ANTHRO

They say Extinction outweighs Framing issue: the negs strict utilitarian calculus excludes the natural world you should always prioritize an ethic that recognizes the value of the natural world.
of Technology, Nature as Subject 1997)

Katz 97 (Eric, Director of Science, Technology, and Society Program at the New Jersey Institute

One approach within this conception of environmental philosophy would be to seek these "'environmentally appropriate " ethical princi ples in the direct application of traditional ethical theories--such as utilitarianism,
Kantianism, rights theory, or contractarianism--to the newly emerging problems of the environmental crisis. From this perspective, environmental philosophy would be a version of a basic applied ethics. Its subject matter--the justification of environmental policies-would be new, but the philosophical principles and ethical ideals used to analyze and solve these new problems would be the familiar

A rather different approach to environmental philosophy would eschew the traditional versions of ethical theory and offer a radical reinterpretation or critique of the dominant philosophical ideas of the modern age. From this critical
positions and ideas of Western philosophy. perspective

, traditional ethical systems must be modified, expanded, or

transcended in order to deal with the fundamental philosophical issues raised by the existence of the contemporary

. The crucial change would be an expansion of ethical thought beyond the limits of the human community to include the direct moral consideration of the natural world. In these essays I have chosen this second path. My basic critical idea is that human-centered (or "anthropocentric") ethical systems fail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism. From this negative account of
environmental crisis anthropocentrism I derive my fundamental position in environmental ethics: the direct moral consideration and respect for the

we must respect Nature as an ongoing subject of a history, a life-process, a developmental system. The natural world--natural entities and natural ecological systems--deserves our moral consideration as part of the
evolutionary processes of nature. I believe that it is a basic ethical principle that interdependent community of life on Earth. Hence the title of this collection. I consider Nature as

analogous to a

human subject, entitled to moral respect

and subject to traditional ethical categories. I do not anthropomorphize Nature; I do not ascribe human feelings and intentions to the operations of natural processes. I do not consider natural processes to be sentient or alive. I merely place Nature within the realm of ethical activity. The basis of a moral justification of environmental policy is that

we have ethical obligations to the natural world, just as we have ethical

obligations to our fellow human beings. In these essays I explain and analyze this nonanthropocentric perspective in environmental philosophy. Mass extinction is key to evolution.

Their anthropocentric impact calculus is just moral prejudicethe burden is on them to prove why humans are the center of value.
Regan 90 (Tom, Professor of Philosophy at NC State, Christianity and Animal Rights: The
Challenge and Promise 1990)

I addressed this question in a recent speech, reminding my audience of a few "extreme" moral positions upon which we are all agreed: The murder of the innocent is always wrong. Rape is always wrong. Child molestation is always wrong. Racial and sexual discrimination are always wrong. I went on to note that when an injustice is absolute, as is true of each of the examples just adduced, then one must oppose it absolutely. It is not a reformed, "more humane" rape that an enlightened ethic calls for; it is the abolition of all rape that is required; it is this extreme position we must uphold. And analogous remarks apply in the case of the other human evils I have mentioned. Once this much is acknowledged it is evident -- or at least it should be -- that those who oppose or resist the animal rights question will have to do better than merely attach the label "extreme" to it. Sometimes "extreme" positions about what is wrong are right. Of course there are two obvious differences between the animal rights position and the other examples of extreme views I have given. The latter views are very generally accepted, whereas the former position is not. And unlike these very generally accepted views, which concern wrongful acts done to human beings, the animal-rights position concerns the wrongfulness of treating animals (nonhuman animals, that is) in certain ways. Those who oppose or resist the animal rights position might seize upon these two differences in an effort to justify themselves in accepting extreme positions regarding rape and child abuse, for example, while rejecting the "extremism" of animal rights. But neither of these differences will bear the weight of justification. That

a view, whether moral or otherwise, is very generally accepted is not a sufficient reason for accepting it as true. Time was when the shape of the earth was generally believed to be flat, and time was when the
presence of physical and mental handicaps were very generally thought to make the people who

many people believed these falsehoods obviously did not make them true. We dont discover or confirm whats true by taking a vote. The reverse of the preceding also can be demonstrated. That a view, moral or otherwise, is not generally accepted is not a sufficient reason for judging it to be false. When those lonely few first
bore them morally inferior. That very conjectured that the earth is round and that women are the moral equals of men, they conjectured truly, notwithstanding how grandly they were outnumbered. The solitary person who, in Thoreaus enduring image, marches to a different drummer, may be the only person to apprehend the truth. The second difference noted above is more problematic. That difference cites the fact that child abuse and rape, for example, involve evils done to human beings, while the animal-rights position claims that certain evils are done to nonhuman animals. Now there is no question that this does constitute a difference. The question is, Is this a morally relevant difference -- a difference, that is, that would justify us in accepting the extreme opposition we judge to be appropriate in the case of child abuse and rape, for example, but which most people resist or abjure in the case of, say, vivisection? For a variety of reasons I do not think that this difference is a morally relevant one. Viewed scientifically, this second difference succeeds only in citing a biological difference: the victims of rape and child abuse belong to one species (the species Homo sapiens) whereas the victims of vivisection and trapping belong to another species (the species canis lupus, for example). But biological differences inside the species Homo sapiens do not justify radically different treatment among those individual humans who differ biologically (for example, in terms of sex, or skin color, or chromosome count). Why, then, should biological differences outside our species count morally? If having one eye or deformed limbs does not disqualify a human being from moral consideration equal to that given to those humans who are more fortunate, how can it be rational to disqualify a rat or a wolf from equal moral consideration because, unlike us, they

have paws and a tail? Some of those who resist or oppose the animal-rights position might have recourse to "intuition" at this point. They might claim that one either sees that the principal biological difference at issue (namely, species membership) is a morally relevant one, or one does not see this. No reason can be given as to why belonging to the species Homo sapiens gives one a superior moral status, just as no reason can be given as to why belonging to the species canis lupus gives wolves an inferior moral status (if wolves have a moral status at all). This difference in moral status can only be grasped immediately, without making an inference, by an exercise of intuitive reason. This moral difference is self-evident -- or so it will be claimed by those who claim to intuit it. However attractive this appeal to intuition may seem to some, it woefully fails to bear the weight of justification. The plain fact is, people have claimed to intuit differences in the comparative moral standing of individuals and groups inside the human species, and these alleged intuitions, we all would agree, are painful symptoms of unquestioned and

THEY SAY HUMANITY FIRST: 1. Humanity is not better than anything elsewe are part of a larger biotic community. Harding 05 (Stephan, doctorate in ecology from the University of Oxford, a degree in Zoology
from the University of Durham, and has many years experience of ecological field research and of teaching at University level. What is deep ecology, http://biomimicry.typepad.com/bioinspire/files/BioInspire.23-01.31.05.pdf, date accessed: 7/22/11) Notice that the experience was not looked for, expected or contrived. It happened spontaneously. Something in the dying eyes of the wolf reached beyond Leopolds training and triggered a recognition of where he was. After this experience he saw the world differently, and went on to

humans are not a superior species with the right to manage and control the rest of nature, but rather that humans are plain members of the biotic community. He also penned his
develop a land ethic, in which he stated that famous dictum: a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. Arne Naess emphasises the importance of such spontaneous experience. A key aspect of these experiences is the perception of gestalts, or networks of relationships. We see that there are no isolated objects, but that objects are nodes in a vast web of relationships. When such deep experience occurs, we feel a strong sense of wide identification with what we are

This identification involves a heightened sense of empathy and an expansion of our concern with non-human life. We realise how dependent
sensing. we are on the well-being of nature for our own physical and psychological well-being. As a consequence there arises a natural inclination to protect non-human life. Obligation and coercion to do so become unnecessary. We understand that other beings, ranging from microbes to multicellular life-forms to ecosystems and watersheds, to Gaia as a whole, are engaged in the process of unfolding their innate potentials. Naess calls this

self-realisation involves the development of wide identification in which the sense of self is no longer limited by the personal ego, but instead encompasses greater and greater
process self-realisation. For us humans, wholes. Naess has called this expanded sense of self the ecological self. Since all beings strive in their own ways for self-realisation,

we recognise that all are endowed with

intrinsic value, irrespective of any economic or other utilitarian

value they might have for human ends. Our own human striving for self-realisation is on an equal footing to the strivings of other beings. There is a fundamental equality between human and non-human life in principle. This ecocentric perspective contrasts with the anthropocentric view which ascribes intrinsic value only to

humans, valuing

nature only if it is useful to our own species.

