instruction
stringlengths 86
1.54k
| input
stringlengths 107
41k
| output
stringlengths 100
15.2k
| __index_level_0__
int64 0
246k
| messages
listlengths 3
3
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Alt’s paradigm crushes resistance to material aspects of colonialism by reducing all movements to a binary.
Highlight Ratio: 0.1 | Corey: This
interdependent focus is
important amongst settlers ourselves
as a way to counter the flattening of differences that occurs amongst settlers, particularly in solidarity work. Settlers obviously need to be
challenging ‘our’ institutions and practices that
further colonization. But we can’t do this if we flatten the differences and ignore the inequalities and power relationships that exist within settler society. Not only does such flattening prevent much needed alliances but flattening
can
protect
elements of settler colonialism
the substantive recognition of Indigenous governance and legal orders also requires a dismantling of other, related forms of domination
sites and spaces of domination and resistance are distinct, but
connected dialectically. This seems to be something that settlers, white settlers specifically, have yet to articulate and take up, critique and act against
this is
most evident in how settlers seem to be continuously waiting for instruction from Indigenous peoples on how to act
Rita
If we’re thinking about settler colonialism as a structure, how is it related to other modalities of gendered and sexualized white supremacy?
If we’re thinking about it, as non-Indigenous peoples being ‘in solidarity’, part of that is locating, attacking the whole structure of imperialism that is deeply gendered and homonationalist, that depends on neo-liberal projects of prioritizing able-bodied workers who can serve capitalism
Corey: Part of this
relates to
the framing of ‘settler’ as event, rather than structure – where we are perhaps overly focused on the question of ‘who’ at the expense of the ‘how’. If we don’t understand how settlers are produced we run the risk of representing settlers as some sort of transhistorical subject with transhistorical practices
while in one moment the term ‘settler’ denaturalizes
all non-Indigenous peoples
presence on Indigenous lands
through this construction of the ‘settler’ as transhistorical, we renaturalize it
we go from a disavowal of colonization, to its representation as inevitable. Here is where
a historical materialist
approach to the production of settler subjects may be useful in showing how this production is conditioned by but also contingent on a number of factors – white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, capitalism, colonization, the eschewal of Indigenous governance and legal orders, environmental degradation, etc.
it is
important to recognize that there
are
individuals
or
collectives
that might be referred to as something other than settlers by Indigenous peoples, perhaps as cousins
there have been and are practices by settlers that aren’t colonial
and here is where centering Indigenous peoples’ accounts of Indigenous-settler relations, as well as their own governance, legal and diplomatic orders is crucial
it’s just as important to recognize that these relations have and do not occur despite settler colonial and imperial logics, and
outside of the binary
such relations occur in the face of it
Corey
recognizing that settlers are (re)produced, the change demanded is not just an individual transformation, but one connected to broader social, economic, and political justice. There are
lines of affinity between decolonization and others
struggles
in order to sustain this compatibility
relationships are essential
to maintain accountability and to resist repeating colonial and other relations of domination, as well as
in supporting each other’s resistance | Settlers
need to be
challenging
institutions
that
further colonization.
settlers
continuously waiting for instruction from Indigenous peoples on how to act
we run the risk of representing settlers as
transhistorical subject with transhistorical practices
we renaturalize it
lines of affinity between decolonization and
struggles
relationships are essential | 529 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Alt’s paradigm crushes resistance to material aspects of colonialism by reducing all movements to a binary.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.1",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Corey: This\ninterdependent focus is\nimportant amongst settlers ourselves\nas a way to counter the flattening of differences that occurs amongst settlers, particularly in solidarity work. Settlers obviously need to be\nchallenging ‘our’ institutions and practices that\nfurther colonization. But we can’t do this if we flatten the differences and ignore the inequalities and power relationships that exist within settler society. Not only does such flattening prevent much needed alliances but flattening\ncan\nprotect\nelements of settler colonialism\nthe substantive recognition of Indigenous governance and legal orders also requires a dismantling of other, related forms of domination\nsites and spaces of domination and resistance are distinct, but\nconnected dialectically. This seems to be something that settlers, white settlers specifically, have yet to articulate and take up, critique and act against\nthis is\nmost evident in how settlers seem to be continuously waiting for instruction from Indigenous peoples on how to act\nRita\nIf we’re thinking about settler colonialism as a structure, how is it related to other modalities of gendered and sexualized white supremacy?\nIf we’re thinking about it, as non-Indigenous peoples being ‘in solidarity’, part of that is locating, attacking the whole structure of imperialism that is deeply gendered and homonationalist, that depends on neo-liberal projects of prioritizing able-bodied workers who can serve capitalism\nCorey: Part of this\nrelates to\nthe framing of ‘settler’ as event, rather than structure – where we are perhaps overly focused on the question of ‘who’ at the expense of the ‘how’. If we don’t understand how settlers are produced we run the risk of representing settlers as some sort of transhistorical subject with transhistorical practices\nwhile in one moment the term ‘settler’ denaturalizes\nall non-Indigenous peoples\npresence on Indigenous lands\nthrough this construction of the ‘settler’ as transhistorical, we renaturalize it\nwe go from a disavowal of colonization, to its representation as inevitable. Here is where\na historical materialist\napproach to the production of settler subjects may be useful in showing how this production is conditioned by but also contingent on a number of factors – white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, capitalism, colonization, the eschewal of Indigenous governance and legal orders, environmental degradation, etc.\nit is\nimportant to recognize that there\nare\nindividuals\nor\ncollectives\nthat might be referred to as something other than settlers by Indigenous peoples, perhaps as cousins\nthere have been and are practices by settlers that aren’t colonial\nand here is where centering Indigenous peoples’ accounts of Indigenous-settler relations, as well as their own governance, legal and diplomatic orders is crucial\nit’s just as important to recognize that these relations have and do not occur despite settler colonial and imperial logics, and\noutside of the binary\nsuch relations occur in the face of it\nCorey\nrecognizing that settlers are (re)produced, the change demanded is not just an individual transformation, but one connected to broader social, economic, and political justice. There are\nlines of affinity between decolonization and others\nstruggles\nin order to sustain this compatibility\nrelationships are essential\nto maintain accountability and to resist repeating colonial and other relations of domination, as well as\nin supporting each other’s resistance",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Settlers\nneed to be\nchallenging\ninstitutions\nthat\nfurther colonization.\nsettlers\ncontinuously waiting for instruction from Indigenous peoples on how to act\nwe run the risk of representing settlers as\ntranshistorical subject with transhistorical practices\nwe renaturalize it\nlines of affinity between decolonization and\nstruggles\nrelationships are essential",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient. | Still, every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the future of the treaty. This year’s no different. Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members continue to believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous international security environment than the one we already have. Moreover, few states would want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field. | every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the
treaty
Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members
believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous
environment than the one we already have
few states
want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field | 530 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Still, every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the future of the treaty. This year’s no different. Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members continue to believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous international security environment than the one we already have. Moreover, few states would want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the\ntreaty\nYet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members\nbelieve that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous\nenvironment than the one we already have\nfew states\nwant the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient. | Still, every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the future of the treaty. This year’s no different. Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members continue to believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous international security environment than the one we already have. Moreover, few states would want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field. | every review conference
precipitate a sense of unease
this conference, too
most treaty members
P
N
W | 531 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Still, every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the future of the treaty. This year’s no different. Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members continue to believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous international security environment than the one we already have. Moreover, few states would want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "every review conference\nprecipitate a sense of unease\nthis conference, too\nmost treaty members\nP\nN\nW",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient.
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the
treaty
Yet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members
believe that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous
environment than the one we already have
few states
want the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field | every
conference seems to precipitate
unease
Yet
NPT will survive this conference, too, because
treaty members
believe
uncontrolled
nuc
s
make for
more dangerous
environment than
one we
have
few states
want
NPT
collapse
P
N
W
hasn’t been ratified | 532 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: ‘Nuclear norms’ are resilient.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "every review conference seems to precipitate a sense of unease over the\ntreaty\nYet the NPT will survive this conference, too, because most treaty members\nbelieve that an uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons would make for a more dangerous\nenvironment than the one we already have\nfew states\nwant the NPT to collapse and leave the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (which still hasn’t been ratified by enough states to enter into force) in sole possession of the field",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "every\nconference seems to precipitate\nunease\nYet\nNPT will survive this conference, too, because\ntreaty members\nbelieve\nuncontrolled\nnuc\ns\nmake for\nmore dangerous\nenvironment than\none we\nhave\nfew states\nwant\nNPT\ncollapse\nP\nN\nW\nhasn’t been ratified",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points. | Revista 22 sees no signs of a rupture in the Alliance:
“On the contrary, Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable. One purpose of the foreign ministers' meeting is to reaffirm this unity at the diplomatic level and consolidate support for the Alliance's shared foreign policy objectives in Ukraine and vis-à-vis Russia. Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons. But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened.” | Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable
Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons
But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened | 533 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Revista 22 sees no signs of a rupture in the Alliance:\n“On the contrary, Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable. One purpose of the foreign ministers' meeting is to reaffirm this unity at the diplomatic level and consolidate support for the Alliance's shared foreign policy objectives in Ukraine and vis-à-vis Russia. Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons. But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened.”",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable\nSince last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons\nBut this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points. | Revista 22 sees no signs of a rupture in the Alliance:
“On the contrary, Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable. One purpose of the foreign ministers' meeting is to reaffirm this unity at the diplomatic level and consolidate support for the Alliance's shared foreign policy objectives in Ukraine and vis-à-vis Russia. Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons. But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened.” | unity
never been stronger
consensus
moral
political duty
Ukraine
indisputable
last spring
discussions
possible rift
fabricated
long expected
prophesied
Kremlin | 534 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Revista 22 sees no signs of a rupture in the Alliance:\n“On the contrary, Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable. One purpose of the foreign ministers' meeting is to reaffirm this unity at the diplomatic level and consolidate support for the Alliance's shared foreign policy objectives in Ukraine and vis-à-vis Russia. Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons. But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened.”",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "unity\nnever been stronger\nconsensus\nmoral\npolitical duty\nUkraine\nindisputable\nlast spring\ndiscussions\npossible rift\nfabricated\nlong expected\nprophesied\nKremlin",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points.
Highlight Ratio: 0.6 | Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable
Since last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons
But this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened | Nato's unity has never been stronger
the consensus on
Ukraine is indisputable
Since last spring, there have been discussions about a
rift
over
fabricated reasons
But this rupture, long
prophesied by the Kremlin
never happened | 535 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Prophesies have been disproven. They’re Kremlin talking points.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Nato's unity has never been stronger, and the consensus on the moral and political duty to support Ukraine is indisputable\nSince last spring, there have been discussions about a possible rift between Europeans and Americans over various more or less fabricated reasons\nBut this rupture, long expected and prophesied by the Kremlin, never happened",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nato's unity has never been stronger\nthe consensus on\nUkraine is indisputable\nSince last spring, there have been discussions about a\nrift\nover\nfabricated reasons\nBut this rupture, long\nprophesied by the Kremlin\nnever happened",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Uncertainty guts innovation. | 2.2.2 Legal Uncertainty
A principle aim of the patent system is to encourage research and development (R&D) investment by providing innovators with a reasonable certainty of a return on the resulting inventions.47 If the computer generation of texts describing inventions exponentially expands the state of the art, it would put the patentability of inventions into question and increase the likelihood of issued patents being invalidated on the grounds of anticipation or lack of inventive step.48 Uncertainty regarding validity and enforceability of a patent can weaken its market value and affect a rights holder’s ability to extract value through licensing or litigation.49 Further, uncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour; for example, the costs of searching and the risk of later discovering a piece of prior art that invalidates a patent could outweigh the benefits otherwise gained from patenting an invention, thereby reducing the motivation to conduct R&D, to attempt to obtain patent protection, and to litigate.50 Beyond this chilling effect on R&D and patenting, legal uncertainty within the patent system may also negate some economic benefits from other patent uses such as obtaining financing or deterring competitors from patent enforcement.51 Patents cannot unconditionally protect the applicants’ investments or guarantee the validity of a patent if challenged; however, high levels of uncertainty undermine their ability to deliver the rewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge diffusion – the very incentives that the patent system is intended to provide.52 | Legal Uncertainty
A principle
of the patent system is to encourage
(R&D)
by providing innovators with
certainty
Uncertainty regarding validity
of a patent can weaken its market value and affect
ability to extract value through licensing
uncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;
costs of searching
could outweigh the benefits
gained from patenting
Beyond this chilling effect on R&D
legal uncertainty within the patent system may
negate
economic benefits from other patent uses
financing or deterring competitors from
enforcement
high levels of uncertainty undermine
ability to deliver
rewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge
the very incentives
patent system is intended to provide | 536 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncertainty guts innovation.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "2.2.2 Legal Uncertainty\nA principle aim of the patent system is to encourage research and development (R&D) investment by providing innovators with a reasonable certainty of a return on the resulting inventions.47 If the computer generation of texts describing inventions exponentially expands the state of the art, it would put the patentability of inventions into question and increase the likelihood of issued patents being invalidated on the grounds of anticipation or lack of inventive step.48 Uncertainty regarding validity and enforceability of a patent can weaken its market value and affect a rights holder’s ability to extract value through licensing or litigation.49 Further, uncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour; for example, the costs of searching and the risk of later discovering a piece of prior art that invalidates a patent could outweigh the benefits otherwise gained from patenting an invention, thereby reducing the motivation to conduct R&D, to attempt to obtain patent protection, and to litigate.50 Beyond this chilling effect on R&D and patenting, legal uncertainty within the patent system may also negate some economic benefits from other patent uses such as obtaining financing or deterring competitors from patent enforcement.51 Patents cannot unconditionally protect the applicants’ investments or guarantee the validity of a patent if challenged; however, high levels of uncertainty undermine their ability to deliver the rewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge diffusion – the very incentives that the patent system is intended to provide.52",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Legal Uncertainty\nA principle\nof the patent system is to encourage\n(R&D)\nby providing innovators with\ncertainty\nUncertainty regarding validity\nof a patent can weaken its market value and affect\nability to extract value through licensing\nuncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;\ncosts of searching\ncould outweigh the benefits\ngained from patenting\nBeyond this chilling effect on R&D\nlegal uncertainty within the patent system may\nnegate\neconomic benefits from other patent uses\nfinancing or deterring competitors from\nenforcement\nhigh levels of uncertainty undermine\nability to deliver\nrewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge\nthe very incentives\npatent system is intended to provide",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Uncertainty guts innovation. | Legal Uncertainty
A principle
of the patent system is to encourage
(R&D)
by providing innovators with
certainty
Uncertainty regarding validity
of a patent can weaken its market value and affect
ability to extract value through licensing
uncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;
costs of searching
could outweigh the benefits
gained from patenting
Beyond this chilling effect on R&D
legal uncertainty within the patent system may
negate
economic benefits from other patent uses
financing or deterring competitors from
enforcement
high levels of uncertainty undermine
ability to deliver
rewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge
the very incentives
patent system is intended to provide | principle
(R&D)
certainty
Uncertainty
weaken
holders’ behaviour
outweigh
chilling effect
uncertainty
patent system
innovation | 537 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncertainty guts innovation.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Legal Uncertainty\nA principle\nof the patent system is to encourage\n(R&D)\nby providing innovators with\ncertainty\nUncertainty regarding validity\nof a patent can weaken its market value and affect\nability to extract value through licensing\nuncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;\ncosts of searching\ncould outweigh the benefits\ngained from patenting\nBeyond this chilling effect on R&D\nlegal uncertainty within the patent system may\nnegate\neconomic benefits from other patent uses\nfinancing or deterring competitors from\nenforcement\nhigh levels of uncertainty undermine\nability to deliver\nrewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge\nthe very incentives\npatent system is intended to provide",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "principle\n(R&D)\ncertainty\nUncertainty\nweaken\nholders’ behaviour\noutweigh\nchilling effect\nuncertainty\npatent system\ninnovation",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Uncertainty guts innovation.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | Legal Uncertainty
A principle
of the patent system is to encourage
(R&D)
by providing innovators with
certainty
Uncertainty regarding validity
of a patent can weaken its market value and affect
ability to extract value through licensing
uncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;
costs of searching
could outweigh the benefits
gained from patenting
Beyond this chilling effect on R&D
legal uncertainty within the patent system may
negate
economic benefits from other patent uses
financing or deterring competitors from
enforcement
high levels of uncertainty undermine
ability to deliver
rewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge
the very incentives
patent system is intended to provide | principle
of
patent
to encourage
(R&D)
by providing
certainty
Uncertainty regarding
patent can weaken
market value
influences
holders’
costs
outweigh
benefits
Beyond
chilling
R&D
uncertainty within
patent system
negate
economic benefits
undermine
innovation | 538 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Uncertainty guts innovation.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Legal Uncertainty\nA principle\nof the patent system is to encourage\n(R&D)\nby providing innovators with\ncertainty\nUncertainty regarding validity\nof a patent can weaken its market value and affect\nability to extract value through licensing\nuncertainty influences rights holders’ behaviour;\ncosts of searching\ncould outweigh the benefits\ngained from patenting\nBeyond this chilling effect on R&D\nlegal uncertainty within the patent system may\nnegate\neconomic benefits from other patent uses\nfinancing or deterring competitors from\nenforcement\nhigh levels of uncertainty undermine\nability to deliver\nrewards that incentivise research, innovation, and knowledge\nthe very incentives\npatent system is intended to provide",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "principle\nof\npatent\nto encourage\n(R&D)\nby providing\ncertainty\nUncertainty regarding\npatent can weaken\nmarket value\ninfluences\nholders’\ncosts\noutweigh\nbenefits\nBeyond\nchilling\nR&D\nuncertainty within\npatent system\nnegate\neconomic benefits\nundermine\ninnovation",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: No offset | On the other hand, aerosols can add heat to the atmosphere which partially offsets the cooling effect. As the Earth heats up from the sun, it radiates heat back to space. Aerosols absorb some of the heat radiation and reduce the amount of heat radiation escaping out to space. This is the same heat-blocking effect attributed to greenhouse gasses, and in this way aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate. Nevertheless, the net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming from greenhouse gasses. Does this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming. Models and data now show that aerosols reduce the increase in global temperature by a factor of approximately 50% (there is uncertainty in the actual amount). So, they slow down the process but do not stop it. And they create pollution and effect health at the same time. | aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate
the net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming
Does this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming
aerosols
slow down the process but do not stop it | 539 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: No offset",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "On the other hand, aerosols can add heat to the atmosphere which partially offsets the cooling effect. As the Earth heats up from the sun, it radiates heat back to space. Aerosols absorb some of the heat radiation and reduce the amount of heat radiation escaping out to space. This is the same heat-blocking effect attributed to greenhouse gasses, and in this way aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate. Nevertheless, the net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming from greenhouse gasses. Does this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming. Models and data now show that aerosols reduce the increase in global temperature by a factor of approximately 50% (there is uncertainty in the actual amount). So, they slow down the process but do not stop it. And they create pollution and effect health at the same time.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate\nthe net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming\nDoes this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming\naerosols\nslow down the process but do not stop it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: No offset
Highlight Ratio: 0.8 | aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate
the net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming
Does this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming
aerosols
slow down the process but do not stop it | aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate
Does this mean we should all
drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming
aerosols
slow
the process but do not stop it | 541 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: No offset\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.8",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate\nthe net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of global warming\nDoes this mean we should all go build fires and drive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming\naerosols\nslow down the process but do not stop it",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "aerosols can have a heating effect on global climate\nDoes this mean we should all\ndrive our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than the impact those activities make on global warming\naerosols\nslow\nthe process but do not stop it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: ‘Increase’ | 9.1 The Draft Bill creates an obligation on the principal regulator to do all that it "reasonably can to meet the compliance objective in relation to the charity".[ 45] The Draft Bill defines the compliance objective as "to increase compliance by the charity trustees with their legal obligations in exercising control and management of the administration of the charity".[ 46]
9.2 Although the word "increase" is used in relation to the functions of a number of statutory bodies,[47] such examples demonstrate that "increase" is used in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself.
9.3 HEFCE is concerned that an obligation on principal regulators to "increase" compliance per se is unworkable, in so far as it does not adequately define the limits or nature of the statutory duty. Indeed, the obligation could be considered to be ever-increasing. | the word "increase"
used in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself
an obligation on principal regulators to "increase"
is unworkable
as it does not adequately define the limits
of the statutory duty | 542 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: ‘Increase’",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "9.1 The Draft Bill creates an obligation on the principal regulator to do all that it \"reasonably can to meet the compliance objective in relation to the charity\".[ 45] The Draft Bill defines the compliance objective as \"to increase compliance by the charity trustees with their legal obligations in exercising control and management of the administration of the charity\".[ 46] \n9.2 Although the word \"increase\" is used in relation to the functions of a number of statutory bodies,[47] such examples demonstrate that \"increase\" is used in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself. \n9.3 HEFCE is concerned that an obligation on principal regulators to \"increase\" compliance per se is unworkable, in so far as it does not adequately define the limits or nature of the statutory duty. Indeed, the obligation could be considered to be ever-increasing.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the word \"increase\"\nused in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself\nan obligation on principal regulators to \"increase\"\nis unworkable\nas it does not adequately define the limits\nof the statutory duty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: ‘Increase’
Highlight Ratio: 0.6 | the word "increase"
used in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself
an obligation on principal regulators to "increase"
is unworkable
as it does not adequately define the limits
of the statutory duty | "increase"
used
in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective
itself
an obligation
to "increase"
is unworkable
as it does not adequately define the limits
of
duty | 544 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: ‘Increase’\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the word \"increase\"\nused in relation to considerations to be taken into account in the exercise of a function, rather than an objective in itself\nan obligation on principal regulators to \"increase\"\nis unworkable\nas it does not adequately define the limits\nof the statutory duty",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "\"increase\"\nused\nin the exercise of a function, rather than an objective\nitself\nan obligation\nto \"increase\"\nis unworkable\nas it does not adequately define the limits\nof\nduty",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources | But that separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos. The different criminal offices often work together on large investigations and trials. Similarly, the size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections, as well as from the Antitrust Division’s Appellate, International, and Competition Policy and Advocacy sections. But the collaboration does not end there. Coordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm. Section managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult on an informal basis. Cross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time. And understanding this collaboration between the civil and criminal sections is vital to attorneys and their clients subject to the merger review process. A recent case not only shows how in sync the Antitrust Division’s criminal and civil sections are, but also highlights the implications of that collaboration.
In December 2014, two packaged seafood companies announced their proposed merger. As is customary to the review process, the parties submitted documents to one of the Antitrust Division’s civil sections. What followed was anything but routine. However, based on the level of collaboration within the Antitrust Division, it should not have been unexpected.
From document review to charges for price-fixing
The Antitrust Division’s civil attorneys reviewed the documents submitted by the parties and uncovered information that raised concerns of price‑fixing. When the parties walked away from the deal on December 3, 2015, then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer’s statement in the press release made a veiled reference to their problematic documents. He said, “Our investigation convinced us—and the parties knew or should have known from the get-go—that the market is not functioning competitively today, and further consolidation would only make things worse.”
The parties’ abandonment of the deal did not end the Antitrust Division’s investigation. Instead, the civil attorneys conducting the merger review shared their findings with their criminal counterparts. A criminal section proceeded to open a price‑fixing investigation based on the shared materials. That investigation has borne fruit and is ongoing. To date, three individuals and one company have been charged for participation in a price‑fixing conspiracy. Criminal antitrust violations, such as price-fixing, have serious implications. Not only are the criminal penalties substantial, but companies can be subject to civil suits with treble damages (15 U.S.C. § 15.).
For individuals, the maximum penalties are 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. For corporations, the maximum fine is $100 million. Fines for both individuals and corporations can exceed the statutory maximum amount by up to twice the gain derived or twice the loss by victims. See, e.g., Price Fixing, Bid Rigging and Market Allocation: An Antitrust Primer, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/priceifxing-bid-rigging-and-market-al location-schemes (discussing the Sherman Act).
While it is not public what specific information was contained in the documents that raised the attention of the reviewing attorneys, or exactly how the process happened, the Antitrust Division did state that the criminal investigation was triggered by “information and party materials produced in the ordinary course of business.” Until more information is revealed, several questions remain, including whether similar criminal investigations based on documents submitted for merger review could be waiting to surface.
The packaged seafood matter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and likely will not be the last. The hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections of the Antitrust Division will continue. Companies need to be increasingly aware of the risks that ordinary course documents present, not just in impacting merger approval but also in criminal implications. Merger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s (or FTC’s) hands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions. Documents always tell a story—and attorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.
Similarly, the FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship. We will continue to explore and monitor the collaboration between those two agencies as well as with state attorneys general. We also plan to address the collaboration among competition agencies around the world. Stay tuned.
| separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos
different
offices
work together on large investigations
the size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections
Coordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm
Section managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult
Cross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time
The
matter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and
will not be the last
The hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections
will continue
Merger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s
or FTC’s
hands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions
attorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.
the FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship | 545 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "But that separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos. The different criminal offices often work together on large investigations and trials. Similarly, the size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections, as well as from the Antitrust Division’s Appellate, International, and Competition Policy and Advocacy sections. But the collaboration does not end there. Coordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm. Section managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult on an informal basis. Cross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time. And understanding this collaboration between the civil and criminal sections is vital to attorneys and their clients subject to the merger review process. A recent case not only shows how in sync the Antitrust Division’s criminal and civil sections are, but also highlights the implications of that collaboration.\nIn December 2014, two packaged seafood companies announced their proposed merger. As is customary to the review process, the parties submitted documents to one of the Antitrust Division’s civil sections. What followed was anything but routine. However, based on the level of collaboration within the Antitrust Division, it should not have been unexpected.\nFrom document review to charges for price-fixing\nThe Antitrust Division’s civil attorneys reviewed the documents submitted by the parties and uncovered information that raised concerns of price‑fixing. When the parties walked away from the deal on December 3, 2015, then-Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer’s statement in the press release made a veiled reference to their problematic documents. He said, “Our investigation convinced us—and the parties knew or should have known from the get-go—that the market is not functioning competitively today, and further consolidation would only make things worse.”\nThe parties’ abandonment of the deal did not end the Antitrust Division’s investigation. Instead, the civil attorneys conducting the merger review shared their findings with their criminal counterparts. A criminal section proceeded to open a price‑fixing investigation based on the shared materials. That investigation has borne fruit and is ongoing. To date, three individuals and one company have been charged for participation in a price‑fixing conspiracy. Criminal antitrust violations, such as price-fixing, have serious implications. Not only are the criminal penalties substantial, but companies can be subject to civil suits with treble damages (15 U.S.C. § 15.).\nFor individuals, the maximum penalties are 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine. For corporations, the maximum fine is $100 million. Fines for both individuals and corporations can exceed the statutory maximum amount by up to twice the gain derived or twice the loss by victims. See, e.g., Price Fixing, Bid Rigging and Market Allocation: An Antitrust Primer, Department of Justice Antitrust Division, available at https://www.justice.gov/atr/priceifxing-bid-rigging-and-market-al location-schemes (discussing the Sherman Act).\nWhile it is not public what specific information was contained in the documents that raised the attention of the reviewing attorneys, or exactly how the process happened, the Antitrust Division did state that the criminal investigation was triggered by “information and party materials produced in the ordinary course of business.” Until more information is revealed, several questions remain, including whether similar criminal investigations based on documents submitted for merger review could be waiting to surface.\nThe packaged seafood matter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and likely will not be the last. The hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections of the Antitrust Division will continue. Companies need to be increasingly aware of the risks that ordinary course documents present, not just in impacting merger approval but also in criminal implications. Merger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s (or FTC’s) hands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions. Documents always tell a story—and attorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.\nSimilarly, the FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship. We will continue to explore and monitor the collaboration between those two agencies as well as with state attorneys general. We also plan to address the collaboration among competition agencies around the world. Stay tuned.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos\ndifferent\noffices\nwork together on large investigations\nthe size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections\nCoordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm\nSection managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult\nCross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time\nThe\nmatter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and\nwill not be the last\nThe hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections\nwill continue\nMerger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s\nor FTC’s\nhands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions\nattorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.\nthe FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources | separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos
different
offices
work together on large investigations
the size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections
Coordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm
Section managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult
Cross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time
The
matter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and
will not be the last
The hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections
will continue
Merger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s
or FTC’s
hands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions
attorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.
the FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship | separation
does not create walls or silos
work together on large investigations
pulling resources from the various civil sections
norm
Cross‑pollination
detailed to other sections
specific matters
periods of time
not the first criminal case
will not be the last
hand‑in‑hand coordination
will continue
does not exist in a vacuum
or FTC’s
both civil and criminal actions
need to be sure
not a criminal investigation
close working relationship | 546 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos\ndifferent\noffices\nwork together on large investigations\nthe size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections\nCoordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm\nSection managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult\nCross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time\nThe\nmatter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and\nwill not be the last\nThe hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections\nwill continue\nMerger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s\nor FTC’s\nhands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions\nattorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.\nthe FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "separation\ndoes not create walls or silos\nwork together on large investigations\npulling resources from the various civil sections\nnorm\nCross‑pollination\ndetailed to other sections\nspecific matters\nperiods of time\nnot the first criminal case\nwill not be the last\nhand‑in‑hand coordination\nwill continue\ndoes not exist in a vacuum\nor FTC’s\nboth civil and criminal actions\nneed to be sure\nnot a criminal investigation\nclose working relationship",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos
different
offices
work together on large investigations
the size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections
Coordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm
Section managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult
Cross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time
The
matter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and
will not be the last
The hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections
will continue
Merger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s
or FTC’s
hands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions
attorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.
the FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship | separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections
does not create
silos
different
offices
work together
many civil investigations
pull
resources from
various
sections
Cross‑pollination occurs
as attorneys are detailed to other sections
hand‑in‑hand coordination between
civil and criminal sections
will continue
Once documents fall into the
FTC’s
hands
they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward
criminal actions
the FTC and A
D
share a close working relationship | 547 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Can’t solve the link, even if the DoD consults the FTC has to expend a ton of resources\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections at the Antitrust Division does not create walls or silos\ndifferent\noffices\nwork together on large investigations\nthe size of many civil investigations requires pulling resources from the various civil sections\nCoordination between the civil and criminal sections is the norm\nSection managers meet regularly to discuss matters and often consult\nCross‑pollination occurs at the trial attorney level as attorneys are detailed to other sections for specific matters or periods of time\nThe\nmatter is not the first criminal case to stem from a civil investigation and\nwill not be the last\nThe hand‑in‑hand coordination between the civil and criminal sections\nwill continue\nMerger review does not exist in a vacuum. Once documents fall into the Antitrust Division’s\nor FTC’s\nhands, parties can expect that they will be closely reviewed with an eye toward both civil and criminal actions\nattorneys need to be sure that the story told is one to support a proposed deal and not a criminal investigation.\nthe FTC and Antitrust Division share a close working relationship",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "separation of criminal and civil enforcement sections\ndoes not create\nsilos\ndifferent\noffices\nwork together\nmany civil investigations\npull\nresources from\nvarious\nsections\nCross‑pollination occurs\nas attorneys are detailed to other sections\nhand‑in‑hand coordination between\ncivil and criminal sections\nwill continue\nOnce documents fall into the\nFTC’s\nhands\nthey will be closely reviewed with an eye toward\ncriminal actions\nthe FTC and A\nD\nshare a close working relationship",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold! |
Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts—stelae, as it were—that contradicted the theory. Patent-holdup theorists asserted that innovation in SEP-intensive IT products was under threat: excessive royalties were discouraging new firm entry and reinvestment by existing firms. They called particular attention to the threat to innovation in mobile telephones and personal computers, as well as in extensions of those products in the IoT.15
Economists measure rates of innovation by examining relative rates of change of quality-adjusted prices,16 and one can download the publicly available, product-by-product, quality-adjusted price data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in order to carry out an analysis of innovation rates across products and within products over time.17 An analysis of that data shows that from 1997 to 2013, rates of innovation in phone equipment (which includes low-tech items such as fax machines and landline phones, as well as wireless phones) was 10 percent per annum faster than the economy-wide average. The data show that the rate of innovation in portable and laptop computers was faster still—31 percent per annum faster than the economy-wide average. Similar rates of innovation are observed in other SEP-intensive IT products such as video equipment, audio equipment, desktop computers, and televisions. Furthermore, rates of innovation in SEP-intensive IT products have not slowed over time relative to the rates of innovation in similar, non-SEP-intensive IT products.18 For example, the rate of innovation in SEP-intensive laptop computers compared with non-SEP-intensive mainframe computers shows that SEP intensity was associated with faster innovation.19
There are other hallmarks of innovation beyond falling quality-adjusted relative prices: one would expect to see rapidly increasing output even in the face of falling prices; and, because innovation is typically characterized by Schumpeterian creative destruction, one would also expect to see high levels of firm entry and exit. This is precisely what researchers do see when they examine data on the canonical case of the mobile phone industry. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of SEP holders increased from 2 to 128. Patent-holdup theory would predict that this increase should have dramatically slowed the rate of innovation. That prediction did not obtain in reality, however. Prices of mobile devices dropped very fast, while output grew sixty-two-fold. During this same period, there was rapid entry of new firms into the manufacture of phones and tablets—so much so that industrial concentration, measured with the number of devices sold, actually fell in this industry over time.20
According to patent-holdup theory, excessive patent royalties cause slow rates of innovation. As an empirical matter, the aggregate royalties paid by licensees in any industry can be estimated on the basis of the SEC 10-K and 40-F filings of the patent-licensing firms.21 The data on the canonical case of mobile phones shows that the cumulative royalty yield from the twenty-one largest patent licensors in the mobile phone value chain was only 3.3 percent of a mobile phone's average sales price in 2015. That ratio has been fairly stable since at least far back as 2007.22 Researchers have parameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and have discovered that the royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They have also found that no individual patent licensor earns an individual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist.23
The facts of fast and continuous innovation in the mobile phone industry—one of the stelae of patent-holdup theory—are evident to anyone with a smartphone in their pocket. Three decades ago, a mobile phone cost the current equivalent of $10,000, was the size of a brick, weighed a kilo, and enabled its user to make a half-hour call before going dead. Today, a smartphone has more computational power than the supercomputers that guided the Apollo missions to the moon, allows a user to produce and share data, video, and audio files with anyone on the planet, costs an average of $300—and also happens to make a phone call.
At the same time that there are self-evident stelae contradicting patent-holdup theory, there is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions. Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato,24 Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar and Jorge Padilla,25 Vincenzo Denicolò, Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar, and Jorge Padilla,26 Richard Epstein, F. Scott Kieff, and Daniel Spulber,27 Kirti Gupta,28 Anne Layne-Farrar,29 J. Gregory Sidak,30 and Edward Egan and David Teece31 review the literature on patent holdup, patent thickets, and royalty stacking.32 All of these studies reach the same general conclusion, which is perhaps best summed up by Layne-Farrar: “Certainly the theories have been developed, but the empirical support is still lacking. Despite the fifteen years that proponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies conducted thus far have not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice.”33
C. Three Fundamental Fallacies and Their Origin
When theory and evidence disagree, there is either something wrong with the theory or something wrong with the evidence. We think that there is something wrong with the theory.
Patent-holdup theory conflates two different economic mechanisms: holdup and market power. Holdup means that one firm appropriates another firm's quasi rent—its revenues minus its short-run costs—through opportunistic behavior. A firm that is being held up, by definition, does not generate enough revenue to cover its long-run costs. Therefore, the firm will not reinvest once its capital wears out. This is not a long-run equilibrium. Market power, by contrast, means that a firm can set prices such that it appropriates a monopoly rent from a market. The exercise of market power can be a long-run equilibrium, because the downstream firms will cover their long-run costs and continue to reinvest as their capital equipment wears out.34 Thus, holdup and the exercise of market power are two different, mutually inconsistent economic mechanisms. One cannot simultaneously have a long-run equilibrium and not have a long-run equilibrium.
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to three fallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory. Once the mechanics of holdup are loosened from their moorings in economic theory, it becomes possible to simultaneously claim that patent holdup is a variant of holdup as it is understood in mainstream economics and define it in ways that are inconsistent with the meaning of holdup as it is understood in mainstream economics. Patent holdup elides key assumptions of the standard theory and transforms necessary conditions for holdup into sufficient conditions for holdup. The implications are fundamental. In the established theory, firms—working together—will make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations in order to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium. In patent-holdup theory, by contrast, firms cannot adapt and solve the problem wrought by opportunistic renegotiation of a contract, because the game begins after the R&D is completed and manufacturers invest. Adaptations to prevent holdup are ruled out by construction, and market failure is inevitable.
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to a second fallacy. Patent-holdup theory claims that the same manufacturing firms can be held up many times over, resulting in a phenomenon called royalty stacking. In point of fact, however, holdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents (the difference between its revenues and its short-run costs) can be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down. Royalty stacking, by contrast, is about the exercise of market power by multiple input suppliers to downstream firms. Although this multiplicity of input suppliers might be an inefficient organization of a market, it nonetheless can be a long-run equilibrium, unlike holdup.
