India: Environmental Protection vs. Economic Development.

Observation One: Arguments pertaining to how putting one side over the other allows better access to the other side in the future should not be allowed in the debate for two reasons:First, it's insanely abusive against me because it strategically gives him more ground to work with while skewing my available argument ground. If he's allowed to argue that focusing on economic growth leads to better environmental protection later on, it lets him just co-opt any kind of standard impacts I could run as "Oh I can do this too just later down the road", while I can't do the same thing. This unfairly skews the debate in his favor by giving him access to both sides of the flow while only "defending" one side, while I'm forced to either a) just give him my offensive impacts or b) run theory arguments that are likely to go over most of the heads of the voters on this site, meaning I'd still lose anyway. And fairness is important because without fairness the debate would just devolve into a "who can employ the most underhanded tactics" contest, which would destroy any kind of in-round or out-of-round value this debate could have.Second, because it kills any kind of actual debate. Allowing him to say "oh I'll do that too later on, we should just get a good economy first" lets him take any kind of affirmative argument and co-opt it to work in his favor, as well, which ends any kind of discussion and kills the educational content of this debate. And educational content is important to debate because without it there's no actual point to this debate. If neither of us are learning anything and none of the voters are learning anything then there's literally no point to having this debate. This has two implications on the debate.One, any arguments about how economic development can lead to environmental protection ought to be dropped and not evaluated.Two, the con must stick to solely advancing economic development, just as I will be solely defending environmental protection. A sub point – Links: The negative stands on the foundation of economic development. The belief of “mo’ money, no problems” is what drives him. However this is a view that puts humans as superior to everything else on earth, and uses nature as a stepping stool for our selfish desires. This is the basis of Anthropocentrism. Devall[1]: “The dominant paradigm in North America [is] … the belief that … the primary goal of .. nation-states … should be to … increase production of commodities and satisfy material wants … Nature, in this paradigm, is only a storehouse of resources which should be “developed” to satisfy … demands … The goal of persons is personal satisfaction …” Even the word “environment” is anthropocentric. It implies that nature is just a backdrop for humans – this attitude is the cause of the ecological crisis. Curry[2]: “environment … as a word prejudges the issues in a particularly unfortunate way, insofar as it implies that the natural world is essentially merely a surround, backdrop, or setting for the main attraction: us. But that very attitude is integral to the present crisis. For this reason, I prefer ecology …” B sub point – Impacts: First, Anthropocentrism leads to the subjugation of animals and women as inferior. Donovan[3]: “Through … exploitation, humans inflict enormous suffering on other animals. Humans … justify … exploitation of other species by categorizing “animals” as inferior and therefore rightfully subjugated while categorizing humans as superior … So … universal is the false dichotomy … that symbolically associating women with “animal” assists in their oppression. Applying images of denigrated nonhuman species to women labels women inferior” Second, Anthropocentrism leads to mass murder of those who are viewed as inferior. DeMello[4]: “we are rapidly becoming a throwaway culture, in which … animals are tossed away … It … should serve as a warning … of people who so easily … inflict cruelty … psychologists have for years known of the connection between the abuse of animals and violence toward humans. Cases of serial killers who started out their careers torturing animals have been well documented… The evidence is not …anecdotal; numerous studies … have shown that children who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to commit … violent acts as adults. There is also a strong link between abuse of animals and domestic violence, … violence toward animals … needs to be taken seriously” Third, Anthropocentrism leads to the disintegration of all human life. Smith[5]: “The anthropocentric view … echoes the way … many humans have discriminated against other humans because they were of different …. Regarding others as … substandard has commonly been used to justify domination, cruelty or elimination … Too often people label what they don’t understand as inferior, … Anthropocentrism does not … bridge the artificial gap it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from … their environment. … causing the disintegration of health and harmony for all … human life.” C sub point – Alternative: Reject the negative case and adopt a policy of deep ecology. Zimmerman[6]: “Deep ecology is … a … insight into the interrelatedness of all … life on Earth … anthropocentrism – … is a misguided way of seeing things. … an ecocentric attitude is more consistent with the truth about the nature of life … Instead of regarding humans as … unique… they see us as integral threads in the fabric of life. …. Instead of identifying with our egos … we would … identify with … the whole ecosphere. … We … wouldn’t … damage the planet, just as you wouldn’t cut off your own finger.” And this solves for the ecological problems of today. Affirming makes the world a better place. Katz[7]: “’anthropocentric’ ethical systems fail to account for a moral justification for the central policies of environmentalism … system. The natural world –natural entities and natural ecological systems—deserves our moral consideration as part of the interdependent community of line on Earth. … The basis of a moral justification of environmental policy is that we have ethical obligations to the natural world …”Sources: [1] Devall, Bill. "The Deep Ecology Movement." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. [2] Patrick Curry, BA in psychology, September 3, 2001 (University of California at Santa Cruz, The Campaign for Political Ecology) <Murray> [3] Carol J Adams, Josephine Donovan, Animals & Women Access via: Google-Print 1995 p. 355 [4] DeMello, Margo. "Cruelty to Animals a Warning of Possible Violence to Come." SFGate. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. [5] Smith 02 [Penelope Smith, Animal Talk, “Anthropocentrism”, 2002. Accessed January 24, 2014. Retrieved online athttp://animalliberty.com......] [6] Zimmerman, Martin E. "Introduction to Deep Ecology." Context Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. [7] Eric Katz, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997 [Nature As Subject : Human Obligation and Natural Community] <murray>