The new sense of belonging to an intelligent universe revealed by deep experience often leads to deep questioning, which helps to elaborate a coherent framework for elucidating fundamental beliefs, and for translating these beliefs into decisions, lifestyle and action. The emphasis on action is important. It is action that distinguishes deep ecology from other ecophilosophies. This is what makes deep ecology a movement as much as a philosophy. By deep questioning, an individual is articulating a total view of life which can guide his or her lifestyle choices. In questioning society, one understands its underlying assumptions from an ecological point of view. One looks at the collective psychological origins of the ecological crisis, and the related crises of peace and social justice. One also looks deeply into the history of the West to find the roots of our pernicious anthropocentrism as it has manifested in our science, philosophy and economics. One tries to understand how the current drive for globalisation of Western culture and of free trade leads to the devastation of both human culture and nature. This deep questioning of the fundamental assumptions of our culture contrasts markedly with the mainstream shallow or reform approach. This tries to ensure the continuance of business as usual by advocating the greening of business and industry by incorporating a range of measures such as pollution prevention and the protection of biodiversity due to its monetary value as medicine or its ability to regulate climate. Although deep ecology supporters often have no option but strategically to adopt a reform approach when working with the mainstream, their own deep questioning of society goes on in the background. This may subtly influence the people with whom they interact professionally.

2. Dominate Rule is to preserve nature. Marina 9 (Daniel, Sdertrns hgskola | Institutionen fr Kultur och Kommunikation,
Anthropocentrism and Androcentrism An Ecofeminist Connection http://www.projectsparadise.com/anthropocentrism-androcentrism/) Environmentalism is the movement that works to end naturism. Environmentalists assert

domination of nature by humans exists and that this domination is wrong. Some environmentalists carry out the work to end naturism from the discipline of
that the philosophy. Environmental philosophy is work carried out within some philosophical field mainly ethics that is motivated by the general goal of the environmental movement. Despite the differences between the various positions, there is one assumption shared by most environmental philosophers, namely nature deserves moral consideration in its own right. As Warren explains, mainstream Western ethics has traditionally neglected nature.

The standard notion has been that humans only have moral obligations towards humans. Nature has merely had instrumental value. Environmental philosophers endeavour to elucidate the connections between
environmental problems and traditional philosophical conceptions. They set themselves the task of identifying how naturism manifest itself in philosophy, that is, of countering when

philosophers deliberately or accidentally articulate the already privileged world of humans maintaining its status over nature. Some of the environmental ethical positions are: (1) the individualistic approaches of Peter Singer and Tom Regan: moral consideration is due to all those individuals who possess the morally relevant capacities, namely sentiency (Singer) and to be the subject of a life (Regan); (2) the holistic approach of Aldo Leopold whose focus is on populations, species, ecosystems, and the biosphere: it is not only individual animals that enjoy moral value, but also plants and the non-living elements of the natural world; (3) deep ecology that expects humans to develop an ecological sensitivity: a respect that reflects the fact that each organism is essentially related to the other elements of the biospherical net and the fact that every life form possesses an intrinsic value independently of the instrumental values that it may possess in the eyes of a human beholder; (4) social ecology that identifies a structural and institutional root of the environmental crisis, specifically a society that has been permeated by authoritarian hierarchies and a capitalist market economy, and a natural world that has been arranged in accordance with a hierarchal order of beings: it underlines then the vital connection between social problems and environmental problems, that is, between the way humans relate to humans and the way humans relate to nature. Ecofeminism is the approach that merges the goal of the environmental movement with the goal of the feminist movement. Warren explains that it does this because ecofeminists believe that both environmentalism and feminism have their shortcomings, and that they should complement each other. According to her environmentalists will not be able to fully and correctly understand, and consequently successfully abolish, naturism unless they cease to disregard the connections existing between the domination of nature and the domination of women. They will not be able to elaborate theories that do not contribute to oppression unless they recognize the role and configuration of oppressive conceptual frameworks and the conceptual connections between naturism and sexism they give rise to. They will not be sensitive to the specific realities and perspectives of women unless they admit gender as a fundamental category of analysis. Feminism needs, in a similar way, to understand the connections between sexism and naturism.

THEY SAY PLAN HURTS HUMANS:

Humans are only excluded from nature by choicethe ethic of the AFF recognizes the multiplicity of centers of value in nature. Marina 9 (Daniel, Sdertrns hgskola | Institutionen fr Kultur och Kommunikation,
Anthropocentrism and Androcentrism An Ecofeminist Connection http://www.projectsparadise.com/anthropocentrism-androcentrism/) Finally, I would like to summarize some of the reasons why anthropocentrism is open to criticism. I shall focus on those that Val Plumwood adduces. According to her anthropocentrism is basically a framework of beliefs and perceptions that generates a myriad of illusions. Nature is perceived as discontinuous from the human realm, as subordinate, as inessential, as a denied and disorderly Other, as passive, and so on. Anthropocentrism disregards natures complexity, her uniqueness as a life-sustaining whole, and the plurality of legitimate centres with genuine interests and needs that it comprises.

Humans are perceived as discontinuous from the natural realm,

as

essentially rational, and are reduced to being masters and conquerors.

Humans, as physical and biological beings, can, of course, be allowed to remain within nature. What anthropocentrism especially consigns to an area outside and above
nature is that part of the human self that is considered authentically human, i.e. rationality and freedom. Human identity is in such a way construed in opposition to the natural, the

human traits associated with animality, that the authentically human includes also the desire to exclude and distance from the nonhuman. This conception of the human
physical, the biological, and the animal, including those self as separate from, or if anything accidentally related to, nature together with the conception of the nonhuman as inferior and antagonistic renders humanity a legitimate

Anthropocentrism disregards humanitys vital dependence on nature, the essential character of genuine
oppressor and nature a means to human ends. human traits such as the emotions and the body, as well as other attitudes towards nature than that to master and conquer it.

THEY SAY HUMANS SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT: 2 Points on this: 1. Extend or Williams 10 card that talks about how we once had a big ocean theory and that ideology has now been driven outward into space And 2. They have it backwardshuman centered actions destroys the natural otherthe plan solves. Marina 9 (Daniel, Sdertrns hgskola | Institutionen fr Kultur och Kommunikation,
Anthropocentrism and Androcentrism An Ecofeminist Connection http://www.projectsparadise.com/anthropocentrism-androcentrism/) spatial image. Something, in this case humanity, is situated at the centre of something. There are numerous settings in which humans can be claimed to occupy the centre. For example, an anthropocentric cosmology would claim that humanity occupies the physical centre of the universe.31 In environmental philosophy the terms are mainly applied to morality. Here I shall analyze the ways in which humans are said to occupy the privileged spot of that specific universe. The starting point shall be Val Plumwoods liberation model of anthropocentrism. I am beginning with Plumwood because she offers a detailed account of what centrism and anthropocentrism is. Plumwood defines centrism as a structure that is common to and underlies different forms of oppression, like colonialism, racism, and sexism.
These three terms suggest a

The role of this structure is to generate a Centre and the Periphery, an oppressor and the oppressed, a Centre and the Other. The shared features are: 1. Radical exclusion: Those in the centre are represented as

radically separated from and superior to the Other. The Centre is

represented as free from the features of an inferiorized Other, and the Other as lacking the defining features of the Centre. Differences are exaggerated to the point of preventing or hindering any sense of connection or continuity, to the point that identification and sympathy are cancelled.32 2. Homogenization:

Those on the periphery are represented as

alike and replaceable. Similarities are exaggerated and differences are

disregarded within that group. The Other is not an individual but is related to as a member of a class of interchangeable items.33 Differences are only acknowledged when they affect or are deemed relevant to the desires and well-being of those in the centre. 3. Denial: The Other is represented as inessential. Those in the centre deny their own dependency on those on the periphery. 4. Incorporation: Those in the centre do not admit the autonomy of the Other. The Other is represented as a function of the qualities of the Centre. The Other either lacks or is the negation of those qualities that characterize those in the centre, being these qualities at the same time the most cherished and esteemed socially and culturally. 5. Instrumentalism:

Those in the centre deny the Other its independent

agency. Those on the periphery are represented as lacking, for instance, ends of its own. The Centre can consequently impose its own ends upon them without any conflict. The Other becomes a means or a resource the Centre can make use of to satisfy its own needs, and is accordingly valued for the usefulness the Centre
can find in it. A second reason for beginning with Plumwood is that all the iniquitous senses of anthropocentrism that I have come across in the literature can, I think, be identified as either instrumentalism or denial. Warwick Foxs passive sense of anthropocentrism would be an example of denial. In this sense he speaks of anthropocentric ecophilosophy as one that focuses on social issues only, on interhuman affairs and problems. For these environmentalists the nonhuman world retains its traditional status as the background against which the significant action human action takes place.34 According to them the environmental crisis would then be solved within that human sphere by ensuring the well-being of humanity. There would be no need to deal with the way humanity relates to nature. The other senses would be examples of either instrumentalism or of outcomes of instrumentalism: Andrew
Dobsons strong anthropocentrism (The injustice and unfairness involved in the instrumental use of the non-human world35); the account Robert Sessions gives of how deep ecology describes the anthropocentric attitude ((1) Nonhuman nature has no value in itself, (2) humans (and/or God, if theistic) create what value there is, and (3) humans have the right (some would say the obligation) to do as they please with and in the nonhuman world as long as they do not harm other humans interests36); Tim Haywards account of the ethical criticism of anthropocentrism (The mistake of giving exclusive or arbitrarily preferential consideration to human interests as opposed to the interests of other beings37); Andrew Dobsons description of what environmentalists consider a basic cause of ecological degradation and a potential cause of disaster (Concern for ourselves at the expense of concern for the nonhuman world38); and Warwick Foxs

aggressive sense of anthropocentrism, according to which

anthropocentrism is the overt discrimination against the nonhuman world.

CEDE THE POLITICAL

The political is already cededonly a radical form of politics can regain it from transnational companies and political technophiles.
Best 6 (Steven, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas El Paso, Revolutionary
Environmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Total Liberation 2006)

George W. Bushs feel-good talk of progress and democracy, given an endless and uncritical

we live in an unprecedented era of social and ecological crisis. Predatory transnational

airing by mainstream corporate media, masks the fact that corporations such as ExxonMobil and Maxxam are pillaging the planet, destroying ecosystems, pushing species into extinction, and annihilating indigenous peoples and traditional ways of life. War, globalization, and destruction of peoples, species, and ecosystems march in lockstep: militarization supports the worldwide imposition of the "free market" system, and its growth and profit imperatives thrive though the exploitation of humans, animals, and the earth (see Kovel 2002; Tokar 1997; Bannon and Collier 2003). Against the mindless optimism of technophiles, the denials of skeptics, and complacency of the general public, we depart from the premise that there is a global environmental crisis which is

If humanity does not address ecological problems immediately and with radical measures that target causes not symptoms, severe, world-altering consequences will play out over
the most urgent issue facing us today. a long-term period and will plague future generations. Signs of major stress of the worlds eco-systems are everywhere, from shrinking forests and depleted fisheries to vanishing wilderness and global climate change. Ours is an era of global warming, rainforest destruction, species extinction, and chronic resource shortages that provoke wars and conflicts such as in Iraq. While five great extinction crises have already transpired on this planet, the last one occurring 65 million years ago in the age of the dinosaurs, we are now living amidst the sixth extinction crisis, this time caused by human not natural causes. Human populations have always devastated their environment and thereby their societies, but they have never intervened in the planets ecosystem to the extent they have altered climate. We now confront the end of nature where no natural force, no breeze or ripple of water, has not been affected by the human presence (McKribben 2006). This is especially true with nanotechnology and biotechnology. Rather than confronting this crisis and scaling back human presence and aggravating actions, humans are making it worse. Human population rates continue to swell, as awakening giants such as India and China move toward western consumer lifestyles, exchanging rice bowls for burgers and bicycles for SUVs. The human presence on this planet is like a meteor plummeting to the earth, but it has already struck and the reverberations are rippling everywhere. Despite the proliferating amount of solid, internationally assembled scientific data supporting the reality of global climate change and ecological crisis, there are still so-called environmental skeptics, realists, and optimists who deny the problems, often compiling or citing data paid for by ExxonMobil. Senator James Inhofe has declared global warming to be a myth that is damaging to the US economy. He and others revile environmentalists as alarmists, extremists, and eco-terrorists who threaten the American way of life. There is a direct and profound relationship between global capitalism and ecological destruction. The capitalist economy lives or dies on constant growth, accumulation, and consumption of resources. The environmental crisis is inseparable from the social crisis, whereby centuries ago a market economy disengaged from society and ruled over it with its alien and destructive imperatives. The crisis in ecology is ultimately a crisis in democracy, as transnational corporations arise and thrive through the destruction of popular sovereignty. The western environment movement has advanced its cause for over three decades now, but we are nonetheless losing ground in the battle to preserve species, ecosystems, and wilderness (Dowie 1995; Speth 2004). Increasingly, calls for moderation, compromise, and the slow march through institutions can be seen as treacherous and grotesquely inadequate. In the midst of predatory global capitalism and biological meltdown, reasonableness and moderation seem to be entirely unreasonable and

radical actions appear simply as necessary and appropriate. As eco-primitivist Derrick Jensen observes, We must eliminate false hopes, which blind us to real possibilities. The current world system is inherently destructive and unsustainable; if it cannot
immoderate, as extreme and be reformed, it must be transcended through revolution at all levelseconomic, political, legal, cultural, technological, and, most fundamentally, conceptual. The struggles and changes must be as deep, varied, and far-reaching as the root of the problems.

And Radical environmental movements are more effective at creating change our evidence is comparative.
Best 6 (Steven, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas El Paso, Revolutionary
Environmentalism: An Emerging New Struggle for Total Liberation 2006) Revolutionary environmentalism is based on the realization that politics as usual just wont cut it anymore. We will always lose if we play by their rules rather than invent new forms of struggle, new social movements, and new sensibilities.

The defense of the earth

requires immediate and decisive: logging roads need to be blocked, driftnets need
to be cut, and cages need to be emptied. But these are defensive actions, and in addition to these

movements and alliances must be built from the perspective total liberation. A new revolutionary politics will build on the achievements of democratic, libertarian socialist, and anarchist traditions. It will incorporate radical
tactics, radical green, feminist, and indigenous struggles. It will merge animal, earth, and human standpoints in a total liberation struggle against global capitalism and its omnicidal grow-or-die logic. Radical politics must reverse the growing power of the state, mass media, and corporations to promote egalitarianism and participatory democratization at all levels of society political, cultural, and economic. It must dismantle all asymmetrical power relations and structures of hierarchy, including that of humans over animals and the earth.

Radical

politics is impossible without

the revitalization of citizenship and the repoliticization of life, which begins with forms of education, communication, culture, and art that anger, awaken, inspire, and empower people toward

action and change.

And The political is already cededthe plan is the last hope for radical change in the face of environmental destruction.
Best 4 (Steven, professor of philosophy at Texas El Paso, From Earth Day to Ecological Society
http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/FromEarthDay.htm, date accessed: 7/27/11 Homo sapiens have embarked on an insane, destructive, and unsustainable path of existence.