To claim that market power is being exercised, one needs to identify its source. In royalty stacking, the source is the patents themselves. A patent confers a temporary, limited property right that might confer some market power—and does so by design. Thus, in order to claim that there is a public policy problem, one needs to claim that the patents in question confer market power in excess of that which is conferred by the patent grants themselves. What could the source of that excess market power be? According to the theory, patent-holding firms are able to appropriate more than their incremental contribution to a product's value by virtue of the fact that their technologies have been made part of a standard. The users of the technology are locked into that standard and consequently can be subjected to patent holdup.
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to a third fallacy: patented technologies that are part of an industry standard add little or no value to the markets that they help to create. There are two problems with this fallacy—one theoretical and the other empirical. The theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point of standard development organizations (SDOs) in IT industries is to make large technological jumps at a fast pace, so that manufacturers may produce superior products that consumers will adopt enthusiastically, thereby increasing the revenues of all the industry stakeholders.35 They are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations.
| Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts
that contradicted the theory
The data show that the rate of innovation in
SEP-intensive
products
was
faster
Researchers
parameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and
discovered
the royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They
found
no individual patent licensor earns a
individual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist
there is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions
All
studies reach the same general conclusion
Despite
fifteen years
proponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies
have not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice
Patent-holdup theory conflates
holdup and market power
and
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to
fallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.
firms
will make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations
to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium
holdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents
can be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.
a third fallacy: patented technologies
add
no value to
The theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner
Arrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point
is to make large technological jumps at a fast pace
They are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations | 548 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold!",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nLike the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts—stelae, as it were—that contradicted the theory. Patent-holdup theorists asserted that innovation in SEP-intensive IT products was under threat: excessive royalties were discouraging new firm entry and reinvestment by existing firms. They called particular attention to the threat to innovation in mobile telephones and personal computers, as well as in extensions of those products in the IoT.15\nEconomists measure rates of innovation by examining relative rates of change of quality-adjusted prices,16 and one can download the publicly available, product-by-product, quality-adjusted price data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in order to carry out an analysis of innovation rates across products and within products over time.17 An analysis of that data shows that from 1997 to 2013, rates of innovation in phone equipment (which includes low-tech items such as fax machines and landline phones, as well as wireless phones) was 10 percent per annum faster than the economy-wide average. The data show that the rate of innovation in portable and laptop computers was faster still—31 percent per annum faster than the economy-wide average. Similar rates of innovation are observed in other SEP-intensive IT products such as video equipment, audio equipment, desktop computers, and televisions. Furthermore, rates of innovation in SEP-intensive IT products have not slowed over time relative to the rates of innovation in similar, non-SEP-intensive IT products.18 For example, the rate of innovation in SEP-intensive laptop computers compared with non-SEP-intensive mainframe computers shows that SEP intensity was associated with faster innovation.19\nThere are other hallmarks of innovation beyond falling quality-adjusted relative prices: one would expect to see rapidly increasing output even in the face of falling prices; and, because innovation is typically characterized by Schumpeterian creative destruction, one would also expect to see high levels of firm entry and exit. This is precisely what researchers do see when they examine data on the canonical case of the mobile phone industry. Between 1994 and 2013, the number of SEP holders increased from 2 to 128. Patent-holdup theory would predict that this increase should have dramatically slowed the rate of innovation. That prediction did not obtain in reality, however. Prices of mobile devices dropped very fast, while output grew sixty-two-fold. During this same period, there was rapid entry of new firms into the manufacture of phones and tablets—so much so that industrial concentration, measured with the number of devices sold, actually fell in this industry over time.20\nAccording to patent-holdup theory, excessive patent royalties cause slow rates of innovation. As an empirical matter, the aggregate royalties paid by licensees in any industry can be estimated on the basis of the SEC 10-K and 40-F filings of the patent-licensing firms.21 The data on the canonical case of mobile phones shows that the cumulative royalty yield from the twenty-one largest patent licensors in the mobile phone value chain was only 3.3 percent of a mobile phone's average sales price in 2015. That ratio has been fairly stable since at least far back as 2007.22 Researchers have parameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and have discovered that the royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They have also found that no individual patent licensor earns an individual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist.23\nThe facts of fast and continuous innovation in the mobile phone industry—one of the stelae of patent-holdup theory—are evident to anyone with a smartphone in their pocket. Three decades ago, a mobile phone cost the current equivalent of $10,000, was the size of a brick, weighed a kilo, and enabled its user to make a half-hour call before going dead. Today, a smartphone has more computational power than the supercomputers that guided the Apollo missions to the moon, allows a user to produce and share data, video, and audio files with anyone on the planet, costs an average of $300—and also happens to make a phone call.\nAt the same time that there are self-evident stelae contradicting patent-holdup theory, there is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions. Damien Geradin and Miguel Rato,24 Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar and Jorge Padilla,25 Vincenzo Denicolò, Damien Geradin, Anne Layne-Farrar, and Jorge Padilla,26 Richard Epstein, F. Scott Kieff, and Daniel Spulber,27 Kirti Gupta,28 Anne Layne-Farrar,29 J. Gregory Sidak,30 and Edward Egan and David Teece31 review the literature on patent holdup, patent thickets, and royalty stacking.32 All of these studies reach the same general conclusion, which is perhaps best summed up by Layne-Farrar: “Certainly the theories have been developed, but the empirical support is still lacking. Despite the fifteen years that proponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies conducted thus far have not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice.”33\nC. Three Fundamental Fallacies and Their Origin\nWhen theory and evidence disagree, there is either something wrong with the theory or something wrong with the evidence. We think that there is something wrong with the theory.\nPatent-holdup theory conflates two different economic mechanisms: holdup and market power. Holdup means that one firm appropriates another firm's quasi rent—its revenues minus its short-run costs—through opportunistic behavior. A firm that is being held up, by definition, does not generate enough revenue to cover its long-run costs. Therefore, the firm will not reinvest once its capital wears out. This is not a long-run equilibrium. Market power, by contrast, means that a firm can set prices such that it appropriates a monopoly rent from a market. The exercise of market power can be a long-run equilibrium, because the downstream firms will cover their long-run costs and continue to reinvest as their capital equipment wears out.34 Thus, holdup and the exercise of market power are two different, mutually inconsistent economic mechanisms. One cannot simultaneously have a long-run equilibrium and not have a long-run equilibrium.\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to three fallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory. Once the mechanics of holdup are loosened from their moorings in economic theory, it becomes possible to simultaneously claim that patent holdup is a variant of holdup as it is understood in mainstream economics and define it in ways that are inconsistent with the meaning of holdup as it is understood in mainstream economics. Patent holdup elides key assumptions of the standard theory and transforms necessary conditions for holdup into sufficient conditions for holdup. The implications are fundamental. In the established theory, firms—working together—will make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations in order to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium. In patent-holdup theory, by contrast, firms cannot adapt and solve the problem wrought by opportunistic renegotiation of a contract, because the game begins after the R&D is completed and manufacturers invest. Adaptations to prevent holdup are ruled out by construction, and market failure is inevitable.\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to a second fallacy. Patent-holdup theory claims that the same manufacturing firms can be held up many times over, resulting in a phenomenon called royalty stacking. In point of fact, however, holdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents (the difference between its revenues and its short-run costs) can be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down. Royalty stacking, by contrast, is about the exercise of market power by multiple input suppliers to downstream firms. Although this multiplicity of input suppliers might be an inefficient organization of a market, it nonetheless can be a long-run equilibrium, unlike holdup.\nTo claim that market power is being exercised, one needs to identify its source. In royalty stacking, the source is the patents themselves. A patent confers a temporary, limited property right that might confer some market power—and does so by design. Thus, in order to claim that there is a public policy problem, one needs to claim that the patents in question confer market power in excess of that which is conferred by the patent grants themselves. What could the source of that excess market power be? According to the theory, patent-holding firms are able to appropriate more than their incremental contribution to a product's value by virtue of the fact that their technologies have been made part of a standard. The users of the technology are locked into that standard and consequently can be subjected to patent holdup.\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to a third fallacy: patented technologies that are part of an industry standard add little or no value to the markets that they help to create. There are two problems with this fallacy—one theoretical and the other empirical. The theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point of standard development organizations (SDOs) in IT industries is to make large technological jumps at a fast pace, so that manufacturers may produce superior products that consumers will adopt enthusiastically, thereby increasing the revenues of all the industry stakeholders.35 They are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations.\n\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts\nthat contradicted the theory\nThe data show that the rate of innovation in\nSEP-intensive\nproducts\nwas\nfaster\nResearchers\nparameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and\ndiscovered\nthe royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They\nfound\nno individual patent licensor earns a\nindividual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist\nthere is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions\nAll\nstudies reach the same general conclusion\nDespite\nfifteen years\nproponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies\nhave not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice\nPatent-holdup theory conflates\nholdup and market power\nand\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to\nfallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.\nfirms\nwill make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations\nto prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium\nholdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents\ncan be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.\na third fallacy: patented technologies\nadd\nno value to\nThe theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner\nArrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point\nis to make large technological jumps at a fast pace\nThey are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold! | Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts
that contradicted the theory
The data show that the rate of innovation in
SEP-intensive
products
was
faster
Researchers
parameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and
discovered
the royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They
found
no individual patent licensor earns a
individual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist
there is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions
All
studies reach the same general conclusion
Despite
fifteen years
proponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies
have not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice
Patent-holdup theory conflates
holdup and market power
and
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to
fallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.
firms
will make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations
to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium
holdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents
can be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.
a third fallacy: patented technologies
add
no value to
The theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner
Arrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point
is to make large technological jumps at a fast pace
They are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations | the theory of the peaceful Maya
its own set of facts
contradicted the theory
SEP-intensive
products
faster
parameterized royalty-stacking models
actual price and quantity data
the royalty yield
more than twenty times higher
actual royalty yield
no individual patent licensor
individual royalty consistent
no positive evidence
its core predictions
All
studies
same general conclusion
fifteen years
the empirical studies
common problem in practice
conflates
holdup
market power
holdup and market power
fallacies
structural
contractual
behavioral adap
trade and investment in equilibrium
cannot occur many times
only once
more revenues
shut down
theoretical problem
drastic
much better
profit-maximizing monopoly
charge less
incremental value
empirical problem
whole point
large technological jumps
fast pace
small incremental improvements
drastic innovations | 549 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold!",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts\nthat contradicted the theory\nThe data show that the rate of innovation in\nSEP-intensive\nproducts\nwas\nfaster\nResearchers\nparameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and\ndiscovered\nthe royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They\nfound\nno individual patent licensor earns a\nindividual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist\nthere is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions\nAll\nstudies reach the same general conclusion\nDespite\nfifteen years\nproponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies\nhave not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice\nPatent-holdup theory conflates\nholdup and market power\nand\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to\nfallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.\nfirms\nwill make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations\nto prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium\nholdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents\ncan be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.\na third fallacy: patented technologies\nadd\nno value to\nThe theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner\nArrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point\nis to make large technological jumps at a fast pace\nThey are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the theory of the peaceful Maya\nits own set of facts\ncontradicted the theory\nSEP-intensive\nproducts\nfaster\nparameterized royalty-stacking models\nactual price and quantity data\nthe royalty yield\nmore than twenty times higher\nactual royalty yield\nno individual patent licensor\nindividual royalty consistent\nno positive evidence\nits core predictions\nAll\nstudies\nsame general conclusion\nfifteen years\nthe empirical studies\ncommon problem in practice\nconflates\nholdup\nmarket power\nholdup and market power\nfallacies\nstructural\ncontractual\nbehavioral adap\ntrade and investment in equilibrium\ncannot occur many times\nonly once\nmore revenues\nshut down\ntheoretical problem\ndrastic\nmuch better\nprofit-maximizing monopoly\ncharge less\nincremental value\nempirical problem\nwhole point\nlarge technological jumps\nfast pace\nsmall incremental improvements\ndrastic innovations",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold!
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts
that contradicted the theory
The data show that the rate of innovation in
SEP-intensive
products
was
faster
Researchers
parameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and
discovered
the royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They
found
no individual patent licensor earns a
individual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist
there is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions
All
studies reach the same general conclusion
Despite
fifteen years
proponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies
have not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice
Patent-holdup theory conflates
holdup and market power
and
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to
fallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.
firms
will make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations
to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium
holdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents
can be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.
a third fallacy: patented technologies
add
no value to
The theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner
Arrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point
is to make large technological jumps at a fast pace
They are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations | patent-holdup
facts
contradicted the theory
Researchers
parameterized royalty-stacking
using actual price
data, and
discovered
the royalty
by
models is
twenty times higher than the actual
They
found
no
licensor earns a
royalty consistent with
a monopolist
Despite
fifteen years
empirical studies
have not shown
holdup or royalty stacking
theory conflates
holdup and market power
The conflation of holdup and market power leads to
fallacies
firms
adap
to prevent holdup, thereby sustaining
equilibrium
holdup
can be extracted only once. Any
more
would cause the firm to shut down.
when an innovation is “drastic”
a
monopoly will charge less than the tech
's
value | 550 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Here’s a specific study—predictive ‘models’ cited by AFF scholars inflate royalty prices 20-fold!\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Like the theory of the peaceful Maya, patent-holdup theory had its own set of facts\nthat contradicted the theory\nThe data show that the rate of innovation in\nSEP-intensive\nproducts\nwas\nfaster\nResearchers\nparameterized royalty-stacking models from the patent-holdup literature using actual price and quantity data, and\ndiscovered\nthe royalty yield predicted by the models is more than twenty times higher than the actual royalty yield and about four-fifths of the price of a smartphone. They\nfound\nno individual patent licensor earns a\nindividual royalty consistent with the hypothesis that it operated as a monopolist\nthere is no positive evidence in support of its core predictions\nAll\nstudies reach the same general conclusion\nDespite\nfifteen years\nproponents of the theories have had to amass evidence, the empirical studies\nhave not shown that holdup or royalty stacking is a common problem in practice\nPatent-holdup theory conflates\nholdup and market power\nand\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to\nfallacies that underpin patent-holdup theory.\nfirms\nwill make structural, contractual, and behavioral adaptations\nto prevent holdup, thereby sustaining trade and investment in equilibrium\nholdup cannot occur many times over to the same firm. A firm's quasi rents\ncan be extracted only once. Any attempt to extract more revenues would cause the firm to shut down.\na third fallacy: patented technologies\nadd\nno value to\nThe theoretical problem is, as Nobel Prize winner\nArrow showed in 1962, that when an innovation is “drastic” (that is, much better than the alternatives on offer) a profit-maximizing monopoly will charge less than the technology's incremental value. The empirical problem is that the whole point\nis to make large technological jumps at a fast pace\nThey are not in the business of small incremental improvements; they are in the business of creating drastic innovations",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "patent-holdup\nfacts\ncontradicted the theory\nResearchers\nparameterized royalty-stacking\nusing actual price\ndata, and\ndiscovered\nthe royalty\nby\nmodels is\ntwenty times higher than the actual\nThey\nfound\nno\nlicensor earns a\nroyalty consistent with\na monopolist\nDespite\nfifteen years\nempirical studies\nhave not shown\nholdup or royalty stacking\ntheory conflates\nholdup and market power\nThe conflation of holdup and market power leads to\nfallacies\nfirms\nadap\nto prevent holdup, thereby sustaining\nequilibrium\nholdup\ncan be extracted only once. Any\nmore\nwould cause the firm to shut down.\nwhen an innovation is “drastic”\na\nmonopoly will charge less than the tech\n's\nvalue",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan | Consult and engage with Congress. The Obama administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress, provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to challenge the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policies, but they can be rebuffed if there is consistent, close communication between the White House and the Congress, accompanied by a concerted effort to reach out to moderate conservative legislators.
| Consult and engage with Congress
The
administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress
provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to
can be rebuffed if there is consistent
close communication between the White House and the Congress | 551 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Consult and engage with Congress. The Obama administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress, provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to challenge the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policies, but they can be rebuffed if there is consistent, close communication between the White House and the Congress, accompanied by a concerted effort to reach out to moderate conservative legislators.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Consult and engage with Congress\nThe\nadministration could count on the support of a progressive Congress\nprovided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to\ncan be rebuffed if there is consistent\nclose communication between the White House and the Congress",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan | Consult and engage with Congress
The
administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress
provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to
can be rebuffed if there is consistent
close communication between the White House and the Congress | Consult
engage
Congress
provided key members of Congress are consulted
onset of the review
interim report
Conservative legislators
can be rebuffed
close communication
Congress | 552 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Consult and engage with Congress\nThe\nadministration could count on the support of a progressive Congress\nprovided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to\ncan be rebuffed if there is consistent\nclose communication between the White House and the Congress",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Consult\nengage\nCongress\nprovided key members of Congress are consulted\nonset of the review\ninterim report\nConservative legislators\ncan be rebuffed\nclose communication\nCongress",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan
Highlight Ratio: 0.7 | Consult and engage with Congress. The Obama administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress, provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to challenge the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policies, but they can be rebuffed if there is consistent, close communication between the White House and the Congress, accompanied by a concerted effort to reach out to moderate conservative legislators.
| Consult and engage with Congress
The
administration could count on
support
provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators
can be rebuffed if there is consistent
communication | 553 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 3. Politics. Fiating a doctrine change without allowing Congressional input causes a backlash against the plan\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.7",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Consult and engage with Congress. The Obama administration could count on the support of a progressive Congress, provided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators may attempt to challenge the Obama administration’s nuclear weapons policies, but they can be rebuffed if there is consistent, close communication between the White House and the Congress, accompanied by a concerted effort to reach out to moderate conservative legislators.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Consult and engage with Congress\nThe\nadministration could count on\nsupport\nprovided key members of Congress are consulted at the onset of the review and given an interim report. Conservative legislators\ncan be rebuffed if there is consistent\ncommunication",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations | The threat of terrorism has become the principal security concern in the United States since 9/11. Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism because white-collar crime issues are more the province of organized crime, but that perception is misguided. Terrorists derive funding from a variety of criminal activities ranging in scale and sophistication – from low-level crime to organized narcotics smuggling and fraud. CFEs need to know the latest links between fraud and terror. Credit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion are just some of the types of fraud commonly used to fund terrorist cells. Such groups will also use shell companies to receive and distribute illicit funds. On the surface, these companies might engage in legitimate activities to establish a positive reputation in the business community. Financing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities. The direct costs of mounting individual attacks have been relatively low considering the damage they can yield. “Part of the problem is that it takes so little to finance an operation,” said Gary LaFree, director of the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.2 For example, the 2005 London bombings cost about $15,600.3 The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole is estimated to have cost between $5,000 and $10,000.4 Al-Qaida’s entire 9/11 operation cost between $400,000 and $500,000, according to the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.5 Terrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companies.6 However, don’t think that only large operations are needed for terrorists to carry out attacks; small semi-autonomous cells in many countries are often just as capable of conducting disruptive activities without extensive outside financial help – they just conduct smaller-scale frauds.7 Even though the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed, there’s concern at state and local levels that law enforcement professionals lack specialized knowledge on how to detect the fraud-terror link because they’re more apt to investigate and prosecute violent crimes.8 A critical lack of awareness about terrorists’ links to fraud schemes is undermining the fight against terrorism. Fraud analysis must be central, not peripheral, in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior.9 | Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism
but that perception is misguided
Terrorists derive funding from
Credit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion
fund terrorist cells
Financing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities
Terrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie
the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed
Fraud analysis must be central
in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior | 554 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The threat of terrorism has become the principal security concern in the United States since 9/11. Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism because white-collar crime issues are more the province of organized crime, but that perception is misguided. Terrorists derive funding from a variety of criminal activities ranging in scale and sophistication – from low-level crime to organized narcotics smuggling and fraud. CFEs need to know the latest links between fraud and terror. Credit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion are just some of the types of fraud commonly used to fund terrorist cells. Such groups will also use shell companies to receive and distribute illicit funds. On the surface, these companies might engage in legitimate activities to establish a positive reputation in the business community. Financing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities. The direct costs of mounting individual attacks have been relatively low considering the damage they can yield. “Part of the problem is that it takes so little to finance an operation,” said Gary LaFree, director of the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.2 For example, the 2005 London bombings cost about $15,600.3 The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole is estimated to have cost between $5,000 and $10,000.4 Al-Qaida’s entire 9/11 operation cost between $400,000 and $500,000, according to the final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.5 Terrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companies.6 However, don’t think that only large operations are needed for terrorists to carry out attacks; small semi-autonomous cells in many countries are often just as capable of conducting disruptive activities without extensive outside financial help – they just conduct smaller-scale frauds.7 Even though the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed, there’s concern at state and local levels that law enforcement professionals lack specialized knowledge on how to detect the fraud-terror link because they’re more apt to investigate and prosecute violent crimes.8 A critical lack of awareness about terrorists’ links to fraud schemes is undermining the fight against terrorism. Fraud analysis must be central, not peripheral, in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior.9 ",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism\nbut that perception is misguided\nTerrorists derive funding from\nCredit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion\nfund terrorist cells\nFinancing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities\nTerrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie\nthe nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed\nFraud analysis must be central\nin understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations | Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism
but that perception is misguided
Terrorists derive funding from
Credit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion
fund terrorist cells
Financing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities
Terrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie
the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed
Fraud analysis must be central
in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior | fund terrorist cells
specific
maintaining a terrorist organization
enabling environment
sustain
terrorism
the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed
Fraud analysis must be central
in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior | 555 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism\nbut that perception is misguided\nTerrorists derive funding from\nCredit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion\nfund terrorist cells\nFinancing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities\nTerrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie\nthe nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed\nFraud analysis must be central\nin understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "fund terrorist cells\nspecific\nmaintaining a terrorist organization\nenabling environment\nsustain\nterrorism\nthe nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed\nFraud analysis must be central\nin understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism
but that perception is misguided
Terrorists derive funding from
Credit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion
fund terrorist cells
Financing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities
Terrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie
the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed
Fraud analysis must be central
in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior | Terrorists derive funding from
fraud
identity theft
laundering
and tax evasion
fund terrorist cells
Financing is required
to fund
operations
to meet
organizational costs of
maintaining a terrorist organization
create an enabling environment
Terrorist groups require significant funds to
sustain
terrorism
the nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed
Fraud analysis must be central
in understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior | 556 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Countering fraud is central to every element of terror operations\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Some might perceive that fraud isn’t linked to terrorism\nbut that perception is misguided\nTerrorists derive funding from\nCredit card fraud, wire fraud, mortgage fraud, charitable donation fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, money laundering, immigration fraud, and tax evasion\nfund terrorist cells\nFinancing is required not just to fund specific terrorist operations but to meet the broader organizational costs of developing and maintaining a terrorist organization and to create an enabling environment necessary to sustain their activities\nTerrorist groups require significant funds to create and maintain an infrastructure of organizational support, sustain an ideology of terrorism through propaganda, and finance the ostensibly legitimate activities needed to provide a veil of legitimacy for their shell companie\nthe nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed\nFraud analysis must be central\nin understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Terrorists derive funding from\nfraud\nidentity theft\nlaundering\nand tax evasion\nfund terrorist cells\nFinancing is required\nto fund\noperations\nto meet\norganizational costs of\nmaintaining a terrorist organization\ncreate an enabling environment\nTerrorist groups require significant funds to\nsustain\nterrorism\nthe nexus between fraud and terrorism is undisputed\nFraud analysis must be central\nin understanding the patterns of terrorist behavior",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Blackness exists as a metaaporia that interrogates the cyclical ways violence onto blackness is morphed and ultimately appropriated. The 1AC relies on a redemptive narrative of humanity that is fundamentally inaccessible for blacks. Their project is ultimately meant to hide and recreate moments of black death for the sake of redeeming Human life. | For most critical theorists writing after 1968, the word aporia is used to designate a contradiction in a text or theoretical undertaking. For example, Jacques Derrida suggests an aporia indicates “a point of undecidability, which locates the site at which the text most obviously undermines its own rhetorical structure, dismantles, or deconstructs itself.” But when I say that Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action, the addition of the prefix meta- goes beyond what Derrida and the poststructuralists meant—it raises the level of abstraction and, in so doing, raises the stakes. In epistemology, a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). Metadata, for example, are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in, and so on). In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself). Metadiscussion is a discussion about discussion (not any one particular topic of discussion but discussion itself). In computer science, a theoretical software engineer might be engaged in the pursuit of metaprogramming (i.e., writing programs that manipulate programs). Afropessimism, then, is less of a theory and more of a metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates. Again, Afropessimism is, in the main, more of a metatheory than a theory. It is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true. If, as Afropessimism argues, Blacks are not Human subjects, but are instead structurally inert props, implements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures, then this also means that, at a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings. Again, Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas. These so-called allies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left—think Bernie Sanders—because it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption. This crisis, no, this catastrophe, this realization that I am a sentient being who can’t use words like “being” or “person” to describe myself without the scare quotes and the threat of raised eyebrows from anyone within earshot, was crippling. I was convinced that if a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption; and if a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption; in other words, since postcolonial and working-class redemption were possible, then there must be a story to be told through which one could redeem the time and place of Black subjugation. I was wrong. I had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism. I had looked to theory (first as a creative writer, and only much later as a critical theorist) to help me find/create the story of Black liberation—Black political redemption. What I found instead was that redemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.” The parasites had been capital, colonialism, patriarchy, homophobia. And now it was clear that I had missed the boat. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots. If critical theory and radical politics are to rid themselves of the parasitism that they heretofore have had in common with radical and progressive movements on the Left, that is, if we are to engage, rather than disavow, the difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern (a narrative, for example, of Palestinian plenitude, loss, and restoration) is made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption. This requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence. Sameer and I didn’t share a universal, postcolonial grammar of suffering. Sameer’s loss is tangible, land. The paradigm of his dispossession elaborates capitalism and the colony. When it is not tangible it is at least coherent, as in the loss of labor power. But how does one describe the loss that makes the world if all that can be said of loss is locked within the world? How does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”? Sameer forced me to face the depth of my isolation in ways I had wanted to avoid; a deep pit from which neither postcolonial theory, nor Marxism, nor a gender politics of unflinching feminism could rescue me. Why is anti-Black violence not a form of racist hatred but the genome of Human renewal; a therapeutic balm that the Human race needs to know and heal itself? Why must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence? Why must the world find its nourishment in Black flesh? | , a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).
Afropessimism
is
a metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates.
It is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true.
Blacks are not Human subjects
implements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures
at a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings.
Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas.
allies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left
because it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption
if a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption
if a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption
I had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism
redemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.”
. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots.
the difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern
is made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption
This requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence.
How does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”?
Why must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence | 557 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Blackness exists as a metaaporia that interrogates the cyclical ways violence onto blackness is morphed and ultimately appropriated. The 1AC relies on a redemptive narrative of humanity that is fundamentally inaccessible for blacks. Their project is ultimately meant to hide and recreate moments of black death for the sake of redeeming Human life.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "For most critical theorists writing after 1968, the word aporia is used to designate a contradiction in a text or theoretical undertaking. For example, Jacques Derrida suggests an aporia indicates “a point of undecidability, which locates the site at which the text most obviously undermines its own rhetorical structure, dismantles, or deconstructs itself.” But when I say that Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action, the addition of the prefix meta- goes beyond what Derrida and the poststructuralists meant—it raises the level of abstraction and, in so doing, raises the stakes. In epistemology, a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). Metadata, for example, are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in, and so on). In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself). Metadiscussion is a discussion about discussion (not any one particular topic of discussion but discussion itself). In computer science, a theoretical software engineer might be engaged in the pursuit of metaprogramming (i.e., writing programs that manipulate programs). Afropessimism, then, is less of a theory and more of a metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates. Again, Afropessimism is, in the main, more of a metatheory than a theory. It is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true. If, as Afropessimism argues, Blacks are not Human subjects, but are instead structurally inert props, implements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures, then this also means that, at a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings. Again, Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas. These so-called allies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left—think Bernie Sanders—because it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption. This crisis, no, this catastrophe, this realization that I am a sentient being who can’t use words like “being” or “person” to describe myself without the scare quotes and the threat of raised eyebrows from anyone within earshot, was crippling. I was convinced that if a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption; and if a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption; in other words, since postcolonial and working-class redemption were possible, then there must be a story to be told through which one could redeem the time and place of Black subjugation. I was wrong. I had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism. I had looked to theory (first as a creative writer, and only much later as a critical theorist) to help me find/create the story of Black liberation—Black political redemption. What I found instead was that redemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.” The parasites had been capital, colonialism, patriarchy, homophobia. And now it was clear that I had missed the boat. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots. If critical theory and radical politics are to rid themselves of the parasitism that they heretofore have had in common with radical and progressive movements on the Left, that is, if we are to engage, rather than disavow, the difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern (a narrative, for example, of Palestinian plenitude, loss, and restoration) is made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption. This requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence. Sameer and I didn’t share a universal, postcolonial grammar of suffering. Sameer’s loss is tangible, land. The paradigm of his dispossession elaborates capitalism and the colony. When it is not tangible it is at least coherent, as in the loss of labor power. But how does one describe the loss that makes the world if all that can be said of loss is locked within the world? How does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”? Sameer forced me to face the depth of my isolation in ways I had wanted to avoid; a deep pit from which neither postcolonial theory, nor Marxism, nor a gender politics of unflinching feminism could rescue me. Why is anti-Black violence not a form of racist hatred but the genome of Human renewal; a therapeutic balm that the Human race needs to know and heal itself? Why must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence? Why must the world find its nourishment in Black flesh?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ", a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).\nAfropessimism\nis\na metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates.\nIt is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true.\nBlacks are not Human subjects\nimplements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures\nat a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings.\nBlack people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas.\nallies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left\nbecause it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption\nif a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption\nif a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption\nI had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism\nredemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.”\n. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots.\nthe difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern\nis made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption\nThis requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence.\nHow does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”?\nWhy must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Blackness exists as a metaaporia that interrogates the cyclical ways violence onto blackness is morphed and ultimately appropriated. The 1AC relies on a redemptive narrative of humanity that is fundamentally inaccessible for blacks. Their project is ultimately meant to hide and recreate moments of black death for the sake of redeeming Human life.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | , a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).
Afropessimism
is
a metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates.
It is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true.
Blacks are not Human subjects
implements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures
at a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings.
Black people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas.
allies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left
because it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption
if a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption
if a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption
I had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism
redemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.”
. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots.
the difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern
is made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption
This requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence.
How does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”?
Why must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence | Afropessimism
is
a metatheory:
that
interrogates
unspoken,
logic
through rigorous theoretical consideration of
properties
foundations, methods, form, and utility;
It is pessimistic about
claims
of liberation
when these
try to explain Black suffering or
analogize
with the suffering of other oppressed beings.
Blacks are not Human
at a higher level of abstraction,
claims of universal humanity
are
[constricted] by a meta-aporia
A Black radical agenda is terrifying to
the Left
because it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of
redemption
a story of Palestinian redemption
would culminate in the return of the land
a story of class redemption
would culminate in the restoration of the working day
redemption,
fed upon me for its coherence
the difference between Humans who suffer through
disposability” and Blacks who suffer by
social death,”
is made possible by the
regime of violence that bars Black people from
redemption
How does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”? | 559 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Blackness exists as a metaaporia that interrogates the cyclical ways violence onto blackness is morphed and ultimately appropriated. The 1AC relies on a redemptive narrative of humanity that is fundamentally inaccessible for blacks. Their project is ultimately meant to hide and recreate moments of black death for the sake of redeeming Human life.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": ", a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level of abstraction to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).\nAfropessimism\nis\na metatheory: a critical project that, by deploying Blackness as a lens of interpretation, interrogates the unspoken, assumptive logic of Marxism, postcolonialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism through rigorous theoretical consideration of their properties and assumptive logic, such as their foundations, methods, form, and utility; and it does so, again, on a higher level of abstraction than the discourse and methods of the theories it interrogates.\nIt is pessimistic about the claims theories of liberation make when these theories try to explain Black suffering or when they analogize Black suffering with the suffering of other oppressed beings. It does this by unearthing and exposing the meta-aporias, strewn like land mines in what these theories of so-called universal liberation hold to be true.\nBlacks are not Human subjects\nimplements for the execution of White and non-Black fantasies and sadomasochistic pleasures\nat a higher level of abstraction, the claims of universal humanity that the above theories all subscribe to are hobbled [constricted] by a meta-aporia: a contradiction that manifests whenever one looks seriously at the structure of Black suffering in comparison to the presumed universal structure of all sentient beings.\nBlack people embody a meta-aporia for political thought and action— Black people are the wrench in the works. Blacks do not function as political subjects; instead, our flesh and energies are instrumentalized for postcolonial, immigrant, feminist, LGBTQ, transgender, and workers’ agendas.\nallies are never authorized by Black agendas predicated on Black ethical dilemmas. A Black radical agenda is terrifying to most people on the Left\nbecause it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of social, political, or national redemption\nif a story of Palestinian redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the return of the land, a spatial, cartographic redemption\nif a story of class redemption could be told . . . its denouement would culminate in the restoration of the working day so that one stopped working when surplus values were relegated to the dustbin of history, a temporal redemption\nI had not dug deep enough to see that though Blacks suffer the time and space subjugation of cartographic deracination and the hydraulics of the capitalist working day, we also suffer as the hosts of Human parasites, though they themselves might be the hosts of parasitic capital and colonialism\nredemption, as a narrative mode, was a parasite that fed upon me for its coherence. Everything meaningful in my life had been housed under the umbrellas called “critical theory” and “radical politics.”\n. My parasites were Humans, all Humans—the haves as well as the have-nots.\nthe difference between Humans who suffer through an “economy of disposability” and Blacks who suffer by way of “social death,” then we must come to grips with how the redemption of the subaltern\nis made possible by the (re)instantiation of a regime of violence that bars Black people from the narrative of redemption\nThis requires (a) an understanding of the difference between loss and absence, and (b) an understanding of how the narrative of subaltern loss stands on the rubble of Black absence.\nHow does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”?\nWhy must the world reproduce this violence, this social death, so that social life can regenerate Humans and prevent them from suffering the catastrophe of psychic incoherence— absence",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Afropessimism\nis\na metatheory:\nthat\ninterrogates\nunspoken,\nlogic\nthrough rigorous theoretical consideration of\nproperties\nfoundations, methods, form, and utility;\nIt is pessimistic about\nclaims\nof liberation\nwhen these\ntry to explain Black suffering or\nanalogize\nwith the suffering of other oppressed beings.\nBlacks are not Human\nat a higher level of abstraction,\nclaims of universal humanity\nare\n[constricted] by a meta-aporia\nA Black radical agenda is terrifying to\nthe Left\nbecause it emanates from a condition of suffering for which there is no imaginable strategy for redress—no narrative of\nredemption\na story of Palestinian redemption\nwould culminate in the return of the land\na story of class redemption\nwould culminate in the restoration of the working day\nredemption,\nfed upon me for its coherence\nthe difference between Humans who suffer through\ndisposability” and Blacks who suffer by\nsocial death,”\nis made possible by the\nregime of violence that bars Black people from\nredemption\nHow does one narrate the loss of loss? What is the “difference between . . . something to save . . . [and nothing] to lose”?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior. | A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to better accord with the interests of the CCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order and the stability and prosperity it has achieved. This is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in its coercive tactics that seek to assert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the United States and its allies, which have underpinned this order in terms of both power and legitimacy.
In the East China Sea, a dispute between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands continues to fester, even though Japan has administered the islands since 1895 as a result of its victory in the First Sino-Japanese War. Although tensions between China and Japan over the islands have ebbed and flowed, particularly since the early 2000s, recent years have seen the dispute grow ever more strident. In 2010, a Chinese fishing vessel rammed two Japanese Coast Guard ships. Japan held the captain for seventeen days, prompting demonstrations in both countries. In 2012, as a result of burgeoning nationalism across sectors of Japan’s politics, the mayor of Tokyo announced a plan to purchase three of the islands. To prevent this, the Japanese government purchased them instead. Large protests erupted in major cities across China,66 and Chinese incursions into the islands’ territorial waters spiked dramatically,67 raising the odds of a collision or other military incident in the vicinity. Chinese vessels routinely operate within close proximity of these vessels, and suggest ambitions from Beijing to eventually bring the islands under its administration.
