Natives contd

AT Alt doesnt solve case contd (oceans and heg)

Oceans: Their ethics make Ocean destruction inevitable, like oil
pipes- indigenous interpretations here open the avenue to an
Ocean ethic, means we solve relations to marine life best
Deloria 2012 (Vine, The Metaphysics of Modern Existence Pg. 180-182,
Originally Published 1979, Vance)

Viewed in the ordinary legal context, the Salt River Water Users case involved a technical point of procedure, but
its inherent theories illustrate a fundamental point with respect to the place of the natural world in a legal context.
The point of departure for such an analysis sidesteps the legal question of human rights to ask about the legal

Water is a life-giving element of the physical universe. We cannot

live for an extended period of time without it. Neither can the plants, animals, birds, and
other life-forms that always cluster around watercourses. Water, even in a desert
area, supports more life than our species, and appropriating water from a stream or
river assumes that humans will use a certain proportion of the flow of the water but
that they will leave the stream relatively intact for use by the rest of the creatures.
The Colorado water doctrine , particularly the subsidiary idea of saving water by adopting more efficient
status of the water itself.

methods of use,
sense.

understands water only as a representation of property

in the legal

It completely eliminates the intuitive sense of life and emotional

content that makes water important as an element of universal life and

reduces it to a quantifiable income-producing entity . If we carry the theory advocated
in the Salt River Water Users case to its logical conclusion as a legal right that can be enforced, in the future a
large corporation could arrive in a desert valley and completely replace the river
system by an interlocking network of pipes that would deliver water to each user
having a water right, reserving all of the created or recaptured or waste water
for its own use. Theoretically at least, our present view of the natural world has no place for
natural features and entities themselves. Physical entities that support life, such as
air, water, and land, are conceived in a legal sense as if they had no existence apart
from the human legal rights that have been attached to them. We could easily and
legally

destroy all

vestiges of natural

life without ever violating the constitutional

provisions regarding the protection of property . Our present conception of property

Nature has
no rights of its own in our legal system. If our legal system reflects our view of reality, then
we believe that we exist over and apart from the physical world. That our courts have not yet
revolves around our use of it, not around its existence as an element of the universe in its own right.

reached that abstract but very logical conclusion is partially due to the conservation movement. Early in this
century, various public figures recognized that unless the government made an effort to preserve parts of our

Proponents of
conservation have introduced into American social thinking the idea that natural resources have more than a
commercial use. They have argued, for example, that natural resources can be appreciated for
their recreational value; that recreation can be as valuable a resource as the profits
derived from destructive economic exploitation. This point of view has been verified in recent
natural heritage it would soon be destroyed by uncontrolled exploitation of resources.

decades. As affluence has worked its way down the American social and economic structure, and particularly since
the end of the Second World War, more and more Americans have spent their summer vacations in national parks

visitors to the Grand Canyon, the Tetons, Yosemite, the

Black Hills, and other prominent natural attractions has increased dramatically every year. The
interest in recreational activities in a natural surrounding was not a profound
philosophical or religious movement that recognized a value in natural entities
and recreation areas. The number of

themselves, but it did indicate that the aesthetic values of American society could be
expressed as a function of nature as well as an appreciation of paintings, music, and other forms of art.
Spokespersons for groups interested in conservation of natural resources were unable to frame their arguments in
terms that would expand the consciousness of American society to include the inherent dignity of nature. At best,
the conservation movement saw nature as a means of providing an emotional outlet for human frustrations. Yet in
1966, an important conservation figure, Aldo Leopold, wrote in A Sand County Almanac, There

is as yet no
ethic dealing with mans relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow
upon it, indicating that he was aware of the deeper issues represented in our
relationship with nature. He added that land was still property in the minds of most
Americans, and that entailed people taking privileges from the land but
acknowledging no corresponding responsibility or obligation. The extension of
ethics to this third element in the human environment is , if I read the evidence
correctly,

a [] evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity .2 The contemporary

interest in ecology seems to partially fulfill Leopolds prediction.