The human species is driving off a cliff at 100 miles an hour without brakes, and yet people live is if the most urgent issue of the day is Janet Jacksons wardrobe
malfunction or who will win American Idol. There is much talk about national security but nothing is said about the basis of all security environmental security. Problems like global warming, desertification, and food and water shortages will wreak havoc throughout

the planet. As Homeland Security turns ever-more fascist, environmentalists are vilified as eco-terrorists and legal forms of activism are criminalized under the Patriot Act. While Ashcroft prosecutes activists working to help the planet, corporate eco-terrorists continue to pillage and plunder. Meanwhile, Americans, who make up less than 5% of the worlds population, consume 30% of its resources and produce 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever forces striving to save the environment are doing, it is not to ward off corporate and state Pac-men greedily devouring the planet. National environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club are tepid, compromise-based, reform-oriented bureaucracies unable to challenge corporate and state power, and grass-roots forces

We are in the midst of a major ecological crisis that stems from a social crisis rooted in corporate power and erosion of democracy. In Greek, the word crisis means decision,
are not great enough in force and numbers. suggesting that humanity, currently poised at a critical crossroads in its evolution, has crucial decisions and choices to make concerning its existence on the planet. Human identity, values, ethics, worldviews, and mode of social organization need major rethinking and reconstruction. In Chinese, crisis means both calamity and opportunity. In a diseased individual, cancer often provides the catalyst for personal growth. As a diseased species, human beings can perish, survive in dystopian futures prefigured by films like Mad Max and Waterworld, or seize their opportunity to learn from egregious errors and rise to far higher levels of social and moral evolution. The Human Plague The crisis in human existence is dramatically reflected in the 1996 film, Independence Day. The movie is about hostile aliens with no respect for life; they come to earth to kill its peoples, devour its natural resources, and then move onto other planets in a mad quest to find more fuel for their mega-machines and growth-oriented culture. The film is a veiled projection of our own destructive habits onto

We are the aliens; we are the parasites who live off the death of other life forms; we are the captains of the mega-machines that are sustainable only through violence and ecological destruction. We do to the
monstrous beings from another world. animals and the earth what the aliens do to human life -- the only difference is, we have no other planet to move on to, and no superheroes to save us. We

are trapped in a Dawn of the Dead living nightmare where armies of hideous corpses, people thought long dead and buried, walk again with a will to destroy us. The dead represent all the waste, pollution, and ecological
debts accrued to our growth culture that we thought we could walk away from

we are waking up to the fact that the dead are storming our neighborhoods, crashing through our doors and windows, and hell-bent on devouring us. In his article entitled A Plague
unscathed and never again face. But of Human Proportions, Mark Lynas frames the crisis this way: Within the earth's biosphere, a single species has come to dominate virtually all living systems. For the past two centuries this species has been reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an infectious plague envelops its host. Three hundred thousand new individuals are added to its numbers every day. Its population of bodies now exceeds by a hundred times the biomass of any large animal species that has ever existed on land since the beginning of geological time. The species is us. Now numbering more than six billion souls, the human population has doubled since 1950. Nothing like this has happened before in the earth's history. Even the dinosaurs, which dominated for tens of millions of years, were thinly spread compared to the hairless primate Homo sapiens. Thus, a

single biological type has wreaked havoc on the estimated ten million other species in habiting the planet. Lynas suggests that because Homo sapiens dominates the planet today as dinosaurs did one hundred million years ago, We are entering a new geological era: the Anthropocene. According to a March 2004 Earth Policy Institute report, Humans have transformed nearly half of the planet's ice-free land areas, with serious effects on the rest of nature Each year the earth's forest cover shrinks by 16 million hectares (40 million acres), with most of the loss occurring in tropical forests, where levels of biodiversity are high A recent study of 173 species of mammals from around the world showed that their collective geographical ranges have been halved over the past several decades, signifying a loss of breeding and foraging area. While insipid ideologues like Tibor Machan still publish books such as Putting Humans First: Why we are Natures Favorite (2004), it is more accurate to see Homo sapiens as the invasive species and agent of mass extinction par excellence -- not natures favorite but rather natures bete noir.

And The plan solves best for political change.

Best 4 (Steven, professor of philosophy at Texas El Paso, From Earth Day to Ecological Society
http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/FromEarthDay.htm, date accessed: 7/27/11

If humanity is to survive and flourish in its precarious journey into the future, it needs a new moral compass because anthropocentrism has failed us dramatically. Albert Schweitzer observed that the problem with ethics so far is that they have been limited to a human-to-human consideration. In place of the alienated and predatory sensibility
of Western life, Schweitzer proposed a new code an ethic of reverence for life. This entails a universal ethic of compassion and respect that includes all humanity, embraces non-human species, and extends to the entire earth. We need a Declaration of Interdependence to replace our outmoded Declaration of Independence. The demand to cease exploiting animals and the earth is one and the same; we cannot change in one area without changing in the other. Animal rights and environmental

ethics are

the logical next stages in human moral evolution

and the next necessary steps in the human journey to enlightenment and wholeness. Sadly, on Earth Day, as on every other day, the human species continues to invade and damage the planet. As I write, I receive a report from Traffic, a British-based wildlife monitoring group, saying that because of deforestation and trading in its body parts, the Sumatran tiger, Indonesia's last tiger sub-species, is on the brink of extinction. In addition, I read that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed two tropical birds, the Mariana mallard and the Guam broadbill, from its endangered species list not because they are safe but because they became extinct. In some way we cannot possibly grasp, the entire earth is trying to adjust to their inalterable absence. According to the clich, Every day is Earth Day. Truth be told, every day is Human Growth Day. On April 22, the media might turn away from Michael Jackson or Bushs terror war for a thirty second fluff piece on the state of the planet, and some individuals might pause for a moment to think about their environment. Like the evil-doer who sins all week and then atones on Sunday, human beings plunder the planet all year long and stop for a moment of guilt and expiation. We congratulate ourselves for honoring Earth Day, when in fact the very concept would be incoherent in an ecological society. In honor of Earth Day it is appropriate to ask: what does it mean to be an

environmentalist? Where industries, the state, and toxic nihilists of ever stripe want those who care about the environment to bear stigmas such as kook, wacko, unAmerican, and even terrorist, being an environmentalist must become a badge of honor. To be an environmentalist is to realize that one is not only a citizen of human society, one also is a citizen of the earth, an eco-citizen. Our community includes not only our society with other human beings on a national and international scale, but also our relations to the entire living earth, to the biocommunity. We need to act like we are citizens and not conquering invaders. We have not only a negative duty to avoid doing harm to the earth as much as possible, but also a positive duty to help nature regenerate.

Util Cray
Policy decisions directed at maintaining human survival through whatever means will encourage genocide, war, and the destruction of moral values Callahan 73 Co-Founder and former director of The Hastings Institute, PhD in philosophy from Harvard University (Daniel, The
Tyranny of Survival, p 91-93)

The value of survival could not be so readily abused were it not for its evocative power. But abused it has been. In the name of survival, all manner of social and political evils have been committed against the rights of individuals, including the right to life. The purported threat of Communist domination has for over two decades fueled the drive of militarists for ever-larger defense budgets, no matter what the cost to other social needs . During World War II, native Japanese-Americans were herded, without due process of law, to detention camps. This policy was later upheld by the Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) in the general context that a threat to national security can justify acts otherwise blatantly unjustifiable. The survival of the Aryan race was one of the official legitimations of Nazism. Under the banner of
survival, the government of South Africa imposes a ruthless apartheid, heedless of the most elementary human rights. The Vietnamese war has seen one of the greatest of the many absurdities tolerated in the name of survival: the destruction of villages in order to save them. But it is not only in a political setting that survival has been evoked as a final and unarguable value. The main rationale B. F. Skinner

offers in Beyond Freedom and Dignity for the controlled and conditioned society is the need for survival. For Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity, survival requires that we
overthrow almost every known religious, ethical and political system. In genetics, the survival of the gene pool has been put forward as sufficient grounds for a forceful prohibition of bearers of offensive genetic traits from marrying and bearing children. Some have even suggested that we do the cause of survival no good by our misguided medical efforts to find means by which those suffering from such common genetically based diseases as diabetes can live a normal life, and thus procreate even more diabetics. In the field of population and environment, one can do no better than to cite Paul Ehrlich, whose works have shown a high dedication to survival, and in its holy name a willingness to contemplate governmentally enforced abortions and a denial of food to surviving populations of nations which have not enacted population-control policies. For all these reasons it is possible to counterpoise over against the need for survival a

"tyranny of survival." There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of course, to recognize the danger when
survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland to save it from destruction at the hands of its enemies. But my point goes deeper than that. It is directed even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The

potential tyranny survival as value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all other values . Survival can become an obsession and a disease, provoking a
destructive single-mindedness that will stop at nothing. We come here to the fundamental moral dilemma. If, both biologically and psychologically, the need for survival is basic to man, and if survival is the precondition for any and all human achievements, and if no other rights make much sense without the premise of a right

to lifethen how will it be possible to honor and act upon the need for survival without, in the process, destroying everything in human beings which makes them worthy of survival. To put it more strongly, if the price of survival is human degradation, then there is no moral reason why an effort should be made to ensure that survival. It would be the Pyrrhic victory to end all Pyrrhic victories. Yet it would be the defeat of all defeats if, because human beings could not properly manage their need to survive, they succeeded in not doing so.