Similarly, the South China Sea has been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly and/or Paracel Islands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a large “nine-dash line” across most of the sea itself, cutting across the claims of every other nation involved. And though Beijing has not clarified the specific nature of its claims (e.g., whether it claims all the waters or just the land features within the line), the US State Department has argued that China’s position is incompatible with established international law.68
Nevertheless, in December 2013, China began reclaiming land to build up the features under its control. By June 2015, the PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys—seventeen times more land in twenty months than the other claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for about 95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands.69 The Philippines filed a 2013 case against China with an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the tribunal’s 2016 decision, it ruled that China’s claimed features in the Spratlys were incapable of generating exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and that its nine-dash line had no basis in international law. The tribunal also declared illegal Chinese fishing and other activities in the Philippines’ EEZ and around other land features, along with Chinese military installations on seven Spratly formations. Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has softened his country’s position on China since taking office in 2016, just before the tribunal’s decision, though there have been instances since when Duterte has taken a less conciliatory approach to Beijing. Meanwhile, ASEAN has likewise omitted references to Chinese land reclamation in its official statements.70 | A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to
accord with the
CCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order
This is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in
coercive tactics that
assert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U
S
and its allies, which
underpinned this order in terms of
power and legitimacy
In the E
C
S
recent years have seen the dispute grow
strident
a Chinese
rammed
Japanese
ships
Chinese vessels routinely operate within
proximity
and suggest ambitions from Beijing to
bring the islands under its administration
the S
C
S
has been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly
Islands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a
“nine-dash line” across
the sea itself, cutting across
every other nation involved
China’s position is incompatible with established international law
China began reclaiming land to build up
features under its
the PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys
seventeen times more land in twenty months than
other claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for
95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands
the tribunal
ruled that China’s claimed features
were incapable of generating e
e
z
its nine-dash line had no basis in international law | 560 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to better accord with the interests of the CCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order and the stability and prosperity it has achieved. This is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in its coercive tactics that seek to assert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the United States and its allies, which have underpinned this order in terms of both power and legitimacy. \nIn the East China Sea, a dispute between China and Japan over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands continues to fester, even though Japan has administered the islands since 1895 as a result of its victory in the First Sino-Japanese War. Although tensions between China and Japan over the islands have ebbed and flowed, particularly since the early 2000s, recent years have seen the dispute grow ever more strident. In 2010, a Chinese fishing vessel rammed two Japanese Coast Guard ships. Japan held the captain for seventeen days, prompting demonstrations in both countries. In 2012, as a result of burgeoning nationalism across sectors of Japan’s politics, the mayor of Tokyo announced a plan to purchase three of the islands. To prevent this, the Japanese government purchased them instead. Large protests erupted in major cities across China,66 and Chinese incursions into the islands’ territorial waters spiked dramatically,67 raising the odds of a collision or other military incident in the vicinity. Chinese vessels routinely operate within close proximity of these vessels, and suggest ambitions from Beijing to eventually bring the islands under its administration.\nSimilarly, the South China Sea has been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly and/or Paracel Islands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a large “nine-dash line” across most of the sea itself, cutting across the claims of every other nation involved. And though Beijing has not clarified the specific nature of its claims (e.g., whether it claims all the waters or just the land features within the line), the US State Department has argued that China’s position is incompatible with established international law.68 \nNevertheless, in December 2013, China began reclaiming land to build up the features under its control. By June 2015, the PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys—seventeen times more land in twenty months than the other claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for about 95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands.69 The Philippines filed a 2013 case against China with an arbitral tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the tribunal’s 2016 decision, it ruled that China’s claimed features in the Spratlys were incapable of generating exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and that its nine-dash line had no basis in international law. The tribunal also declared illegal Chinese fishing and other activities in the Philippines’ EEZ and around other land features, along with Chinese military installations on seven Spratly formations. Philippines president Rodrigo Duterte has softened his country’s position on China since taking office in 2016, just before the tribunal’s decision, though there have been instances since when Duterte has taken a less conciliatory approach to Beijing. Meanwhile, ASEAN has likewise omitted references to Chinese land reclamation in its official statements.70 ",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to\naccord with the\nCCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order\nThis is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in\ncoercive tactics that\nassert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U\nS\nand its allies, which\nunderpinned this order in terms of\npower and legitimacy\nIn the E\nC\nS\nrecent years have seen the dispute grow\nstrident\na Chinese\nrammed\nJapanese\nships\nChinese vessels routinely operate within\nproximity\nand suggest ambitions from Beijing to\nbring the islands under its administration\nthe S\nC\nS\nhas been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly\nIslands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a\n“nine-dash line” across\nthe sea itself, cutting across\nevery other nation involved\nChina’s position is incompatible with established international law\nChina began reclaiming land to build up\nfeatures under its\nthe PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys\nseventeen times more land in twenty months than\nother claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for\n95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands\nthe tribunal\nruled that China’s claimed features\nwere incapable of generating e\ne\nz\nits nine-dash line had no basis in international law",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior. | A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to
accord with the
CCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order
This is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in
coercive tactics that
assert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U
S
and its allies, which
underpinned this order in terms of
power and legitimacy
In the E
C
S
recent years have seen the dispute grow
strident
a Chinese
rammed
Japanese
ships
Chinese vessels routinely operate within
proximity
and suggest ambitions from Beijing to
bring the islands under its administration
the S
C
S
has been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly
Islands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a
“nine-dash line” across
the sea itself, cutting across
every other nation involved
China’s position is incompatible with established international law
China began reclaiming land to build up
features under its
the PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys
seventeen times more land in twenty months than
other claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for
95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands
the tribunal
ruled that China’s claimed features
were incapable of generating e
e
z
its nine-dash line had no basis in international law | rising China
dominate
reconfigure
regional order
undermine
liberal character
multiple domains
geographic locations
consistent
rewrite
existing order
any country
coercive tactics
expansionist
international law
weaken the bonds
U
S
E
C
S
routinely operate
ambitions
S
C
S
regional tensions
Taiwan
Vietnam
Philippines
Malaysia
Brunei
geopolitically significant
nine-dash line
every other nation
incompatible
reclaiming
2,900 acres
artificial islands
combined
forty years
95 percent
incapable
e
e
z
no basis
international law | 561 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to\naccord with the\nCCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order\nThis is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in\ncoercive tactics that\nassert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U\nS\nand its allies, which\nunderpinned this order in terms of\npower and legitimacy\nIn the E\nC\nS\nrecent years have seen the dispute grow\nstrident\na Chinese\nrammed\nJapanese\nships\nChinese vessels routinely operate within\nproximity\nand suggest ambitions from Beijing to\nbring the islands under its administration\nthe S\nC\nS\nhas been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly\nIslands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a\n“nine-dash line” across\nthe sea itself, cutting across\nevery other nation involved\nChina’s position is incompatible with established international law\nChina began reclaiming land to build up\nfeatures under its\nthe PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys\nseventeen times more land in twenty months than\nother claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for\n95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands\nthe tribunal\nruled that China’s claimed features\nwere incapable of generating e\ne\nz\nits nine-dash line had no basis in international law",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "rising China\ndominate\nreconfigure\nregional order\nundermine\nliberal character\nmultiple domains\ngeographic locations\nconsistent\nrewrite\nexisting order\nany country\ncoercive tactics\nexpansionist\ninternational law\nweaken the bonds\nU\nS\nE\nC\nS\nroutinely operate\nambitions\nS\nC\nS\nregional tensions\nTaiwan\nVietnam\nPhilippines\nMalaysia\nBrunei\ngeopolitically significant\nnine-dash line\nevery other nation\nincompatible\nreclaiming\n2,900 acres\nartificial islands\ncombined\nforty years\n95 percent\nincapable\ne\ne\nz\nno basis\ninternational law",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior.
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to
accord with the
CCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order
This is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in
coercive tactics that
assert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U
S
and its allies, which
underpinned this order in terms of
power and legitimacy
In the E
C
S
recent years have seen the dispute grow
strident
a Chinese
rammed
Japanese
ships
Chinese vessels routinely operate within
proximity
and suggest ambitions from Beijing to
bring the islands under its administration
the S
C
S
has been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly
Islands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a
“nine-dash line” across
the sea itself, cutting across
every other nation involved
China’s position is incompatible with established international law
China began reclaiming land to build up
features under its
the PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys
seventeen times more land in twenty months than
other claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for
95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands
the tribunal
ruled that China’s claimed features
were incapable of generating e
e
z
its nine-dash line had no basis in international law | China with ambitions to dominate
the
order
undermine
the Indo-Pacific
crosses
domains and
locations
the theme is consistent
rewrite the
order, and
challenge any country
This can be seen in
expansionist
claims with no
i
law
the S
C
S
Taiwan, Vietnam,
Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei
artificial islands
accounting for
95 percent of all
land
incapable of generating
basis in i
law | 562 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2. PREDICTIVE ACCURACY – they’ve repeatedly demonstrated revisionist tactics across the board AND consistently match expected behavior.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "A rising China with ambitions to dominate Asia and reconfigure the regional order to\naccord with the\nCCP threatens to undermine the liberal character of the Indo-Pacific order\nThis is a challenge that crosses multiple domains and geographic locations, yet the theme is consistent: Beijing seeks to rewrite the existing order, and will challenge any country it perceives to be unsupportive of its ambitions. This can be seen in\ncoercive tactics that\nassert expansionist territorial and maritime claims with no basis in international law, and by its efforts to weaken the bonds between the U\nS\nand its allies, which\nunderpinned this order in terms of\npower and legitimacy\nIn the E\nC\nS\nrecent years have seen the dispute grow\nstrident\na Chinese\nrammed\nJapanese\nships\nChinese vessels routinely operate within\nproximity\nand suggest ambitions from Beijing to\nbring the islands under its administration\nthe S\nC\nS\nhas been a locus for regional tensions wrought by Chinese ambitions. Although China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei all claim features in the Spratly\nIslands, the most geopolitically significant claim is that of China, which has drawn a\n“nine-dash line” across\nthe sea itself, cutting across\nevery other nation involved\nChina’s position is incompatible with established international law\nChina began reclaiming land to build up\nfeatures under its\nthe PRC had constructed over 2,900 acres of artificial islands in the Spratlys\nseventeen times more land in twenty months than\nother claimants combined over the past forty years, accounting for\n95 percent of all reclaimed land in the Spratly Islands\nthe tribunal\nruled that China’s claimed features\nwere incapable of generating e\ne\nz\nits nine-dash line had no basis in international law",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "China with ambitions to dominate\nthe\norder\nundermine\nthe Indo-Pacific\ncrosses\ndomains and\nlocations\nthe theme is consistent\nrewrite the\norder, and\nchallenge any country\nThis can be seen in\nexpansionist\nclaims with no\ni\nlaw\nthe S\nC\nS\nTaiwan, Vietnam,\nPhilippines, Malaysia, and Brunei\nartificial islands\naccounting for\n95 percent of all\nland\nincapable of generating\nbasis in i\nlaw",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. NOR impact. | Global Zero advocates, such as political scientist Scott Sagan, worry about the transactional issues of WMD possession because they are uniquely dangerous weapons. Indeed, theft, loss, rogue scientists, and so on are legitimate fears. But they are no more resonant with South Korea or Japan than with any other nuclear weapons state. Indeed, as liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible, as Britain and France have been.
No one seriously believes Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike on an opponent; set up something like the A.Q. Khan proliferation network; sell WMDs to terrorists or other rogues; put Homer Simpson in charge of nuclear safety; or be so sloppy as to require something like the Nunn-Lugar program. Even Pakistan and India have been better with their arsenals than the panic of the late 1990s suggested. Even dictatorships have been cautious about these issues. And as democracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint, democratic peace theory suggests they would be good stewards, certainly better than East Asia’s autocratic nuclear powers.
MARKED
There is generalized anxiety about a regional arms race, which South Korean/Japanese nuclearization might exacerbate. Perhaps, but as noted above, there is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and North Korea have all moved first. China and Russia have established nuclear arsenals and no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s growing rhetorical invocation of its nuclear weapons is a disturbing evolution. North Korea repeatedly agreed, non-bindingly since 1992, to avoid nuclear weapons—only to exit the NPT and keep building. It now has intercontinental ballistic missiles and several dozen nuclear warheads.
| advocates
worry about
theft, loss, rogue scientists, and so
as liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible
No one
believes Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike
set up
proliferation network; sell WMDs
put Homer Simpson in charge of
safety; or be
sloppy
dictatorships have been cautious about these issues
democracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint
suggests they would be good stewards
generalized anxiety about a regional arms race
there is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No
Ko
have all moved first
and no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s
rhetorical invocation
is a disturbing evolution. No
Ko
exit the NPT and keep building | 563 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. NOR impact.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Global Zero advocates, such as political scientist Scott Sagan, worry about the transactional issues of WMD possession because they are uniquely dangerous weapons. Indeed, theft, loss, rogue scientists, and so on are legitimate fears. But they are no more resonant with South Korea or Japan than with any other nuclear weapons state. Indeed, as liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible, as Britain and France have been.\nNo one seriously believes Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike on an opponent; set up something like the A.Q. Khan proliferation network; sell WMDs to terrorists or other rogues; put Homer Simpson in charge of nuclear safety; or be so sloppy as to require something like the Nunn-Lugar program. Even Pakistan and India have been better with their arsenals than the panic of the late 1990s suggested. Even dictatorships have been cautious about these issues. And as democracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint, democratic peace theory suggests they would be good stewards, certainly better than East Asia’s autocratic nuclear powers.\nMARKED\nThere is generalized anxiety about a regional arms race, which South Korean/Japanese nuclearization might exacerbate. Perhaps, but as noted above, there is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and North Korea have all moved first. China and Russia have established nuclear arsenals and no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s growing rhetorical invocation of its nuclear weapons is a disturbing evolution. North Korea repeatedly agreed, non-bindingly since 1992, to avoid nuclear weapons—only to exit the NPT and keep building. It now has intercontinental ballistic missiles and several dozen nuclear warheads.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "advocates\nworry about\ntheft, loss, rogue scientists, and so\nas liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible\nNo one\nbelieves Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike\nset up\nproliferation network; sell WMDs\nput Homer Simpson in charge of\nsafety; or be\nsloppy\ndictatorships have been cautious about these issues\ndemocracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint\nsuggests they would be good stewards\ngeneralized anxiety about a regional arms race\nthere is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No\nKo\nhave all moved first\nand no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s\nrhetorical invocation\nis a disturbing evolution. No\nKo\nexit the NPT and keep building",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. NOR impact. | advocates
worry about
theft, loss, rogue scientists, and so
as liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible
No one
believes Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike
set up
proliferation network; sell WMDs
put Homer Simpson in charge of
safety; or be
sloppy
dictatorships have been cautious about these issues
democracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint
suggests they would be good stewards
generalized anxiety about a regional arms race
there is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No
Ko
have all moved first
and no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s
rhetorical invocation
is a disturbing evolution. No
Ko
exit the NPT and keep building | theft
loss
rogue scientists
democracies
robust state capacities
nuclear energy
responsible
out-of-the-blue
proliferation
sell WMDs
Simpson
sloppy
cautious
democracies
foreign-policy restraint
good stewards
arms race
no local cascade
China
Russia
No
Ko
no intention
invocation
exit
NPT | 564 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. NOR impact.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "advocates\nworry about\ntheft, loss, rogue scientists, and so\nas liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible\nNo one\nbelieves Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike\nset up\nproliferation network; sell WMDs\nput Homer Simpson in charge of\nsafety; or be\nsloppy\ndictatorships have been cautious about these issues\ndemocracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint\nsuggests they would be good stewards\ngeneralized anxiety about a regional arms race\nthere is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No\nKo\nhave all moved first\nand no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s\nrhetorical invocation\nis a disturbing evolution. No\nKo\nexit the NPT and keep building",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "theft\nloss\nrogue scientists\ndemocracies\nrobust state capacities\nnuclear energy\nresponsible\nout-of-the-blue\nproliferation\nsell WMDs\nSimpson\nsloppy\ncautious\ndemocracies\nforeign-policy restraint\ngood stewards\narms race\nno local cascade\nChina\nRussia\nNo\nKo\nno intention\ninvocation\nexit\nNPT",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 2. NOR impact.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | advocates
worry about
theft, loss, rogue scientists, and so
as liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible
No one
believes Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike
set up
proliferation network; sell WMDs
put Homer Simpson in charge of
safety; or be
sloppy
dictatorships have been cautious about these issues
democracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint
suggests they would be good stewards
generalized anxiety about a regional arms race
there is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No
Ko
have all moved first
and no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s
rhetorical invocation
is a disturbing evolution. No
Ko
exit the NPT and keep building | advocates
worry
democracies with
state capacities and
nuc
energy
they will
be
responsible
No one
believes
out-of-the-blue
strike
prolif
sell WMDs
dictatorships
been cautious
democracies
would be good
local cascade
already occurred
China
Russia
and No
Ko
have
no intention of complying | 565 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2. NOR impact.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "advocates\nworry about\ntheft, loss, rogue scientists, and so\nas liberal democracies with robust state capacities and preexisting, well-managed nuclear energy programs, they will likely be quite responsible\nNo one\nbelieves Seoul or Tokyo will launch an out-of-the-blue, nuclear-first strike\nset up\nproliferation network; sell WMDs\nput Homer Simpson in charge of\nsafety; or be\nsloppy\ndictatorships have been cautious about these issues\ndemocracies with a history of foreign-policy restraint\nsuggests they would be good stewards\ngeneralized anxiety about a regional arms race\nthere is no local cascade to be sparked because it has already occurred. China, Russia, and No\nKo\nhave all moved first\nand no intention of complying with the build-down imperative. Russia’s\nrhetorical invocation\nis a disturbing evolution. No\nKo\nexit the NPT and keep building",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "advocates\nworry\ndemocracies with\nstate capacities and\nnuc\nenergy\nthey will\nbe\nresponsible\nNo one\nbelieves\nout-of-the-blue\nstrike\nprolif\nsell WMDs\ndictatorships\nbeen cautious\ndemocracies\nwould be good\nlocal cascade\nalready occurred\nChina\nRussia\nand No\nKo\nhave\nno intention of complying",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter. | Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death.
These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race. In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life.
A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war,” begins by stating: “A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.”
In 2009, I wrote “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflicts” for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The article summarizes the findings of these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer.
Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway. Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic. In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged. Furthermore, Counterforce doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield.
Both the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning. Both the US and Russian Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase,” which allows them to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds.
Yet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed US and Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.”
More recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council. It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives? We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war.
Even more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. By concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war.
Colonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy.” Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.
| Nuclear war has no winner
the world’s leading climatologists
published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war
They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer
These peer-reviewed studies
which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error
predict that a war fought with
nuclear weapons would destroy the human race
create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life
A nuclear war
could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction
It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer
vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth
as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions
temperatures
would fall below freezing every day
; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons
No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool
would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout
uninhabitable
the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death
Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic
US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy”
that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against
Chinese
nuclear forces and completely destroy them
Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy
Primacy
used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions
even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity. | 566 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. \nThese peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race. In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life. \nA recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war,” begins by stating: “A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.” \nIn 2009, I wrote “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflicts” for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The article summarizes the findings of these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer. \nFollowing a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations. \nElectromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway. Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic. In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged. Furthermore, Counterforce doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield. \nBoth the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning. Both the US and Russian Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase,” which allows them to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds. \nYet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed US and Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.” \nMore recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council. It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives? We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war. \nEven more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. By concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war. \nColonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy.” Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Nuclear war has no winner\nthe world’s leading climatologists\npublished a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war\nThey concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer\nThese peer-reviewed studies\nwhich were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error\npredict that a war fought with\nnuclear weapons would destroy the human race\ncreate such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life\nA nuclear war\ncould produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction\nIt explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer\nvastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth\nas well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions\ntemperatures\nwould fall below freezing every day\n; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons\nNo crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.\nElectromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool\nwould boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout\nuninhabitable\nthe survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death\nTheories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic\nUS foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy”\nthat is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against\nChinese\nnuclear forces and completely destroy them\nNuclear Primacy is a Fallacy\nPrimacy\nused faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions\neven a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter. | Nuclear war has no winner
the world’s leading climatologists
published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war
They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer
These peer-reviewed studies
which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error
predict that a war fought with
nuclear weapons would destroy the human race
create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life
A nuclear war
could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction
It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer
vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth
as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions
temperatures
would fall below freezing every day
; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons
No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool
would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout
uninhabitable
the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death
Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic
US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy”
that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against
Chinese
nuclear forces and completely destroy them
Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy
Primacy
used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions
even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity. | even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate
analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error
an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction
Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy
even a “successful” nuclear first-strike
perish from nuclear famine | 567 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Nuclear war has no winner\nthe world’s leading climatologists\npublished a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war\nThey concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer\nThese peer-reviewed studies\nwhich were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error\npredict that a war fought with\nnuclear weapons would destroy the human race\ncreate such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life\nA nuclear war\ncould produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction\nIt explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer\nvastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth\nas well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions\ntemperatures\nwould fall below freezing every day\n; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons\nNo crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.\nElectromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool\nwould boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout\nuninhabitable\nthe survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death\nTheories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic\nUS foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy”\nthat is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against\nChinese\nnuclear forces and completely destroy them\nNuclear Primacy is a Fallacy\nPrimacy\nused faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions\neven a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate\nanalyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error\nan attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction\nNuclear Primacy is a Fallacy\neven a “successful” nuclear first-strike\nperish from nuclear famine",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter.
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death.
These peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race. In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life.
A recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war,” begins by stating: “A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.”
In 2009, I wrote “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflicts” for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The article summarizes the findings of these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer.
Following a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations.
Electromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway. Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic. In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged. Furthermore, Counterforce doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield.
Both the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning. Both the US and Russian Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase,” which allows them to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds.
Yet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed US and Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.”
More recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council. It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives? We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war.
Even more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. By concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war.
Colonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy.” Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.
| even
small
nuclear war
catastrophic disruptions of global climate
massive destruction of Earth’s
ozone layer
analyzed by the best scientists
leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life
attack by either side could be
self-assured destruction
nuclear firestorms
produce
smoke
remain for at least a decade
Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown
uninhabitable
the survivors of the nuclear war
Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy
even a “successful” nuclear first-strike
cause the citizens
to perish from nuclear famine | 568 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Nuclear war causes extinction---nuclear winter.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Nuclear war has no winner. Beginning in 2006, several of the world’s leading climatologists (at Rutgers, UCLA, John Hopkins University, and the University of Colorado-Boulder) published a series of studies that evaluated the long-term environmental consequences of a nuclear war, including baseline scenarios fought with merely 1% of the explosive power in the US and/or Russian launch-ready nuclear arsenals. They concluded that the consequences of even a “small” nuclear war would include catastrophic disruptions of global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer. These and more recent studies predict that global agriculture would be so negatively affected by such a war, a global famine would result, which would cause up to 2 billion people to starve to death. \nThese peer-reviewed studies – which were analyzed by the best scientists in the world and found to be without error – also predict that a war fought with less than half of US or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would destroy the human race. In other words, a US-Russian nuclear war would create such extreme long-term damage to the global environment that it would leave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life. \nA recent article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war,” begins by stating: “A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under New START, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction.” \nIn 2009, I wrote “Catastrophic Climatic Consequences of Nuclear Conflicts” for the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The article summarizes the findings of these studies. It explains that nuclear firestorms would produce millions of tons of smoke, which would rise above cloud level and form a global stratospheric smoke layer that would rapidly encircle the Earth. The smoke layer would remain for at least a decade, and it would act to destroy the protective ozone layer (vastly increasing the UV-B reaching Earth) as well as block warming sunlight, thus creating Ice Age weather conditions that would last 10 years or longer. \nFollowing a US-Russian nuclear war, temperatures in the central US and Eurasia would fall below freezing every day for one to three years; the intense cold would completely eliminate growing seasons for a decade or longer. No crops could be grown, leading to a famine that would kill most humans and large animal populations. \nElectromagnetic pulse from high-altitude nuclear detonations would destroy the integrated circuits in all modern electronic devices, including those in commercial nuclear power plants. Every nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown; every nuclear spent fuel pool (which contain many times more radioactivity than found in the reactors) would boil off, releasing vast amounts of long-lived radioactivity. The fallout would make most of the US and Europe uninhabitable. Of course, the survivors of the nuclear war would be starving to death anyway. Once nuclear weapons were introduced into a US-Russian conflict, there would be little chance that a nuclear holocaust could be avoided. Theories of “limited nuclear war” and “nuclear de-escalation” are unrealistic. In 2002 the Bush administration modified US strategic doctrine from a retaliatory role to permit preemptive nuclear attack; in 2010, the Obama administration made only incremental and miniscule changes to this doctrine, leaving it essentially unchanged. Furthermore, Counterforce doctrine – used by both the US and Russian military – emphasizes the need for preemptive strikes once nuclear war begins. Both sides would be under immense pressure to launch a preemptive nuclear first-strike once military hostilities had commenced, especially if nuclear weapons had already been used on the battlefield. \nBoth the US and Russia each have 400 to 500 launch-ready ballistic missiles armed with a total of at least 1800 strategic nuclear warheads, which can be launched with only a few minutes warning. Both the US and Russian Presidents are accompanied 24/7 by military officers carrying a “nuclear briefcase,” which allows them to transmit the permission order to launch in a matter of seconds. \nYet top political leaders and policymakers of both the US and Russia seem to be unaware that their launch-ready nuclear weapons represent a self-destruct mechanism for the human race. For example, in 2010, I was able to publicly question the chief negotiators of the New START treaty, Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and (then) US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, during their joint briefing at the UN (during the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference). I asked them if they were familiar with the recent peer-reviewed studies that predicted the detonation of less than 1% of the explosive power contained in the operational and deployed US and Russian nuclear forces would cause catastrophic changes in the global climate, and that a nuclear war fought with their strategic nuclear weapons would kill most people on Earth. They both answered “no.” \nMore recently, on April 20, 2014, I asked the same question and received the same answer from the US officials sent to brief representatives of the NGOS at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee meeting at the UN. None of the US officials at the briefing were aware of the studies. Those present included top officials of the National Security Council. It is frightening that President Obama and his administration appear unaware that the world’s leading scientists have for years predicted that a nuclear war fought with the US and/or Russian strategic nuclear arsenal means the end of human history. Do they not know of the existential threat these arsenals pose to the human race . . . or do they choose to remain silent because this fact doesn’t fit into their official narratives? We hear only about terrorist threats that could destroy a city with an atomic bomb, while the threat of human extinction from nuclear war is never mentioned – even when the US and Russia are each running huge nuclear war games in preparation for a US-Russian war. \nEven more frightening is the fact that the neocons running US foreign policy believe that the US has “nuclear primacy” over Russia; that is, the US could successfully launch a nuclear sneak attack against Russian (and Chinese) nuclear forces and completely destroy them. This theory was articulated in 2006 in “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which was published in Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. By concluding that the Russians and Chinese would be unable to retaliate, or if some small part of their forces remained, would not risk a second US attack by retaliating, the article invites nuclear war. \nColonel Valery Yarynich (who was in charge of security of the Soviet/Russian nuclear command and control systems for 7 years) asked me to help him write a rebuttal, which was titled “Nuclear Primacy is a Fallacy.” Colonel Yarynich, who was on the Soviet General Staff and did war planning for the USSR, concluded that the “Primacy” article used faulty methodology and erroneous assumptions, thus invalidating its conclusions. My contribution lay in my knowledge of the recently published (in 2006) studies, which predicted even a “successful” nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of the opposing side’s nuclear weapons, would cause the citizens of the side that “won” the nuclear war to perish from nuclear famine, just as would the rest of humanity.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "even\nsmall\nnuclear war\ncatastrophic disruptions of global climate\nmassive destruction of Earth’s\nozone layer\nanalyzed by the best scientists\nleave the Earth uninhabitable for humans and most animal forms of life\nattack by either side could be\nself-assured destruction\nnuclear firestorms\nproduce\nsmoke\nremain for at least a decade\nEvery nuclear reactor would almost instantly meltdown\nuninhabitable\nthe survivors of the nuclear war\nNuclear Primacy is a Fallacy\neven a “successful” nuclear first-strike\ncause the citizens\nto perish from nuclear famine",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Those concerns are secondary. |
On the impact of NFU adoption on the assurance of allies, the positive case is that NFU assures allies that the United States remains committed to reducing nuclear dangers and to restraining its own nuclear policies and posture. But for many allies, this argument misses the point. Yes, they seek assurance that a cavalier and sometimes reckless president will not generate new nuclear dangers for them. But for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that the United States will be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour who might contemplate putting those interests at risk understands that there would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that the United States understands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence.21
For these anxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk, declining to do so unless the enemy is foolish enough to cross the nuclear red line. NFU thus sends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals that the United States doesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of the first use of its nuclear weapons. The preference of some Americans to deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses, dispatches and assembles its conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use. For some allied experts, the US flirtation with NFU is one more sign that the United States no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies
| the positive case is that NFU assures allies that
U
S
remains committed to reducing nuclear dangers
But for many allies, this argument misses the point
Yes, they seek assurance that a cavalier
president will not generate new nuclear dangers
But for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that
U
S
will be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour
understands
there would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that
U
S
understands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence
For
anxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk,
NFU
sends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals
U
S
doesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of
first use
preference
to deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses
its conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use
US flirtation with NFU is
sign
U
States no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies | 569 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Those concerns are secondary.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nOn the impact of NFU adoption on the assurance of allies, the positive case is that NFU assures allies that the United States remains committed to reducing nuclear dangers and to restraining its own nuclear policies and posture. But for many allies, this argument misses the point. Yes, they seek assurance that a cavalier and sometimes reckless president will not generate new nuclear dangers for them. But for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that the United States will be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour who might contemplate putting those interests at risk understands that there would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that the United States understands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence.21\nFor these anxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk, declining to do so unless the enemy is foolish enough to cross the nuclear red line. NFU thus sends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals that the United States doesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of the first use of its nuclear weapons. The preference of some Americans to deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses, dispatches and assembles its conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use. For some allied experts, the US flirtation with NFU is one more sign that the United States no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the positive case is that NFU assures allies that\nU\nS\nremains committed to reducing nuclear dangers\nBut for many allies, this argument misses the point\nYes, they seek assurance that a cavalier\npresident will not generate new nuclear dangers\nBut for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that\nU\nS\nwill be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour\nunderstands\nthere would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that\nU\nS\nunderstands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence\nFor\nanxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk,\nNFU\nsends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals\nU\nS\ndoesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of\nfirst use\npreference\nto deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses\nits conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use\nUS flirtation with NFU is\nsign\nU\nStates no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Those concerns are secondary.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | the positive case is that NFU assures allies that
U
S
remains committed to reducing nuclear dangers
But for many allies, this argument misses the point
Yes, they seek assurance that a cavalier
president will not generate new nuclear dangers
But for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that
U
S
will be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour
understands
there would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that
U
S
understands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence
For
anxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk,
NFU
sends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals
U
S
doesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of
first use
preference
to deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses
its conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use
US flirtation with NFU is
sign
U
States no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies | allies
want to rest easy
U
S
understands this requirement
For
anxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way
It signals clearly
US will not be prepared to use all means available
NFU
sends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging
provocation
It signals
U
S
doesn’t understand the unique value
of
first use
preference
to deter by non-nuclear means reinforces
xiety | 571 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Those concerns are secondary.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the positive case is that NFU assures allies that\nU\nS\nremains committed to reducing nuclear dangers\nBut for many allies, this argument misses the point\nYes, they seek assurance that a cavalier\npresident will not generate new nuclear dangers\nBut for a significant number of allies, the deeper assurance they seek is that\nU\nS\nwill be prepared to use all means available when their vital interests are at risk. They want to be convinced that a neighbour\nunderstands\nthere would be a terrible price to be paid. They also want to rest easy that\nU\nS\nunderstands this requirement and is proceeding, in partnership with them, to strengthen the means of their common defence\nFor\nanxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way. It signals clearly that the US will not be prepared to use all means available to it when their vital interests are at risk,\nNFU\nsends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging conventional provocations and risk-taking. It signals\nU\nS\ndoesn’t understand the unique value for their defence of the US threat of\nfirst use\npreference\nto deter by non-nuclear means reinforces their anxiety that they will be left to die in large numbers while the US masses\nits conventional forces rather than issuing threats of nuclear first use\nUS flirtation with NFU is\nsign\nU\nStates no longer has the will to do what is necessary for their security, which could portend significant shifts in the political allegiance of US allies",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "allies\nwant to rest easy\nU\nS\nunderstands this requirement\nFor\nanxious allies, NFU is troublesome in every way\nIt signals clearly\nUS will not be prepared to use all means available\nNFU\nsends a message of restraint to dangerous neighbours, encouraging\nprovocation\nIt signals\nU\nS\ndoesn’t understand the unique value\nof\nfirst use\npreference\nto deter by non-nuclear means reinforces\nxiety",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc. | Though much work remains to be done, the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats. Today, the U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities. As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review described, the roles of U.S. nuclear forces currently include acting as a “hedge against the potential rapid growth or emergence of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats, including chemical, biological, cyber, and large-scale conventional aggression.” This creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID-19 nearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon. How would this nuclear policy be applied if such confusion and disinformation occurred regarding a severe disease outbreak in a conflict setting or in highly tense circumstances? And would restraint regarding such a step contribute to the nation’s leaders not taking seriously enough the question of whether a biological weapon was used? The ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well. For biological weapons, the Department of State’s 2021 arms control treaty compliance report determined North Korea and Russia already have offensive biological weapons programs. It also registered continuing concerns that China and Iran have engaged in dual-use activities that extend beyond what is allowed by the Biological Weapons Convention. | the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.
the U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities
This creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID
nearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.
The ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well. | 572 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Though much work remains to be done, the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats. Today, the U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities. As the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review described, the roles of U.S. nuclear forces currently include acting as a “hedge against the potential rapid growth or emergence of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic threats, including chemical, biological, cyber, and large-scale conventional aggression.” This creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID-19 nearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon. How would this nuclear policy be applied if such confusion and disinformation occurred regarding a severe disease outbreak in a conflict setting or in highly tense circumstances? And would restraint regarding such a step contribute to the nation’s leaders not taking seriously enough the question of whether a biological weapon was used? The ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well. For biological weapons, the Department of State’s 2021 arms control treaty compliance report determined North Korea and Russia already have offensive biological weapons programs. It also registered continuing concerns that China and Iran have engaged in dual-use activities that extend beyond what is allowed by the Biological Weapons Convention.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.\nthe U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities\nThis creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID\nnearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.\nThe ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc. | the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.
the U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities
This creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID
nearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.
The ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well. | end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.
raising miscalculation risks
challenge of understanding
confusion regarding COVID
cannot determine
brings serious risks
ineffective
not likely to be the case
several chemical weapons attacks | 573 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.\nthe U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities\nThis creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID\nnearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.\nThe ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.\nraising miscalculation risks\nchallenge of understanding\nconfusion regarding COVID\ncannot determine\nbrings serious risks\nineffective\nnot likely to be the case\nseveral chemical weapons attacks",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc.
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.
the U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities
This creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID
nearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.
The ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well. | using nuc
s to deter bio
threats.
rais
miscalc
risks
challenge of understanding whether
outbreak arises naturally
or from
deliberate attack. Consider
confusion regarding COVID
community still cannot determine
deterring bio
weapons with nuc
s
ineffective
requires
threats be credible
This is not
the case
several chemical
attacks
carried out at targeted scales | 574 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: B. Threats aren’t credible---keeping the nuclear option on the table causes miscalc.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the technologies and capabilities now being deployed for pandemic responses are giving rise to an historical opportunity for the nation: It is time to end the U.S. policy of using nuclear weapons to deter biological weapon threats.\nthe U.S. nuclear posture positions nuclear weapons as a leading means of deterring strategic-level biological weapons activities\nThis creates several problems. One is raising miscalculation risks in complex security environments, in particular because of the challenge of understanding whether a disease outbreak arises naturally, by accident or from a deliberate attack. Consider the continuing confusion regarding COVID\nnearly two years after its emergence. The U.S. intelligence community still cannot determine with high certainty whether it emerged naturally or via a lab accident. China, Iran, Russia and others have accused the United States of creating the culprit virus as a biological weapon.\nThe ambiguity of application of this nuclear weapons policy is seen as a tool to maintain flexibility during a crisis and avoid driving escalatory behavior. Yet it brings serious risks as well. Further, deterring biological weapons with nuclear weapons may be ineffective. Deterrence by punishment requires that threats be credible and that the targeted entity believes the threatened action (in this case a nuclear strike) would be carried out. This is not likely to be the case. As the United States has continued this nuclear policy, several chemical weapons attacks have been carried out at targeted scales. Numerous significant cyber attacks and intrusions have been undertaken as well.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "using nuc\ns to deter bio\nthreats.\nrais\nmiscalc\nrisks\nchallenge of understanding whether\noutbreak arises naturally\nor from\ndeliberate attack. Consider\nconfusion regarding COVID\ncommunity still cannot determine\ndeterring bio\nweapons with nuc\ns\nineffective\nrequires\nthreats be credible\nThis is not\nthe case\nseveral chemical\nattacks\ncarried out at targeted scales",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Economic crisis causes war. | The link between financial crises and a deterioration in democracy, peace and security has been highlighted by several studies. As noted by Matthias Goldmann, 'in recent years, more and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between sovereign debt crises and the outbreak of civil wars. 225 Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanović have stressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse. 226 In addition to economic recession and falling trade volumes, global economies are strongly affected by chronic deflation. Historically, there is a correlation between inflation-deflation cycles and the debt cycles: deflationary pressure increases during peace years, and inflationary, during war years. 227 Writing for The Economist, Qian Liu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'.228 This is concerning, particularly in the context of the current debate on a new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China, in the paradigm of a 'Thucydides's trap'.229 The combination of global social risks, increased international tensions due to rising protectionism and the Covid-19 pandemic, has raised some concerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario, which eventually led to World War II. 230 The US 'America first' protectionist trade policy developed under former president Donald Trump could reignite under Joe Biden's stimulus package. Under the Biden administration, protectionism may be more targeted and subtle, but it is not going to disappear. Furthermore, high rates of unemployment, and unconventional monetary policy measures, including possible 'modernisation' of the main central banks' legal mandates and their impact on debt cycles and inequality, have all been cited as causes for concern. 231 The dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has, once more, come to the fore – this time as a result of the 21st century's gravest health crisis. Massive stimuli by central banks and governments, such as US$120billion in monthly bond purchases by the US Federal Reserve, or the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill adopted by US Congress (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) awoke, in January 2021, not only hope of economic growth but also fears of rising inflation. The US Treasury yield curve has steepened to four-year high and, as noted by Standard & Poor's Global Market Intelligence Unit, 'A steep yield curve – when there is a large spread in interest rates between shorter-term Treasury bonds to longer-term bonds – often precedes a period of economic expansion, as investors bet that a central bank will be forced to raise rates in the future to tamp down higher inflation'.
| The link between financial crises and a deterioration in
peace and security has been highlighted by several studies
more and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between
debt crises and
civil wars
Piketty and
Milanović
stressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse
Liu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'
This is concerning
in the context of
a new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China
global social risks, increased
tensions
raised
concerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario
which
led to World War II.
high rates of unemployment
have
been cited as causes for concern
The dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has
come to the fore | 575 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Economic crisis causes war.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The link between financial crises and a deterioration in democracy, peace and security has been highlighted by several studies. As noted by Matthias Goldmann, 'in recent years, more and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between sovereign debt crises and the outbreak of civil wars. 225 Thomas Piketty and Branko Milanović have stressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse. 226 In addition to economic recession and falling trade volumes, global economies are strongly affected by chronic deflation. Historically, there is a correlation between inflation-deflation cycles and the debt cycles: deflationary pressure increases during peace years, and inflationary, during war years. 227 Writing for The Economist, Qian Liu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'.228 This is concerning, particularly in the context of the current debate on a new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China, in the paradigm of a 'Thucydides's trap'.229 The combination of global social risks, increased international tensions due to rising protectionism and the Covid-19 pandemic, has raised some concerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario, which eventually led to World War II. 230 The US 'America first' protectionist trade policy developed under former president Donald Trump could reignite under Joe Biden's stimulus package. Under the Biden administration, protectionism may be more targeted and subtle, but it is not going to disappear. Furthermore, high rates of unemployment, and unconventional monetary policy measures, including possible 'modernisation' of the main central banks' legal mandates and their impact on debt cycles and inequality, have all been cited as causes for concern. 231 The dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has, once more, come to the fore – this time as a result of the 21st century's gravest health crisis. Massive stimuli by central banks and governments, such as US$120billion in monthly bond purchases by the US Federal Reserve, or the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill adopted by US Congress (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021) awoke, in January 2021, not only hope of economic growth but also fears of rising inflation. The US Treasury yield curve has steepened to four-year high and, as noted by Standard & Poor's Global Market Intelligence Unit, 'A steep yield curve – when there is a large spread in interest rates between shorter-term Treasury bonds to longer-term bonds – often precedes a period of economic expansion, as investors bet that a central bank will be forced to raise rates in the future to tamp down higher inflation'. \n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The link between financial crises and a deterioration in\npeace and security has been highlighted by several studies\nmore and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between\ndebt crises and\ncivil wars\nPiketty and\nMilanović\nstressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse\nLiu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'\nThis is concerning\nin the context of\na new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China\nglobal social risks, increased\ntensions\nraised\nconcerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario\nwhich\nled to World War II.\nhigh rates of unemployment\nhave\nbeen cited as causes for concern\nThe dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has\ncome to the fore",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Economic crisis causes war. | The link between financial crises and a deterioration in
peace and security has been highlighted by several studies
more and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between
debt crises and
civil wars
Piketty and
Milanović
stressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse
Liu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'
This is concerning
in the context of
a new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China
global social risks, increased
tensions
raised
concerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario
which
led to World War II.
high rates of unemployment
have
been cited as causes for concern
The dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has
come to the fore | financial crises
deterioration in
peace and security
several studies
more and more data
debt crises and
civil wars
financial crisis, inequality and social collapse
economic crisis
cause a 'global conflict'
repetition of the 1930s scenario
The dangerous link
state of the global economy and peace | 576 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Economic crisis causes war.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The link between financial crises and a deterioration in\npeace and security has been highlighted by several studies\nmore and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between\ndebt crises and\ncivil wars\nPiketty and\nMilanović\nstressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse\nLiu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'\nThis is concerning\nin the context of\na new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China\nglobal social risks, increased\ntensions\nraised\nconcerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario\nwhich\nled to World War II.\nhigh rates of unemployment\nhave\nbeen cited as causes for concern\nThe dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has\ncome to the fore",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "financial crises\ndeterioration in\npeace and security\nseveral studies\nmore and more data\ndebt crises and\ncivil wars\nfinancial crisis, inequality and social collapse\neconomic crisis\ncause a 'global conflict'\nrepetition of the 1930s scenario\nThe dangerous link\nstate of the global economy and peace",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Economic crisis causes war.
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | The link between financial crises and a deterioration in
peace and security has been highlighted by several studies
more and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between
debt crises and
civil wars
Piketty and
Milanović
stressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse
Liu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'
This is concerning
in the context of
a new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China
global social risks, increased
tensions
raised
concerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario
which
led to World War II.
high rates of unemployment
have
been cited as causes for concern
The dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has
come to the fore | link between financial crises and
deterioration in
peace
highlighted by
studies
data
reveals
correlation between
crises and
wars
Milanović
stressed
link between financial crisis
and
collapse
Liu
warned
economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'
tensions
raised
concerns regarding
a repetition of the
30s
led to World War II
The dangerous link between
the
economy and peace has
come to the fore | 577 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Economic crisis causes war.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The link between financial crises and a deterioration in\npeace and security has been highlighted by several studies\nmore and more data has become available which reveals a correlation between\ndebt crises and\ncivil wars\nPiketty and\nMilanović\nstressed the link between financial crisis, inequality and social collapse\nLiu has warned that the next economic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'\nThis is concerning\nin the context of\na new 'cold war' brewing between the US and China\nglobal social risks, increased\ntensions\nraised\nconcerns regarding the risk of a repetition of the 1930s scenario\nwhich\nled to World War II.\nhigh rates of unemployment\nhave\nbeen cited as causes for concern\nThe dangerous link between the state of the global economy and peace has\ncome to the fore",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "link between financial crises and\ndeterioration in\npeace\nhighlighted by\nstudies\ndata\nreveals\ncorrelation between\ncrises and\nwars\nMilanović\nstressed\nlink between financial crisis\nand\ncollapse\nLiu\nwarned\neconomic crisis could cause a 'global conflict'\ntensions\nraised\nconcerns regarding\na repetition of the\n30s\nled to World War II\nThe dangerous link between\nthe\neconomy and peace has\ncome to the fore",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Even if tech’s dangerous, it’s the only thing that stops massive die offs — plus it maximizes value to life. |
Well, then let's not do that, huh? Well, no, not hardly, because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it. Here are some comparisons."
If you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000 kilograms per hectare. For a sense of scale, the average in the United States, where recall we only get half the food value to hectare as the intensively farmed Chinese crop land, we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000 kilograms per hectare.
Modern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value you would get from the same sized chemically fertilized farm, and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work.
In very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed, at least as we are organized now. So, no, just giving up on fertilizers is not in the deal.
However, we could get the hydrogen and energy from sources other than natural gas. Nuclear energy could be used to provide electricity to extract hydrogen from water and produce the process heat required to combine the hydrogen and nitrogen from the air. That is just a thought to stick in your mind. While we are looking at energy use in agriculture, here are a few more numbers for you.10 If you look at the energy input into agriculture and the energy you get out, you see some interesting facts. By combining the energy used to make fertilizers and pesticides, power irrigation, and run the farm machinery in the United States, we use about 0.7 kcal of fossil fuel energy for each 1 kcal of food we make. This doesn't include the energy needed to process and transport the food. In Europe where they farm more intensely, the amount of energy out is just about the same as energy in. In Germany and Italy the numbers are 1.4 and 1.7 kcal energy input to each 1 kcal output respectively. The point is you need energy to feed people, well at least a lot of people.
Which gets us back to Cohen and his question. One of the studies he examined looked at a "self-sustaining solar energy system." For the United States, this would replace all fossil energy and provide one-fifth to one-half the current energy use. The conclusion of the study was that this would either produce" a significant reduction in our standard of living ... even if all the energy conservation measures known today were adopted" or if set at the current standard of living, "then the ideal U.S. population should be targeted at 40-100 million people." The authors of that study then cheerfully go on to point out that we do have enough fossil fuel to last a least a century, as long as we can work out the pesky environmental problems. So, you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3 and 6 out of 7 of your neighbors.
And this is a real question. The massive use of fossil fuel driven agriculture to provide the fertilizers and pesticides, and power the farm equipment, is a) vitally important to feed everyone, and b) something we just can't keep up in a business-as-usual fashion. Sustainable means you can keep doing it. Fossil energy supplies are finite; you will run out some time. Massive use of fossil energy and the greenhouse gases they produce also may very well tip the planet into one of those extinction events in which a lot of very bad things happen to a lot of the life on the earth.
O.K. to Cohen's big question, how many people can the earth support? What it comes down to is that the "Well, it depends" answer depends on
• what quality of life you will accept,
• what level of technology you will use, and
• what level of social integration you will accept.
We have seen some of the numbers regarding quality of life. Clearly if you are willing to accept the Bangladesh diet, you can feed 1.8 times more people than if you chose the United States diet.
If you choose the back-to-nature, live like our hearty forefathers, level of technology, you can feed perhaps one-fifth as many people as you can with modern chemical fertilized agriculture. The rest have to go.
And here is the tough one. You can do a lot better, get a lot more people on the planet, if you just force a few things. Like, no more land wasted in growing grapes for wine or grains for whiskey and beer. No cropland used for tobacco. No more grain wasted on animals for meat, just grain for people. No more rich diets for the rich countries, share equally for everyone. No more trade barriers; too bad for the farmers in Japan and France, those countries would just have to accept their dependence on other countries for their food. It is easy to see that at least some of those might actually be a pretty good thing; however, the kicker is how do you get them to happen? After all, Mussolinill did make the trains run on time. How could you force these things without a totalitarian state? Are you willing to give up your ability to choose for yourself for the common good? It is not pretty, is it?
Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion. Taking the highest value when researchers offered a range, Cohen calculated a high median of 12 billion and taking the lower part of the range a low median of 7.7 billion. The good news in this is 12 billion is twice as many people as we have now. The bad news is that the projections for world population for 2050 are between 7.8 and 12.5 billion. That means we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth. Cohen also offers a qualifying observation by stating the "First Law of Information," which asserts that 97.6% of all statistics are made up. This helps us appreciate that application of these numbers to real life is subject to a lot of assumptions and insufficiencies in our understanding of the processes and data.
However, we can draw some insights from all of this. What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death.
On the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be. Remember, the Chinese get twice the food value per hectare as we do in the United States. There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course, in case you need to go back and check the title of this book, there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology.
So given a positive and perhaps optimistic view of technology, we can look to some of the high technology assumption based studies from Cohen's review. From the semi-credible set of these, we can find estimates from 19 to 157 billion as the number of people the earth could support with a rough average coming in about 60 billion. This is a good time to be reminded of the First Law of Information. The middle to lower end of this range, however, might be done without wholesale social reprogramming. Hopefully we would see the improvement in the quality of life in the developing countries as they industrialize and increase their use of energy. Hopefully, also this would lead to a matching of the reduction in fertility rates that has been observed in the developed countries, which in turn would lead to an eventual balancing of the human population.
The point to all this is the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve. If we just keep on as we are, with our current level of technology and dependence on fossil fuel resources, in the near term it will be a race between fertility decrease and our ability to feed ourselves, with, frankly, disaster the slight odds-on bet. In a slightly longer term, dependence on fossil fuels has got to lead to either social chaos or environmental disaster. There are no other end points to that road. It doesn't go anywhere else.
However, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world
for everyone and all life. This means more and better technology. It means more efficient technology that is kinder to the planet but also allows humans to support large numbers in a high quality of life. That road is not easy and has a number of ways to screw up. However, it is a road that can lead to a happier place, a better place.
Two Concluding Thoughts on the Case for Technology
Two more points and I will end my defense of technology. First, I want to bring you back from all the historical tour and all the numbers about population to something more directly personal. Let me ask you two questions.
What do you do for a living?
What did you have for breakfast?
Don't see any connection between these questions or of their connection to·the subject of technology? Don't worry, the point will come out shortly. I am just trying to bring the idea of technology back from this grand vision to its impact on your daily life.
Just as a wild guess, your answer to the first question was something that, say 500 years ago, didn't even exist. If we look 20,000 years ago, the only job was" get food." Even if you have a really directly socially valuable job like a medical doctor, 20,000 years ago you would have been extraneous. That is, the tribe couldn't afford you. What, no way! A doctor could save lives, surely a tribe would value such a skill. Well, sure, but the tribe could not afford taking one of their members out of the productive /I getting the food" job for 20 years while that individual learned all those doctor skills.
If you examine the "what you do for a living" just a bit I think you will see a grand interconnectedness of all things. I personally find it pretty remarkable that we have a society that values nuclear engineers enough that I can make a living at it. Think about it. Somehow what I have done has been of enough value that, through various taxpayer and utility ratepayers, society has given me enough money for food and shelter. The tribe 20,000 years ago wouldn't have put up with me for a day.
You see, that is why we as humans are successful, wildly successful in fact. We work together. "Yeah, sure we do," you reply, " read a newspaper lately?" Well, O.K., we fuss and fight a good deal and some of us do some pretty stupid and pretty mean things. But the degree of cooperation is amazing if you just step back a bit.
O.K., what did you have for breakfast: orange juice, coffee, toast, maybe some cereal and milk? Where do these things come from? Orange juice came from Florida or California. Coffee came from South America. Bread for the toast came perhaps from Kansas; cereal, from the Mid-West somewhere. The jam on the toast may have come from Oregon, or maybe Chile. Milk is probably the only thing that came from within a hundred miles of your breakfast table. Think about it. There were hundreds of people involved in your breakfast. Farmers, food-processing workers, packaging manufacturers, transportation people, energy producers, wholesale and retail people. Perhaps each one only spent a second on their personal contribution to your personal breakfast, but they touch thousands of other people's breakfasts as well. In turn, you buying the various components of your breakfast supported, in your part, all those people. They in turn, in some way or another, bought whatever you provide to society that allowed you to buy breakfast. Pretty amazing, don't you think?
Now when you look at all that, think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection, Yep, you guessed it: technology. Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us.
I want you to stop a minute and really think about that. What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that? "But I am a school teacher," you say, "of course, they would pay me!" Are you sure? Why do you need schools if there is no technology? All I need is to teach the kid how to farm and how to hunt. Sons and daughters can learn that by working in the fields along with their parents. See what I mean?
Now, I have hopefully reset your brain. Sure, you are still going to be hit with daily "technology is bad" messages. Hopefully, you are a bit more shielded against that din, and you have been given some perspective to balance that message and are prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence. The point is that technology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys.
You may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be. I personally don't know how to make that value decision. Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones?
However, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years, Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly as we approach these numbers,
On the other hand, with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species, Remember, some pages back in discussing the unlikely evolutionary path to us, I said we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us. This is what I meant. We are totally unique in all of evolutionary history. We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place. Nature doesn't care what survives, algae seas, dinosaurs, humans, cockroaches, or whatever is successful. If we care, we have to choose correctly.
As an aside, let me address a point of philosophy here. If any of this offends your personal theology, I offer this for your consideration. Genesis tells us God gave all the Earth to humanity and charged us with the stewardship thereof. So it is ours to use as well as we can. That insightful social philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli put it this way in 1501:
"What remains to be done must be done by you; since in order not to deprive us of our free will and such share of glory as belongs to us, God will not do everything Himself."
O.K., you are saying, "I give." You have beaten the socks off me. Technology is good; technology is the identifying human trait and our only hope. But what is this stuff about choosing technology or not? Technology just happens doesn't it? I mean, technology always advances, it always has, so why the big deal?
| because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it.
If you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000
For a sense of scale, the average in the United States,
we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000
Modern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value
and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work.
In very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed
you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3
of your neighbors
Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion
we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth.
What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death.
On the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be.
There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course
there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology.
the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve.
However, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world
for everyone and all life.
think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection,
Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us.
What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that?
Hopefully, you are
prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence.
technology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys.
You may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be
I
don't know how to make that value decision
Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones
However, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years
Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly
with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species
we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us
We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place
Nature doesn't care what survives
If we care, we have to choose correctly. | 578 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Even if tech’s dangerous, it’s the only thing that stops massive die offs — plus it maximizes value to life.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nWell, then let's not do that, huh? Well, no, not hardly, because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it. Here are some comparisons.\" \nIf you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000 kilograms per hectare. For a sense of scale, the average in the United States, where recall we only get half the food value to hectare as the intensively farmed Chinese crop land, we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000 kilograms per hectare. \nModern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value you would get from the same sized chemically fertilized farm, and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work. \nIn very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed, at least as we are organized now. So, no, just giving up on fertilizers is not in the deal. \nHowever, we could get the hydrogen and energy from sources other than natural gas. Nuclear energy could be used to provide electricity to extract hydrogen from water and produce the process heat required to combine the hydrogen and nitrogen from the air. That is just a thought to stick in your mind. While we are looking at energy use in agriculture, here are a few more numbers for you.10 If you look at the energy input into agriculture and the energy you get out, you see some interesting facts. By combining the energy used to make fertilizers and pesticides, power irrigation, and run the farm machinery in the United States, we use about 0.7 kcal of fossil fuel energy for each 1 kcal of food we make. This doesn't include the energy needed to process and transport the food. In Europe where they farm more intensely, the amount of energy out is just about the same as energy in. In Germany and Italy the numbers are 1.4 and 1.7 kcal energy input to each 1 kcal output respectively. The point is you need energy to feed people, well at least a lot of people.\nWhich gets us back to Cohen and his question. One of the studies he examined looked at a \"self-sustaining solar energy system.\" For the United States, this would replace all fossil energy and provide one-fifth to one-half the current energy use. The conclusion of the study was that this would either produce\" a significant reduction in our standard of living ... even if all the energy conservation measures known today were adopted\" or if set at the current standard of living, \"then the ideal U.S. population should be targeted at 40-100 million people.\" The authors of that study then cheerfully go on to point out that we do have enough fossil fuel to last a least a century, as long as we can work out the pesky environmental problems. So, you can go to a \"self-sustaining\" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3 and 6 out of 7 of your neighbors.\nAnd this is a real question. The massive use of fossil fuel driven agriculture to provide the fertilizers and pesticides, and power the farm equipment, is a) vitally important to feed everyone, and b) something we just can't keep up in a business-as-usual fashion. Sustainable means you can keep doing it. Fossil energy supplies are finite; you will run out some time. Massive use of fossil energy and the greenhouse gases they produce also may very well tip the planet into one of those extinction events in which a lot of very bad things happen to a lot of the life on the earth.\nO.K. to Cohen's big question, how many people can the earth support? What it comes down to is that the \"Well, it depends\" answer depends on\n• what quality of life you will accept,\n• what level of technology you will use, and\n• what level of social integration you will accept.\nWe have seen some of the numbers regarding quality of life. Clearly if you are willing to accept the Bangladesh diet, you can feed 1.8 times more people than if you chose the United States diet.\nIf you choose the back-to-nature, live like our hearty forefathers, level of technology, you can feed perhaps one-fifth as many people as you can with modern chemical fertilized agriculture. The rest have to go.\nAnd here is the tough one. You can do a lot better, get a lot more people on the planet, if you just force a few things. Like, no more land wasted in growing grapes for wine or grains for whiskey and beer. No cropland used for tobacco. No more grain wasted on animals for meat, just grain for people. No more rich diets for the rich countries, share equally for everyone. No more trade barriers; too bad for the farmers in Japan and France, those countries would just have to accept their dependence on other countries for their food. It is easy to see that at least some of those might actually be a pretty good thing; however, the kicker is how do you get them to happen? After all, Mussolinill did make the trains run on time. How could you force these things without a totalitarian state? Are you willing to give up your ability to choose for yourself for the common good? It is not pretty, is it?\nCohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion. Taking the highest value when researchers offered a range, Cohen calculated a high median of 12 billion and taking the lower part of the range a low median of 7.7 billion. The good news in this is 12 billion is twice as many people as we have now. The bad news is that the projections for world population for 2050 are between 7.8 and 12.5 billion. That means we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth. Cohen also offers a qualifying observation by stating the \"First Law of Information,\" which asserts that 97.6% of all statistics are made up. This helps us appreciate that application of these numbers to real life is subject to a lot of assumptions and insufficiencies in our understanding of the processes and data. \nHowever, we can draw some insights from all of this. What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death. \nOn the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be. Remember, the Chinese get twice the food value per hectare as we do in the United States. There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course, in case you need to go back and check the title of this book, there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology. \nSo given a positive and perhaps optimistic view of technology, we can look to some of the high technology assumption based studies from Cohen's review. From the semi-credible set of these, we can find estimates from 19 to 157 billion as the number of people the earth could support with a rough average coming in about 60 billion. This is a good time to be reminded of the First Law of Information. The middle to lower end of this range, however, might be done without wholesale social reprogramming. Hopefully we would see the improvement in the quality of life in the developing countries as they industrialize and increase their use of energy. Hopefully, also this would lead to a matching of the reduction in fertility rates that has been observed in the developed countries, which in turn would lead to an eventual balancing of the human population. \nThe point to all this is the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve. If we just keep on as we are, with our current level of technology and dependence on fossil fuel resources, in the near term it will be a race between fertility decrease and our ability to feed ourselves, with, frankly, disaster the slight odds-on bet. In a slightly longer term, dependence on fossil fuels has got to lead to either social chaos or environmental disaster. There are no other end points to that road. It doesn't go anywhere else.\nHowever, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world \n\n\nfor everyone and all life. This means more and better technology. It means more efficient technology that is kinder to the planet but also allows humans to support large numbers in a high quality of life. That road is not easy and has a number of ways to screw up. However, it is a road that can lead to a happier place, a better place. \nTwo Concluding Thoughts on the Case for Technology\nTwo more points and I will end my defense of technology. First, I want to bring you back from all the historical tour and all the numbers about population to something more directly personal. Let me ask you two questions.\nWhat do you do for a living?\nWhat did you have for breakfast?\nDon't see any connection between these questions or of their connection to·the subject of technology? Don't worry, the point will come out shortly. I am just trying to bring the idea of technology back from this grand vision to its impact on your daily life.\nJust as a wild guess, your answer to the first question was something that, say 500 years ago, didn't even exist. If we look 20,000 years ago, the only job was\" get food.\" Even if you have a really directly socially valuable job like a medical doctor, 20,000 years ago you would have been extraneous. That is, the tribe couldn't afford you. What, no way! A doctor could save lives, surely a tribe would value such a skill. Well, sure, but the tribe could not afford taking one of their members out of the productive /I getting the food\" job for 20 years while that individual learned all those doctor skills.\nIf you examine the \"what you do for a living\" just a bit I think you will see a grand interconnectedness of all things. I personally find it pretty remarkable that we have a society that values nuclear engineers enough that I can make a living at it. Think about it. Somehow what I have done has been of enough value that, through various taxpayer and utility ratepayers, society has given me enough money for food and shelter. The tribe 20,000 years ago wouldn't have put up with me for a day.\nYou see, that is why we as humans are successful, wildly successful in fact. We work together. \"Yeah, sure we do,\" you reply, \" read a newspaper lately?\" Well, O.K., we fuss and fight a good deal and some of us do some pretty stupid and pretty mean things. But the degree of cooperation is amazing if you just step back a bit.\nO.K., what did you have for breakfast: orange juice, coffee, toast, maybe some cereal and milk? Where do these things come from? Orange juice came from Florida or California. Coffee came from South America. Bread for the toast came perhaps from Kansas; cereal, from the Mid-West somewhere. The jam on the toast may have come from Oregon, or maybe Chile. Milk is probably the only thing that came from within a hundred miles of your breakfast table. Think about it. There were hundreds of people involved in your breakfast. Farmers, food-processing workers, packaging manufacturers, transportation people, energy producers, wholesale and retail people. Perhaps each one only spent a second on their personal contribution to your personal breakfast, but they touch thousands of other people's breakfasts as well. In turn, you buying the various components of your breakfast supported, in your part, all those people. They in turn, in some way or another, bought whatever you provide to society that allowed you to buy breakfast. Pretty amazing, don't you think? \nNow when you look at all that, think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection, Yep, you guessed it: technology. Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us. \nI want you to stop a minute and really think about that. What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that? \"But I am a school teacher,\" you say, \"of course, they would pay me!\" Are you sure? Why do you need schools if there is no technology? All I need is to teach the kid how to farm and how to hunt. Sons and daughters can learn that by working in the fields along with their parents. See what I mean? \nNow, I have hopefully reset your brain. Sure, you are still going to be hit with daily \"technology is bad\" messages. Hopefully, you are a bit more shielded against that din, and you have been given some perspective to balance that message and are prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence. The point is that technology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys. \nYou may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be. I personally don't know how to make that value decision. Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones? \nHowever, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years, Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly as we approach these numbers, \nOn the other hand, with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species, Remember, some pages back in discussing the unlikely evolutionary path to us, I said we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us. This is what I meant. We are totally unique in all of evolutionary history. We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place. Nature doesn't care what survives, algae seas, dinosaurs, humans, cockroaches, or whatever is successful. If we care, we have to choose correctly. \nAs an aside, let me address a point of philosophy here. If any of this offends your personal theology, I offer this for your consideration. Genesis tells us God gave all the Earth to humanity and charged us with the stewardship thereof. So it is ours to use as well as we can. That insightful social philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli put it this way in 1501:\n\"What remains to be done must be done by you; since in order not to deprive us of our free will and such share of glory as belongs to us, God will not do everything Himself.\"\nO.K., you are saying, \"I give.\" You have beaten the socks off me. Technology is good; technology is the identifying human trait and our only hope. But what is this stuff about choosing technology or not? Technology just happens doesn't it? I mean, technology always advances, it always has, so why the big deal?\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it.\nIf you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000\nFor a sense of scale, the average in the United States,\nwe get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000\nModern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value\nand that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work.\nIn very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed\nyou can go to a \"self-sustaining\" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3\nof your neighbors\nCohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion\nwe have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth.\nWhat it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death.\nOn the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be.\nThere is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course\nthere are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology.\nthe near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve.\nHowever, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world\nfor everyone and all life.\nthink about what ties all the planetwide interconnection,\nWithout technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us.\nWhat would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that?\nHopefully, you are\nprepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence.\ntechnology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys.\nYou may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be\nI\ndon't know how to make that value decision\nWhich particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones\nHowever, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years\nWithout not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly\nwith the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species\nwe are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us\nWe humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place\nNature doesn't care what survives\nIf we care, we have to choose correctly.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Even if tech’s dangerous, it’s the only thing that stops massive die offs — plus it maximizes value to life.
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it.
If you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000
For a sense of scale, the average in the United States,
we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000
Modern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value
and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work.
In very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed
you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3
of your neighbors
Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion
we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth.
What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death.
On the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be.
There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course
there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology.
the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve.
However, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world
for everyone and all life.
think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection,
Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us.
What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that?
Hopefully, you are
prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence.
technology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys.
You may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be
I
don't know how to make that value decision
Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones
However, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years
Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly
with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species
we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us
We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place
Nature doesn't care what survives
If we care, we have to choose correctly. | without
fertilizers we couldn't
feed the population
We just couldn't
you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3
of your neighbors
we have
50 years before we exceed the
carrying capacity
That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies
if you let tech
get
better, the picture need not be so bleak
We haven't made all our farmland as productive
there are alternatives to fossil fuels
If we turn away from tech
the
human race will starve
if we accept that it is tech
that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose
to make
a better world
technology
makes us human
Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys | 580 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Even if tech’s dangerous, it’s the only thing that stops massive die offs — plus it maximizes value to life.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn't do it.\nIf you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000\nFor a sense of scale, the average in the United States,\nwe get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000\nModern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value\nand that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work.\nIn very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed\nyou can go to a \"self-sustaining\" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3\nof your neighbors\nCohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion\nwe have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth.\nWhat it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death.\nOn the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be.\nThere is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course\nthere are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology.\nthe near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve.\nHowever, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world\nfor everyone and all life.\nthink about what ties all the planetwide interconnection,\nWithout technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us.\nWhat would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that?\nHopefully, you are\nprepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence.\ntechnology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys.\nYou may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be\nI\ndon't know how to make that value decision\nWhich particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones\nHowever, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years\nWithout not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly\nwith the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species\nwe are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us\nWe humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place\nNature doesn't care what survives\nIf we care, we have to choose correctly.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "without\nfertilizers we couldn't\nfeed the population\nWe just couldn't\nyou can go to a \"self-sustaining\" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3\nof your neighbors\nwe have\n50 years before we exceed the\ncarrying capacity\nThat means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies\nif you let tech\nget\nbetter, the picture need not be so bleak\nWe haven't made all our farmland as productive\nthere are alternatives to fossil fuels\nIf we turn away from tech\nthe\nhuman race will starve\nif we accept that it is tech\nthat makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose\nto make\na better world\ntechnology\nmakes us human\nWithout it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity. | 6. Extraterrestrial life and utilitarian arguments
Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life; in this he is quite similar to many other philosophers discussing the future of humanity (e.g., Kahane, 2014; Klee, 2017). This is important in two different respects. The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species. (Of course, some of them might be swayed by arguments of extraterrestrial Torres-analogs and relinquish space colonization, but there is no guarantee that all of them will do so, esp. since – as shown above – the arguments are not that persuasive!) This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values. This might or might not be desirable – depending on the character of alien values – but in any case, it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others. | Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life
The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species
This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values
it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others | 581 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "6. Extraterrestrial life and utilitarian arguments\nTorres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life; in this he is quite similar to many other philosophers discussing the future of humanity (e.g., Kahane, 2014; Klee, 2017). This is important in two different respects. The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species. (Of course, some of them might be swayed by arguments of extraterrestrial Torres-analogs and relinquish space colonization, but there is no guarantee that all of them will do so, esp. since – as shown above – the arguments are not that persuasive!) This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values. This might or might not be desirable – depending on the character of alien values – but in any case, it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life\nThe first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species\nThis will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values\nit would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity. | 6. Extraterrestrial life and utilitarian arguments
Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life; in this he is quite similar to many other philosophers discussing the future of humanity (e.g., Kahane, 2014; Klee, 2017). This is important in two different respects. The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species. (Of course, some of them might be swayed by arguments of extraterrestrial Torres-analogs and relinquish space colonization, but there is no guarantee that all of them will do so, esp. since – as shown above – the arguments are not that persuasive!) This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values. This might or might not be desirable – depending on the character of alien values – but in any case, it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others. | relinquishing
dramatic expansion
will fill
clearly be against
no guarantees
not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering | 582 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "6. Extraterrestrial life and utilitarian arguments\nTorres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life; in this he is quite similar to many other philosophers discussing the future of humanity (e.g., Kahane, 2014; Klee, 2017). This is important in two different respects. The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species. (Of course, some of them might be swayed by arguments of extraterrestrial Torres-analogs and relinquish space colonization, but there is no guarantee that all of them will do so, esp. since – as shown above – the arguments are not that persuasive!) This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values. This might or might not be desirable – depending on the character of alien values – but in any case, it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "relinquishing\ndramatic expansion\nwill fill\nclearly be against\nno guarantees\nnot be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity.
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life
The first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species
This will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values
it would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others | by relinquishing
humans
leave all
resources to other
species
This will enable dramatic expansion of
alien
species, which will fill the universe with their
values,
Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this
since there are no guarantees
aliens would not be more efficient
in inflicting suffering | 583 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 5. Other alien civilizations render their impacts inevitable. Some will inevitably be anti-humanity.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Torres’s argument fails to mention the possibility of extraterrestrial life and especially extraterrestrial intelligent life\nThe first is that by relinquishing space colonization, humans obviously leave all available cosmological resources to other intelligent species\nThis will enable dramatic expansion of an alien colonizing species, which will fill the universe with their own values, entirely different from human/posthuman values\nit would not be particularly appealing from the narrow human perspective. Those averse to s-risks should clearly be against this scenario, since there are no guarantees that aliens would not be more efficient than humans in inflicting suffering onto themselves and others",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "by relinquishing\nhumans\nleave all\nresources to other\nspecies\nThis will enable dramatic expansion of\nalien\nspecies, which will fill the universe with their\nvalues,\nThose averse to s-risks should clearly be against this\nsince there are no guarantees\naliens would not be more efficient\nin inflicting suffering",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Martynsyn votes aff-- |
Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states that introduced competition legislation. That is the raison d’être of such legislation. Conduct harming only foreign markets (causing outbound competitive harm) is virtually never proscribed. Arrangements causing competitive harm abroad are legal under most domestic competition laws. For example, in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act [the key U.S. competition law statute] … principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.’15 Export cartels, for example, are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.16 Hosting states— which are best positioned (in terms of the relative ease of enforcement) to deal with such anticompetitive conduct—wash their hands of it. Essentially, states care about national, not global, welfare.
In the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market, which—in turn—will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging (rigging public tenders). At a minimum, a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations. | Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states
Conduct harming only foreign markets
is virtually never proscribed.
in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act
the key U.S. competition law statute
principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.
Export cartels
are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.
In the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market
will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging
a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations | 584 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Martynsyn votes aff--",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nAnticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states that introduced competition legislation. That is the raison d’être of such legislation. Conduct harming only foreign markets (causing outbound competitive harm) is virtually never proscribed. Arrangements causing competitive harm abroad are legal under most domestic competition laws. For example, in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act [the key U.S. competition law statute] … principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.’15 Export cartels, for example, are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.16 Hosting states— which are best positioned (in terms of the relative ease of enforcement) to deal with such anticompetitive conduct—wash their hands of it. Essentially, states care about national, not global, welfare.\nIn the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market, which—in turn—will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging (rigging public tenders). At a minimum, a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states\nConduct harming only foreign markets\nis virtually never proscribed.\nin the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act\nthe key U.S. competition law statute\nprincipally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.\nExport cartels\nare permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.\nIn the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market\nwill be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging\na policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Martynsyn votes aff-- |
Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states that introduced competition legislation. That is the raison d’être of such legislation. Conduct harming only foreign markets (causing outbound competitive harm) is virtually never proscribed. Arrangements causing competitive harm abroad are legal under most domestic competition laws. For example, in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act [the key U.S. competition law statute] … principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.’15 Export cartels, for example, are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.16 Hosting states— which are best positioned (in terms of the relative ease of enforcement) to deal with such anticompetitive conduct—wash their hands of it. Essentially, states care about national, not global, welfare.
In the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market, which—in turn—will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging (rigging public tenders). At a minimum, a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations. | only foreign markets
never proscribed
F
T
A
I
A
cut back
Sherman Act
the key U.S. competition law statute
protect U.S. sellers
activity abroad
Export cartels
permitted
all jurisdictions
problematic
not illegal
businesspersons
transnational commerce
competitive harm
contradictory signals
credibility of the law
severe sanction
you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’
reinforce a belief
serious nature | 585 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Martynsyn votes aff--",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nAnticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states that introduced competition legislation. That is the raison d’être of such legislation. Conduct harming only foreign markets (causing outbound competitive harm) is virtually never proscribed. Arrangements causing competitive harm abroad are legal under most domestic competition laws. For example, in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act [the key U.S. competition law statute] … principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.’15 Export cartels, for example, are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.16 Hosting states— which are best positioned (in terms of the relative ease of enforcement) to deal with such anticompetitive conduct—wash their hands of it. Essentially, states care about national, not global, welfare.\nIn the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market, which—in turn—will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging (rigging public tenders). At a minimum, a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "only foreign markets\nnever proscribed\nF\nT\nA\nI\nA\ncut back\nSherman Act\nthe key U.S. competition law statute\nprotect U.S. sellers\nactivity abroad\nExport cartels\npermitted\nall jurisdictions\nproblematic\nnot illegal\nbusinesspersons\ntransnational commerce\ncompetitive harm\ncontradictory signals\ncredibility of the law\nsevere sanction\nyou’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’\nreinforce a belief\nserious nature",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Martynsyn votes aff--
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states
Conduct harming only foreign markets
is virtually never proscribed.
in the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act
the key U.S. competition law statute
principally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.
Export cartels
are permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.
In the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market
will be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging
a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations | F
T
A
I
A
cut back
Sherman
to protect U.S.
Export cartels
this is problematic.
