Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thesis: The affirmative proposal is locked into the old “human centered” paradigm that is
unjustified, ineffective and a threat to our, and all, survival. We must escape these
assumptions to allow change to occur
A) Link
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 even in the richest countries
– these are not isolated problems. They are different facets of one single crisis, which is
essentially a crisis of perception. The crisis derives from the fact that most of us and
especially our large social institutions subscribe to the concepts and values of an outdated
worldview, which is inadequate for dealing with the problems of our overpopulated,
globally interconnected world.”
B) Implications
Technocentrism Fails
Thomas N. Gladwin et al., Director of the Global Environment Program at Louis Stern
School of Business, 1995 (Academy of Management Review, October)
“In summary, technocentrism fails, in our view, the litmus tests of sustainability. It
pathologically disassociates or represses many critical components bearing upon life
support systems. It fractures or severs the connections that sustainability requires. It fails
to deal adequately with intergenerational, intragenerational, and interspecies equality. It
hubristically places as extremely large and risky wager on the future. Finally, although it
produces material wealth and power for a privileged minority, it gives rise to risks and
imbalances that threaten the future of the entire human community. If society does indeed
adapt sustainable development as a fundamental organizing principle, then the dominant
paradigm of technocentrism will clearly become a paradigm for crisis. From a dialectical
perspective, technocentrism contains profound contradictions. These inconsistencies are
simultaneously paradigm destructive and paradigm reconstructive, and thus they are
conductive to reexamination.”
C) Alternative
Rejecting the assumptions of the Affirmative and allowing alternative visions to
emerge is key to allowing change
Bill Devall, Dept. Of Sociology at Humboldt University, 1988
“Many contemporary philosophers have explored other approaches to nature and the
implication of these images for our current crisis. These images include Eastern
Traditions of Taoism and Buddhism and Native American religion and cosmologies.
Exploration of these and other images of nature are extremely important to the
development of the deep ecology movement. As McLaughlin says, “Alternative images
of nature are a sort of internal wilderness, whose cultivation may be helpful in retaining
and eventually expanding external wilderness. Considering alternatives may help loosen
the spell of instrumental view, showing it as only one of the many possibilities, giving a
deeper vision of the world, as two eyes enable the vision of depth.” Practicing deep
ecology mean, in part, experiencing both intellectually and emotionally some of these
alternative approaches to nature.”
LINKS: ENVIRONMENT
(__) Environmental policies assume a human centered system of values
Wapner,1996 (Paul, “Toward a Meaningful Ecological Politics,” Tikkun,
May)
There are several very plausible elements in the concerns of deep ecology.
First, there is the worry about the effects of unconstrained human
interference in natural systems impoverishing and degrading them. Human
interference and human action is often contrasted with the wisdom of natural
cycles and natural development. Contrast the violence of a strip-mined
hillside, or a clear-felled forest with the tranquil majesty of a climax
ecosystem such as a tropical rain forest or a coral reef. "Nature knows best",
it is said.
A second worry focuses on the way that we tend to treat humans and human
activity in isolation from, rather than as a part of nature. This is often
characterized as an atomistic conception of humans as discrete and separate
interacting units, in contrast to the holistic organic conception of organisms
as nodes in complex biotic webs. The sharp separation between humanity
and nature is said to be one of the characteristic deficiencies of shallow
thought, which is often accompanied by the denial that the nonhuman world
possesses intrinsic value.
A/T: Technology Saves life
1) When they say that the technology they are protecting can be used to save non-human
life, they are really just linking even harder to the kritik. Life has gone on for billions
of years, life will go on without man’s help
2) The technology that they are claiming was still designed for human ends- and the
production of such certainly resulted in environmental degradation.
3) Judge, don’t let them try to use their anthropocentric rhetoric to trick you- technology
has and always will be for human ends, with little regard to the environment. Pull
across and cross apply the subpoint B from the shell that talks about the flaws of
technocentrism
4) They cannot solve for the kritik. The case is too far rooted in the anthropocentric
mindset to promote deep ecology, kritik is the best option in the round.