Utilitarianism disregards respect for the individual and perpetuates societal inequality by evaluating utility as a whole Freeman 94 (Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of
North Carolina (Samuel, Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

The inclusion of all sentient beings in the calculation of interests severely undermines the force of any claim that utilitarianism is an "egalitarian" doctrine, based in some notion of equal concern and respect for persons. But let us assume Kymlicka can restore his thesis by

insisting that it concerns, not utilitarianism as a general moral doctrine, but as a more limited thesis about political morality. (Here I pass over the fact that none of the utilitarians he relies on to support his egalitarian interpretation construe the doctrine as purely political. The drift of modern utilitarian theory is just the other way: utilitarianism is not seen

as a political doctrine, to be appealed to by legislators and citizens, but a nonpublic criterion of right that is indirectly applied [by whom is a separate issue] to assess the nonutilitarian public political conception of justice.) Still, let us assume it is as a doctrine of political morality that utilitarianism treats persons, and only persons, as equals. Even in this form it cannot be that maximizing utility is "not a goal" but a "by-product," "entirely derived from the prior requirement to treat people with equal consideration" (CPP, p. 31)

Kymlicka says, "If utilitarianism is best seen as an egalitarian doctrine, then there is no independent commitment to the idea of maximizing welfare" (CPP, p. 35, emphases added). But how can this be? (i) What is there about the formal principle of equal consideration (or for that matter occupying a universal point of view) which would imply that we maximize the aggregate of individuals' welfare? Why not assume, for example, that equal consideration requires maximizing the division of welfare (strict equality, or however equal division is to be construed); or, at least maximize the multiple (which would result in more equitable distributions than the aggregate)? Or, why not suppose equal consideration requires equal proportionate satisfaction of each person's interests (by for example, determining our resources and then satisfying some set percentage of each person's desires) . Or finally we might rely on some Paretian principle: equal consideration means adopting measures making no one worse off. For reasons I shall soon discuss, each of these rules is a better explication of equal consideration of each person's interests than is the utilitarian aggregative method , which in effect collapses distinctions among persons. (2) Moreover, rather than construing individuals' "interests" as their actual (or rational) desires, and then putting them all on a par and measuring according to intensity, why not construe their interests lexically, in terms of a hierarchy of wants, where certain interests are, to use Scanlon's terms, more "urgent" than others, insofar as they are more basic needs? Equal consideration would then rule out satisfying less urgent interests of the majority of people until all means have been taken to satisfy everyone's more basic needs. (3) Finally, what is there about equal consideration, by itself, that requires maximizing anything? Why does it not require, as in David Gauthier's view, optimizing constraints on individual utility maximization? Or why does it not require sharing a distribution? The point is just that, to

say we ought to give equal consideration to everyone's interests does not, by itself, imply much of anything about how we ought to proceed or what we ought to do. It is a purely formal principle, which requires certain added, independent assumptions, to yield any substantive conclusions. That (i) utilitarian procedures maximize is not a "by-product" of equal consideration. It stems from a particular conception of rationality that is explicitly incorporated into the procedure. That (2) individuals' interests are construed in terms of their (rational) desires or preferences, all of which are put on a par, stems from a conception of individual welfare or the human good: a person's good is defined subjectively, as what he wants or would want after due reflection. Finally (3), aggregation stems from the fact that, on the classical view, a single individual takes up everyone's desires as if they were his own, sympathetically identifies with them, and chooses to maximize his "individual" utility. Hare, for one, explicitly makes this move. Just as Rawls says of the classical view, Hare
"extend[s] to society the principle of choice for one man, and then, to make this extension work, conflat[es] all persons into one through the imaginative acts of the impartial sympathetic spectator" (TJ, p. 27). If these are independent premises

incorporated into the justification of utilitarianism and its decision procedure, then maximizing

aggregate utility cannot be a "by-product" of a procedure that gives equal consideration to everyone's interests. Instead, it defines what that procedure is. If anything is a by-product here, it is the appeal to equal consideration. Utilitarians appeal to impartiality in order to extend a method of
individual practical rationality so that it may be applied to society as a whole (cf. TJ, pp. 26-27). Impartiality, combined with sympathetic identification, allows a hypothetical observer to experience the desires of others as if they were his own, and compare alternative courses of action according to their conduciveness to a single maximand, made possible by equal consideration and sympathy. The significant fact is that, in this procedure, appeals to equal

consideration have nothing to do with impartiality between persons. What is really being given equal consideration are desires or experiences of the same magnitude. That these are the desires or experiences of separate persons (or, for that matter, of some other sentient being) is simply an incidental fact that has no substantive effect on utilitarian calculations. This becomes apparent from the fact that we can more accurately describe the utilitarian principle in
terms of giving, not equal consideration to each person's interests, but instead equal consideration to equally intense interests, no matter where they occur. Nothing is lost in this redescription, and a great deal of clarity is gained. It is in this sense that persons enter into utilitarian calculations only incidentally. Any mention of

them can be dropped without loss of the crucial information one needs to learn how to apply utilitarian procedures. This indicates what is wrong with the common claim that utilitarians emphasize procedural equality and fairness among persons, not substantive equality and fairness in results. On the contrary, utilitarianism, rightly construed, emphasizes
neither procedural nor substantive equality among persons. Desires and experiences, not persons, are the proper objects of equal concern in utilitarian procedures. Having in effect read persons out of the picture at the procedural end, before decisions on distributions even get underway, it is little wonder that utilitarianism can result in such

substantive inequalities. What follows is that utilitarian appeals to democracy and the democratic value of equality are misleading. In no sense do utilitarians seek to give persons equal concern
and respect.

Owning oneself is a moral imperative utilitarianism imposes interpersonal obligations to society, which destroys morality Freeman 94 (Avalon Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. Harvard University, J.D. University of
North Carolina (Samuel, Utilitarianism, Deontology, and the Priority of Right, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 23, No. 4, Autumn, pp. 313-349, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265463)

Kymlicka distinguishes two interpretations of utilitarianism: teleological and egalitarian. According

to Rawls's teleological interpretation, the "fundamental goal" (LCC, p. 33) of utilitarianism is not persons, but the goodness of states of affairs. Duty is defined by what best brings about these states of affairs. " [M] aximizing the good is primary, and we count individuals equally only because that maximizes value. Our primary duty isn't to treat people as equals, but to bring about valuable states of affairs" (LCC, p. 27). It is difficult to see , Kymlicka says, how this reading of utilitarianism can be viewed as a moral theory. Morality, in our everyday view at least, is a matter of interpersonal obligations-the obligations we owe to each other. But to whom do we owe the duty of maximizing utility? Surely not to the impersonal ideal spectator . . . for he

doesn't exist. Nor to the maximally valuable state of affairs itself, for states of affairs don't have moral claims." (LCC, p.
28-29) Kymlicka says, "This form of utilitarianism does not merit serious consideration as a political morality" (LCC, p. 29). Suppose we see utilitarianism differently, as a theory whose "fundamental principle" is "to treat people as equals" (LCC, p. 29). On this egalitarian reading, utilitarianism is a procedure for aggregating individual interests and desires, a procedure for making social choices, specifying which trade-offs are acceptable. It's a moral theory which purports to treat people

ON FWK
1. We present the round as both a political proposal for ethical change with the justification by critical thinking 2. Predictable Ground is to arbitrary to be considered ground 3. Proposal is done by the USFG 4. We meet we are resolved that the USFG should do the plan 5. Should is the adoption of the aff plan 6. We agree the USFG is all 3 branches B. Violation: the aff is affirming the res through the plan and out interp of development. C. Ground: the plan is both a philosophical proposal and a political one, the neg still has ground in that they can run politics diasds, ks, relations ect. And 2. The neg actually gains more ground in that they are able to run more args if we are supposedly not topical. Education: we increase education with critical thought 2. Critical analysis is key to construct personal opinions. 3. Our interp allows for a free state of thinking with no boarders 4. The negs interp of education with boarders justifies racial boarders and genocide. The Nazis prove. Limits: we meet the limits of there interp, the plan is an ethical and political proposal. Predictability inevitable: 1. they are always able to claim the neg will never be able to predict the case until the round starts

2. Predictability is arbitrary: no way to determine what standards should be set for predictability Voters: 1. Competitive equality means nothing, the neg can do whatever they want we dont force them to run their theory 2. Honor not a voter: the same can be said for them they only run illegit args theres no honor in that 3. The ballot must be evaluated according to the affs framework of an ethical standard.