From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals
undermining the credibility of the law
a policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but
not
elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of
such violations | 586 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Martynsyn votes aff--\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Anticompetitive conduct harming the domestic market is prohibited in virtually all states\nConduct harming only foreign markets\nis virtually never proscribed.\nin the United States the 1982 Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act ‘cut back the reach of the Sherman Act\nthe key U.S. competition law statute\nprincipally to protect U.S. sellers from challenges … for their activity abroad.\nExport cartels\nare permitted in virtually all jurisdictions.\nIn the long-term this is problematic. If conduct that causes harm abroad is not illegal, law enables businesspersons involved in transnational commerce to develop skills and mindsets that may be later used to cause competitive harm on the domestic market\nwill be costly and difficult to uncover and remedy. From a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals to the public, undermining the credibility of the law, especially in those jurisdictions that envisage the severe sanction of imprisonment for some violations of competition law, such as cartel conduct or bid rigging\na policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but we do not mind if you do it elsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of any such violations",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "F\nT\nA\nI\nA\ncut back\nSherman\nto protect U.S.\nExport cartels\nthis is problematic.\nFrom a normative perspective, it sends contradictory signals\nundermining the credibility of the law\na policy of ‘you’ll go to jail if you do it here, but\nnot\nelsewhere’ is unlikely to reinforce a belief in the serious nature of\nsuch violations",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Warming causes extinction—US is key. |
Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet, progressively and in increasing numbers, over the coming years and decades. The lives of millions would be upended, if not made nearly impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on. If this science fiction were reality, US leaders would lead an international effort to immediately disarm and dismantle the weapons.
But this isn’t science fiction. Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth over the coming centuries. As climate journalist Peter Brannen describes it, Earth faced a similar crisis hundreds of millions of years ago during the “Great Dying” when volcanoes spewed so much carbon dioxide into the air – including magma that blanketed an area as large as the lower 48 US states, 1km deep – that it almost killed all life. Today, Brannen says, “we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere 10 times faster than the ancient volcanoes”.
Even in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous. A World Bank Group report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move within their countries’ borders by 2050. A report by the Trump administration finds climate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession – by 2100. Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars. Deadly and destructive extreme weather events such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria and California’s Camp fire are mild symptoms of the plague to come.
There is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers – the only thing that could remotely mimic the effects of climate change over time – is a much lower risk than climate change, which is already happening.
Every year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult. As America dithers, climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust. If the world fails to urgently mitigate climate change, no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause of these threats or suffer from them.
America’s failure is not for lack of capacity to safeguard against future threats – the US invests hundreds of billions of dollars every year in defense to deter adversaries such as Russia and China, and tens of billions more in intelligence capabilities to monitor threats. Instead, America is paralyzed by a lack of political will. Donald Trump and his allies in Congress – many of whom deny the existence of climate change – are making the problem worse. The president announced his intent to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement and is rolling back regulations that would have cut emissions.
Despite this dark reality, there is reason for hope. In 2015, the world came together to negotiate the Paris agreement, which set the goal of limiting global temperature increases to well below 2C. Despite a hostile Trump administration, many US governors, mayors, businesses and private citizens are already leading the way. So are other countries as they seize the economic and public health opportunity that comes with a clean energy future.
The path ahead, to say the least, is daunting. Even if the US were not to leave the Paris climate agreement, the action required to realize its potential is enormous. US policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox to drive unprecedented deployment of clean energy and build out zero-carbon transportation infrastructure. When the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open.
State Department CP—
| Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet
The lives of millions would be upended, if not made
impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.
Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth
in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.
report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move
climate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession
Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars.
There is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers
is a much lower risk than climate change
Every year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.
climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.
no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause
or suffer from them
US policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox
When the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open | 587 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Warming causes extinction—US is key.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nImagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet, progressively and in increasing numbers, over the coming years and decades. The lives of millions would be upended, if not made nearly impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on. If this science fiction were reality, US leaders would lead an international effort to immediately disarm and dismantle the weapons.\nBut this isn’t science fiction. Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth over the coming centuries. As climate journalist Peter Brannen describes it, Earth faced a similar crisis hundreds of millions of years ago during the “Great Dying” when volcanoes spewed so much carbon dioxide into the air – including magma that blanketed an area as large as the lower 48 US states, 1km deep – that it almost killed all life. Today, Brannen says, “we’re shooting carbon dioxide up into the atmosphere 10 times faster than the ancient volcanoes”.\nEven in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous. A World Bank Group report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move within their countries’ borders by 2050. A report by the Trump administration finds climate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession – by 2100. Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars. Deadly and destructive extreme weather events such as Hurricanes Harvey and Maria and California’s Camp fire are mild symptoms of the plague to come.\nThere is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers – the only thing that could remotely mimic the effects of climate change over time – is a much lower risk than climate change, which is already happening.\nEvery year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult. As America dithers, climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust. If the world fails to urgently mitigate climate change, no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause of these threats or suffer from them.\nAmerica’s failure is not for lack of capacity to safeguard against future threats – the US invests hundreds of billions of dollars every year in defense to deter adversaries such as Russia and China, and tens of billions more in intelligence capabilities to monitor threats. Instead, America is paralyzed by a lack of political will. Donald Trump and his allies in Congress – many of whom deny the existence of climate change – are making the problem worse. The president announced his intent to withdraw the US from the Paris climate agreement and is rolling back regulations that would have cut emissions.\nDespite this dark reality, there is reason for hope. In 2015, the world came together to negotiate the Paris agreement, which set the goal of limiting global temperature increases to well below 2C. Despite a hostile Trump administration, many US governors, mayors, businesses and private citizens are already leading the way. So are other countries as they seize the economic and public health opportunity that comes with a clean energy future.\nThe path ahead, to say the least, is daunting. Even if the US were not to leave the Paris climate agreement, the action required to realize its potential is enormous. US policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox to drive unprecedented deployment of clean energy and build out zero-carbon transportation infrastructure. When the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open.\n\n\n\nState Department CP—\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet\nThe lives of millions would be upended, if not made\n impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.\nClimate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth\nin the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.\nreport estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move\nclimate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession\nGrowing resource scarcity could cause more wars.\nThere is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers\nis a much lower risk than climate change\nEvery year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.\nclimate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.\nno other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause\nor suffer from them\nUS policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox\nWhen the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Warming causes extinction—US is key. | Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet
The lives of millions would be upended, if not made
impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.
Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth
in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.
report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move
climate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession
Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars.
There is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers
is a much lower risk than climate change
Every year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.
climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.
no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause
or suffer from them
US policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox
When the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open | hundreds of nuclear weapons
detonate
millions
upended
impossible to survive
transformed weather patterns
resource scarcity
Tens of millions
migrants
uninhabitable
Millions would die
more
more
Climate change
threaten
to end human life on earth
short
term
dangerous
140 million people
move
US econ
10%
twice as bad
Great Recession
resource scarcity
more wars
There is no greater national security threat than climate change
specter of nuclear war
much lower risk
fail to act
problem grows
solution
more difficult
slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust
rise of China
Russian aggression
terrorism
future geopolitical peril
humans won’t survive
cause
suffer
policymakers
every policy tool
leads by example
domestic emissions will fall
new diplomatic doors
more ambitious | 588 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Warming causes extinction—US is key.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet\nThe lives of millions would be upended, if not made\n impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.\nClimate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth\nin the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.\nreport estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move\nclimate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession\nGrowing resource scarcity could cause more wars.\nThere is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers\nis a much lower risk than climate change\nEvery year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.\nclimate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.\nno other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause\nor suffer from them\nUS policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox\nWhen the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "hundreds of nuclear weapons\ndetonate\nmillions\nupended\nimpossible to survive\ntransformed weather patterns\nresource scarcity\nTens of millions\nmigrants\nuninhabitable\nMillions would die\nmore\nmore\nClimate change\nthreaten\nto end human life on earth\nshort\nterm\ndangerous\n140 million people\nmove\nUS econ\n10%\ntwice as bad\nGreat Recession\nresource scarcity\nmore wars\nThere is no greater national security threat than climate change\nspecter of nuclear war\nmuch lower risk\nfail to act\nproblem grows\nsolution\nmore difficult\nslow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust\nrise of China\nRussian aggression\nterrorism\nfuture geopolitical peril\nhumans won’t survive\ncause\nsuffer\npolicymakers\nevery policy tool\nleads by example\ndomestic emissions will fall\nnew diplomatic doors\nmore ambitious",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Warming causes extinction—US is key.
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet
The lives of millions would be upended, if not made
impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.
Climate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth
in the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.
report estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move
climate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession
Growing resource scarcity could cause more wars.
There is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers
is a much lower risk than climate change
Every year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.
climate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.
no other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause
or suffer from them
US policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox
When the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open | Climate change
threaten
to end
life on earth
short
term
climate change
make the world
dangerous
resource scarcity
cause
wars
nuclear war
is
lower risk
no other challenge
matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause
policymakers
need
every policy tool
When the US leads by example
emissions
fall
and
diplomatic doors
open | 589 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Warming causes extinction—US is key.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Imagine that US leaders were told that hundreds of nuclear weapons were set on a timer to detonate across the planet\nThe lives of millions would be upended, if not made\n impossible to survive, by transformed weather patterns and resource scarcity. Tens of millions would become migrants as regions became uninhabitable. Millions would die, more and more as time went on.\nClimate change is a ticking time bomb, literally threatening to end human life on earth\nin the shorter term, climate change will make the world far more dangerous.\nreport estimates that climate change could drive 140 million people to move\nclimate change could reduce the size of the US economy by 10% – more than twice as bad as the worst part of the Great Recession\nGrowing resource scarcity could cause more wars.\nThere is no greater national security threat than climate change. Even the specter of nuclear war between great powers\nis a much lower risk than climate change\nEvery year we fail to act the problem grows, and the solution becomes more difficult.\nclimate change is sparking a slow-motion nuclear-scale holocaust.\nno other challenge – not the rise of China, Russian aggression, terrorism, nor some other future geopolitical peril – will matter because humans won’t survive to be the cause\nor suffer from them\nUS policymakers will need to use every policy tool in their toolbox\nWhen the US leads by example, domestic emissions will fall, and new diplomatic doors to more ambitious climate action will open",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Climate change\nthreaten\nto end\nlife on earth\nshort\nterm\nclimate change\nmake the world\ndangerous\nresource scarcity\ncause\nwars\nnuclear war\nis\nlower risk\nno other challenge\nmatter because humans won’t survive to be the cause\npolicymakers\nneed\nevery policy tool\nWhen the US leads by example\nemissions\nfall\nand\ndiplomatic doors\nopen",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that | Looking ahead to 2045: Agribusiness-as-Usual (Scenario 1) Firstly, we imagine a ‘business-as-usual’ food system and how it might evolve over the next quarter century, as corporations and governments respond to environmental breakdown, social dislocation, geopolitical reconfigurations, and a vast pipeline of technological possibilities. Power relations remain largely unchanged in this scenario, and civil society – also stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode – is able to challenge the agenda and prevent the worst excesses, but not fundamentally change the course.
Over the 2020s, advances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks – and the people – out of food systems. New players argue that producing protein in petri-dishes, letting artificial intelligence manage the farm or invisibly nudge consumer behaviour, inventing novel ultra-processed foods, or backing geoengineering, are the route to resilience (as well as being highly profitable). With climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems over the coming years, these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who – thanks to proliferating merger deals – become tomorrow’s agrifood giants.
Algorithms are used to pinpoint the growing conditions of every fertile square metre on earth; crops and livestock are tailor-made (and modified) for those conditions; and ecosystems are engineered through data for optimal performance. Robotic tractors and drones for spraying and surveillance – an ‘internet of farming things’ – are rolled out as fast as physical and digital infrastructures allow (Trend #1).
Putting food security at the mercy of digital networks and potential data glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers (who are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers). But the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future on offer convinces many low and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests. As a result, powerful governments and their flagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors. Unlike previous Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which opened up new markets, the FTAs of the 2020s and 2030s serve primarily to secure access to resources, protect rights to corporate data exploitation, and put unfavourable regulations into the deep freeze.
| Power relations remain
unchanged in this scenario, and civil society
stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode
advances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks
out of food systems. New players argue that
a
i
are the route to resilience
With climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems
these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who
thanks to proliferating merger deals
become tomorrow’s agrifood giants.
Putting food security at the mercy of digital networks and
data glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers
who are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers
But the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future
convinces
low and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests
powerful governments and
flagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors | 590 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Looking ahead to 2045: Agribusiness-as-Usual (Scenario 1) Firstly, we imagine a ‘business-as-usual’ food system and how it might evolve over the next quarter century, as corporations and governments respond to environmental breakdown, social dislocation, geopolitical reconfigurations, and a vast pipeline of technological possibilities. Power relations remain largely unchanged in this scenario, and civil society – also stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode – is able to challenge the agenda and prevent the worst excesses, but not fundamentally change the course. \nOver the 2020s, advances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks – and the people – out of food systems. New players argue that producing protein in petri-dishes, letting artificial intelligence manage the farm or invisibly nudge consumer behaviour, inventing novel ultra-processed foods, or backing geoengineering, are the route to resilience (as well as being highly profitable). With climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems over the coming years, these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who – thanks to proliferating merger deals – become tomorrow’s agrifood giants. \nAlgorithms are used to pinpoint the growing conditions of every fertile square metre on earth; crops and livestock are tailor-made (and modified) for those conditions; and ecosystems are engineered through data for optimal performance. Robotic tractors and drones for spraying and surveillance – an ‘internet of farming things’ – are rolled out as fast as physical and digital infrastructures allow (Trend #1).\nPutting food security at the mercy of digital networks and potential data glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers (who are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers). But the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future on offer convinces many low and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests. As a result, powerful governments and their flagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors. Unlike previous Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) which opened up new markets, the FTAs of the 2020s and 2030s serve primarily to secure access to resources, protect rights to corporate data exploitation, and put unfavourable regulations into the deep freeze. \n\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Power relations remain\nunchanged in this scenario, and civil society\nstuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode\nadvances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks\nout of food systems. New players argue that\na\ni\nare the route to resilience\nWith climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems\nthese ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who\nthanks to proliferating merger deals\nbecome tomorrow’s agrifood giants.\nPutting food security at the mercy of digital networks and\ndata glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers\nwho are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers\nBut the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future\nconvinces\nlow and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests\npowerful governments and\nflagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that | Power relations remain
unchanged in this scenario, and civil society
stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode
advances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks
out of food systems. New players argue that
a
i
are the route to resilience
With climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems
these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who
thanks to proliferating merger deals
become tomorrow’s agrifood giants.
Putting food security at the mercy of digital networks and
data glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers
who are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers
But the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future
convinces
low and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests
powerful governments and
flagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors | a
i
wreaking havoc on food systems
these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers
biodigital mega-corporations
data platforms
private equity firms | 591 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Power relations remain\nunchanged in this scenario, and civil society\nstuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode\nadvances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks\nout of food systems. New players argue that\na\ni\nare the route to resilience\nWith climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems\nthese ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who\nthanks to proliferating merger deals\nbecome tomorrow’s agrifood giants.\nPutting food security at the mercy of digital networks and\ndata glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers\nwho are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers\nBut the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future\nconvinces\nlow and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests\npowerful governments and\nflagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "a\ni\nwreaking havoc on food systems\nthese ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers\nbiodigital mega-corporations\ndata platforms\nprivate equity firms",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | Power relations remain
unchanged in this scenario, and civil society
stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode
advances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks
out of food systems. New players argue that
a
i
are the route to resilience
With climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems
these ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who
thanks to proliferating merger deals
become tomorrow’s agrifood giants.
Putting food security at the mercy of digital networks and
data glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers
who are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers
But the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future
convinces
low and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests
powerful governments and
flagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors | Power relations remain
unchanged
civil society
stuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode
New players argue that
a
i
are the route
With
environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food
‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of
food
are handed over to
digital
corporations
platforms, and
equity firms who
become tomorrow’s agrifood giants | 592 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Other warrant is precision ag---AI fails at that\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Power relations remain\nunchanged in this scenario, and civil society\nstuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode\nadvances in digitalization, automation, synthetic biology, and molecular technologies promise to take the risks\nout of food systems. New players argue that\na\ni\nare the route to resilience\nWith climate change, environmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food systems\nthese ‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of the food system are handed over to the biodigital mega-corporations, data platforms, and private equity firms who\nthanks to proliferating merger deals\nbecome tomorrow’s agrifood giants.\nPutting food security at the mercy of digital networks and\ndata glitches worries governments and food movements alike. So does the plight of farmers\nwho are forced off the land into ‘smart cities’ and e-commerce villages, or reduced to digital outgrowers\nBut the ‘climate-smart’ and ‘risk-free’ future\nconvinces\nlow and middle-income countries to put land, resources, and data in the hands of those supplying the technologies and offering to pre-purchase their harvests\npowerful governments and\nflagbearer corporations are able to use internets of logistics to control resources and food supplies across vast economic corridors",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Power relations remain\nunchanged\ncivil society\nstuck in 'business-as-usual’ mode\nNew players argue that\na\ni\nare the route\nWith\nenvironmental breakdown, and pandemics wreaking havoc on food\n‘silver bullet’ solutions prove irresistible to panicking policymakers. The keys of\nfood\nare handed over to\ndigital\ncorporations\nplatforms, and\nequity firms who\nbecome tomorrow’s agrifood giants",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Shutdown impact will be neglibile across the board. | Running Out of Time
Congress has backed itself against the wall, again. That means the countdown to a government shutdown has begun.
There’s little chance lawmakers — on break until next month — can sort out government funding before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Congress could pass a temporary spending bill to keep the government running, as they have done regularly in the past. But the Freedom Caucus, a group of ultra-conservative House Republicans, announced today they want to see spending cuts in any stopgap and will also press House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on a variety of other policy issues, my Bloomberg colleague Billy House reports.
Alec Phillips, chief US political economist at Goldman Sachs, sees a temporary shutdown as “more likely than not.”
However, the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be . That’s good and bad news.
“The less severe economic effect of a shutdown also makes it more likely that Congress fails to act in time,” Phillips wrote in a note to clients.
Unlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week. That loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown, according to the Goldman analysis.
But it won’t be painless. A shutdown could leave a lot of folks without a paycheck — possibly for weeks. Roughly a third of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed, Phillips says.
And at the national level, it could mean the of a variety of economic data that policy makers rely on, as happened in late 2018 and into 2019 when the US suffered through the longest government shutdown on record: 35 days. | the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be
Unlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week
That loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown
third of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed | 593 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Shutdown impact will be neglibile across the board.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Running Out of Time\nCongress has backed itself against the wall, again. That means the countdown to a government shutdown has begun.\nThere’s little chance lawmakers — on break until next month — can sort out government funding before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.\nCongress could pass a temporary spending bill to keep the government running, as they have done regularly in the past. But the Freedom Caucus, a group of ultra-conservative House Republicans, announced today they want to see spending cuts in any stopgap and will also press House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on a variety of other policy issues, my Bloomberg colleague Billy House reports.\nAlec Phillips, chief US political economist at Goldman Sachs, sees a temporary shutdown as “more likely than not.”\nHowever, the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be . That’s good and bad news.\n“The less severe economic effect of a shutdown also makes it more likely that Congress fails to act in time,” Phillips wrote in a note to clients.\nUnlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week. That loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown, according to the Goldman analysis.\nBut it won’t be painless. A shutdown could leave a lot of folks without a paycheck — possibly for weeks. Roughly a third of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed, Phillips says.\nAnd at the national level, it could mean the of a variety of economic data that policy makers rely on, as happened in late 2018 and into 2019 when the US suffered through the longest government shutdown on record: 35 days.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be\nUnlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week\nThat loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown\nthird of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Shutdown impact will be neglibile across the board.
Highlight Ratio: 0.6 | the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be
Unlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week
That loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown
third of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed | the economic impact of a
shutdown
would be
Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a
would be around 0.2 percentage point per week
loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown
third of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed | 595 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Shutdown impact will be neglibile across the board.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the economic impact of a government shutdown likely would be\nUnlike raising the debt limit earlier this year, where most observers agreed the fallout of a US default would have been devastating, Goldman Sachs estimates the hit to GDP from a shutdown would be around 0.2 percentage point per week\nThat loss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown\nthird of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the economic impact of a\nshutdown\nwould be\nSachs estimates the hit to GDP from a\nwould be around 0.2 percentage point per week\nloss would then be made up in the quarter after the shutdown\nthird of civilian federal employees would likely be furloughed",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over. | At first blush, asserting that abuse victims who can establish a sufficient degree of fault and reasonably foreseeable causation of harm should be entitled to tort damages from their abusers hardly seems controversial. But when the "victim" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law.
In 2018 the Animal Legal Defense Fund (hereafter "ALDF") filed Justice v. Vercher in Washington County, Oregon. 4 After being dismissed by a trial court for lack of standing, the lawsuit is now progressing through the state's appellate system.5 In the lawsuit, the ALDF asserts that a criminally neglected horse should be permitted to recover tort damages against its former owner.
Scholars have previously debated the idea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs,6 but the Vercher case is the most significant effort to date to shift the concept from the academy to the courthouse. For several reasons, the lawsuit has weighty implications.
First, the context is novel and explosive. Most of the controversial lawsuits that have thus far unsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood in the United States in recent years-some of them still working their way through appellate courts-have focused on the particularly strong cognitive abilities of species kept by humans only in relatively small numbers (specifically, chimpanzees, cetaceans, and elephants), rather than focusing on the much broader capacity to suffer that creates the basis for identifying abused animals as victims for some purposes.7 If the Vercher claim were to succeed, potentially millions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications.8
Second, the media have highlighted the case due to its unsettling facts and its novel legal theories, enhancing its potential for broad influence.9 Third, Oregon's legislature and courts have evidenced distinctive enthusiasm for legal reform that would provide better protection for animals.10 Thus far the state's evolution has been positive, but this case will test whether Oregon's courts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights dressed in the comfortingly routine language of following precedents.
Fourth, the ALDF is perhaps the nation's largest and most influential legal organization pressing for animal legal rights." The ALDF likely has the resources to pursue this case and perhaps future analogous cases aggressively, and it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts than would some other animal rights groups.
Some jurisdictions have expanded civil remedies against animal abusers in recent years. However, this expansion has focused on awarding damages to pets' owners against third parties who have intentionally abused the owners' pets, rather than on providing civil remedies for the animals themselves.' 2 An overwhelming majority of courts deny pet owner emotional distress damages when a pet is negligently harmed or killed by-a third party. However, some courts now allow such damages for intentional and malicious harm to another's pet. Although rejecting owner emotional distress damages is wise in negligence cases,13 allowing such damages when a pet is, with malice, intentionally harmed represents good legal reform.
In Vercher the ALDF is-with much fanfare-urging Oregon's courts to push the envelope much further. Utilizing Oregon legislation and case law, the ALDF contends that an animal's purported "guardian" should be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name.15 In other words, the lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it. | when the "victim" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law
Scholars
debated
idea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs
the context is novel and explosive. Most
controversial lawsuits
have
unsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood
If the Vercher claim were to succeed
millions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications
this case will test whether
courts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights
in
precedents
ALDF
has the resources to pursue
future analogous cases aggressively
and it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts
Some jurisdictions
expanded civil remedies against animal abusers
this expansion has focused on awarding damages to
owners
rather than
the animals themselves
In Vercher the ALDF is
urging
courts to push the envelope much further
the ALDF contends that an animal's purported "guardian
should be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name
the lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it | 596 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "At first blush, asserting that abuse victims who can establish a sufficient degree of fault and reasonably foreseeable causation of harm should be entitled to tort damages from their abusers hardly seems controversial. But when the \"victim\" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law.\nIn 2018 the Animal Legal Defense Fund (hereafter \"ALDF\") filed Justice v. Vercher in Washington County, Oregon. 4 After being dismissed by a trial court for lack of standing, the lawsuit is now progressing through the state's appellate system.5 In the lawsuit, the ALDF asserts that a criminally neglected horse should be permitted to recover tort damages against its former owner.\nScholars have previously debated the idea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs,6 but the Vercher case is the most significant effort to date to shift the concept from the academy to the courthouse. For several reasons, the lawsuit has weighty implications.\nFirst, the context is novel and explosive. Most of the controversial lawsuits that have thus far unsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood in the United States in recent years-some of them still working their way through appellate courts-have focused on the particularly strong cognitive abilities of species kept by humans only in relatively small numbers (specifically, chimpanzees, cetaceans, and elephants), rather than focusing on the much broader capacity to suffer that creates the basis for identifying abused animals as victims for some purposes.7 If the Vercher claim were to succeed, potentially millions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications.8\nSecond, the media have highlighted the case due to its unsettling facts and its novel legal theories, enhancing its potential for broad influence.9 Third, Oregon's legislature and courts have evidenced distinctive enthusiasm for legal reform that would provide better protection for animals.10 Thus far the state's evolution has been positive, but this case will test whether Oregon's courts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights dressed in the comfortingly routine language of following precedents.\nFourth, the ALDF is perhaps the nation's largest and most influential legal organization pressing for animal legal rights.\" The ALDF likely has the resources to pursue this case and perhaps future analogous cases aggressively, and it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts than would some other animal rights groups.\nSome jurisdictions have expanded civil remedies against animal abusers in recent years. However, this expansion has focused on awarding damages to pets' owners against third parties who have intentionally abused the owners' pets, rather than on providing civil remedies for the animals themselves.' 2 An overwhelming majority of courts deny pet owner emotional distress damages when a pet is negligently harmed or killed by-a third party. However, some courts now allow such damages for intentional and malicious harm to another's pet. Although rejecting owner emotional distress damages is wise in negligence cases,13 allowing such damages when a pet is, with malice, intentionally harmed represents good legal reform.\nIn Vercher the ALDF is-with much fanfare-urging Oregon's courts to push the envelope much further. Utilizing Oregon legislation and case law, the ALDF contends that an animal's purported \"guardian\" should be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name.15 In other words, the lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "when the \"victim\" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law\nScholars\ndebated\nidea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs\nthe context is novel and explosive. Most\ncontroversial lawsuits\nhave\nunsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood\nIf the Vercher claim were to succeed\nmillions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications\nthis case will test whether\ncourts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights\nin\nprecedents\nALDF\nhas the resources to pursue\nfuture analogous cases aggressively\nand it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts\nSome jurisdictions\nexpanded civil remedies against animal abusers\nthis expansion has focused on awarding damages to\nowners\nrather than\nthe animals themselves\nIn Vercher the ALDF is\nurging\ncourts to push the envelope much further\nthe ALDF contends that an animal's purported \"guardian\nshould be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name\nthe lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over. | when the "victim" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law
Scholars
debated
idea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs
the context is novel and explosive. Most
controversial lawsuits
have
unsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood
If the Vercher claim were to succeed
millions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications
this case will test whether
courts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights
in
precedents
ALDF
has the resources to pursue
future analogous cases aggressively
and it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts
Some jurisdictions
expanded civil remedies against animal abusers
this expansion has focused on awarding damages to
owners
rather than
the animals themselves
In Vercher the ALDF is
urging
courts to push the envelope much further
the ALDF contends that an animal's purported "guardian
should be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name
the lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it | victim
lawsuit
dramatic change
tort system
societal implications
beyond tort law
debated
tort damages lawsuits
plaintiffs
novel
explosive
unsuccessfully sought
Vercher claim
succeed
millions
legal status
enormous
test
beyond animal welfare
radical animal rights
precedents
ALDF
aggressively
less
credibility problem
expanded
owners
animals themselves
Vercher
courts
much further
guardian
pursue damages
animal's own name
legal person
tortious harms | 597 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "when the \"victim\" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law\nScholars\ndebated\nidea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs\nthe context is novel and explosive. Most\ncontroversial lawsuits\nhave\nunsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood\nIf the Vercher claim were to succeed\nmillions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications\nthis case will test whether\ncourts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights\nin\nprecedents\nALDF\nhas the resources to pursue\nfuture analogous cases aggressively\nand it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts\nSome jurisdictions\nexpanded civil remedies against animal abusers\nthis expansion has focused on awarding damages to\nowners\nrather than\nthe animals themselves\nIn Vercher the ALDF is\nurging\ncourts to push the envelope much further\nthe ALDF contends that an animal's purported \"guardian\nshould be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name\nthe lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "victim\nlawsuit\ndramatic change\ntort system\nsocietal implications\nbeyond tort law\ndebated\ntort damages lawsuits\nplaintiffs\nnovel\nexplosive\nunsuccessfully sought\nVercher claim\nsucceed\nmillions\nlegal status\nenormous\ntest\nbeyond animal welfare\nradical animal rights\nprecedents\nALDF\naggressively\nless\ncredibility problem\nexpanded\nowners\nanimals themselves\nVercher\ncourts\nmuch further\nguardian\npursue damages\nanimal's own name\nlegal person\ntortious harms",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over.
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | when the "victim" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law
Scholars
debated
idea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs
the context is novel and explosive. Most
controversial lawsuits
have
unsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood
If the Vercher claim were to succeed
millions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications
this case will test whether
courts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights
in
precedents
ALDF
has the resources to pursue
future analogous cases aggressively
and it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts
Some jurisdictions
expanded civil remedies against animal abusers
this expansion has focused on awarding damages to
owners
rather than
the animals themselves
In Vercher the ALDF is
urging
courts to push the envelope much further
the ALDF contends that an animal's purported "guardian
should be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name
the lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it | allowing
lawsuit would signal a dramatic change
and have
implications
beyond tort law
context is
explosive. Most
lawsuits
unsuccessfully sought
personhood
If the
claim were to succeed
millions of animals'
status might change, with enormous
implications
this case will test whether
courts might
step beyond
welfare
in
precedents
ALDF
has
resources to pursue
analogous cases
the ALDF is
urging
courts to push the envelope
lawsuit
seeks to treat an animal as a legal person | 598 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Naming animals as the plaintiff in tort damages lawsuits spills over.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "when the \"victim\" is a horse, allowing such a lawsuit would signal a dramatic change in our tort system and have societal implications well beyond tort law\nScholars\ndebated\nidea of tort damages lawsuits naming animals as plaintiffs\nthe context is novel and explosive. Most\ncontroversial lawsuits\nhave\nunsuccessfully sought animal legal personhood\nIf the Vercher claim were to succeed\nmillions of animals' legal status might change, with enormous financial and societal implications\nthis case will test whether\ncourts might be tempted to step beyond animal welfare to accept radical animal rights\nin\nprecedents\nALDF\nhas the resources to pursue\nfuture analogous cases aggressively\nand it may have less of a credibility problem with the courts\nSome jurisdictions\nexpanded civil remedies against animal abusers\nthis expansion has focused on awarding damages to\nowners\nrather than\nthe animals themselves\nIn Vercher the ALDF is\nurging\ncourts to push the envelope much further\nthe ALDF contends that an animal's purported \"guardian\nshould be permitted to pursue damages against an animal's abuser in the animal's own name\nthe lawsuit in effect seeks to treat an animal as a legal person with a right to pursue civil remedies for tortious harms inflicted upon it",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "allowing\nlawsuit would signal a dramatic change\nand have\nimplications\nbeyond tort law\ncontext is\nexplosive. Most\nlawsuits\nunsuccessfully sought\npersonhood\nIf the\nclaim were to succeed\nmillions of animals'\nstatus might change, with enormous\nimplications\nthis case will test whether\ncourts might\nstep beyond\nwelfare\nin\nprecedents\nALDF\nhas\nresources to pursue\nanalogous cases\nthe ALDF is\nurging\ncourts to push the envelope\nlawsuit\nseeks to treat an animal as a legal person",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights. | The more pluralized image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents of personhood in differing degrees – might also be relevant for legal approaches to other non-humans. One could imagine that, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need (such as the protection of bodily integrity). | image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents
in differing degrees –
.
, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need | 599 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The more pluralized image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents of personhood in differing degrees – might also be relevant for legal approaches to other non-humans. One could imagine that, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need (such as the protection of bodily integrity). ",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents\n in differing degrees –\n.\n, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights. | image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents
in differing degrees –
.
, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need | as consisting of a range
in differing degrees
a legal status might be envisioned
several incidents
such as the capacity to be held accountable
that humans and animals might need | 600 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents\n in differing degrees –\n.\n, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "as consisting of a range\nin differing degrees\na legal status might be envisioned\nseveral incidents\nsuch as the capacity to be held accountable\nthat humans and animals might need",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents
in differing degrees –
.
, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need | the legal sphere
consisting of a range
in differing degrees
for
a
i
status
encompasses
incidents
while excluding
fundamental protections
humans
need | 601 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 3---The legal system can give AI duties without giving it rights.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "image of the legal sphere – as consisting of a range of various legal entities that hold rights and incidents\n in differing degrees –\n.\n, for artificial intelligence or robots, a legal status might be envisioned that encompasses several incidents of legal personhood (such as the capacity to be held accountable) and simple rights, while excluding some of the fundamental protections that humans and animals might need",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the legal sphere\nconsisting of a range\nin differing degrees\nfor\na\ni\nstatus\nencompasses\nincidents\nwhile excluding\nfundamental protections\nhumans\nneed",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 1. Bombers are rendered unusable due to bases. | • U.S. bombers today are located at only three continental bases in Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota. The bomber force could therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack against only three targets.
• Because bombers can carry both nuclear and conventional payloads, during a crisis an adversary might suspect that a conventionally-armed bomber was actually carrying nuclear weapons, thereby encouraging an attack against the bomber or a preemptive nuclear strike.
• Instead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension by rousing suspicion of an impending nuclear strike, thereby prompting further escalation.
• Though assured strategic penetration is vital to deterrence, the odds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless. | bombers today are located at only three continental bases
could therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack
Instead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension
odds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless. | 602 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 1. Bombers are rendered unusable due to bases.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "• U.S. bombers today are located at only three continental bases in Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota. The bomber force could therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack against only three targets.\n• Because bombers can carry both nuclear and conventional payloads, during a crisis an adversary might suspect that a conventionally-armed bomber was actually carrying nuclear weapons, thereby encouraging an attack against the bomber or a preemptive nuclear strike.\n• Instead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension by rousing suspicion of an impending nuclear strike, thereby prompting further escalation.\n• Though assured strategic penetration is vital to deterrence, the odds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "bombers today are located at only three continental bases\ncould therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack\nInstead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension\nodds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 1. Bombers are rendered unusable due to bases.
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | • U.S. bombers today are located at only three continental bases in Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota. The bomber force could therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack against only three targets.
• Because bombers can carry both nuclear and conventional payloads, during a crisis an adversary might suspect that a conventionally-armed bomber was actually carrying nuclear weapons, thereby encouraging an attack against the bomber or a preemptive nuclear strike.
• Instead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension by rousing suspicion of an impending nuclear strike, thereby prompting further escalation.
• Though assured strategic penetration is vital to deterrence, the odds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless. | bombers
are located at only three
bases
be significantly damaged by a surprise attack
Instead of
deterring
bombers
exacerbate tension | 604 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 1. Bombers are rendered unusable due to bases.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "• U.S. bombers today are located at only three continental bases in Louisiana, Missouri, and North Dakota. The bomber force could therefore be significantly damaged by a surprise attack against only three targets.\n• Because bombers can carry both nuclear and conventional payloads, during a crisis an adversary might suspect that a conventionally-armed bomber was actually carrying nuclear weapons, thereby encouraging an attack against the bomber or a preemptive nuclear strike.\n• Instead of demonstrating resolve and deterring an adversary, scrambling bombers might actually exacerbate tension by rousing suspicion of an impending nuclear strike, thereby prompting further escalation.\n• Though assured strategic penetration is vital to deterrence, the odds are vanishingly small that an adversary could ever deploy a missile defense system robust enough to stop 100 percent of incoming long-range missiles. The alternative penetration option offered by bombers may therefore be practically useless.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "bombers\nare located at only three\nbases\nbe significantly damaged by a surprise attack\nInstead of\ndeterring\nbombers\nexacerbate tension",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole. | Collaboration, as we are using the term, refers to cooperation among diverse individuals, groups, or organizations working together systematically to achieve a common goal. In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the development of more effective collaboration among diverse individuals or entities within organizations. However, such intraorganizational collaboration is often encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete more effectively against other organizations for access to scarce resources, markets, profits, and so forth. Likewise, some attention has also been paid to interorganizational collaboration, but largely for the same reasons: to enable partner organizations to compete more effectively against rivals in zero-sum relationships. Collaboration, in other words, is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition.
