Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction

A sub point – Links: The negative stands on the foundation of economic development. The belief of “mo’ money, no problems” is what drives her. 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 …”Now for the NC. Start on her framework of the social contract:First, TURN: Contractarianism ultimately excludes people from moral participation. Regan:[1] “[contractarian] morality, … consists of rules that people agree to abide by. … That is very well and good for the signatories but not so good for anyone who is not asked to sign. And there is nothing … that guarantees … everyone will have a chance to participate equally in framing the rules of morality. … this approach to ethics could sanction the most blatant forms of … injustice, ranging from a repressive caste system to systematic racial or sexual discrimination. Might, according to this theory, does make right.”Second, TURN: Contractiarianism is unreliable: individuals stop adhering to a contract when they have no more reason to follow it, making actual contracts impossible. Preiss writes:[1] “An internal problem for contractarianism regards its stability over time … The essence of justice as mutual advantage … is that people do not give up the single-minded pursuit of their ends … The only significance that they attach to whatever agreement they make is that it will … offer a more effective way of achieving their ends than is provided by their unconstrained pursuit of those ends. If we assume that the end is self-interested, we can say that there is no reason for adhering to the rules agreed upon whenever self-interest would be advanced by not doing so. … justice as mutual advantage is a … means to an end given the circumstances in the status quo. As circumstances change … members of society may no longer have any reason to adhere to the agreed upon principles of justice …” Even if contractarianism is an absolute constraint that must be followed once made, individuals would have to follow it beyond something other than self-interest, presupposing some other ethical theory as to why we have obligations to follow morality.Go to the contentions now. Group all of them:First: AC impacts will always come first. These anthropocentric arguments limit the scope of our ethical discussion. We need to expand our sights and consider the entirety of the problem if we’re to find any solution at all. Katz and Oechsli[1]: “Our complaint is not merely with the difficulties of performing utility calculations. The deeper issue is the anthropocentric framework limits ethical discussions. The primary concern for human interests … creates an irreconcilable conflict between two goods that are …advocated by anthropocentric policies … the ecosystem which preserves … and the economic use of the land … We are faced with … a conflict between a long-term support … and short-term usable goods. This conflict cannot be resolved unless we expand the framework of discussion beyond the limits of anthropocentric … reasoning”Second: TURN: Negating actually doesn’t help developing countries that much, if at all. It just spreads the gains out to the rest of the world and leaves the third world with the tab to pay. Katz and Oechsli 2:“Third World nations can claim that the benefits of preserving … the … rain forest, are spread out … across the entire human race, while the costs … are borne … by … local human populations. Development of the rain forest … provides benefits for the local population while spreading the costs around the rest of humanity. Demanding that … Third World countries limit development … violates basic … notions of equity and justice. The Third World is being asked to pay for the … world’s … use of natural resources.” And, don't let her extend out her preventing war contention as unrefuted because a) if you read the evidence it's based around the entire idea of people who are earning more money are less likely to shoot each other so I'm being responsive, b) it still links to anthropocentrism because she's putting human lives above everything else, which is highly anthropocentric, and c) my impacts outweigh anyway. War is nothing compared to the death of the entire human race. If anything by preventing the anthropocentric impacts coming out of the AC I'm protecting the citizenry better than she is, meaning I best fulfill her framework. The round breaks down really simply:1. K comes first. The premise of her case is anthropocentric. That's bad. Therefore reject her case and affirm. 2. I'm showing through my refutations how contractarianism sucks as a moral theory and why it's not something you should look to. But even if you do I'm best fulfilling it because I'm solving for extinction whereas she causes it. [1] Katz, Eric, and Lauren Oechsli. "Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon." N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. [1]Joshua Broady Preiss, Is Social Contract Theory Impotent in Response to Political and Economic Violence? Department of Political Science. Bucknell University. 28 September 2009 [1] (Tom Regan. The Case for Animal Rights In PETER SINGER (ed), In Defense of Animals New York: Basil Blackwell, 1985, pp. 13-26) [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 at http://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>