Deep Approach: The concern here is with re- sources and habitats for all life-forms for their own sake. No natural object is conceived of solely as a resource. This leads, then, to a critical evaluation of human modes of production and consumption. The question arises: to what extent does an in- crease in production and consumption foster ul- timate human values? To what extent does it satisfy vital needs, locally or globally? How can economic, legal and educational institutions be changed to counteract destructive increases? How can resource use serve the quality of life rather than the economic standard of living as generally promoted by consumerism? From a deep perspec- tive, there is an emphasis upon an ecosystem approach rather than the consideration merely of isolated life-forms or local situations. There is a long-range maximal perspective of time and place.

Will Malson

The Case for Deep Ecology

Page 9 of 9

Contention 6: The Application The final section of the affirmative case is Contention 6: The Application. This is imperative. We’ve identified our detrimental mindset: shallow ecology. We’ve recognized its problems. Additionally, we’ve identified the mindset we should have: deep ecology. Remember back at the beginning where we mentioned this was an unconventional affirmative case? Normally, the affirmative team says changing some hypothetical government action solves for something bad. But here, we’ve recognized that this is illusionary – we can’t actually mandate the government do something like that. Instead, it is up to you – the judge. What we need is to change people’s mindsets. What we need is for people to reject their old mindset of shallow ecology and replace it with deep ecology. The ballot is key here – by casting an affirmative ballot, you are upholding the mindset and practices of deep ecology and influencing real people. However, a vote for the way things are would be a vote for shallow ecology’s mindset and practices, legitimizing the inevitable destruction in the status quo. Lacking the proper influence, people go away unaffected and complacent – leaving the current system untouched and leaving their former mindsets wholly intact and unaffected. In this situation, voting affirmative has real-world impact in the positive direction, influencing everyone to be Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.