Edeb8.com WODC:THBT Geoengineering Should Be Implemented To Reduce global warming

My opponent’s case is predicated on a fatal assumption: that it is proper to act to disrupt causal necessity for the supposed “benefit of mankind”. I will aim to reveal the repulsiveness of this doctrine based on the principle that, if A entails B, B cannot be avoided given A, and any attempts to do so are merely wastes of time. The Undoubtable Principle of Reciprocity The foundation of logic is the premiss that an action will beget an effect. When a billiard ball strikes another, the affected ball shall move. When a man severs his veins, he shall fall dead. When a man severs the veins of another, his character shall morph into that of a hellish being. Causality cannot be escaped, no matter how hard one tries (let my opponent see if he can argue otherwise without relying on the notion that his arguments will act as a cause for a change in opinion!), and must be embraced completely and in all of its light. What effects, then, must Man accept? We must look at what Man has done in order to determine these, and, before doing so, we must look at what Man has acted upon (this being the good). The Holy Sanctity of Nature What is the Good? It is clear that that which is eternal is much closer to the Good than that which is merely temporary, as the eternal, like the Good, is more primary than the temporary (that which is eternal will always have preceded that which is temporary, by definition). Therefore, it is clear that things eternal in nature must be regarded as better than all others, and these things must take moral precedence over all others. Nature (or reality) encompasses all that is. If something can be conceived, it can be conceived only as part of nature, as nature is defined as the totality of existents. Therefore, there cannot be anything outside of nature, and, by extension, there cannot be an external cause of nature. If this is the case, then nature is eternal, and is therefore the embodiment of the good. Humanity, on the other hand, is a phenomena that has a finite duration. There was a time before humans, and there will almost certainly be a time after them. They are relevant only in passing when compared to the grandeur of nature’s eternal grace, and, given this, putting the concerns of humans above nature is morally abhorrent, while existing with a respect for nature is the definition of virtue. Man as Either Perfect or Worthy of Death There are, therefore, two possible descriptions of our current world, both of which negate the resolution: 1) That we are not actually harming nature, in which case we’re already living in harmony with the good, meaning that there’s no legitimate problem to remedy, and therefore there’s no benefit to geoengineering, or, 2) That we are harming nature, in which case we deserve to pay for the logical consequences of our actions, and therefore we should actively avoid geoengineering. Both choices completely strip Pro of any ability to affirm that we should implement geoengineering – at most, “1)” implies that geoengineering is morally neutral (meaning that it should neither be pursued nor avoided). My opponent must choose whether we are harming nature or not, and, since his case is built upon the assumption that we are, I will spend my time addressing this. Sins must be paid for. By definition, an action is morally wrong if it should be avoided, implying that there is some reason to avoid the consequence of the action. Therefore, in any case wherein a man is morally deviant, he is doing so fully accepting the effects of this choice. The fact that immorality necessitates ill effects is undebatable, making the claim that humanity should simultaneously avoid these effects (via means such as geoengineering) and pursue their causes (living in opposition to nature) self-contradictory. One should always desire that which is desirable (i.e. produces desirable effects) and avoid that which is undesirable (i.e. produces undesirable effects), so positions like that of my opponent, which claim that it is proper to desire that which produces undesirable effects, is incoherent. If we should disrespect nature, we will feel the consequences, no matter what we attempt in order to mitigate them. The fact that we must even consider geoengineering shows that we have accepted to take the poison that it was meant to remedy, making geoengineering nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to refute causality. It cannot solve the problem of our immorality – we must accept what we have brought upon us, and, like Jesus, our blood must act as currency to pay for entrance to heaven if we shall ever hope to be forgiven for our trespasses. Given this, I have shown that it is impossible for Pro to fulfill his burden of proof without first refuting my framework.