ON POLITICS
Theory Our interpretation is that the plan is only a statement of desirability. There are several net benefits 1. Fiat solves the link requires the least means necessary for change, which minimizes the DA by half 2. No Link the plan is a statement of desirability, not means questions of means are unimportant without specific evidence 3. A logical policy maker can do both without consequence the plans political consequences occur post implementation, not prior 4. Senators dont switch votes on the plan they default to their base and compartmentalize issues 5. Capital isnt key no ev highlights the primacy of space issues to critical factions 6. Concerns of DA are not intrinsic to the plan, fiat allows us to assume the plan wont cost political capital. And the Negs search for purely political issues triggers out dispo planet adv in the 1a bc the neg sill puts purely human benefits first our fwk is

simply that you the judge must evaluate what is best for the earth not necessarily just for humans. This links into our solvency because the only way to actually solve extinction of humanity is to implement an environmental policy or our plan. This goes to show how our Impacts of destruction of the earth clearly outweigh the negs human extinction impacts. 1. No link plan wont disrupt congress, The DA would require a special session of congress and that would for sure be unpopular.

2. Empirically Denied: Over 40 countries have nuclear weapons and there has never been a nuclear war between 2 countries who both have nuclear weapons. 3. Space policies popular despite fiscal pressures Raju and Bresnahan, 11 (4/20/11, Manu Raju and John Bresnahan, Politico, Shooting for the moon amid cuts,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53495.html)

For all the rhetoric about cutting government spending, NASAs space mission remains sacred in Congress. A handful of powerful lawmakers are so eager to see an American on the moon or even Mars that they effectively mandated NASA to spend not less than $3 billion for a
new rocket project and space capsule in the 2011 budget bill signed by the president last week. NASA has repeatedly raised concerns about the timeframe for building a smaller rocket but the new law expresses Congresss will for the space agency to make a massive heavy-lift rocket that can haul 130 metric tons, like the ones from the days of the Apollo.

Congressional approval of the plan all while $38 billion is being cut elsewhere in the federal government reflects not only the power of key lawmakers from NASA-friendly states, but the enduring influence of major contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing in those states. 4. WINNERS WIN. Singer 9 (Jonathan -- senior writer and editor for MyDD. Singer is perhaps best known for his various interviews with prominent politicians. His interviews have included
John Kerry, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis, and George McGovern, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Tom Vilsack. He has also also interviewed dozens of senatorial, congressional and gubernatorial candidates all around the country. In his writing, Singer primarily covers all aspects of campaigns and elections, from polling and fundraising to opposition research and insider rumors. He has been quoted or cited in this capacity by Newsweek, The New York Times, USA Today, The Politico, and others. My Direct Democracy, 3-3-09, http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/3/3/191825/0428)

From the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey: Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end
approve of the job he's doing in the White House.

of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank." Peter Hart gets at a key point. Some believe that political capital is finite, that it can be used up. To an extent that's true. But it's important to note, too, that political capital can be regenerated -- and, specifically, that when a President expends a great deal of capital on a measure that was difficult to enact and then succeeds, he can build up more capital. Indeed, that appears to be what is happening with Barack Obama, who went to the mat to pass the stimulus package out of the gate, got it passed despite near-unanimous opposition of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, and is being rewarded by the American public as a result. Take a look at the numbers. President Obama now has a 68 percent favorable rating in the NBC-WSJ poll,
his highest ever showing in the survey. Nearly half of those surveyed (47 percent) view him very positively. Obama's Democratic Party earns a respectable 49 percent favorable rating. The Republican Party, however, is in the toilet, with its worst ever showing in the history of the NBC-WSJ poll, 26 percent favorable. On the question of blame for the partisanship in Washington, 56 percent place the onus on the Bush administration and another 41 percent place it on Congressional Republicans. Yet just 24 percent

with President Obama seemingly benefiting from his ambitious actions and the Republicans sinking further and further as a result of their knee-jerked opposition to that agenda, there appears to be no reason not to push forward on anything from universal
blame Congressional Democrats, and a mere 11 percent blame the Obama administration. So at this point, healthcare to energy reform to ending the war in Iraq.

(ADD IMPACT TURN OR NO IMPACT CARD HERE) GET NEW NO LINK ARGS

ON DISPO PLANET
Space manufacturing treats Earth as disposable planet
Byerly, former staff director of the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications of the U.S. House of Representatives, 86
(Radford, Jr., p.91, Beyond spaceship earth : environmental ethics and the solar system, Ed. Hargrove)
Finally, the NASA report suggests that a space manu-facturing facility would have major social and philosophical benefits. The report states that "the spirit of the American people has taken an introspective turn. Many are no longer convinced that unexplored horizons still exist. Predictions of global calamity are commonplace . . . however, establishing an SMF opens new horizons with the recognition that planet Earth is just one poten-tial source of matter and energy. Recognition of the availability of lunar and asteroidal materials and the abundant energy of the Sun can revitalize the traditional American belief in growth as a positive good and can generate a new spirit of adventure and optimism. It is unnecessary to speculate on the directions of growth and its various dimensions because it is clear that American society would continue its historic tradition of exploring new horizons and avoiding stagnation in an ever-changing Universe." In other words, manifest destiny can be resurrected. Let me quote a little more on the putative social benefits of a space manufacturing facility: "On a more fundamental level, the proposed mission is species-survival

oriented.

Earth might at any time become suddenly uninhabitable through global war, disease, pollution or other man-made or natural catastrophies. A recent study has shown that an asteroid collision
with Earth could virtually turn off photosynthesis for up to five years ... the proposed mission assures the continued survival of the human species by providing an extraterrestrial refuge for mankind. An SMF would stand as constant proof that the fate of all humanity is not inextricably tied to the ultimate fate of Earth." These words generate several reactions. On the one hand, their naivete is charming. They recall the New Yorker cartoon by James Thurbcr in which a hostone who today would be called an arrived "yuppie"is serving wine to his dinner guests. He says, "It's a naive little wine, but I think you'll be amused by its impertinence." Optimism is good; if we don't have some optimism we will spiral downward in negativism. On the other hand, the report is striking in its naivete. Its authors seem totally oblivious of the fact that we already have a perfectly good space manufacturing facility, one to which we are well adapted. It is called Earth, and we could, if we chose, take care of it. Thus, the authors completely ignore the basic

If we can't learn how to take care of Earth, then how can we learn how to take care of a space manufacturing facility in orbit around Earth?
question:

Modernitys ideology of anthropocentrism otherizes nature and reinforces the structural violence of the status quo causing extinction
Zimmerman, University of Colorado, Boulder Professor of Philosophy, 2002
(Michael, Encountering Alien Otherness in The Concept of the Foreign, ed. Rebecca Saunders accessed: 7-06-11, pg4-5 http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_zimmerman_Alien_Otherness.pdf) TJL
Recently, concern about foreign immigrants has grown in Western countries to which people from poorer countries (including former colonies) are flocking to escape political oppression and to find work. For many tourists, encountering otherness-distinctive clothing, different skin color, odd cultural practices, unusual cuisines--is the whole point of traveling. Having those exotic others immigrating to one's own country is another matter altogether, however.