Unfortunately, this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework, alluded to earlier, that is becoming deeply maladaptive under today's conditions of ever-increasing social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual and group is increasingly dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions therefore require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system-or an organic whole. In other worlds, we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame. 4
Within any healthy organic body, relations among its component cells and organs are characterized by collaboration and reciprocity-not competition. Indeed, within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease. Yet these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.
| Collaboration
refers to cooperation among diverse individuals
to achieve a common goal
collaboration is
encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete
Collaboration
is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition
this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework
that is becoming deeply maladaptive under
social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual
is
dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions
require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system
an organic whole
we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame
Within any
organic body, relations
are
collaboration and reciprocity-not competition
within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease
these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions. | 605 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration, as we are using the term, refers to cooperation among diverse individuals, groups, or organizations working together systematically to achieve a common goal. In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the development of more effective collaboration among diverse individuals or entities within organizations. However, such intraorganizational collaboration is often encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete more effectively against other organizations for access to scarce resources, markets, profits, and so forth. Likewise, some attention has also been paid to interorganizational collaboration, but largely for the same reasons: to enable partner organizations to compete more effectively against rivals in zero-sum relationships. Collaboration, in other words, is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition.\nUnfortunately, this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework, alluded to earlier, that is becoming deeply maladaptive under today's conditions of ever-increasing social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual and group is increasingly dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions therefore require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system-or an organic whole. In other worlds, we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame. 4\nWithin any healthy organic body, relations among its component cells and organs are characterized by collaboration and reciprocity-not competition. Indeed, within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease. Yet these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration\nrefers to cooperation among diverse individuals\nto achieve a common goal\ncollaboration is\nencouraged merely to enable an organization to compete\nCollaboration\nis still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition\nthis self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework\nthat is becoming deeply maladaptive under\nsocial and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual\nis\ndependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions\nrequire us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system\nan organic whole\nwe need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame\nWithin any\norganic body, relations\nare\ncollaboration and reciprocity-not competition\nwithin an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease\nthese dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole. | Collaboration, as we are using the term, refers to cooperation among diverse individuals, groups, or organizations working together systematically to achieve a common goal. In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the development of more effective collaboration among diverse individuals or entities within organizations. However, such intraorganizational collaboration is often encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete more effectively against other organizations for access to scarce resources, markets, profits, and so forth. Likewise, some attention has also been paid to interorganizational collaboration, but largely for the same reasons: to enable partner organizations to compete more effectively against rivals in zero-sum relationships. Collaboration, in other words, is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition.
Unfortunately, this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework, alluded to earlier, that is becoming deeply maladaptive under today's conditions of ever-increasing social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual and group is increasingly dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions therefore require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system-or an organic whole. In other worlds, we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame. 4
Within any healthy organic body, relations among its component cells and organs are characterized by collaboration and reciprocity-not competition. Indeed, within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease. Yet these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.
| Collaboration
is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition
this self-interested view of collaboration
deeply maladaptive
every individual
entire social body
self-interested competition
an organic whole
we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame
relations
are
collaboration and reciprocity-not competition
sure sign of disease
market interactions | 606 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration, as we are using the term, refers to cooperation among diverse individuals, groups, or organizations working together systematically to achieve a common goal. In recent years, significant attention has been paid to the development of more effective collaboration among diverse individuals or entities within organizations. However, such intraorganizational collaboration is often encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete more effectively against other organizations for access to scarce resources, markets, profits, and so forth. Likewise, some attention has also been paid to interorganizational collaboration, but largely for the same reasons: to enable partner organizations to compete more effectively against rivals in zero-sum relationships. Collaboration, in other words, is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition.\nUnfortunately, this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework, alluded to earlier, that is becoming deeply maladaptive under today's conditions of ever-increasing social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual and group is increasingly dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions therefore require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system-or an organic whole. In other worlds, we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame. 4\nWithin any healthy organic body, relations among its component cells and organs are characterized by collaboration and reciprocity-not competition. Indeed, within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease. Yet these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration\nis still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition\nthis self-interested view of collaboration\ndeeply maladaptive\nevery individual\nentire social body\nself-interested competition\nan organic whole\nwe need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame\nrelations\nare\ncollaboration and reciprocity-not competition\nsure sign of disease\nmarket interactions",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole.
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | Collaboration
refers to cooperation among diverse individuals
to achieve a common goal
collaboration is
encouraged merely to enable an organization to compete
Collaboration
is still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition
this self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework
that is becoming deeply maladaptive under
social and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual
is
dependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions
require us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system
an organic whole
we need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame
Within any
organic body, relations
are
collaboration and reciprocity-not competition
within an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease
these dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions. | Collaboration
refers to cooperation among
to achieve a common goal
Collaboration
is still
viewed as
self-interested competition
this self-interested view
is
deeply maladaptive under
social and ecological interdependence
Under these
the well-being of every individual
is
dependent on
the entire social body
Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system
to reframe
by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame
collaboration and reciprocity-not competition | 607 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Adding “leadership” results in self-interested collaboration unable to solve social and ecological crisis---we must shift to view society as a collective whole.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration\nrefers to cooperation among diverse individuals\nto achieve a common goal\ncollaboration is\nencouraged merely to enable an organization to compete\nCollaboration\nis still widely viewed as a strategy of self-interested competition\nthis self-interested view of collaboration is part of the same conceptual framework\nthat is becoming deeply maladaptive under\nsocial and ecological interdependence. Under these conditions, the well-being of every individual\nis\ndependent on the well-being of the entire social body. These new conditions\nrequire us to adopt a more mature conception of social and economic relationships. Rather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system\nan organic whole\nwe need to reframe our conception of society by shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame\nWithin any\norganic body, relations\nare\ncollaboration and reciprocity-not competition\nwithin an organic body, the competitive hoarding of resources or the pursuit of mutually exclusive gains is a sure sign of disease\nthese dysfunctional relations continue to dominant human societies-especially within market interactions.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Collaboration\nrefers to cooperation among\nto achieve a common goal\nCollaboration\nis still\nviewed as\nself-interested competition\nthis self-interested view\nis\ndeeply maladaptive under\nsocial and ecological interdependence\nUnder these\nthe well-being of every individual\nis\ndependent on\nthe entire social body\nRather than viewing society as an arena for self-interested competition, we need to begin viewing it as a complex living system\nto reframe\nby shifting from a social contest frame to a social body frame\ncollaboration and reciprocity-not competition",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable | Dematerialization may be the most important, yet unsung, example of environmental progress in the 21st century. It is commonplace to observe that the relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use, so that a soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago. But dematerialization is not merely a story about increased efficiency or per‐capita reductions. What is now being observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth, such that as mature economies grow, they not only use fewer resources per unit of output, but they also consume fewer resources overall. In short, economic growth in the most developed nations increasingly coincides with a net reduction in resource consumption. The United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth,” according to Andrew McAfee in More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources — and What Happens Next. McAfee, a principal research scientist at MIT, explains, “We’re now generally using less of most resources year after year, even as our economy and population grow.” The United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement, and even paper than it did at the start of this century, despite the continued increase in gross domestic product. Annual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources tracked by the U.S. Geological Service are “post peak.” We also use less fertilizer and water while growing more crops. Plastic consumption is up, as is energy use, but these two appear to have been decoupled from population and economic growth as well. How does this dematerialization occur? Some examples may be useful. The dematerialization of soda cans is relatively easy to grasp, particularly for those of us who can remember the heavier cans of the 20th century. Aluminum cans weighed 85 grams when introduced in the 1950s. By 2011, the average can was under 13 grams. Cans today are not only thinner and lighter, they are produced more efficiently, with fewer separate sheets of metal. Substitution can be an even more powerful source of dematerialization. Consider telecommunications. A single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables. And were that not enough, satellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass the use of physical cables altogether. We can communicate more and yet use vastly less material to do so. This not only saves copper, but other resources too. Think of all the paper saved by e‑mail, e‑banking, and e‑readers. Markets or Malthus? It was not expected to work out this way. Throughout the modern era, doomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another. Human impact on the natural environment was to increase inexorably with the rise of wealth, technology, and population, inevitably colliding with the earth’s natural carrying capacity. It seemed “logical and inevitable” that “the planet’s finite stock of these resources would someday be exhausted.” Yet, this is not what happened. Instead, “capitalism and tech progress are now allowing us to tread more lightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare.” The Malthusian “limits to growth” have not merely been delayed or forestalled; they have been transcended. This was neither planned, nor anticipated, nor is it the product of the ecological agenda advanced by the modern environmental movement. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, environmental advocates have called for constraints on consumption, limits on technology, and greater recycling. None of those impulses, in McAfee’s view, did much to encourage dematerialization. Indeed, he suggests, pushing for recycling may have cut the other way, insofar as recycling dulled the price signals that incentivized producers to do more with less. The environmental policies born of the 1970s may have “worked amazingly well” to reduce pollution and related environmental harms, but they played just a bit part in the story of dematerialization. We do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction, but because of capitalism and technology. These are the dominant forces driving dematerialization in the most developed countries and they could unleash similar gains in the rest of the world. We “want more all the time, but not more resources,” McAfee notes. We want more of what resources can provide, and one way to get more is to do more with less. Market capitalism both facilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance. This not only leads to dematerialization but also promotes “critical aspects of well‐being,” including health and prosperity. What’s left to be done While celebrating dematerialization and dramatic improvements in many measures of human well‐being, McAfee acknowledges there is more to be done. He devotes the latter part of the book to considering the challenges that remain. Dematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations, but it has yet to reach much of the world. Some types of pollution are declining, but others — including plastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not. He also worries about the potential effects of economic concentration and “disconnection among people and declines in social capital.” Not everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive, even if the net result is a good one. McAfee is an optimist, but he sees serious storm clouds on the horizon. He is particularly concerned about the atmospheric increase in greenhouse gases and writes that reducing “the carbon intensity of our economic activities” is “the most important task for responsive governments.” He is right to be concerned about climate change, but his discussion of the policy options is somewhat thin and disconnected from the central thrust of his book. Market‐driven capitalism and accompanying technological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well, particularly if carbon emissions are priced. The proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization we observed in telecommunications. Yet, the nature of any government interventions matters. Ill‐conceived policies could blunt the market incentives that drive more efficient resource use. McAfee gives such questions relatively little attention, however. He also is too quick to credit regulatory interventions for prior environmental gains, such as the reductions in air and water pollution over the past half‐century. Those trends often began before the regulatory measures he celebrates, and some regulatory measures may well have caused more harm than good. McAfee did not set out to write a wonky treatise on environmental policy, and More from Less is not one. The book tells the story of capitalism’s triumph over material scarcity with clarity and insight. He ably explains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability, and market capitalism was the cause. At a time when capitalism is viewed with suspicion, More from Less rises to its defense. Global challenges remain, but More from Less suggests solving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less. | Dematerialization may be the most important
unsung
example of environmental progress in the 21st century
the relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use
a soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago
What is
being observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth
as mature economies grow
they
use fewer resources per unit of output
but
also consume fewer resources overall
economic growth in
developed nations
coincides with a net reduction in resource consumption
The United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth
according to
McAfee
McAfee
a
research scientist at MIT
We’re
using less of most resources year after year
even as our economy and population grow
The United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement
and even paper than it did at the start of this century
despite
continued increase in gross domestic product
Annual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources
post peak
We
use less fertilizer and water while growing more crops
Plastic consumption
as is energy use
have been decoupled from population and economic growth as well
dematerialization of soda cans is
easy to grasp
cans weighed 85 grams
in the 1950s
By 2011
the average
was under 13 grams
Substitution can be an
powerful source of dematerialization
telecommunications
A single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables
satellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass
physical cables altogether
This
saves copper
but other resources too
paper saved by e‑mail
doomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another
Human impact on the
environment was to increase
with the rise of wealth
technology
and population
colliding with the earth’s
carrying capacity
It seemed “logical
that
finite
resources would
be exhausted
this is not what happened
capitalism and tech progress are
allowing us to tread
lightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare
Malthusian “limits to growth”
have been transcended
This was neither planned
anticipated
nor
product of the ecological agenda
advocates have called for constraints on consumption
limits on technology
and greater recycling
None of those impulses
did much to encourage dematerialization
We do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction
but because of capitalism and technology
dominant forces driving dematerialization in
developed countries
could unleash similar gains in the rest of the world
one way to get more is to do more with less
Market capitalism
facilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance
This
leads to dematerialization but also promotes
health and prosperity
Dematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations
but
has yet to reach much of the world
ypes of pollution are declining
but
plastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not
Not everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive
even if the net result is a good one
McAfee
writes
reducing
carbon intensity
is
important
for responsive governments
Market‐driven capitalism and
technological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well
The proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization
in telecommunications
Ill‐conceived policies could blunt
market incentives that drive
efficient resource use
capitalism’s triumph over material scarcity
explains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability
and market capitalism was the cause
Global challenges remain
but
solving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less | 608 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Dematerialization may be the most important, yet unsung, example of environmental progress in the 21st century. It is commonplace to observe that the relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use, so that a soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago. But dematerialization is not merely a story about increased efficiency or per‐capita reductions. What is now being observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth, such that as mature economies grow, they not only use fewer resources per unit of output, but they also consume fewer resources overall. In short, economic growth in the most developed nations increasingly coincides with a net reduction in resource consumption. The United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth,” according to Andrew McAfee in More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources — and What Happens Next. McAfee, a principal research scientist at MIT, explains, “We’re now generally using less of most resources year after year, even as our economy and population grow.” The United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement, and even paper than it did at the start of this century, despite the continued increase in gross domestic product. Annual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources tracked by the U.S. Geological Service are “post peak.” We also use less fertilizer and water while growing more crops. Plastic consumption is up, as is energy use, but these two appear to have been decoupled from population and economic growth as well. How does this dematerialization occur? Some examples may be useful. The dematerialization of soda cans is relatively easy to grasp, particularly for those of us who can remember the heavier cans of the 20th century. Aluminum cans weighed 85 grams when introduced in the 1950s. By 2011, the average can was under 13 grams. Cans today are not only thinner and lighter, they are produced more efficiently, with fewer separate sheets of metal. Substitution can be an even more powerful source of dematerialization. Consider telecommunications. A single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables. And were that not enough, satellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass the use of physical cables altogether. We can communicate more and yet use vastly less material to do so. This not only saves copper, but other resources too. Think of all the paper saved by e‑mail, e‑banking, and e‑readers. Markets or Malthus? It was not expected to work out this way. Throughout the modern era, doomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another. Human impact on the natural environment was to increase inexorably with the rise of wealth, technology, and population, inevitably colliding with the earth’s natural carrying capacity. It seemed “logical and inevitable” that “the planet’s finite stock of these resources would someday be exhausted.” Yet, this is not what happened. Instead, “capitalism and tech progress are now allowing us to tread more lightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare.” The Malthusian “limits to growth” have not merely been delayed or forestalled; they have been transcended. This was neither planned, nor anticipated, nor is it the product of the ecological agenda advanced by the modern environmental movement. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, environmental advocates have called for constraints on consumption, limits on technology, and greater recycling. None of those impulses, in McAfee’s view, did much to encourage dematerialization. Indeed, he suggests, pushing for recycling may have cut the other way, insofar as recycling dulled the price signals that incentivized producers to do more with less. The environmental policies born of the 1970s may have “worked amazingly well” to reduce pollution and related environmental harms, but they played just a bit part in the story of dematerialization. We do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction, but because of capitalism and technology. These are the dominant forces driving dematerialization in the most developed countries and they could unleash similar gains in the rest of the world. We “want more all the time, but not more resources,” McAfee notes. We want more of what resources can provide, and one way to get more is to do more with less. Market capitalism both facilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance. This not only leads to dematerialization but also promotes “critical aspects of well‐being,” including health and prosperity. What’s left to be done While celebrating dematerialization and dramatic improvements in many measures of human well‐being, McAfee acknowledges there is more to be done. He devotes the latter part of the book to considering the challenges that remain. Dematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations, but it has yet to reach much of the world. Some types of pollution are declining, but others — including plastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not. He also worries about the potential effects of economic concentration and “disconnection among people and declines in social capital.” Not everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive, even if the net result is a good one. McAfee is an optimist, but he sees serious storm clouds on the horizon. He is particularly concerned about the atmospheric increase in greenhouse gases and writes that reducing “the carbon intensity of our economic activities” is “the most important task for responsive governments.” He is right to be concerned about climate change, but his discussion of the policy options is somewhat thin and disconnected from the central thrust of his book. Market‐driven capitalism and accompanying technological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well, particularly if carbon emissions are priced. The proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization we observed in telecommunications. Yet, the nature of any government interventions matters. Ill‐conceived policies could blunt the market incentives that drive more efficient resource use. McAfee gives such questions relatively little attention, however. He also is too quick to credit regulatory interventions for prior environmental gains, such as the reductions in air and water pollution over the past half‐century. Those trends often began before the regulatory measures he celebrates, and some regulatory measures may well have caused more harm than good. McAfee did not set out to write a wonky treatise on environmental policy, and More from Less is not one. The book tells the story of capitalism’s triumph over material scarcity with clarity and insight. He ably explains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability, and market capitalism was the cause. At a time when capitalism is viewed with suspicion, More from Less rises to its defense. Global challenges remain, but More from Less suggests solving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Dematerialization may be the most important\nunsung\nexample of environmental progress in the 21st century\nthe relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use\na soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago\nWhat is\nbeing observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth\nas mature economies grow\nthey\nuse fewer resources per unit of output\nbut\nalso consume fewer resources overall\neconomic growth in\ndeveloped nations\ncoincides with a net reduction in resource consumption\nThe United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth\naccording to\nMcAfee\nMcAfee\na\nresearch scientist at MIT\nWe’re\nusing less of most resources year after year\neven as our economy and population grow\nThe United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement\nand even paper than it did at the start of this century\ndespite\ncontinued increase in gross domestic product\nAnnual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources\npost peak\nWe\nuse less fertilizer and water while growing more crops\nPlastic consumption\nas is energy use\nhave been decoupled from population and economic growth as well\ndematerialization of soda cans is\neasy to grasp\ncans weighed 85 grams\nin the 1950s\nBy 2011\nthe average\nwas under 13 grams\nSubstitution can be an\npowerful source of dematerialization\ntelecommunications\nA single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables\nsatellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass\nphysical cables altogether\nThis\nsaves copper\nbut other resources too\npaper saved by e‑mail\ndoomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another\nHuman impact on the\nenvironment was to increase\nwith the rise of wealth\ntechnology\nand population\ncolliding with the earth’s\ncarrying capacity\nIt seemed “logical\nthat\nfinite\nresources would\nbe exhausted\nthis is not what happened\ncapitalism and tech progress are\nallowing us to tread\nlightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare\nMalthusian “limits to growth”\nhave been transcended\nThis was neither planned\nanticipated\nnor\nproduct of the ecological agenda\nadvocates have called for constraints on consumption\nlimits on technology\nand greater recycling\nNone of those impulses\ndid much to encourage dematerialization\nWe do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction\nbut because of capitalism and technology\ndominant forces driving dematerialization in\ndeveloped countries\ncould unleash similar gains in the rest of the world\none way to get more is to do more with less\nMarket capitalism\nfacilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance\nThis\nleads to dematerialization but also promotes\nhealth and prosperity\nDematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations\nbut\nhas yet to reach much of the world\nypes of pollution are declining\nbut\nplastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not\nNot everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive\neven if the net result is a good one\nMcAfee\nwrites\nreducing\ncarbon intensity\nis\nimportant\nfor responsive governments\nMarket‐driven capitalism and\ntechnological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well\nThe proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization\nin telecommunications\nIll‐conceived policies could blunt\nmarket incentives that drive\nefficient resource use\ncapitalism’s triumph over material scarcity\nexplains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability\nand market capitalism was the cause\nGlobal challenges remain\nbut\nsolving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable | Dematerialization may be the most important
unsung
example of environmental progress in the 21st century
the relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use
a soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago
What is
being observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth
as mature economies grow
they
use fewer resources per unit of output
but
also consume fewer resources overall
economic growth in
developed nations
coincides with a net reduction in resource consumption
The United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth
according to
McAfee
McAfee
a
research scientist at MIT
We’re
using less of most resources year after year
even as our economy and population grow
The United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement
and even paper than it did at the start of this century
despite
continued increase in gross domestic product
Annual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources
post peak
We
use less fertilizer and water while growing more crops
Plastic consumption
as is energy use
have been decoupled from population and economic growth as well
dematerialization of soda cans is
easy to grasp
cans weighed 85 grams
in the 1950s
By 2011
the average
was under 13 grams
Substitution can be an
powerful source of dematerialization
telecommunications
A single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables
satellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass
physical cables altogether
This
saves copper
but other resources too
paper saved by e‑mail
doomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another
Human impact on the
environment was to increase
with the rise of wealth
technology
and population
colliding with the earth’s
carrying capacity
It seemed “logical
that
finite
resources would
be exhausted
this is not what happened
capitalism and tech progress are
allowing us to tread
lightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare
Malthusian “limits to growth”
have been transcended
This was neither planned
anticipated
nor
product of the ecological agenda
advocates have called for constraints on consumption
limits on technology
and greater recycling
None of those impulses
did much to encourage dematerialization
We do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction
but because of capitalism and technology
dominant forces driving dematerialization in
developed countries
could unleash similar gains in the rest of the world
one way to get more is to do more with less
Market capitalism
facilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance
This
leads to dematerialization but also promotes
health and prosperity
Dematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations
but
has yet to reach much of the world
ypes of pollution are declining
but
plastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not
Not everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive
even if the net result is a good one
McAfee
writes
reducing
carbon intensity
is
important
for responsive governments
Market‐driven capitalism and
technological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well
The proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization
in telecommunications
Ill‐conceived policies could blunt
market incentives that drive
efficient resource use
capitalism’s triumph over material scarcity
explains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability
and market capitalism was the cause
Global challenges remain
but
solving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less | Dematerialization
unsung
environmental progress
efficient
decoupling
consumption
growth
fewer resources
consume fewer resources
net reduction
U
S
post‐peak
McAfee
less
continued increase
g
d
p
less fertilizer
water
more crops
energy use
decoupled
soda cans
85 grams
13 grams
Substitution
telecommunications
silica
satellite
saves copper
paper
doomsayers
wealth
technology
population
capitalism
tech progress
limits to growth
transcended
dematerialization
capitalism
technology
similar gains
rest of the world
Market capitalism
efficiency gains
health
prosperity
net result
dematerialization
drive decarbonization
triumph
ecological sustainability
market capitalism
challenges remain
more capitalism
not less | 609 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Dematerialization may be the most important\nunsung\nexample of environmental progress in the 21st century\nthe relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use\na soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago\nWhat is\nbeing observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth\nas mature economies grow\nthey\nuse fewer resources per unit of output\nbut\nalso consume fewer resources overall\neconomic growth in\ndeveloped nations\ncoincides with a net reduction in resource consumption\nThe United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth\naccording to\nMcAfee\nMcAfee\na\nresearch scientist at MIT\nWe’re\nusing less of most resources year after year\neven as our economy and population grow\nThe United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement\nand even paper than it did at the start of this century\ndespite\ncontinued increase in gross domestic product\nAnnual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources\npost peak\nWe\nuse less fertilizer and water while growing more crops\nPlastic consumption\nas is energy use\nhave been decoupled from population and economic growth as well\ndematerialization of soda cans is\neasy to grasp\ncans weighed 85 grams\nin the 1950s\nBy 2011\nthe average\nwas under 13 grams\nSubstitution can be an\npowerful source of dematerialization\ntelecommunications\nA single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables\nsatellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass\nphysical cables altogether\nThis\nsaves copper\nbut other resources too\npaper saved by e‑mail\ndoomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another\nHuman impact on the\nenvironment was to increase\nwith the rise of wealth\ntechnology\nand population\ncolliding with the earth’s\ncarrying capacity\nIt seemed “logical\nthat\nfinite\nresources would\nbe exhausted\nthis is not what happened\ncapitalism and tech progress are\nallowing us to tread\nlightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare\nMalthusian “limits to growth”\nhave been transcended\nThis was neither planned\nanticipated\nnor\nproduct of the ecological agenda\nadvocates have called for constraints on consumption\nlimits on technology\nand greater recycling\nNone of those impulses\ndid much to encourage dematerialization\nWe do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction\nbut because of capitalism and technology\ndominant forces driving dematerialization in\ndeveloped countries\ncould unleash similar gains in the rest of the world\none way to get more is to do more with less\nMarket capitalism\nfacilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance\nThis\nleads to dematerialization but also promotes\nhealth and prosperity\nDematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations\nbut\nhas yet to reach much of the world\nypes of pollution are declining\nbut\nplastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not\nNot everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive\neven if the net result is a good one\nMcAfee\nwrites\nreducing\ncarbon intensity\nis\nimportant\nfor responsive governments\nMarket‐driven capitalism and\ntechnological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well\nThe proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization\nin telecommunications\nIll‐conceived policies could blunt\nmarket incentives that drive\nefficient resource use\ncapitalism’s triumph over material scarcity\nexplains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability\nand market capitalism was the cause\nGlobal challenges remain\nbut\nsolving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Dematerialization\nunsung\nenvironmental progress\nefficient\ndecoupling\nconsumption\ngrowth\nfewer resources\nconsume fewer resources\nnet reduction\nU\nS\npost‐peak\nMcAfee\nless\ncontinued increase\ng\nd\np\nless fertilizer\nwater\nmore crops\nenergy use\ndecoupled\nsoda cans\n85 grams\n13 grams\nSubstitution\ntelecommunications\nsilica\nsatellite\nsaves copper\npaper\ndoomsayers\nwealth\ntechnology\npopulation\ncapitalism\ntech progress\nlimits to growth\ntranscended\ndematerialization\ncapitalism\ntechnology\nsimilar gains\nrest of the world\nMarket capitalism\nefficiency gains\nhealth\nprosperity\nnet result\ndematerialization\ndrive decarbonization\ntriumph\necological sustainability\nmarket capitalism\nchallenges remain\nmore capitalism\nnot less",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable
Highlight Ratio: 0.2 | Dematerialization may be the most important
unsung
example of environmental progress in the 21st century
the relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use
a soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago
What is
being observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth
as mature economies grow
they
use fewer resources per unit of output
but
also consume fewer resources overall
economic growth in
developed nations
coincides with a net reduction in resource consumption
The United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth
according to
McAfee
McAfee
a
research scientist at MIT
We’re
using less of most resources year after year
even as our economy and population grow
The United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement
and even paper than it did at the start of this century
despite
continued increase in gross domestic product
Annual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources
post peak
We
use less fertilizer and water while growing more crops
Plastic consumption
as is energy use
have been decoupled from population and economic growth as well
dematerialization of soda cans is
easy to grasp
cans weighed 85 grams
in the 1950s
By 2011
the average
was under 13 grams
Substitution can be an
powerful source of dematerialization
telecommunications
A single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables
satellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass
physical cables altogether
This
saves copper
but other resources too
paper saved by e‑mail
doomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another
Human impact on the
environment was to increase
with the rise of wealth
technology
and population
colliding with the earth’s
carrying capacity
It seemed “logical
that
finite
resources would
be exhausted
this is not what happened
capitalism and tech progress are
allowing us to tread
lightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare
Malthusian “limits to growth”
have been transcended
This was neither planned
anticipated
nor
product of the ecological agenda
advocates have called for constraints on consumption
limits on technology
and greater recycling
None of those impulses
did much to encourage dematerialization
We do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction
but because of capitalism and technology
dominant forces driving dematerialization in
developed countries
could unleash similar gains in the rest of the world
one way to get more is to do more with less
Market capitalism
facilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance
This
leads to dematerialization but also promotes
health and prosperity
Dematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations
but
has yet to reach much of the world
ypes of pollution are declining
but
plastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not
Not everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive
even if the net result is a good one
McAfee
writes
reducing
carbon intensity
is
important
for responsive governments
Market‐driven capitalism and
technological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well
The proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization
in telecommunications
Ill‐conceived policies could blunt
market incentives that drive
efficient resource use
capitalism’s triumph over material scarcity
explains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability
and market capitalism was the cause
Global challenges remain
but
solving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less | fundamental decoupling of
consumption from
growth
as
economies grow
they
use
but
also consume fewer resources
United States
is “post‐peak in
exploitation of
earth
despite
continued increase in g
d
p
We
use less fertilizer and water
growing more crops
energy use
decoupled
dematerialization of soda cans
85 grams
in
1950
By 2011
13 grams
telecommunications
A
cable made from
silica can carry the
volume of
1‑ton copper cables
satellite
enable us to bypass
cables altogether
saves copper
paper
doomsayers
predicted
colliding with
earth’s
finite
resources
capitalism and tech progress are
allowing us to tread
lightly on
earth
limits to growth
have been transcended
capitalism
could unleash
gains in the rest of the world
capitalism
facilitates
incentives that drive efficiency gains
This
leads to
health and prosperity
capitalism
drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization
Global challenges remain
but
solving
will require more capitalism
not less | 610 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: dematerialization and decarbonization – makes consumption efficient and sustainable\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.2",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Dematerialization may be the most important\nunsung\nexample of environmental progress in the 21st century\nthe relentless drive to do more with less has led to more efficient resource use\na soda can today is made with a fraction of the metal required 50 years ago\nWhat is\nbeing observed represents a fundamental decoupling of resource consumption from economic growth\nas mature economies grow\nthey\nuse fewer resources per unit of output\nbut\nalso consume fewer resources overall\neconomic growth in\ndeveloped nations\ncoincides with a net reduction in resource consumption\nThe United States in particular is “post‐peak in its exploitation of the earth\naccording to\nMcAfee\nMcAfee\na\nresearch scientist at MIT\nWe’re\nusing less of most resources year after year\neven as our economy and population grow\nThe United States uses less gold, steel, aluminum, copper, stone, cement\nand even paper than it did at the start of this century\ndespite\ncontinued increase in gross domestic product\nAnnual consumption of all but six of the 72 resources\npost peak\nWe\nuse less fertilizer and water while growing more crops\nPlastic consumption\nas is energy use\nhave been decoupled from population and economic growth as well\ndematerialization of soda cans is\neasy to grasp\ncans weighed 85 grams\nin the 1950s\nBy 2011\nthe average\nwas under 13 grams\nSubstitution can be an\npowerful source of dematerialization\ntelecommunications\nA single fiber optic cable made from less than 150 pounds of silica can carry the same volume of information as multiple 1‑ton copper cables\nsatellite and wireless technologies enable us to bypass\nphysical cables altogether\nThis\nsaves copper\nbut other resources too\npaper saved by e‑mail\ndoomsayers have predicted the imminent depletion of one resource or another\nHuman impact on the\nenvironment was to increase\nwith the rise of wealth\ntechnology\nand population\ncolliding with the earth’s\ncarrying capacity\nIt seemed “logical\nthat\nfinite\nresources would\nbe exhausted\nthis is not what happened\ncapitalism and tech progress are\nallowing us to tread\nlightly on the earth instead of stripping it bare\nMalthusian “limits to growth”\nhave been transcended\nThis was neither planned\nanticipated\nnor\nproduct of the ecological agenda\nadvocates have called for constraints on consumption\nlimits on technology\nand greater recycling\nNone of those impulses\ndid much to encourage dematerialization\nWe do more with less not because of government regulation or administrative direction\nbut because of capitalism and technology\ndominant forces driving dematerialization in\ndeveloped countries\ncould unleash similar gains in the rest of the world\none way to get more is to do more with less\nMarket capitalism\nfacilitates and enhances the underlying incentives that drive efficiency gains and technological advance\nThis\nleads to dematerialization but also promotes\nhealth and prosperity\nDematerialization has occurred in the wealthiest nations\nbut\nhas yet to reach much of the world\nypes of pollution are declining\nbut\nplastic waste and greenhouse gases — are not\nNot everything wrought by capitalism and technological advance has been positive\neven if the net result is a good one\nMcAfee\nwrites\nreducing\ncarbon intensity\nis\nimportant\nfor responsive governments\nMarket‐driven capitalism and\ntechnological advances drove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization as well\nThe proper suite of policies could facilitate a decarbonization in energy to rival the dematerialization\nin telecommunications\nIll‐conceived policies could blunt\nmarket incentives that drive\nefficient resource use\ncapitalism’s triumph over material scarcity\nexplains how modern society has achieved material ecological sustainability\nand market capitalism was the cause\nGlobal challenges remain\nbut\nsolving such challenges will require more capitalism, not less",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "fundamental decoupling of\nconsumption from\ngrowth\nas\neconomies grow\nthey\nuse\nbut\nalso consume fewer resources\nUnited States\nis “post‐peak in\nexploitation of\nearth\ndespite\ncontinued increase in g\nd\np\nWe\nuse less fertilizer and water\ngrowing more crops\nenergy use\ndecoupled\ndematerialization of soda cans\n85 grams\nin\n1950\nBy 2011\n13 grams\ntelecommunications\nA\ncable made from\nsilica can carry the\nvolume of\n1‑ton copper cables\nsatellite\nenable us to bypass\ncables altogether\nsaves copper\npaper\ndoomsayers\npredicted\ncolliding with\nearth’s\nfinite\nresources\ncapitalism and tech progress are\nallowing us to tread\nlightly on\nearth\nlimits to growth\nhave been transcended\ncapitalism\ncould unleash\ngains in the rest of the world\ncapitalism\nfacilitates\nincentives that drive efficiency gains\nThis\nleads to\nhealth and prosperity\ncapitalism\ndrove dematerialization and could drive decarbonization\nGlobal challenges remain\nbut\nsolving\nwill require more capitalism\nnot less",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Fetal personhood isn’t inevitable – but the barrier is willpower. Our link ev proves the Aff plan FOREGROUNDS new contradictions that would resonate with the Judiciary. | Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs actually hints at this understanding of 14th Amendment personhood. Dobbs "sharply distinguishe[d]" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on the reality that "abortion destroys what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.'" In other words, Dobbs rejected Planned Parenthood's noxious "clump of cells" disinformation and candidly acknowledged the moral salience of the unborn child.
It is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood. The hurdle is not one of moral, biological, or constitutional truth, but rather one of fortitude and sheer willpower. All relevant constitutional actors must flex their muscles to help us reach the promised land of an abortion-free America.
| Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs
hints at
14th Amendment personhood
Dobbs
distinguishe[d]" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on
what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.
It is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood
The hurdle is not one of moral,
or constitutional truth
but rather one of
willpower. | 611 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Fetal personhood isn’t inevitable – but the barrier is willpower. Our link ev proves the Aff plan FOREGROUNDS new contradictions that would resonate with the Judiciary.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs actually hints at this understanding of 14th Amendment personhood. Dobbs \"sharply distinguishe[d]\" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on the reality that \"abortion destroys what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.'\" In other words, Dobbs rejected Planned Parenthood's noxious \"clump of cells\" disinformation and candidly acknowledged the moral salience of the unborn child.\nIt is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood. The hurdle is not one of moral, biological, or constitutional truth, but rather one of fortitude and sheer willpower. All relevant constitutional actors must flex their muscles to help us reach the promised land of an abortion-free America.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs\nhints at\n14th Amendment personhood\nDobbs\ndistinguishe[d]\" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on\nwhat those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.\nIt is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood\nThe hurdle is not one of moral,\nor constitutional truth\nbut rather one of\nwillpower.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Fetal personhood isn’t inevitable – but the barrier is willpower. Our link ev proves the Aff plan FOREGROUNDS new contradictions that would resonate with the Judiciary.
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs
hints at
14th Amendment personhood
Dobbs
distinguishe[d]" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on
what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.
It is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood
The hurdle is not one of moral,
or constitutional truth
but rather one of
willpower. | Alito's
opinion in Dobbs
hints at
14th
personhood
Dobbs
distinguishe[d]"
cases
which Roe and Casey
based on
'potential life'
It is
not a far leap from Dobbs to
personhood
The hurdle is not
moral,
or constitutional
rather one of
willpower. | 613 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Fetal personhood isn’t inevitable – but the barrier is willpower. Our link ev proves the Aff plan FOREGROUNDS new contradictions that would resonate with the Judiciary.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Alito's majority opinion in Dobbs\nhints at\n14th Amendment personhood\nDobbs\ndistinguishe[d]\" other cases on which Roe and Casey relied based on\nwhat those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being.\nIt is thus not a far leap from Dobbs to constitutional personhood\nThe hurdle is not one of moral,\nor constitutional truth\nbut rather one of\nwillpower.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Alito's\nopinion in Dobbs\nhints at\n14th\npersonhood\nDobbs\ndistinguishe[d]\"\ncases\nwhich Roe and Casey\nbased on\n'potential life'\nIt is\nnot a far leap from Dobbs to\npersonhood\nThe hurdle is not\nmoral,\nor constitutional\nrather one of\nwillpower.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction. |
By 2025, at least 27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities, intimately connected to globalization, pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence. Drawing on the authors’ three decades of international fieldwork and seasoned policy analysis, The Real Population Bomb (Potomac Books, 2012) by P.H. Liotta and James F. Miskel discusses the effects these underserved megacities have on foreign, military, environmental and economic policies. Explore the historical dilemmas of megacities and how these problems are shaping the global, economic and environmental landscape of our world. This excerpt is taken from Chapter 1, “Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Century.”
We live in the age of the city. The City is everything to us—it consumes us, and for that reason we glorify it. —Onookome Okome
There was a time when the city was the dominant political identity. Centuries and even millennia ago, the most advanced societies in the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South America revolved around cities that were either states in themselves or were the locus of power for larger empires and kingdoms. The time of the city is coming again, though now in a considerably less benign way.