EXT. ON “SAVES LIVES”
(__) Every time that they say that they can save a life, human or nonhuman, they bite the
kritik one more time- their logic is so far rooted in anthropocentrism that they have been
blinded to the realization that extinctions do occur- the aff should stop trying to play God.
Robert Goodin has proposed a "moderately deep" theory of value, according to which
what imparts value to an outcome is the naturalness of the historical process through
which it has come about (Goodin 1991, p. 74). Putting aside the problem, mentioned
above, that the distinction between what is natural and what is cultural (or technological,
or artefactual) is problematic, the deliverances of natural historical processes are not
necessarily benign, nor ones which should command our approval. The traumatic
disruptions to the planet brought about by natural forces far exceed anything which we
have been able to effect. Consider, first, what Lovelock (1979) has called the worst
atmospheric pollution incident ever: the accumulation of that toxic and corrosive gas
oxygen some two billion years ago, with devastating consequences for the then
predominant anaerobic life forms. Or the Cretaceous extinction 65 million years ago,
which wiped out the large reptiles, the then dominant life forms. Or the Permian
extinction some 225 million years ago, which eliminated an estimated 96 per cent of
marine species. Like the eruption of Mt St Helens, these were natural events, but it is
implausible to suppose that they are to be valued for that reason alone.
There is of course an excellent reason for us to retrospectively evaluate these great
planetary disruptions positively from our current position in planetary history, and that is
that we can recognise their occurrence as a necessary condition for our own existence.
But what could be more anthropocentric than that?
(__) Technology and anthropocentrism together prevent evolution
Grey, ’93 (William, prof. @ University of Queensland, taught at Australian
National University, Temple University, Philadelphia, and the University of
New England. “Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology”, Australiasian
Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475.)
Suppose that astronomers detect a modest asteroid or comet, say five or ten
kilometres diameter, on collision course with planet Earth [8]. The
impending collision would be perfectly natural all right, and cataclysmic
enough to do to us what another one rather like it probably did to the
dinosaurs. Such periodic disruptive events are natural all right, though they
probably destroy most of the then extant large life forms. These times of
renewal provide opportunities for smaller, flexible organisms to radiate
opportunistically into vacated niches, and life goes on. From a biocentric or
ecocentric perspective there is little doubt that our demise would provide
comparable opportunities for development which we currently prevent.
Should we, in such circumstances, step aside so that evolution can continue
on its majestic course? I think not, and I think further that interference with
the natural course of events, if it could be effected, would be no bad thing—
at least from our point of view and in terms of our interests, which it is quite
legitimate to promote and favour.
A/T: ANTHRO ISN’T INHERENTLY FLAWED
1) Fine, Grant them this. We are totally conceding this point. When we defend our loved
ones or are moved more by human suffering than the suffering of other beings, we are
acting as descendants, parents, friends, lovers, etc.- and being anthropocentric, but
this form is OK
2) They are embodying a flawed form of anthropocentrism- they are evaluating the
world through a “human first!” point of view- THIS is flawed.
3) X-apply their argument to prove again that there are alternatives to the kritik, and that
kritik solves case because it keeps anthropocentrism, but not the human first
approach.
Kritik Promotes Deep Ecology
Grey, ’93 (William, prof. @ University of Queensland, taught at Australian
National University, Temple University, Philadelphia, and the University of
New England. “Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology”, Australiasian
Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475.)
When humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing,
a most profound change in consciousness begins to take place. Alienation subsides. The
human is no longer an outsider, apart. Your humanness is then recognised as being
merely the most recent stage of your existence, and as you stop identifying exclusively
with this chapter, you start to get in touch with yourself as mammal, as vertebrate, as a
species only recently emerged from the rainforest. As the fog of amnesia disperses, there
is a transformation in your relationship to other species, and in your commitment to them.
What is described here should not be seen as merely intellectual. The intellect is one
entry point to the process outlined, and the easiest one to communicate.
Alternatives Exist: Partial Rejection
Grey, ’93 (William, prof. @ University of Queensland, taught at Australian
National University, Temple University, Philadelphia, and the University of
New England. “Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology”, Australiasian
Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475.)