Politicians frequently try to

gain political power by turning foreigners--and even citizens who can be portrayed as sufficiently other--into scapegoats for the country's woes. In the U.S., for example, immigrant-bashers play on the fears
that some people have about losing their jobs to immigrants, even though job loss is more often due to decisions taken by powerful transnational economic interests. Even people not immediately threatened by outsiders will often join in disparaging or expelling them. People tend to project mortality and evil onto outsiders, aliens, others. By dominating or even destroying the death- and evil-bearing other, the dominant group feels as if it has conquered death and evil.10 Due to surging human populations, rapid shifts in capital investment and economic structures, environmental degradation, and greater ease of travel,

Given the destructive capacity of current weapons, humanity may either have come to terms with otherness, or else risk destroying itself. Just as people have used differences in skin color, religion, gender, cultural practices, language, ideology, and economics to justify violence against other humans, people have also used differences between humans and other life forms to justify needless violence against plants, animals,
mass migrations will only increase. and entire ecosystems. For centuries, people have claimed that one trait or another--from tool using to linguistic ability-demonstrates human superiority over other life. The nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny proclaimed that a united American people (white, of European descent) was bound to "develop" the continent's natural resources from coast to coast. Modernitys ideology of anthropocentric humanism, which others nature by depicting it solely as an instrument for human ends, generates enormous ecological problems. In recent decades, the dark side of modernity has come in for deserved criticism. Despite its undeniable problems, however, modernity has also made possible great improvements in political freedom, material well-being, scientific knowledge, and human lifespan.

ON FRONTIER
The notion of Manifest Destiny is a form of imperial expansionism that is evidence in space exploration. This cosmological rationale leads to the inevitable genocide and violence

Jimson, 92
[Thomas, Reflections on Race and Manifest Destiny, http://www.cwis.org/fwdp/Americas/manifest.txt]

This sums up much of the rhetoric of the mid 19th Century philosophy of Manifest Destiny. In re-reading the various quotes and passages in Reginald Horsman's work, I gained a clearer understanding of this very

Manifest Destiny is really a multi-faceted excuse for slavery, conquest, and genocide. It is the point at which racism, religion, and politics can meet and form a unified front and a unified philosophy for the ignoble aim of world empire. Manifest Destiny (a term coined in
important, yet often "ignored" aspect of the creation of the American psyche. the 1840s by John O'Sullivan) can only be understood in the context of race and the philosophy of AngloSaxonism that was rampant from the mid 19th Century onward in Europe and North America. The

notions of inherent human equality given way to theories of

(biological and cosmological but not cultural) and

the Biblical unity of humanity that had reigned over the Age of Enlightenment

polygenesis and of scientific classification of nature by Euroamericans, had by the 19th Century culminated in the classification of humanity itself into separate races with innate qualities of inferiority and superiority. This process is typified by the "science" of phrenology which so revolutionized the 19th Century's view of human relations. Phrenology was not simply the "scientific" examination of the relationship between skull size and intelligence -- it was also the study of brain/skull size in relation to MORALITY, both of which supposedly resided in the frontal and coronal parts of the brain; Euroamericans having the largest coincidentally enough. So Euroamericans were not only more intelligent than non-whites, they were also correspondingly more moral than other types of humanity, with more moral institutions and laws than any other type of human beings; it, in fact, could be derived from phrenology that morality is a unique feature of the Euroamerican stock of humanity, lacking in the darker races. Any similarities between Euroamerican institutions and those produced by non-Euroamericans were explained away as being the product of white blood having been introduced at some point in their history. Science would be the explanation for the slavery of the Africans and the extermination of the Indians. "It is not our fault, we are not murderers and thieves, we are merely

had gradually inherent human inequality.The process

we are not killing Indians, they simply cannot survive civilization. It is an inherent fault within them, it has nothing to do with us."This is what made Manifest Destiny such a powerful force in empire building. It placed the responsibility of the destruction of nations and peoples on the victims themselves, not on the perpetrators of it. The power of Manifest Destiny lied in the fact that it created a cosmological rationale for genocide, taking the
fulfilling scientific principles of superiority. In fact responsibility out of the hands of the individual. When you set about to dispossess a people of their land and source of livelihood, unless you have no conscience at all, one must find an excuse to safely hide from the truth of the pain and suffering you are inflicting on innocent peoples. In the era of Manifest Destiny and Anglo-Saxonism the excuses were varied but most boiled down to the simple fact that

if,

indeed,

people were human beings (which is questionable), then they were in fact type of humanity who had no rights to life, land, or liberty. They could not use the land like
Anglos, so they had no right to it; they had no civilizations, so they had no right to their own political institutions; their lives were not worth that of an Anglo, so they had no right to life.

these a lesser

felt by them is

of their own making, or simply placed in contact with the superior Euroamerican types of humanity. The fault resided with them not the Euroamericans. The fault was that they lived in contact with Euroamericans -- Natural Law dictated the rest.

Any suffering a byproduct of their inferior nature when

Present conditions were used as proof that this was indeed the divine order.
Anglos were the master of the non-Anglos therefore it was their nature to be masters. Non-Anglos were subservient to the Anglos, therefore it was their nature to be servants. Circular arguments were the order of the day. The terms used to describe the genocide are also very telling is this context -- terms such as melting, receding, shrinking, dwindling, disappearing, vanishing. Most of these have connotations of natural processes, like the melting of the snow or the receding tide. None of them have any type of active component. They are all devoid of conscious effort. They "happen" under their own auspices without any intent. These terms are used consciously or unconsciously to, again, lift the burden from the perpetrators of mass murder, thievery, and genocide and place it solidly on the shoulders of the victims, or even more pointedly, on God. They also serve to halt any type of reflection on the realities of expansion. How can one stop the snowfrom melting in the sun? How can one stop the tide from receding from the shore? These are all processes that are beyond human design. They are Divine processes, natural process, scientific process, that are completely absent of human will or intent. Another excuse to hide from genocide and global dispossession of non-Euroamerican peoples was the myth of expansion ridding the world of tyranny and despotism. It made it quite easy to think of expansion in the context of spreading freedom and civilization to the rest of the world that lived under despots and tyrants, spreading culture and philosophy, knowledge and science, to the unlearned masses -- bettering the world with Euroamerican genius and technology. The march of conquest was not genocide, slavery, and dispossession; it was the Peace Corps of the 19th Century.There are, as one might expect, inherent contradictions in the propaganda of Anglo-Saxonism. All non-Euroamericans were savage, brute, warlike, and ferocious -- Euroamericans, contrastingly, were peace-loving, humane, civilized, moral, just, and bringers of freedom giving institutions. Yet when the mood was inviting, the formally negative attributes placed upon non-Euroamerican peoples were all of a sudden some of the most positive aspects of the Anglo-Saxon race. Instead of being brute, warlike, or savage, these attributes when used in the context of Anglo-Saxons conferred upon them heroic qualities; the heroic conqueror, the exterminator of inferior races, replenishing the world with superior institutions and peoples. The personification of this image of the Anglo-Saxon race was Alexander The Great. The U.S. had a somewhat "boyish" quality, of impetuousness, quick temper, youthful virility, yet with a golden heart. The inherent contradictions of this dual image of the Anglo-Saxon race are clear. Anglo-Saxon aggression and violence was virile, manly, and heroic; violence on the part of Indians conversely was savage and barbaric -- proof of their animalistic qualities that in turn provided further excuse for more "manly" violence on the part of the Anglos. Indians murdered women and children, proof of their irredeemable savagery -- Anglo-Saxons simply expanded, women and children "receding"

much more than what is presented here. What I find most intriguing about it, however, is how a broad concept can combine many others into a unifying theory. This is what strikes me as being the power Manifest Destiny had on the American psyche. It gave a holistic and Divine rationale for what in any other era would have been simple conquest and empire building. It is what also made Euroamerican expansion uniquely cruel and genocidal. With the advent of racism
before them.