-Advertisement-
With the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises—whether Lagos or Karachi, Dhaka or Kinshasa—reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose. There are no signs that their governments will prove more capable in the future. These swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.
By 2015 there will be six hundred cities on the planet with populations of 1 million or more, and fifty-eight with populations over 5 million. By 2025, according to the National Intelligence Council, there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million—the common measure by which an urban population constitutes a “megacity.” If measures are not taken soon, some of these megacities will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will become havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses within these unaccommodating spaces are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage, despair, and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—those that can—bringing violence with them. In the face of rising expectations that globalization inevitably entails, these petri dishes of despair and danger will spill over municipal boundaries and international borders with rapidly spreading contagion.
| By 2025
27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities
pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence.
With the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises
reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose.
swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.
By 2025
there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million
some
will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will be
havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses
are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage
and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—
bringing violence with them.
these petri dishes of
danger will spill over
international borders with rapidly spreading contagion | 614 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nBy 2025, at least 27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities, intimately connected to globalization, pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence. Drawing on the authors’ three decades of international fieldwork and seasoned policy analysis, The Real Population Bomb (Potomac Books, 2012) by P.H. Liotta and James F. Miskel discusses the effects these underserved megacities have on foreign, military, environmental and economic policies. Explore the historical dilemmas of megacities and how these problems are shaping the global, economic and environmental landscape of our world. This excerpt is taken from Chapter 1, “Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Century.” \nWe live in the age of the city. The City is everything to us—it consumes us, and for that reason we glorify it. —Onookome Okome\nThere was a time when the city was the dominant political identity. Centuries and even millennia ago, the most advanced societies in the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South America revolved around cities that were either states in themselves or were the locus of power for larger empires and kingdoms. The time of the city is coming again, though now in a considerably less benign way.\n-Advertisement-\nWith the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises—whether Lagos or Karachi, Dhaka or Kinshasa—reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose. There are no signs that their governments will prove more capable in the future. These swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.\nBy 2015 there will be six hundred cities on the planet with populations of 1 million or more, and fifty-eight with populations over 5 million. By 2025, according to the National Intelligence Council, there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million—the common measure by which an urban population constitutes a “megacity.” If measures are not taken soon, some of these megacities will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will become havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses within these unaccommodating spaces are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage, despair, and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—those that can—bringing violence with them. In the face of rising expectations that globalization inevitably entails, these petri dishes of despair and danger will spill over municipal boundaries and international borders with rapidly spreading contagion.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "By 2025\n27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities\npose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence.\nWith the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises\nreside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose.\nswarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.\nBy 2025\nthere will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million\nsome\nwill pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will be\nhavens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses\nare left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage\nand hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—\nbringing violence with them.\nthese petri dishes of\ndanger will spill over\ninternational borders with rapidly spreading contagion",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction. |
By 2025, at least 27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities, intimately connected to globalization, pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence. Drawing on the authors’ three decades of international fieldwork and seasoned policy analysis, The Real Population Bomb (Potomac Books, 2012) by P.H. Liotta and James F. Miskel discusses the effects these underserved megacities have on foreign, military, environmental and economic policies. Explore the historical dilemmas of megacities and how these problems are shaping the global, economic and environmental landscape of our world. This excerpt is taken from Chapter 1, “Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Century.”
We live in the age of the city. The City is everything to us—it consumes us, and for that reason we glorify it. —Onookome Okome
There was a time when the city was the dominant political identity. Centuries and even millennia ago, the most advanced societies in the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South America revolved around cities that were either states in themselves or were the locus of power for larger empires and kingdoms. The time of the city is coming again, though now in a considerably less benign way.
-Advertisement-
With the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises—whether Lagos or Karachi, Dhaka or Kinshasa—reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose. There are no signs that their governments will prove more capable in the future. These swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.
By 2015 there will be six hundred cities on the planet with populations of 1 million or more, and fifty-eight with populations over 5 million. By 2025, according to the National Intelligence Council, there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million—the common measure by which an urban population constitutes a “megacity.” If measures are not taken soon, some of these megacities will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will become havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses within these unaccommodating spaces are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage, despair, and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—those that can—bringing violence with them. In the face of rising expectations that globalization inevitably entails, these petri dishes of despair and danger will spill over municipal boundaries and international borders with rapidly spreading contagion.
| 2025
greater than 10 million
most significant security and environmental threat to our existence
massive urban centers
matter most
less-developed, struggling states
unable or simply unwilling
urban monsters
the world
most significant security threat
havens for terrorists and criminal networks
major environmental depletion
freakish natural laboratories
most harmful to international and human security
crowded masses
inept or uncaring governments
collective rage
hunger
inevitably erupt
leave
violence with them
spill over
international borders
rapidly spreading contagion | 615 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\nBy 2025, at least 27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities, intimately connected to globalization, pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence. Drawing on the authors’ three decades of international fieldwork and seasoned policy analysis, The Real Population Bomb (Potomac Books, 2012) by P.H. Liotta and James F. Miskel discusses the effects these underserved megacities have on foreign, military, environmental and economic policies. Explore the historical dilemmas of megacities and how these problems are shaping the global, economic and environmental landscape of our world. This excerpt is taken from Chapter 1, “Introduction: Welcome to the Urban Century.” \nWe live in the age of the city. The City is everything to us—it consumes us, and for that reason we glorify it. —Onookome Okome\nThere was a time when the city was the dominant political identity. Centuries and even millennia ago, the most advanced societies in the Mediterranean, the Near East, and South America revolved around cities that were either states in themselves or were the locus of power for larger empires and kingdoms. The time of the city is coming again, though now in a considerably less benign way.\n-Advertisement-\nWith the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises—whether Lagos or Karachi, Dhaka or Kinshasa—reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose. There are no signs that their governments will prove more capable in the future. These swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.\nBy 2015 there will be six hundred cities on the planet with populations of 1 million or more, and fifty-eight with populations over 5 million. By 2025, according to the National Intelligence Council, there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million—the common measure by which an urban population constitutes a “megacity.” If measures are not taken soon, some of these megacities will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will become havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses within these unaccommodating spaces are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage, despair, and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—those that can—bringing violence with them. In the face of rising expectations that globalization inevitably entails, these petri dishes of despair and danger will spill over municipal boundaries and international borders with rapidly spreading contagion.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "2025\ngreater than 10 million\nmost significant security and environmental threat to our existence\nmassive urban centers\nmatter most\nless-developed, struggling states\nunable or simply unwilling\nurban monsters\nthe world\nmost significant security threat\nhavens for terrorists and criminal networks\nmajor environmental depletion\nfreakish natural laboratories\nmost harmful to international and human security\ncrowded masses\ninept or uncaring governments\ncollective rage\nhunger\ninevitably erupt\nleave\nviolence with them\nspill over\ninternational borders\nrapidly spreading contagion",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction.
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | By 2025
27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities
pose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence.
With the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises
reside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose.
swarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.
By 2025
there will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million
some
will pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will be
havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses
are left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage
and hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—
bringing violence with them.
these petri dishes of
danger will spill over
international borders with rapidly spreading contagion | megacities
pose the most significant security
threat to our existence.
massive urban centers
that
matter most
are
in less-developed
states
unable or
unwilling to manage
challenges that
concern the world.
They will be
havens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as
environmental depletion.
natural laboratories where
elements most harmful to international
security are grown. If crowded masses
are left to their
devices
collective rage
and hunger will
erupt.
inhabitants
will leave—
violence
will spill over
international borders
rapidly spreading | 616 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Uncontrolled third-world urbanization devolves to dystopia and global war—extinction.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "By 2025\n27 cities will have populations greater than 10 million and more than 600 cities will have populations greater than one million. Specific megacities\npose the most significant security and environmental threat to our existence.\nWith the rise of massive urban centers in Africa and Asia, cities that will matter most in the twenty-first century are located in less-developed, struggling states. A number of these huge megalopolises\nreside in states often unable or simply unwilling to manage the challenges that their vast and growing urban populations pose.\nswarming, massive urban monsters will continue to grow and should concern the world.\nBy 2025\nthere will be twenty-seven cities with populations greater than 10 million\nsome\nwill pose the most significant security threat in the coming decades. They will be\nhavens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as sources of major environmental depletion. They will serve as freakish natural laboratories where all the elements most harmful to international and human security are grown. If crowded masses\nare left to their own devices by inept or uncaring governments, their collective rage\nand hunger will inevitably erupt. And when inhabitants tire of the lawlessness, poverty, and instability of the megacities, they will leave—\nbringing violence with them.\nthese petri dishes of\ndanger will spill over\ninternational borders with rapidly spreading contagion",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "megacities\npose the most significant security\nthreat to our existence.\nmassive urban centers\nthat\nmatter most\nare\nin less-developed\nstates\nunable or\nunwilling to manage\nchallenges that\nconcern the world.\nThey will be\nhavens for terrorists and criminal networks, as well as\nenvironmental depletion.\nnatural laboratories where\nelements most harmful to international\nsecurity are grown. If crowded masses\nare left to their\ndevices\ncollective rage\nand hunger will\nerupt.\ninhabitants\nwill leave—\nviolence\nwill spill over\ninternational borders\nrapidly spreading",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: The field is junk. | there is no consensus regarding the science of emotion’s most basic assumptions
articles
directly contradict each other appear with regularity, as if criticisms that have just been raised have no bearing whatsoever on the present author’s claims and do not deserve even token acknowledgment. The impression left is of a scientific domain in stasis
in which
researchers cling to their contested positions and research strategies, leaving fundamental questions unresolved
Gross
reviews the “many daunting conceptual and empirical challenges” facing the field
myth
actual science
The brain is a
computing machine
the cycle of thought proceeds one step at a time
neurons are highly interconnected
there seems little scope for assigning different problems to different brain networks. If interconnected neurons are working on
different problems, then
neither task will be completed successfully
If the brain solves problems through the cooperation computation of vast networks of individually sluggish neurons, then any specific network of neurons can work on just one solution to one problem at a time
the idea that profound unconscious thought can be “running in the background” as we go about our everyday lives is fanciful
the cycle of thought can attend to
only one set of information at a time
psychologists
search
for evidence for unconscious mental work
researchers have
a simpler explanation
no unconscious thought at all
Can we find evidence for unconscious memory search?
I carried out an experiment
we chose the simplest possible task: retrieving familiar words from memory
the results were unequivocal: There is absolutely no sign that we can search for x’s when we are currently thinking about y’s; or search for y’s when we have been thinking about x’s. As soon as we switch from searching one category to searching another, all search processes for that first category appear to cease abruptly
unconscious thought is
a myth
WE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis
psychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific psychology
It is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology
Psychoanalysis is a bogus science
its practitioners do not do scientific research
their claim remains untested
psychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience
hypotheses
are so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are
irrefutable
As for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies
Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms
No root cause
pacifying drives
Human Nature Has Multiple Components
People tend to reduce human nature to a single essence and
debate what that essence consists of
But the brain is
mind-bogglingly complex
with many anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits. Most psychologists believe
human nature is not just one thing, but comprises multiple intelligences
drives, or other subsystems. Some
may impel us toward violence, but others inhibit us from violence
Self-control
Empathy
The moral sense
Reason
The decision to wage war
depends on many psychological processes lining up in the right way and escaping the restraining influence of other psychological processes, which are distributed in social networks connecting many other individuals. There is no reason to expect
these competing influences should remain constant over
history
The intuition that a respite from war could not
be real
rests on a mental model in which the drive toward violence is conceived of as a hydraulic force
it is a big mistake to think that all human responses are homeostatic. Many are
reactive
they are elicited by combinations of
triggers and cognitive and emotional states
motives that lead to violence
need not be homeostatic. There is no reason to believe
the urge to hurt someone
builds up and
needs to be discharged. Violence carries significant risks of injury or death when the target defends himself
or when he is tempted into attacking preemptively
natural selection predicts
adaptations evolve when their expected costs exceed their expected benefits. We should not expect a hydraulic urge to violence to evolve, but rather one that is sensitive to circumstances
environmentally friendly
extinction
Populism in the Anthropocene
we can and should envision an alternative populism
The 'enemy' that
populism mobilises against are political threats to life itself: elite institutions that refuse to accept
existential danger at hand, and business interests that exploit the delay
Arendt's work points to why
focusing on and caring for the human
remains fixed on the sphere of action where human beings appear before one another as unique and irreplaceable
the Anthropocene highlights
the separation of
science from politics, is no longer tenable
safeguarding and mourning of life
can become the basis of
populism
in the Anthropocene
care for life cannot stop at
humanity, but must extend beyond that
"Stop, you're killing everything!" should be the cry
From an Arendtian perspective
the Anthropocene
brings science and politics
into closer relation
notions of 'universality' and 'eternity' lose their a priori epistemological and political status
the 'terrestrial'
is common to the human species
'green populism'
does not mean
pure technocratic administration. Rather, it means re-imagining
techno-scientific expertise
preserving
human and non-human life
Epistemic and political authority is
rooted in
care and rescue
we don't have endless time
In renouncing the turn towards 'eternity', that Arendt saw as the anti-political quality of modern science, experts can side with 'the people' and their habitat
saving the common terrestrial world provides ethical content to the scientific project
The political and practical dimensions of expertise
grant
the rationale of humanitarian and ecological relief
emergency intervention are sanctioned on the basis that they pursue a policy of 'non-violence'
This is
Rising Tide, Climate Mobilisation, Extinction Rebellion and School Strike for Climate
Mass mobilisation
creates a 'people' in a populist sense, but needn't
organise
around nationality or exclusionary identities
The scientist
no longer perform the same distancing role between the expert and society
As part of a 'green populism', epistemic-political authority does not rest on a withdrawal from the flux of change and loss, but on a capacity to pacify, temper, slow and remember
The cry of "Stop, you're killing us!"
names the institutions and interests
that threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'
'left populists'
already posit
environmental issues as popular concerns | no consensus
science
most basic assumptions
directly contradict
regularity
no bearing
even token acknowledgment
scientific domain in stasis
cling
contested positions
research strategies
fundamental questions unresolved
many daunting conceptual
empirical challenges
computing machine
one step at a time
little scope
different problems
different brain networks
just one solution to one problem at a time
unconscious thought
fanciful
the cycle of thought
only one set
a simpler explanation
no unconscious thought at all
unequivocal
absolutely no sign
from searching one category
searching another
all search processes
cease abruptly
unconscious thought
a myth
Human Nature
Multiple Components
reduce human nature to a single essence
But
mind-bogglingly complex
many anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits
human nature
not just one thing
multiple intelligences
drives
other subsystems
Some
may impel
but others inhibit
Self-control
Empathy
The moral sense
Reason
to wage war
many psychological processes
the right way
escaping
restraining influence of other psychological processes
distributed
social networks
many other individuals
no reason
competing influences
constant
a hydraulic force
a big mistake
all human responses
homeostatic
reactive
motives
violence
not
homeostatic
no reason to believe
significant risks
death
defends
attacking preemptively
natural selection
expected costs
expected benefits
a hydraulic urge
sensitive to circumstances
Populism in the Anthropocene
can
should
The 'enemy'
elite institutions
business interests
Arendt's work
no longer tenable
the Anthropocene
Stop, you're killing everything!
Arendtian perspective
closer relation
'universality'
'eternity'
'green populism'
not
human and non-human life
Epistemic
political authority
care
rescue
'eternity'
Arendt
anti-political quality of modern science
the common terrestrial world
ethical content
political and practical dimensions of expertise
humanitarian and ecological relief
emergency intervention
policy of 'non-violence'
Rising Tide
Climate Mobilisation
Extinction Rebellion
School Strike for Climate
Mass mobilisation
populist
needn't
nationality
exclusionary identities
no longer
distancing role
Stop, you're killing us!
institutions
interests
against 'the people'
'left populists'
environmental issues | 617 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The field is junk.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "there is no consensus regarding the science of emotion’s most basic assumptions\narticles\ndirectly contradict each other appear with regularity, as if criticisms that have just been raised have no bearing whatsoever on the present author’s claims and do not deserve even token acknowledgment. The impression left is of a scientific domain in stasis\nin which\nresearchers cling to their contested positions and research strategies, leaving fundamental questions unresolved\nGross\nreviews the “many daunting conceptual and empirical challenges” facing the field\nmyth\nactual science\nThe brain is a\ncomputing machine\nthe cycle of thought proceeds one step at a time\nneurons are highly interconnected\nthere seems little scope for assigning different problems to different brain networks. If interconnected neurons are working on\ndifferent problems, then\nneither task will be completed successfully\nIf the brain solves problems through the cooperation computation of vast networks of individually sluggish neurons, then any specific network of neurons can work on just one solution to one problem at a time\nthe idea that profound unconscious thought can be “running in the background” as we go about our everyday lives is fanciful\nthe cycle of thought can attend to\nonly one set of information at a time\npsychologists\nsearch\nfor evidence for unconscious mental work\nresearchers have\na simpler explanation\nno unconscious thought at all\nCan we find evidence for unconscious memory search?\nI carried out an experiment\nwe chose the simplest possible task: retrieving familiar words from memory\nthe results were unequivocal: There is absolutely no sign that we can search for x’s when we are currently thinking about y’s; or search for y’s when we have been thinking about x’s. As soon as we switch from searching one category to searching another, all search processes for that first category appear to cease abruptly\nunconscious thought is\na myth\nWE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis\npsychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific psychology\nIt is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology\nPsychoanalysis is a bogus science\nits practitioners do not do scientific research\ntheir claim remains untested\npsychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience\nhypotheses\nare so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are\nirrefutable\nAs for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies\nPsychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms\nNo root cause\npacifying drives\nHuman Nature Has Multiple Components\nPeople tend to reduce human nature to a single essence and\ndebate what that essence consists of\nBut the brain is\nmind-bogglingly complex\nwith many anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits. Most psychologists believe\nhuman nature is not just one thing, but comprises multiple intelligences\ndrives, or other subsystems. Some\nmay impel us toward violence, but others inhibit us from violence\nSelf-control\nEmpathy\nThe moral sense\nReason\nThe decision to wage war\ndepends on many psychological processes lining up in the right way and escaping the restraining influence of other psychological processes, which are distributed in social networks connecting many other individuals. There is no reason to expect\nthese competing influences should remain constant over\nhistory\nThe intuition that a respite from war could not\nbe real\nrests on a mental model in which the drive toward violence is conceived of as a hydraulic force\nit is a big mistake to think that all human responses are homeostatic. Many are\nreactive\nthey are elicited by combinations of\ntriggers and cognitive and emotional states\nmotives that lead to violence\nneed not be homeostatic. There is no reason to believe\nthe urge to hurt someone\nbuilds up and\nneeds to be discharged. Violence carries significant risks of injury or death when the target defends himself\nor when he is tempted into attacking preemptively\nnatural selection predicts\nadaptations evolve when their expected costs exceed their expected benefits. We should not expect a hydraulic urge to violence to evolve, but rather one that is sensitive to circumstances\nenvironmentally friendly\nextinction\nPopulism in the Anthropocene\nwe can and should envision an alternative populism\nThe 'enemy' that\npopulism mobilises against are political threats to life itself: elite institutions that refuse to accept\nexistential danger at hand, and business interests that exploit the delay\nArendt's work points to why\nfocusing on and caring for the human\nremains fixed on the sphere of action where human beings appear before one another as unique and irreplaceable\nthe Anthropocene highlights\nthe separation of\nscience from politics, is no longer tenable\nsafeguarding and mourning of life\ncan become the basis of\npopulism\nin the Anthropocene\ncare for life cannot stop at\nhumanity, but must extend beyond that\n\"Stop, you're killing everything!\" should be the cry\nFrom an Arendtian perspective\nthe Anthropocene\nbrings science and politics\ninto closer relation\nnotions of 'universality' and 'eternity' lose their a priori epistemological and political status\nthe 'terrestrial'\nis common to the human species\n'green populism'\ndoes not mean\npure technocratic administration. Rather, it means re-imagining\ntechno-scientific expertise\npreserving\nhuman and non-human life\nEpistemic and political authority is\nrooted in\ncare and rescue\nwe don't have endless time\nIn renouncing the turn towards 'eternity', that Arendt saw as the anti-political quality of modern science, experts can side with 'the people' and their habitat\nsaving the common terrestrial world provides ethical content to the scientific project\nThe political and practical dimensions of expertise\ngrant\nthe rationale of humanitarian and ecological relief\nemergency intervention are sanctioned on the basis that they pursue a policy of 'non-violence'\nThis is\nRising Tide, Climate Mobilisation, Extinction Rebellion and School Strike for Climate\nMass mobilisation\ncreates a 'people' in a populist sense, but needn't\norganise\naround nationality or exclusionary identities\nThe scientist\nno longer perform the same distancing role between the expert and society\nAs part of a 'green populism', epistemic-political authority does not rest on a withdrawal from the flux of change and loss, but on a capacity to pacify, temper, slow and remember\nThe cry of \"Stop, you're killing us!\"\nnames the institutions and interests\nthat threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'\n'left populists'\nalready posit\nenvironmental issues as popular concerns",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "no consensus\nscience\nmost basic assumptions\ndirectly contradict\nregularity\nno bearing\neven token acknowledgment\nscientific domain in stasis\ncling\ncontested positions\nresearch strategies\nfundamental questions unresolved\nmany daunting conceptual\nempirical challenges\ncomputing machine\none step at a time\nlittle scope\ndifferent problems\ndifferent brain networks\njust one solution to one problem at a time\nunconscious thought\nfanciful\nthe cycle of thought\nonly one set\na simpler explanation\nno unconscious thought at all\nunequivocal\nabsolutely no sign\nfrom searching one category\nsearching another\nall search processes\ncease abruptly\nunconscious thought\na myth\nHuman Nature\nMultiple Components\nreduce human nature to a single essence\nBut\nmind-bogglingly complex\nmany anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits\nhuman nature\nnot just one thing\nmultiple intelligences\ndrives\nother subsystems\nSome\nmay impel\nbut others inhibit\nSelf-control\nEmpathy\nThe moral sense\nReason\nto wage war\nmany psychological processes\nthe right way\nescaping\nrestraining influence of other psychological processes\ndistributed\nsocial networks\nmany other individuals\nno reason\ncompeting influences\nconstant\na hydraulic force\na big mistake\nall human responses\nhomeostatic\nreactive\nmotives\nviolence\nnot\nhomeostatic\nno reason to believe\nsignificant risks\ndeath\ndefends\nattacking preemptively\nnatural selection\nexpected costs\nexpected benefits\na hydraulic urge\nsensitive to circumstances\nPopulism in the Anthropocene\ncan\nshould\nThe 'enemy'\nelite institutions\nbusiness interests\nArendt's work\nno longer tenable\nthe Anthropocene\nStop, you're killing everything!\nArendtian perspective\ncloser relation\n'universality'\n'eternity'\n'green populism'\nnot\nhuman and non-human life\nEpistemic\npolitical authority\ncare\nrescue\n'eternity'\nArendt\nanti-political quality of modern science\nthe common terrestrial world\nethical content\npolitical and practical dimensions of expertise\nhumanitarian and ecological relief\nemergency intervention\npolicy of 'non-violence'\nRising Tide\nClimate Mobilisation\nExtinction Rebellion\nSchool Strike for Climate\nMass mobilisation\npopulist\nneedn't\nnationality\nexclusionary identities\nno longer\ndistancing role\nStop, you're killing us!\ninstitutions\ninterests\nagainst 'the people'\n'left populists'\nenvironmental issues",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: The field is junk.
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | there is no consensus regarding the science of emotion’s most basic assumptions
articles
directly contradict each other appear with regularity, as if criticisms that have just been raised have no bearing whatsoever on the present author’s claims and do not deserve even token acknowledgment. The impression left is of a scientific domain in stasis
in which
researchers cling to their contested positions and research strategies, leaving fundamental questions unresolved
Gross
reviews the “many daunting conceptual and empirical challenges” facing the field
myth
actual science
The brain is a
computing machine
the cycle of thought proceeds one step at a time
neurons are highly interconnected
there seems little scope for assigning different problems to different brain networks. If interconnected neurons are working on
different problems, then
neither task will be completed successfully
If the brain solves problems through the cooperation computation of vast networks of individually sluggish neurons, then any specific network of neurons can work on just one solution to one problem at a time
the idea that profound unconscious thought can be “running in the background” as we go about our everyday lives is fanciful
the cycle of thought can attend to
only one set of information at a time
psychologists
search
for evidence for unconscious mental work
researchers have
a simpler explanation
no unconscious thought at all
Can we find evidence for unconscious memory search?
I carried out an experiment
we chose the simplest possible task: retrieving familiar words from memory
the results were unequivocal: There is absolutely no sign that we can search for x’s when we are currently thinking about y’s; or search for y’s when we have been thinking about x’s. As soon as we switch from searching one category to searching another, all search processes for that first category appear to cease abruptly
unconscious thought is
a myth
WE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis
psychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific psychology
It is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology
Psychoanalysis is a bogus science
its practitioners do not do scientific research
their claim remains untested
psychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience
hypotheses
are so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are
irrefutable
As for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies
Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms
No root cause
pacifying drives
Human Nature Has Multiple Components
People tend to reduce human nature to a single essence and
debate what that essence consists of
But the brain is
mind-bogglingly complex
with many anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits. Most psychologists believe
human nature is not just one thing, but comprises multiple intelligences
drives, or other subsystems. Some
may impel us toward violence, but others inhibit us from violence
Self-control
Empathy
The moral sense
Reason
The decision to wage war
depends on many psychological processes lining up in the right way and escaping the restraining influence of other psychological processes, which are distributed in social networks connecting many other individuals. There is no reason to expect
these competing influences should remain constant over
history
The intuition that a respite from war could not
be real
rests on a mental model in which the drive toward violence is conceived of as a hydraulic force
it is a big mistake to think that all human responses are homeostatic. Many are
reactive
they are elicited by combinations of
triggers and cognitive and emotional states
motives that lead to violence
need not be homeostatic. There is no reason to believe
the urge to hurt someone
builds up and
needs to be discharged. Violence carries significant risks of injury or death when the target defends himself
or when he is tempted into attacking preemptively
natural selection predicts
adaptations evolve when their expected costs exceed their expected benefits. We should not expect a hydraulic urge to violence to evolve, but rather one that is sensitive to circumstances
environmentally friendly
extinction
Populism in the Anthropocene
we can and should envision an alternative populism
The 'enemy' that
populism mobilises against are political threats to life itself: elite institutions that refuse to accept
existential danger at hand, and business interests that exploit the delay
Arendt's work points to why
focusing on and caring for the human
remains fixed on the sphere of action where human beings appear before one another as unique and irreplaceable
the Anthropocene highlights
the separation of
science from politics, is no longer tenable
safeguarding and mourning of life
can become the basis of
populism
in the Anthropocene
care for life cannot stop at
humanity, but must extend beyond that
"Stop, you're killing everything!" should be the cry
From an Arendtian perspective
the Anthropocene
brings science and politics
into closer relation
notions of 'universality' and 'eternity' lose their a priori epistemological and political status
the 'terrestrial'
is common to the human species
'green populism'
does not mean
pure technocratic administration. Rather, it means re-imagining
techno-scientific expertise
preserving
human and non-human life
Epistemic and political authority is
rooted in
care and rescue
we don't have endless time
In renouncing the turn towards 'eternity', that Arendt saw as the anti-political quality of modern science, experts can side with 'the people' and their habitat
saving the common terrestrial world provides ethical content to the scientific project
The political and practical dimensions of expertise
grant
the rationale of humanitarian and ecological relief
emergency intervention are sanctioned on the basis that they pursue a policy of 'non-violence'
This is
Rising Tide, Climate Mobilisation, Extinction Rebellion and School Strike for Climate
Mass mobilisation
creates a 'people' in a populist sense, but needn't
organise
around nationality or exclusionary identities
The scientist
no longer perform the same distancing role between the expert and society
As part of a 'green populism', epistemic-political authority does not rest on a withdrawal from the flux of change and loss, but on a capacity to pacify, temper, slow and remember
The cry of "Stop, you're killing us!"
names the institutions and interests
that threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'
'left populists'
already posit
environmental issues as popular concerns | there is no consensus regarding
science of emotion’s
assumptions
articles
contradict each other
with regularity, as if criticisms
raised have no bearing
and do not deserve
token acknowledgment
a
domain in stasis
in which
researchers cling to
contested positions
leaving
questions unresolved
The brain is a
machine
thought proceeds one step at a time
unconscious thought
running in the background
is fanciful
thought can attend to
only one set of information at a time
researchers have
explanation
no unconscious thought at all
I carried out an experiment
we chose
retrieving familiar words from memory
results were unequivocal: There is
no sign that we can search for x’s when
thinking about y’s
As soon as we switch from
one
to
another, all
processes for that first category
cease
unconscious thought is
a myth
psychoanalysis has
been displaced
by
psychology
the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology
a bogus science
practitioners do not
research
claim remains untested
psychoanalysts have not set up a single lab
do not participate in
congresses, do not submit
papers to
journals
hypotheses
are so vague
they are hard to test and
irrefutable
psychoanalysts do not perform
trials or
studies
Psychoanalysis is
pseudoscience
untestable yet
regarded as
axioms
the brain is
complex
human nature is not
one thing, but comprises multiple
drives
Some
impel
violence
others inhibit
violence
The decision to wage war
depends on many
processes lining up
and escaping
restraining
psychological processes, which are distributed in
networks connecting
individuals
motives that lead to violence
need not be homeostatic. There is no reason
the urge to hurt
builds up and
needs to be discharged. Violence carries
risks of
death when the target defends himself
or when
attacking preemptively
natural selection predicts
not
urge to violence
but rather one that is sensitive to circumstances
Populism in the Anthropocene
mobilises against
institutions
and business interests
separation of
science from politics, is no longer tenable
safeguarding
life
can become the basis of
populism
'green populism'
means re-imagining
expertise
preserving
life
political authority is
rooted in
care
renouncing
'eternity'
experts
side with 'the people'
saving the
world provides
content to the scientific project
expertise
grant
rationale of
relief
emergency
sanctioned on
basis
of 'non-violence'
This is
Rising Tide
Extinction Rebellion
mobilisation
needn't
organise
around
exclusion
'green populism'
names the institutions
that threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'
populists'
posit
environment
as popular concerns | 618 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: The field is junk.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "there is no consensus regarding the science of emotion’s most basic assumptions\narticles\ndirectly contradict each other appear with regularity, as if criticisms that have just been raised have no bearing whatsoever on the present author’s claims and do not deserve even token acknowledgment. The impression left is of a scientific domain in stasis\nin which\nresearchers cling to their contested positions and research strategies, leaving fundamental questions unresolved\nGross\nreviews the “many daunting conceptual and empirical challenges” facing the field\nmyth\nactual science\nThe brain is a\ncomputing machine\nthe cycle of thought proceeds one step at a time\nneurons are highly interconnected\nthere seems little scope for assigning different problems to different brain networks. If interconnected neurons are working on\ndifferent problems, then\nneither task will be completed successfully\nIf the brain solves problems through the cooperation computation of vast networks of individually sluggish neurons, then any specific network of neurons can work on just one solution to one problem at a time\nthe idea that profound unconscious thought can be “running in the background” as we go about our everyday lives is fanciful\nthe cycle of thought can attend to\nonly one set of information at a time\npsychologists\nsearch\nfor evidence for unconscious mental work\nresearchers have\na simpler explanation\nno unconscious thought at all\nCan we find evidence for unconscious memory search?\nI carried out an experiment\nwe chose the simplest possible task: retrieving familiar words from memory\nthe results were unequivocal: There is absolutely no sign that we can search for x’s when we are currently thinking about y’s; or search for y’s when we have been thinking about x’s. As soon as we switch from searching one category to searching another, all search processes for that first category appear to cease abruptly\nunconscious thought is\na myth\nWE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis\npsychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in academia by scientific psychology\nIt is the psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology\nPsychoanalysis is a bogus science\nits practitioners do not do scientific research\ntheir claim remains untested\npsychoanalysts have not set up a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience\nhypotheses\nare so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are\nirrefutable\nAs for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind clinical trials or follow-up studies\nPsychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable axioms\nNo root cause\npacifying drives\nHuman Nature Has Multiple Components\nPeople tend to reduce human nature to a single essence and\ndebate what that essence consists of\nBut the brain is\nmind-bogglingly complex\nwith many anatomically and chemically distinguishable circuits. Most psychologists believe\nhuman nature is not just one thing, but comprises multiple intelligences\ndrives, or other subsystems. Some\nmay impel us toward violence, but others inhibit us from violence\nSelf-control\nEmpathy\nThe moral sense\nReason\nThe decision to wage war\ndepends on many psychological processes lining up in the right way and escaping the restraining influence of other psychological processes, which are distributed in social networks connecting many other individuals. There is no reason to expect\nthese competing influences should remain constant over\nhistory\nThe intuition that a respite from war could not\nbe real\nrests on a mental model in which the drive toward violence is conceived of as a hydraulic force\nit is a big mistake to think that all human responses are homeostatic. Many are\nreactive\nthey are elicited by combinations of\ntriggers and cognitive and emotional states\nmotives that lead to violence\nneed not be homeostatic. There is no reason to believe\nthe urge to hurt someone\nbuilds up and\nneeds to be discharged. Violence carries significant risks of injury or death when the target defends himself\nor when he is tempted into attacking preemptively\nnatural selection predicts\nadaptations evolve when their expected costs exceed their expected benefits. We should not expect a hydraulic urge to violence to evolve, but rather one that is sensitive to circumstances\nenvironmentally friendly\nextinction\nPopulism in the Anthropocene\nwe can and should envision an alternative populism\nThe 'enemy' that\npopulism mobilises against are political threats to life itself: elite institutions that refuse to accept\nexistential danger at hand, and business interests that exploit the delay\nArendt's work points to why\nfocusing on and caring for the human\nremains fixed on the sphere of action where human beings appear before one another as unique and irreplaceable\nthe Anthropocene highlights\nthe separation of\nscience from politics, is no longer tenable\nsafeguarding and mourning of life\ncan become the basis of\npopulism\nin the Anthropocene\ncare for life cannot stop at\nhumanity, but must extend beyond that\n\"Stop, you're killing everything!\" should be the cry\nFrom an Arendtian perspective\nthe Anthropocene\nbrings science and politics\ninto closer relation\nnotions of 'universality' and 'eternity' lose their a priori epistemological and political status\nthe 'terrestrial'\nis common to the human species\n'green populism'\ndoes not mean\npure technocratic administration. Rather, it means re-imagining\ntechno-scientific expertise\npreserving\nhuman and non-human life\nEpistemic and political authority is\nrooted in\ncare and rescue\nwe don't have endless time\nIn renouncing the turn towards 'eternity', that Arendt saw as the anti-political quality of modern science, experts can side with 'the people' and their habitat\nsaving the common terrestrial world provides ethical content to the scientific project\nThe political and practical dimensions of expertise\ngrant\nthe rationale of humanitarian and ecological relief\nemergency intervention are sanctioned on the basis that they pursue a policy of 'non-violence'\nThis is\nRising Tide, Climate Mobilisation, Extinction Rebellion and School Strike for Climate\nMass mobilisation\ncreates a 'people' in a populist sense, but needn't\norganise\naround nationality or exclusionary identities\nThe scientist\nno longer perform the same distancing role between the expert and society\nAs part of a 'green populism', epistemic-political authority does not rest on a withdrawal from the flux of change and loss, but on a capacity to pacify, temper, slow and remember\nThe cry of \"Stop, you're killing us!\"\nnames the institutions and interests\nthat threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'\n'left populists'\nalready posit\nenvironmental issues as popular concerns",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "there is no consensus regarding\nscience of emotion’s\nassumptions\narticles\ncontradict each other\nwith regularity, as if criticisms\nraised have no bearing\nand do not deserve\ntoken acknowledgment\na\ndomain in stasis\nin which\nresearchers cling to\ncontested positions\nleaving\nquestions unresolved\nThe brain is a\nmachine\nthought proceeds one step at a time\nunconscious thought\nrunning in the background\nis fanciful\nthought can attend to\nonly one set of information at a time\nresearchers have\nexplanation\nno unconscious thought at all\nI carried out an experiment\nwe chose\nretrieving familiar words from memory\nresults were unequivocal: There is\nno sign that we can search for x’s when\nthinking about y’s\nAs soon as we switch from\none\nto\nanother, all\nprocesses for that first category\ncease\nunconscious thought is\na myth\npsychoanalysis has\nbeen displaced\nby\npsychology\nthe psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology\na bogus science\npractitioners do not\nresearch\nclaim remains untested\npsychoanalysts have not set up a single lab\ndo not participate in\ncongresses, do not submit\npapers to\njournals\nhypotheses\nare so vague\nthey are hard to test and\nirrefutable\npsychoanalysts do not perform\ntrials or\nstudies\nPsychoanalysis is\npseudoscience\nuntestable yet\nregarded as\naxioms\nthe brain is\ncomplex\nhuman nature is not\none thing, but comprises multiple\ndrives\nSome\nimpel\nviolence\nothers inhibit\nviolence\nThe decision to wage war\ndepends on many\nprocesses lining up\nand escaping\nrestraining\npsychological processes, which are distributed in\nnetworks connecting\nindividuals\nmotives that lead to violence\nneed not be homeostatic. There is no reason\nthe urge to hurt\nbuilds up and\nneeds to be discharged. Violence carries\nrisks of\ndeath when the target defends himself\nor when\nattacking preemptively\nnatural selection predicts\nnot\nurge to violence\nbut rather one that is sensitive to circumstances\nPopulism in the Anthropocene\nmobilises against\ninstitutions\nand business interests\nseparation of\nscience from politics, is no longer tenable\nsafeguarding\nlife\ncan become the basis of\npopulism\n'green populism'\nmeans re-imagining\nexpertise\npreserving\nlife\npolitical authority is\nrooted in\ncare\nrenouncing\n'eternity'\nexperts\nside with 'the people'\nsaving the\nworld provides\ncontent to the scientific project\nexpertise\ngrant\nrationale of\nrelief\nemergency\nsanctioned on\nbasis\nof 'non-violence'\nThis is\nRising Tide\nExtinction Rebellion\nmobilisation\nneedn't\norganise\naround\nexclusion\n'green populism'\nnames the institutions\nthat threaten life, positioning them against 'the people'\npopulists'\nposit\nenvironment\nas popular concerns",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness. | Non-sector-specific regimes are quite different in that respect. Each country has of course its own rules, but there are two types of regimes that can be found in most (Western) legal systems and whose application can at least be contemplated in case of damage caused by or in connection with the use of, AI: product liability and liability for fault10.