Heg: Sure we dont put Merica at the golden throne but

A refusal to see the grave means inevitable nuclear
destruction

Churchill 3
Ward Churchill, 2003, Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader, Questia, Page
xiv
One wonders whether the transformative process evident in postwar Germany
might not yield similarly constructive results if undertaken through a reversed
sequence in the contemporary United States. In theory, rather than international trials
serving as the catalyst for a radical reinterpretation of national history, hence national character, a
reconfigured history might serve to galvanize popular initiatives culminating in international trials
(and/or domestic trials evoking international law). 29 A sur-mounting of Americas wellnurtured public evasion of such unpleasantness is of course necessary, as it so obviously was
in Germany, yet it seems possible that the means are already at hand . Taken together with a growing
awareness that there are likely other, much heavier shoes ready to drop unless Americans show signs of
getting their house in orderbiochemical weapons? a nuclear device?9-1-1 may well have injected the
essential element of self-interested incentive to change. 30

And extend Street- their politics dont make the US a leader,

we model how we treat people abroad after colonialism- means
theres only a risk our perception will be better if we do the
alt, solves ills of heg cause well be a moral. Turns out people
dont like leaders who enforce violent paradigms abroad (ie
colonialism).

AT Extinction different from futurism

The K still indicts to your discourse, your fetish with extinction
is the definition of futurism.
Weve already witnessed extinction- indigenous culture like
the Navajo language. The drive for survival will justify limitless
destruction upon individual cultures until we are so
homogenized that life has no meaning.
And genocide outweighs all impacts; culture gives meaning to
life
Short 10(Damien, PHD and director of human rights at London University,

November 2010, THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Cultural

genocide and indigenous peoples: a sociological approach, accessed 7/14/15) CH
The second element of Lemkins prior formulation, vandalism the destruction of
culture was now a technique of group destruction.42 Lemkins central ontological
assertion here was that culture integrates human societies and consequently is a
necessary pre-condition for the realisation of individual material needs. For Lemkin,
culture is as vital to group life as individual physical well-being: So-called derived
needs, are just as necessary to their existence as the basic physiological
needs....These needs find expression in social institutions or, to use an
anthropological term, the culture ethos. If the culture of a group is violently
undermined, the group itself disintegrates and its members must either become
absorbed in other cultures which is a wasteful and painful process or succumb to
personal disorganization and, perhaps, physical destruction....(Thus) the destruction
of cultural symbols is genocide...(It) menaces the existence of the social group
which exists by virtue of its common culture.43 This quotation gives us clues to
Lemkins conception of genocide. He was more concerned with the loss of culture
than the loss of life,44 as culture is the social fabric of a genus. Indeed, in Lemkins
formulation, culture is the unit of collective memory, whereby the legacies of the
dead can be kept alive and each cultural group has its own unique distinctive genius
deserving of protection.45 National culture for Lemkin is an essential element of
world culture and nations have a life of their own comparable to the life of an
individual. On this point Lemkin wrote: The world represents only so much culture
and intellectual vigour as are created by its component national groups. The
destruction of a nation, therefore, results in the loss of its future contributions to the
world. Moreover, such a destruction offends our feelings of morality and justice in
much the same way as does the criminal killing of a human being: the crime in the
one case as in the other is murder, though on a vastly greater scale.