Manifest Destiny is,

of course,

and social Darwinism, extermination and supplantation replaced simple imperial designs. This is only one aspect of Manifest Destiny -- mostly psychological -- there is obviously much more to it, yet I do not think one can overestimate

Manifest Destiny once internalized in the culture, is never really abolished, it merely adapts to the present conditions and transforms itself into a suitable logic for the times.
the power philosophy plays in human affairs. A philosophy such as

Astroenvironmentalism demands rethinking our RISK CALCULUS reject each instance of violation to realize a new precautionary ethic. This is a PREREQUISITE for SURVIVAL
Viikari, 07
[Lotta, Master of Laws (LL.M.), University of Lapland, 2001. Licentiate of Administrative Sciences, U University of Joensuu, 2006. Doctor of Laws, University of Lapland, 2007.Researcher, Northern

Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre. The Environmental Element in Space Law. SM]
The technological progress which has made space activities possible is admittedly impressive. Unfortunately we have not proven equally successful in the learning lessons of terrestrial history regarding the importance of environmental protection. While decades of space ventures have led to significant advances in technology for the benefits of humans, they have also witnessed increasing space-related environmental problems. The world space community has long known that space activity contributes to pollution and contamination of the environment. Furthermore, the

space environment is far

less resilient than the Earth,

as many parts of outer space cannot regenerate after disturbances in the way the terrestrial environment typically does. Nevertheless, especially at the beginning of the space era, all human space activities were so challenging that nearly any method seemed acceptable for placing objects in outer space. Although space has become far more accessible to us and the general

utilitarian policies have disproportionately dominated space activities until today. This gradually led to substantial environmental threats that constitute increasing hazards to the environment of our outer space as well as to human space activities and even to life on Earth. Although environmental hazards on Earth already pose a variety of
attitude to environmental questions has changed quite dramatically,
threats, these threats often do not affect the particular operation which causes them but endanger other space (and even terrestrial activities indiscriminately. This is a manifestation of the tragedy of the commons problem: benefits of individual space missions accrue to the entities conducting these activities but the detrimental impact of space exploitation can usually hamper all those involved in the sector (and even others. Given the typically high short-term costs of curbing environmentally harmful effects of the use of outer space, it is no surprise that many of the relevant stakeholders can be hesitant to take measures to prevent environmental degradation. A related concept if that of free riders, referring to entities which benefit by the actions of others without sharing any of the responsibility or cost. Such an approach often seems particularly tempting in situations where substantial costs (such as those of combating environmentally harmful consequences of space activities must be paid not but the benefits generated by the efforts will mostly be realized inly in the future. This narrowness of the time horizon appears to be a feature alarmingly widespread within humankind today. The free-rider problem is particularly tricky where the commons are concerned and thus intrinsically relates to all space activities, making conflicts in this sector even more complicated and difficult to resolve. It can considerably diminish the will of some states to adopt environmentally more benign management practices: as long as the benefits of regulated development of the use of outer space accrue more or less equally to all actors irrespective of their behavior, some of them will feel little incentive to accept any restrictions. Of course, if most of the relevant stakeholders take such a stand, curbing the environmental problems will be impossible. Even when there are only a few free-riders, their irresponsible behavior can at worst frustrate genuine efforts by the majority. It does not seem very likely that the traditional state community will- at least in the near future- be able to treat many global environmental problems with the efficacy these problems appear to require. There is no reason to expect the situation to be any better as regards the environmental effects of human activities in outer space. The future of Earth and near-Earth outer space- and hence also that of humankind- appears gloomy unless a new environmental consciousness soon starts to emerge. As concerns the space sector, positive indications are provided by the efforts of some states and international organizations to alleviate environmental degradation of outer space. For instance, in the case of space debris, there is an increasing awareness of the seriousness of the problem and both the governmental sector and the industry have made efforts to mitigate the hazard by developing procedures and standards for the operation and design of space missions. However, although unilateral action is a

The effects of human activities on the global commons of outer space have all the potential to be severe, irreversible, and wide in scope. At the same time, the
step forward, it does not alone suffice to remedy the proliferation of the debris.

tragedy of the commons problem renders many strategies adopted nationally or by a limited set of states for combating adverse environmental consequences of space activities ineffective.

ON SOLVENCY
To begin ethically questioning Humanitys place in the universe and our relationship with nature. Voting aff is key to solving the ongoing ecological crisis on Earth and the universe abroad
Peters, Professor Education Policy, Organization and Leadership, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, and Hung Department of Education, National Chiayi University, Taiwan, 09
(MICHAEL A and Ruyu, Policy Futures in Education Volume 7 Number 3 2009, Solar Ethics: a new paradigm for environmental ethics and education?, http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp? j=pfie&vol=7&issue=3&year=2009&article=5_Peters_PFIE_7_3_web) page 324-325, accessed 7/8/11 by LGK

When space exploration opens a vast and grand world beyond our planet, when the stories
of the universe have started to be unfolded, when fascinating secrets of the cosmos are being revealed, when the destiny of

the environmental crisis on the Earth alerts us to re-examine the human/nature relationship, some questions demand our
our Earth is found to be closely related to the other planets and the Sun, when exploration: What is the relationship between human beings and nature when the nature we know is no longer limited to our own Earth? What is an appropriate relationship between human beings and nature when environmental changes on Earth

ethics which may lead us towards a wider sustainable frame of mind: a solar system ethics. Solar ethics is an ethical frame of mind which may help to reposition human beings within nature. Don Cupitt published a small book entitled Solar Ethics in 1995, in which he points out that what drives him to think about solar
sound an alarm about a sustainable human/nature relationship? These questions bring us to an attempt to envisage an
ethics is moral anxiety or even panic about contemporary moral problems. For him, the present social and moral disorder makes explicit the failure of the traditional moral philosophy, whether it be emotivism or moral objectivism or realism. It is the starting point to conceive of a new ethics. Thus he states: if you agree that tradition has failed, and that moral philosophy as we have been doing it has been addressing itself to all the wrong questions; and you further agree that we need a moral philosophy better fitted to our cosmology and our culture then you may be ready for solar ethics. The Sun sees no reason at all to apologize for making such an exhibition of itself all the time; it simply is its own outpouring self-expression ... It has no inwardness; that is, it is not inwardly subject to something unseen that is authoritative over it. It does not experience the moral order ... it is purely and only affirmative. It coincides completely with its own joyous, headlong process of selfexteriorization ... (Cupitt, 1995, pp. 8-9)

The space community should create ethical guidelines that preserve space
Billings 97 [Linda, More than 30 years of experience in the field of communication and 25 years of experience in aerospace Ph.D. in mass communication specializes in research, analysis, and commentary on space policy, and the history of rationales for space exploration. Frontier Days in Space: Are they Over? http://lindabillings.org/papers.html

Instead of profit, what the space community should be attending to in developing long-term exploration plans are the social, political, ethical and even spiritual ramifications of extending human presence into space. Fundamentally, what space exploration is about is not profit-but evolution,
revelation and inspiration. Explorers are driven by a desire to discover which transcends the urge to conquer, the pursuit of trade, writes Robin Hanbury-tenison.7 Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins has observed that exploration produces a mood in people, a widening of interest, a stimulation of the thought processess. 8 Such efforts as NASAs Discovery programme a series of low-cost missions to study planets, moons, asteroids and comets embody the true spirit of exploration. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (abandoned by NASA in 1993) and search for extrasolar planets epitomize the spirit of exploration as well. Patricia Nelson Limerick has recommended that the space community abandon the frontier metaphor. But at the same time she acknowledges that it is an enormously persistent and determining patter of thought. Ultimately, it may not be feasible to expunge the frontier metaphor from the public discourse about space exploration. But it certainly is possible and practical, to re-examine it

What is the space frontier? It might be useful to think of the space frontier as a vast and distant sort of Brazilian rainforest, Atacama Desert, Antarctic continent a great unknown that challenges humans to think creatively and expansively, to push their capabilities to the limits, a wild and beautiful place to be studied and enjoyed but left unsullied. Curiosity is what brought humans out of caves, took them
as a motivating force for space exploration.

across oceans and continents, compelled them to invent aeroplanes and now draws them towards the stars. The broad, deep public value of exploring the universe is the value of discovery, learning and understanding; thus the space frontier could be a school for social research, a place where new societies could frow and thrive. This is the space frontier: the vast, perhaps endless frontier of intellectual and spiritual potential