AT Util good
Their mode of util always defers indigenous populations- we
are a minority. Voting AFF means I never get to tell my story,
means our lives dont matter.
And reject utilitariansim, it causes mass marginalization
Odell, 04 University of Illinois is an Associate Professor of Philosophy (Jack,

Ph.D., On Consequentialist Ethics, Wadsworth, Thomson Learning, Inc., pp. 98103)

A classic objection to both act and rule utilitarianism has to do with inequity , both
act and rule utilitarianism violate the principle of just distribution. What Rawls does
is to elaborate objection (H). Utilitarianism, according to Rawls, fails to appreciate the
importance of distributive justice, and that by doing so it makes a mockery of the
concept of "justice." As I pointed out when I discussed Russell's views regarding partial goods, satisfying
the interests of a majority of a given population while at the same time thwarting
the interests of the minority segment of that same population (as occurs in societies
that allow slavery) can maximize the general good, and do so even though the
minority group may have to suffer great cruelties. Rawls argues that the utilitarian commitment
to maximize the good in the world is due to its failure to ''take seriously the distinction between persons." One
person can be forced to give up far too much to insure the maximization of the
good, or the total aggregate satisfaction, as was the case for those young Aztec women chosen by their society
each year to be sacrificed to the Gods for the welfare of the group.

Food

AT No scarcity/alt causes d/b:

They say the crunch is coming now but we post date Connor by 2
years, and the double bind doesnt go away. Ill talk about the alts
later.

AT Drones solves alts

They say drones solve but they never isolated a clear link as to how
drones stop droughts or people mismanaging food- drones cant
solve for alt causes.

AT Research disproves defense

All they say is that lack of food= war. That might be true but their
impacts are inevitable if alt causes abuse the crops in the first
place, Ill discuss those causes later.

Resource wars burnout

Bennett and Nordstrom 2K (D Scott and Timothy, Department of political
science at Penn State, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44:1, Foreign policy
substitutability and internal economic problems in enduring rivalries, ProQuest,
2000)

Conflict settlement is also a distinct route to dealing with internal problems that leaders in rivalries may pursue
when faced with internal problems.

Military competition

between states

requires large amounts

of resources , and rivals require even more attention. Leaders may choose to negotiate a
settlement that ends a rivalry to free up important resources that may be
reallocated to the domestic economy. In a "guns versus butter" world of economic trade-offs, when
a state can no longer afford to pay the expenses associated with competition in a
rivalry, it is quite rational for leaders to reduce costs by ending a rivalry. This gain (a peace
dividend) could be achieved at any time by ending a rivalry. However, such a gain is likely to be most important and
attractive to leaders when internal conditions are bad and the leader is seeking ways to alleviate active problems.

Support for policy change away from continued rivalry is more likely to develop when
the economic situation sours and elites and masses are looking for ways to improve
a worsening situation. It is at these times that the pressure to cut military investment will be greatest and
that state leaders will be forced to recognize the difficulty of continuing to pay for a rivalry. Among other things,

this argument also encompasses the view that the cold war ended because the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics could no longer compete economically with the U nited
States.

Boost neuters alt cause

No, a boost in tech would hyperbolize alt causes- AFF doesnt alter
humyn misuse of food, inefficient crop harvesting techniques, and
the poor facilities that spoil the food it contains.

AT were not precision or Monsanto

They practically cede Bunge- drones cant solve for food
because farming culture distrusts new tech, means voting AFF
doesnt even mean they adopt drones cause fear of other
farming corporations stealing their info. Farmers empirically
dont use drones efficiently either cause theyre complex. Plus
any risk that they do misuse the information turns the AFF
cause it spurs unwanted competition- causes seed and land
price spikes, this destabilizes crop profits
And you are too precision farming
Griekspoor 13 (P.J. Griekspoor, Precision Agriculture Seen as Big Winner in
Drone Technology, http://farmprogress.com/story-precision-agriculture-seen-bigwinner-drone-technology-9-96113, March 21, 2013)
The biggest thing on the horizon in precision agriculture is U nmanned A erial
V ehicle flights, according to a new report from the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International. Kansas, already a leader in research on the vehicles
that are expected to see explosive growth when integration into national airspace
begins in 2015, ranks No. 7 among states likely to see economic benefits the report
says, with the state expected to see a $2.9 billion impact and 3,700 new jobs
between 2015 and 2025. The greatest area of growth indicated by the report
will be in precision agriculture , which is slated to grow 10 times that of the
public safety market for UAS.

AT Wind Pollination solves bees

Food impacts non-unique case honeybees; other foods depend
on them
Their author, Dailey 8 (Kate, Why Are Bees Dying?, Newsweek, 6-14,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/141488/output/print)
Are we doomed? The short answer is no. Human beings don't need honeybee pollination.
Most of the plants that provide calories for the human population tend to be wind pollinated

cereals, like wheat and corn and rice. But once you have an economy
improving and the standard of living improving and the diet improving, you
start seeing the introduction of meat and dairy products, and both of
those require forage crops that are honeybee pollinated. When an
economy starts improving, you start seeing melons, fruits, berries-all of these are bee pollinated. The point is, human survival does not
depend upon honeybee pollination, but quality of life in a developed
economy does. So you can live without honeybee pollination, you
just don't want to. Compare the diets in a country like Canada, the United
States, and Great Britain with diets in a country like Nigeria, Sudan, or
Malaysia. You don't have the preponderance of meat and dairy and fruit and
vegetables in developing countries like you do here. That difference is
defined by bee pollination.

AT Bees already dead

Extend Wines, honey bees are alive but are dying in California cause
drought. Honeybee farm owners agree weve lost about 40%, means
we have a BEElievable source- we post date them too, err NEG.

AT Oil spills inev but drones stahp them

Agreed spills are inevitable- means any risk of an impact is
non-unique
And spills dont cause harm in the first place, adaptation
Hunt No date cited
(Alex Hunt, no date cited, the senior technical advisor to the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation
Limited, Effects of Oil Spills, http://kjpt.msa.gov.cn/ckfinder/userfiles/files/%E6%BA%A2%E6%B2%B9%E7%9A
%84%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D.pdf, date accessed 6/28/13, Woojae)

Experience from past spills shows that: Damages may be profound at the individual
level Populations are naturally resilient to acute impacts Natural recovery
processes are capable of repairing damage Ecosystem structure & function is
typically restored Many impacts are documented in the scientific literature Not all
effects of spills are completely understood Overall scale and duration of impact can
usually be deduced Polarization of the scientific community is common & balanced
views are rare Does significant damage occur?... sometimes yes, sometimes no
depends on many factors Measures of impact Breeding success Productivity
Biodiversity Overall function Marine ecosystems are able to cope with severe
natural perturbations: tropical storms, tsunamis, el Nio events Widespread
mortalities occur, but systems are able recover

Norms

AT We dont cause conflict

Public drones can still cause conflict- cross apply Pugliese from the
K- transparent drones still do bad things and set the stage for
militarism to assault non-whites, means theres only a risk the AFF
would discriminate against people and cause conflict.

AT Kaplan card sucks

If Kaplan doesnt apply this puts them in a double bind:
Either the conflict will be entirely in the USA which means no
extinction cause the government wouldnt nuke itself (probably)
Or the conflict has to be somewhere else which oppresses other
races and guns down civilizations by nature of being in that area.
It doesnt matter if Kaplan isnt about drones, they ceded that no
other countries challenge our power drones or no drones, means
theres no risk of war.

Solvency

AT Implied solvency
They claim implied solvency but this is a bad model for debate
because we dont know if the AFF will actually do anythingimplementation uncertainty means you err NEG.
They ceded that their probability puts them in a double bind:
Either the card is specific to drones, which means the AFF already
happened and voting AFF does nothing
Or its not specific to drones which means they cant claim solvency
over them.

AT Reforms dont solve

Extend Whitlcok, they really do solve, Obama aleady signed a
reform limiting the agents that would trigger their impacts like the
DoD, FBI, and military forces.
Their Carr evidence only says the drones should be limited, which is
what the FAA did two years later, post date err NEG. Ceded that the
government already checked unrestrained drones, means theres no
damage to the industry.