Most Western legal systems have special product liability regimes. The developments which took place in the USA as of the 1930s, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, were a source of inspiration for the 1985 European Directive on product liability11. This text, in turn, served as a model for legislation in many countries outside the EU. The result is that there are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world. For the sake of simplicity, however, the focus here will be on the common European regime based on the 1985 Directive.
Whether this regime is applicable to AI has been the subject of some debate. There is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded12. The question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’. It seems quite clear that the Directive’s drafters did not contemplate this issue, and the few official declarations there have been on the subject are contradictory13. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive, however, and the need to meet the challenges raised by the mass distribution of standardised products, then it can be accepted that the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms, at least when they have not been designed to meet the specific needs of a particular customer, but are made available to the general public, like physical products can be14.
The application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident. Of course, if it is proven that a person was negligent or at fault when designing an algorithm, he can be made liable for any damage caused by his fault or negligence. The real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault. That a non-human could be negligent or commit a fault seems at first sight preposterous15, and yet the suggestion cannot be discarded outright. After all, if there really is such a thing as AI, it is conceivable that this intelligence could err and be at fault16. Besides, should robots be granted some sort of legal personality or be considered as agents, as some suggest17, then this might create an incentive to recognise a concept of ‘robot’s fault’. This fault could then become the basis for the robot’s personal liability, or for the liability of the robot’s principal, if the robot is considered as an agent18.
Assuming, be it only for the sake of discussion, that there could be such a thing as a robot’s fault, how should this fault be characterised? The assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person, such as the bonus paterfamilias, the reasonable (wo)man or the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus19, would have adopted in similar circumstances, and one could think of recognising the figure of the reasonable robot, or of the autonomous Clapham omnibus. It is doubtful, however, if the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one. The conclusion therefore seems to be that, whether product liability or liability for fault applies, and leaving aside the issue of who should answer for damage attributable to AI, the basis for liability will be defectiveness.
Defect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept when one contemplates the application of traditional non-sector-specific liability regimes to damage caused by, or in connection with, AI. It is also a complex and protean one, as all those who have even a slight interest for product liability know. A preliminary distinction should be made between defects in a software program or algorithm, on the one hand, and ‘physical’ defects in the objects that are governed or animated by the algorithm, one the other hand (for example a non-functioning brake or sensor in an autonomous vehicle). The latter are just ordinary defects, even if they were caused by the operation of AI, and the ordinary rules of product liability should therefore apply to them. | two types of regimes
product liability and liability for fault
Most Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.
there are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.
There is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded
he question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.
. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,
the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms
when they
are made available to the general public, like physical products
The application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident
if it is proven that a person was negligent
when designing an algorithm, he can be made liable
The real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.
The assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person
would have adopted
It is doubtful
if the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.
whether product liability or liability for fault applies
the basis for liability will be defectiveness.
Defect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept | 619 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Non-sector-specific regimes are quite different in that respect. Each country has of course its own rules, but there are two types of regimes that can be found in most (Western) legal systems and whose application can at least be contemplated in case of damage caused by or in connection with the use of, AI: product liability and liability for fault10. \nMost Western legal systems have special product liability regimes. The developments which took place in the USA as of the 1930s, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, were a source of inspiration for the 1985 European Directive on product liability11. This text, in turn, served as a model for legislation in many countries outside the EU. The result is that there are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world. For the sake of simplicity, however, the focus here will be on the common European regime based on the 1985 Directive.\nWhether this regime is applicable to AI has been the subject of some debate. There is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded12. The question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’. It seems quite clear that the Directive’s drafters did not contemplate this issue, and the few official declarations there have been on the subject are contradictory13. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive, however, and the need to meet the challenges raised by the mass distribution of standardised products, then it can be accepted that the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms, at least when they have not been designed to meet the specific needs of a particular customer, but are made available to the general public, like physical products can be14.\nThe application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident. Of course, if it is proven that a person was negligent or at fault when designing an algorithm, he can be made liable for any damage caused by his fault or negligence. The real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault. That a non-human could be negligent or commit a fault seems at first sight preposterous15, and yet the suggestion cannot be discarded outright. After all, if there really is such a thing as AI, it is conceivable that this intelligence could err and be at fault16. Besides, should robots be granted some sort of legal personality or be considered as agents, as some suggest17, then this might create an incentive to recognise a concept of ‘robot’s fault’. This fault could then become the basis for the robot’s personal liability, or for the liability of the robot’s principal, if the robot is considered as an agent18.\nAssuming, be it only for the sake of discussion, that there could be such a thing as a robot’s fault, how should this fault be characterised? The assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person, such as the bonus paterfamilias, the reasonable (wo)man or the (wo)man on the Clapham omnibus19, would have adopted in similar circumstances, and one could think of recognising the figure of the reasonable robot, or of the autonomous Clapham omnibus. It is doubtful, however, if the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one. The conclusion therefore seems to be that, whether product liability or liability for fault applies, and leaving aside the issue of who should answer for damage attributable to AI, the basis for liability will be defectiveness.\nDefect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept when one contemplates the application of traditional non-sector-specific liability regimes to damage caused by, or in connection with, AI. It is also a complex and protean one, as all those who have even a slight interest for product liability know. A preliminary distinction should be made between defects in a software program or algorithm, on the one hand, and ‘physical’ defects in the objects that are governed or animated by the algorithm, one the other hand (for example a non-functioning brake or sensor in an autonomous vehicle). The latter are just ordinary defects, even if they were caused by the operation of AI, and the ordinary rules of product liability should therefore apply to them.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "two types of regimes\nproduct liability and liability for fault\nMost Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.\nthere are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.\nThere is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded\nhe question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.\n. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,\nthe Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms\nwhen they\nare made available to the general public, like physical products\nThe application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident\nif it is proven that a person was negligent\nwhen designing an algorithm, he can be made liable\nThe real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.\nThe assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person\nwould have adopted\nIt is doubtful\nif the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.\nwhether product liability or liability for fault applies\nthe basis for liability will be defectiveness.\nDefect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness. | two types of regimes
product liability and liability for fault
Most Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.
there are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.
There is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded
he question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.
. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,
the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms
when they
are made available to the general public, like physical products
The application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident
if it is proven that a person was negligent
when designing an algorithm, he can be made liable
The real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.
The assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person
would have adopted
It is doubtful
if the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.
whether product liability or liability for fault applies
the basis for liability will be defectiveness.
Defect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept | implicit rationale
algorithms
not self-evident
can itself
fault
comparison
doubtful
restatement
defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.
defectiveness
Defect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept | 620 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "two types of regimes\nproduct liability and liability for fault\nMost Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.\nthere are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.\nThere is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded\nhe question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.\n. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,\nthe Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms\nwhen they\nare made available to the general public, like physical products\nThe application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident\nif it is proven that a person was negligent\nwhen designing an algorithm, he can be made liable\nThe real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.\nThe assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person\nwould have adopted\nIt is doubtful\nif the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.\nwhether product liability or liability for fault applies\nthe basis for liability will be defectiveness.\nDefect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "implicit rationale\nalgorithms\nnot self-evident\ncan itself\nfault\ncomparison\ndoubtful\nrestatement\ndefective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.\ndefectiveness\nDefect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness.
Highlight Ratio: 0.4 | two types of regimes
product liability and liability for fault
Most Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.
there are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.
There is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded
he question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.
. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,
the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms
when they
are made available to the general public, like physical products
The application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident
if it is proven that a person was negligent
when designing an algorithm, he can be made liable
The real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.
The assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person
would have adopted
It is doubtful
if the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.
whether product liability or liability for fault applies
the basis for liability will be defectiveness.
Defect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept | two types of regimes
product liability and liability for fault
product liability
applies to robots
the Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to
algorithms
liability for fault in case of damage caused by
AI is not self-evident
assessment of fault is
based on a comparison between the defendant
and the behaviour which a model person
would have adopted
It is doubtful
if the
reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement
that the robot should not be defective
the basis for liability will be defectiveness. | 621 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: The basis for liability under the plan will be defectiveness.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.4",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "two types of regimes\nproduct liability and liability for fault\nMost Western legal systems have special product liability regimes.\nthere are many common features between the special product liability regimes applicable all over the world.\nThere is actually no doubt that it applies to robots or any device in which a software program or algorithm is embedded\nhe question is whether it should also apply to ‘standalone algorithms’.\n. If one considers the implicit rationale of the Directive,\nthe Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to stand-alone algorithms\nwhen they\nare made available to the general public, like physical products\nThe application of liability for fault in case of damage caused by, or in connection with, AI is not self-evident\nif it is proven that a person was negligent\nwhen designing an algorithm, he can be made liable\nThe real question is whether a software program or algorithm can itself be at fault.\nThe assessment of fault is normally based on a comparison between the defendant’s behaviour and the behaviour which a model person\nwould have adopted\nIt is doubtful\nif the test of the reasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement of the requirement that the robot should not be defective. A negligent robot is just a defective one.\nwhether product liability or liability for fault applies\nthe basis for liability will be defectiveness.\nDefect thus appears as a central and unavoidable concept",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "two types of regimes\nproduct liability and liability for fault\nproduct liability\napplies to robots\nthe Directive and the liability it establishes should apply to\nalgorithms\nliability for fault in case of damage caused by\nAI is not self-evident\nassessment of fault is\nbased on a comparison between the defendant\nand the behaviour which a model person\nwould have adopted\nIt is doubtful\nif the\nreasonable robot could be anything else than a restatement\nthat the robot should not be defective\nthe basis for liability will be defectiveness.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. PATCHWORK | D. Financial Advisors and Regulatory Capture
Despite the well-known costs of—and the imperfect disciplinary mechanisms associated with—financial-advisor misconduct, no prior work has examined the incentives that the law gives advisors to seek lax regulatory oversight. There is, however, a growing literature documenting the movement of professionals across fragmented regulatory regimes—including teachers,48 clergy,49 and police officers50—and the tragic consequences that can follow.
Drawing on that literature, the next Part explains how advisors have considerable freedom in selecting the regulatory regime that will govern their work. In particular, we show that there is good reason to expect advisors with an extensive history of misconduct to prefer oversight by state insurance regulators rather than by the federal government.51
One reason is that state insurance regulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture.52 While the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and self-regulatory organizations operating subject to SEC oversight are certainly not immune to the economics of industry influence,53 prior literature has argued that state-level insurance oversight is especially susceptible to capture by industry. For example, some have contended that state governments’ primacy in insurance oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach.54 Others contend that local insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention.55 Others cite state insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry: One study found that 45-50% of commissioners go directly to insurance industry positions after leaving government.56
Whatever the reason, it has long been argued that state insurance regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence. And it has also long been understood that financial advisors frequently engage in costly misconduct. No prior work, however, has examined the degree to which the relatively lax regulatory environment provided by the states allows advisors who have engaged in misconduct to continue advising investors. In the next Part, we describe how current laws governing financial advice permit that result. | Despite
well-known costs of
financial-advisor misconduct
the law gives advisors
lax regulatory oversight
across fragmented regulatory regimes
tragic consequences
can follow
state
regulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture
While the
SEC
are
not immune
literature has argued
state
oversight is especially susceptible to capture
state governments’ primacy in
oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach
local insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention
state insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry
50%
go directly to
industry positions after leaving government
state
regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence | 622 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. PATCHWORK",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "D. Financial Advisors and Regulatory Capture\nDespite the well-known costs of—and the imperfect disciplinary mechanisms associated with—financial-advisor misconduct, no prior work has examined the incentives that the law gives advisors to seek lax regulatory oversight. There is, however, a growing literature documenting the movement of professionals across fragmented regulatory regimes—including teachers,48 clergy,49 and police officers50—and the tragic consequences that can follow.\nDrawing on that literature, the next Part explains how advisors have considerable freedom in selecting the regulatory regime that will govern their work. In particular, we show that there is good reason to expect advisors with an extensive history of misconduct to prefer oversight by state insurance regulators rather than by the federal government.51\nOne reason is that state insurance regulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture.52 While the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and self-regulatory organizations operating subject to SEC oversight are certainly not immune to the economics of industry influence,53 prior literature has argued that state-level insurance oversight is especially susceptible to capture by industry. For example, some have contended that state governments’ primacy in insurance oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach.54 Others contend that local insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention.55 Others cite state insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry: One study found that 45-50% of commissioners go directly to insurance industry positions after leaving government.56\nWhatever the reason, it has long been argued that state insurance regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence. And it has also long been understood that financial advisors frequently engage in costly misconduct. No prior work, however, has examined the degree to which the relatively lax regulatory environment provided by the states allows advisors who have engaged in misconduct to continue advising investors. In the next Part, we describe how current laws governing financial advice permit that result.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Despite\nwell-known costs of\nfinancial-advisor misconduct\nthe law gives advisors\nlax regulatory oversight\nacross fragmented regulatory regimes\ntragic consequences\ncan follow\nstate\nregulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture\nWhile the\nSEC\nare\nnot immune\nliterature has argued\nstate\noversight is especially susceptible to capture\nstate governments’ primacy in\noversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach\nlocal insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention\nstate insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry\n50%\ngo directly to\nindustry positions after leaving government\nstate\nregulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. PATCHWORK | Despite
well-known costs of
financial-advisor misconduct
the law gives advisors
lax regulatory oversight
across fragmented regulatory regimes
tragic consequences
can follow
state
regulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture
While the
SEC
are
not immune
literature has argued
state
oversight is especially susceptible to capture
state governments’ primacy in
oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach
local insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention
state insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry
50%
go directly to
industry positions after leaving government
state
regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence | well-known costs
lax regulatory oversight
fragmented regulatory regimes
tragic consequences
follow
state
significant industry capture
SEC
immune
literature
state
especially susceptible
primacy
jurisdictional competition
laxer regulatory approach
salience
consumers’ attention
cozy relationship
industry
50%
directly to
industry positions
vulnerable
extensive industry influence | 623 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. PATCHWORK",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Despite\nwell-known costs of\nfinancial-advisor misconduct\nthe law gives advisors\nlax regulatory oversight\nacross fragmented regulatory regimes\ntragic consequences\ncan follow\nstate\nregulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture\nWhile the\nSEC\nare\nnot immune\nliterature has argued\nstate\noversight is especially susceptible to capture\nstate governments’ primacy in\noversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach\nlocal insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention\nstate insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry\n50%\ngo directly to\nindustry positions after leaving government\nstate\nregulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "well-known costs\nlax regulatory oversight\nfragmented regulatory regimes\ntragic consequences\nfollow\nstate\nsignificant industry capture\nSEC\nimmune\nliterature\nstate\nespecially susceptible\nprimacy\njurisdictional competition\nlaxer regulatory approach\nsalience\nconsumers’ attention\ncozy relationship\nindustry\n50%\ndirectly to\nindustry positions\nvulnerable\nextensive industry influence",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 2. PATCHWORK
Highlight Ratio: 0.6 | Despite
well-known costs of
financial-advisor misconduct
the law gives advisors
lax regulatory oversight
across fragmented regulatory regimes
tragic consequences
can follow
state
regulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture
While the
SEC
are
not immune
literature has argued
state
oversight is especially susceptible to capture
state governments’ primacy in
oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach
local insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention
state insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry
50%
go directly to
industry positions after leaving government
state
regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence | Despite
known costs of
financial-advisor misconduct
regulatory oversight
tragic consequences
can follow
state
regulators have
been
subject to significant industry capture
SEC
not immune
state
oversight is
susceptible to capture
oversight invites jurisdictional competition toward
laxer regulatory approach
local insurance regulatory decisions lack
salience
to command consumers’
state
regulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence | 624 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2. PATCHWORK\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.6",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Despite\nwell-known costs of\nfinancial-advisor misconduct\nthe law gives advisors\nlax regulatory oversight\nacross fragmented regulatory regimes\ntragic consequences\ncan follow\nstate\nregulators have long been thought to be subject to significant industry capture\nWhile the\nSEC\nare\nnot immune\nliterature has argued\nstate\noversight is especially susceptible to capture\nstate governments’ primacy in\noversight invites jurisdictional competition toward a laxer regulatory approach\nlocal insurance regulatory decisions lack the salience necessary to command consumers’ attention\nstate insurance commissioners’ cozy relationship with industry\n50%\ngo directly to\nindustry positions after leaving government\nstate\nregulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Despite\nknown costs of\nfinancial-advisor misconduct\nregulatory oversight\ntragic consequences\ncan follow\nstate\nregulators have\nbeen\nsubject to significant industry capture\nSEC\nnot immune\nstate\noversight is\nsusceptible to capture\noversight invites jurisdictional competition toward\nlaxer regulatory approach\nlocal insurance regulatory decisions lack\nsalience\nto command consumers’\nstate\nregulators are vulnerable to extensive industry influence",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency. | Thus far, legislative reform and attempts to appeal to the judiciary have not succeeded in correcting the constitutional national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate the vision that the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive. Such a suit would proceed in two steps. First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security, either attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded. Then, when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress - or one chamber thereof- would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by "draw [ing]" money "from the Treasury" not "in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use - or merely the threatened use - of these lawsuits could revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making.
Appropriations litigation, first and foremost, can help reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes. "The multiple constitutional prerequisites for government activity" - such as the necessity of congressional appropriation before undertaking an action -"are checks upon the exercise of government power, reflecting the foundational decision that the exercise of such power should be deliberate and limited."8 2 Though modern presidential spending discretion in national security means that appropriations are no longer prerequisites for a specific activity, judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach. As both Founding-era thinking and early practice indicate, such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making."
The Supreme Court recently reiterated in Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry that "many decisions affecting foreign relations" -including the appropriations required to carry out those decisions - "require congressional action."84 Repudiating the broad delegation of power to the Executive articulated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.,` the majority clarified that " [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue."" The dissenting Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers.87 For these sentiments to have any effect, the President must be made to abide by Congress's appropriations decisions. After all, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his Zivotofsky dissent, "the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb"' under the traditional Youngstown framework "when he contravenes the express will of Congress." " By enabling Congress to enforce its appropriations power, the courts can help "restore the balance of power"" in the national security context.o
Appropriations litigation can also help redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions, so as to be more faithful to the Constitution. The constitutional text and history suggest that a majority of either house of Congress is sufficient to reject the decision to declare war,91 or reject an appropriation to fund a war. However, with the President's spending discretion and ability to begin a conflict without congressional authorization, Congress essentially requires a veto-proof two-thirds majority in each house to defund an unauthorized war.92 A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power. The great gulf between the interbranch cooperation prescribed by the Constitution and the current reality of unilateral executive action in this area means that Appropriations Clause lawsuits would be particularly valuable in national security and foreign-relations cases.
Furthermore, these lawsuits could also improve the balance of power among the branches as a general matter. As discussed in Part IV, because Appropriations Clause litigation is based on a provision that is unusually clear by constitutional standards," it could spur targeted judicial involvement in interbranch disputes. It could thereby help defuse conflicts between Congress and the President that might otherwise escalate. The breadth and clarity of the appropriations power makes it perhaps the most potent of a larger suite of tools with which Congress can exert its authority against the other branches." The clause both vests Congress with the power to appropriate and "ensur[es] that the money [is] actually spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated."" Congress can use this power generally- depriving the executive branch of the means to do its workor specifically- affecting particular policies through riders.9 6 Indeed, the Appropriations Clause allows Congress to invade what would otherwise be the President's exclusive power to execute the law." Instead of asking, in the abstract, whether the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to engage in a particular activity, a court can focus on the simpler question of whether Congress has appropriated funds for that activity.
To think of this in more familiar terms: if Congress is right in arguing that it has not appropriated funds for the Executive's actions, or that an appropriations rider prohibits funds from being spent on those actions, then any Appropriations Clause case will be funneled into category three of the tripartite Youngstown framework. 98 Because the President's activity is "incompatible with the expressed ... will of Congress," the President's "power is at its lowest ebb." 9 A congressional decision to sue would throw Congress's disapproval into starker relief, sharpening the conflict and ensuring that appropriations litigation would take place in category three. Under the Youngstown framework, the President would only be able to win such a suit if she acts under a power that is "both 'exclusive' and 'conclusive' on the issue" in dispute - a claim that "must be 'scrutinized with caution."' 00 And as the Court noted in Zivotofsky, even when a President successfully proves that she has exclusive authority over a particular power, Congress can still use the Appropriations Clause to shape many of the President's policy decisions under that power. ' Most cases, therefore, will be rather clear cut: the courts will not need to sift out the two branches' substantive powers, and will be able to rule for Congress on the constitutional question. Appropriations Clause lawsuits, therefore, could simplify and help resolve otherwise intractable separation-of-powers disputes. In the context of this more limited and concrete legal question, the judiciary may be more willing to intervene on Congress's side in constitutional disputes between the political branches.
The possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is also valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases. Under the current state of our politics, it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits. 102
Such a President may spend without appropriation in violation of the Constitution if he lacks political hope of persuading Congress to vote in his favor,"o3 or is willing to act in the face of potential political retribution. Or he may act when he mistakenly believes -or wants to believelo - that he has the authority to make national security expenditures without congressional approval. In these circumstances, only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making.
A robust Appropriations Clause could thus strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally. But leaving aside potential benefits for the separation-of-powers jurisprudence, at the very least these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security.
| legislative reform
have not succeeded in correcting
national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate
the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive
First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security
attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded
when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress
would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause
the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by "draw [ing]" money "from the Treasury" not "in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use
or merely the threatened use
of these lawsuits
revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making
Appropriations litigation
can
reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes
judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach
such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making
the majority clarified that " [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue
Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers
the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb"' under the
Youngstown framework
Appropriations litigation
redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions
A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power
The possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is
valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases
it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits
only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making
A robust Appropriations Clause could
strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally
these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security | 625 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Thus far, legislative reform and attempts to appeal to the judiciary have not succeeded in correcting the constitutional national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate the vision that the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive. Such a suit would proceed in two steps. First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security, either attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded. Then, when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress - or one chamber thereof- would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by \"draw [ing]\" money \"from the Treasury\" not \"in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\"\" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use - or merely the threatened use - of these lawsuits could revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making.\nAppropriations litigation, first and foremost, can help reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes. \"The multiple constitutional prerequisites for government activity\" - such as the necessity of congressional appropriation before undertaking an action -\"are checks upon the exercise of government power, reflecting the foundational decision that the exercise of such power should be deliberate and limited.\"8 2 Though modern presidential spending discretion in national security means that appropriations are no longer prerequisites for a specific activity, judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach. As both Founding-era thinking and early practice indicate, such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making.\"\nThe Supreme Court recently reiterated in Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry that \"many decisions affecting foreign relations\" -including the appropriations required to carry out those decisions - \"require congressional action.\"84 Repudiating the broad delegation of power to the Executive articulated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.,` the majority clarified that \" [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.\"\" The dissenting Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers.87 For these sentiments to have any effect, the President must be made to abide by Congress's appropriations decisions. After all, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his Zivotofsky dissent, \"the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb\"' under the traditional Youngstown framework \"when he contravenes the express will of Congress.\" \" By enabling Congress to enforce its appropriations power, the courts can help \"restore the balance of power\"\" in the national security context.o\nAppropriations litigation can also help redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions, so as to be more faithful to the Constitution. The constitutional text and history suggest that a majority of either house of Congress is sufficient to reject the decision to declare war,91 or reject an appropriation to fund a war. However, with the President's spending discretion and ability to begin a conflict without congressional authorization, Congress essentially requires a veto-proof two-thirds majority in each house to defund an unauthorized war.92 A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power. The great gulf between the interbranch cooperation prescribed by the Constitution and the current reality of unilateral executive action in this area means that Appropriations Clause lawsuits would be particularly valuable in national security and foreign-relations cases.\nFurthermore, these lawsuits could also improve the balance of power among the branches as a general matter. As discussed in Part IV, because Appropriations Clause litigation is based on a provision that is unusually clear by constitutional standards,\" it could spur targeted judicial involvement in interbranch disputes. It could thereby help defuse conflicts between Congress and the President that might otherwise escalate. The breadth and clarity of the appropriations power makes it perhaps the most potent of a larger suite of tools with which Congress can exert its authority against the other branches.\" The clause both vests Congress with the power to appropriate and \"ensur[es] that the money [is] actually spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated.\"\" Congress can use this power generally- depriving the executive branch of the means to do its workor specifically- affecting particular policies through riders.9 6 Indeed, the Appropriations Clause allows Congress to invade what would otherwise be the President's exclusive power to execute the law.\" Instead of asking, in the abstract, whether the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to engage in a particular activity, a court can focus on the simpler question of whether Congress has appropriated funds for that activity.\nTo think of this in more familiar terms: if Congress is right in arguing that it has not appropriated funds for the Executive's actions, or that an appropriations rider prohibits funds from being spent on those actions, then any Appropriations Clause case will be funneled into category three of the tripartite Youngstown framework. 98 Because the President's activity is \"incompatible with the expressed ... will of Congress,\" the President's \"power is at its lowest ebb.\" 9 A congressional decision to sue would throw Congress's disapproval into starker relief, sharpening the conflict and ensuring that appropriations litigation would take place in category three. Under the Youngstown framework, the President would only be able to win such a suit if she acts under a power that is \"both 'exclusive' and 'conclusive' on the issue\" in dispute - a claim that \"must be 'scrutinized with caution.\"' 00 And as the Court noted in Zivotofsky, even when a President successfully proves that she has exclusive authority over a particular power, Congress can still use the Appropriations Clause to shape many of the President's policy decisions under that power. ' Most cases, therefore, will be rather clear cut: the courts will not need to sift out the two branches' substantive powers, and will be able to rule for Congress on the constitutional question. Appropriations Clause lawsuits, therefore, could simplify and help resolve otherwise intractable separation-of-powers disputes. In the context of this more limited and concrete legal question, the judiciary may be more willing to intervene on Congress's side in constitutional disputes between the political branches.\nThe possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is also valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases. Under the current state of our politics, it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits. 102\nSuch a President may spend without appropriation in violation of the Constitution if he lacks political hope of persuading Congress to vote in his favor,\"o3 or is willing to act in the face of potential political retribution. Or he may act when he mistakenly believes -or wants to believelo - that he has the authority to make national security expenditures without congressional approval. In these circumstances, only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making.\nA robust Appropriations Clause could thus strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally. But leaving aside potential benefits for the separation-of-powers jurisprudence, at the very least these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security.\n\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "legislative reform\nhave not succeeded in correcting\nnational security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate\nthe Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive\nFirst, Congress would appropriate funding for national security\nattaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded\nwhen the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress\nwould pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause\nthe lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by \"draw [ing]\" money \"from the Treasury\" not \"in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\"\" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use\nor merely the threatened use\nof these lawsuits\nrevive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making\nAppropriations litigation\ncan\nreassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes\njudicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach\nsuch a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making\nthe majority clarified that \" [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue\nJustices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers\nthe President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb\"' under the\nYoungstown framework\nAppropriations litigation\nredistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions\nA congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power\nThe possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is\nvaluable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases\nit is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits\nonly adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making\nA robust Appropriations Clause could\nstrengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally\nthese lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency. | Thus far, legislative reform and attempts to appeal to the judiciary have not succeeded in correcting the constitutional national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate the vision that the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive. Such a suit would proceed in two steps. First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security, either attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded. Then, when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress - or one chamber thereof- would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by "draw [ing]" money "from the Treasury" not "in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use - or merely the threatened use - of these lawsuits could revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making.
Appropriations litigation, first and foremost, can help reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes. "The multiple constitutional prerequisites for government activity" - such as the necessity of congressional appropriation before undertaking an action -"are checks upon the exercise of government power, reflecting the foundational decision that the exercise of such power should be deliberate and limited."8 2 Though modern presidential spending discretion in national security means that appropriations are no longer prerequisites for a specific activity, judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach. As both Founding-era thinking and early practice indicate, such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making."
The Supreme Court recently reiterated in Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry that "many decisions affecting foreign relations" -including the appropriations required to carry out those decisions - "require congressional action."84 Repudiating the broad delegation of power to the Executive articulated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.,` the majority clarified that " [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue."" The dissenting Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers.87 For these sentiments to have any effect, the President must be made to abide by Congress's appropriations decisions. After all, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his Zivotofsky dissent, "the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb"' under the traditional Youngstown framework "when he contravenes the express will of Congress." " By enabling Congress to enforce its appropriations power, the courts can help "restore the balance of power"" in the national security context.o
Appropriations litigation can also help redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions, so as to be more faithful to the Constitution. The constitutional text and history suggest that a majority of either house of Congress is sufficient to reject the decision to declare war,91 or reject an appropriation to fund a war. However, with the President's spending discretion and ability to begin a conflict without congressional authorization, Congress essentially requires a veto-proof two-thirds majority in each house to defund an unauthorized war.92 A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power. The great gulf between the interbranch cooperation prescribed by the Constitution and the current reality of unilateral executive action in this area means that Appropriations Clause lawsuits would be particularly valuable in national security and foreign-relations cases.
Furthermore, these lawsuits could also improve the balance of power among the branches as a general matter. As discussed in Part IV, because Appropriations Clause litigation is based on a provision that is unusually clear by constitutional standards," it could spur targeted judicial involvement in interbranch disputes. It could thereby help defuse conflicts between Congress and the President that might otherwise escalate. The breadth and clarity of the appropriations power makes it perhaps the most potent of a larger suite of tools with which Congress can exert its authority against the other branches." The clause both vests Congress with the power to appropriate and "ensur[es] that the money [is] actually spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated."" Congress can use this power generally- depriving the executive branch of the means to do its workor specifically- affecting particular policies through riders.9 6 Indeed, the Appropriations Clause allows Congress to invade what would otherwise be the President's exclusive power to execute the law." Instead of asking, in the abstract, whether the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to engage in a particular activity, a court can focus on the simpler question of whether Congress has appropriated funds for that activity.
To think of this in more familiar terms: if Congress is right in arguing that it has not appropriated funds for the Executive's actions, or that an appropriations rider prohibits funds from being spent on those actions, then any Appropriations Clause case will be funneled into category three of the tripartite Youngstown framework. 98 Because the President's activity is "incompatible with the expressed ... will of Congress," the President's "power is at its lowest ebb." 9 A congressional decision to sue would throw Congress's disapproval into starker relief, sharpening the conflict and ensuring that appropriations litigation would take place in category three. Under the Youngstown framework, the President would only be able to win such a suit if she acts under a power that is "both 'exclusive' and 'conclusive' on the issue" in dispute - a claim that "must be 'scrutinized with caution."' 00 And as the Court noted in Zivotofsky, even when a President successfully proves that she has exclusive authority over a particular power, Congress can still use the Appropriations Clause to shape many of the President's policy decisions under that power. ' Most cases, therefore, will be rather clear cut: the courts will not need to sift out the two branches' substantive powers, and will be able to rule for Congress on the constitutional question. Appropriations Clause lawsuits, therefore, could simplify and help resolve otherwise intractable separation-of-powers disputes. In the context of this more limited and concrete legal question, the judiciary may be more willing to intervene on Congress's side in constitutional disputes between the political branches.
The possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is also valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases. Under the current state of our politics, it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits. 102
Such a President may spend without appropriation in violation of the Constitution if he lacks political hope of persuading Congress to vote in his favor,"o3 or is willing to act in the face of potential political retribution. Or he may act when he mistakenly believes -or wants to believelo - that he has the authority to make national security expenditures without congressional approval. In these circumstances, only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making.
A robust Appropriations Clause could thus strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally. But leaving aside potential benefits for the separation-of-powers jurisprudence, at the very least these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security.
| not succeeded
imbalance
effectively vindicate
Framers intended
disproportionate power
explicit restriction
pass a resolution
bring a lawsuit
violating
allege
violated
opportunity
serve
beneficial tool
reinforcing
use
merely the threatened use
revive
biggest check
political bargaining power
reassert
reinvigorate
ex post check
political
legal accountability
currently lacking
not free
ordinary controls
checks
merely because foreign affairs
went even further
lowest ebb
Youngstown
redistribute
only a majority
one house
vindicates
possibility
valuable
trend
expense
continues
increasingly valuable
increases
not impossible
imagine
imperial unitary executive
robust belief
blatantly disregarding
only adjudication will allow
robust
strengthen
hand
dealing with
reassert | 626 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency.",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "Thus far, legislative reform and attempts to appeal to the judiciary have not succeeded in correcting the constitutional national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate the vision that the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive. Such a suit would proceed in two steps. First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security, either attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded. Then, when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress - or one chamber thereof- would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause. Specifically, the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by \"draw [ing]\" money \"from the Treasury\" not \"in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\"\" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use - or merely the threatened use - of these lawsuits could revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making.\nAppropriations litigation, first and foremost, can help reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes. \"The multiple constitutional prerequisites for government activity\" - such as the necessity of congressional appropriation before undertaking an action -\"are checks upon the exercise of government power, reflecting the foundational decision that the exercise of such power should be deliberate and limited.\"8 2 Though modern presidential spending discretion in national security means that appropriations are no longer prerequisites for a specific activity, judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach. As both Founding-era thinking and early practice indicate, such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making.\"\nThe Supreme Court recently reiterated in Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry that \"many decisions affecting foreign relations\" -including the appropriations required to carry out those decisions - \"require congressional action.\"84 Repudiating the broad delegation of power to the Executive articulated in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.,` the majority clarified that \" [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue.\"\" The dissenting Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers.87 For these sentiments to have any effect, the President must be made to abide by Congress's appropriations decisions. After all, as Chief Justice Roberts noted in his Zivotofsky dissent, \"the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb\"' under the traditional Youngstown framework \"when he contravenes the express will of Congress.\" \" By enabling Congress to enforce its appropriations power, the courts can help \"restore the balance of power\"\" in the national security context.o\nAppropriations litigation can also help redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions, so as to be more faithful to the Constitution. The constitutional text and history suggest that a majority of either house of Congress is sufficient to reject the decision to declare war,91 or reject an appropriation to fund a war. However, with the President's spending discretion and ability to begin a conflict without congressional authorization, Congress essentially requires a veto-proof two-thirds majority in each house to defund an unauthorized war.92 A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power. The great gulf between the interbranch cooperation prescribed by the Constitution and the current reality of unilateral executive action in this area means that Appropriations Clause lawsuits would be particularly valuable in national security and foreign-relations cases.\nFurthermore, these lawsuits could also improve the balance of power among the branches as a general matter. As discussed in Part IV, because Appropriations Clause litigation is based on a provision that is unusually clear by constitutional standards,\" it could spur targeted judicial involvement in interbranch disputes. It could thereby help defuse conflicts between Congress and the President that might otherwise escalate. The breadth and clarity of the appropriations power makes it perhaps the most potent of a larger suite of tools with which Congress can exert its authority against the other branches.\" The clause both vests Congress with the power to appropriate and \"ensur[es] that the money [is] actually spent for the purposes for which it was appropriated.\"\" Congress can use this power generally- depriving the executive branch of the means to do its workor specifically- affecting particular policies through riders.9 6 Indeed, the Appropriations Clause allows Congress to invade what would otherwise be the President's exclusive power to execute the law.\" Instead of asking, in the abstract, whether the Executive has the authority under the Constitution to engage in a particular activity, a court can focus on the simpler question of whether Congress has appropriated funds for that activity.\nTo think of this in more familiar terms: if Congress is right in arguing that it has not appropriated funds for the Executive's actions, or that an appropriations rider prohibits funds from being spent on those actions, then any Appropriations Clause case will be funneled into category three of the tripartite Youngstown framework. 98 Because the President's activity is \"incompatible with the expressed ... will of Congress,\" the President's \"power is at its lowest ebb.\" 9 A congressional decision to sue would throw Congress's disapproval into starker relief, sharpening the conflict and ensuring that appropriations litigation would take place in category three. Under the Youngstown framework, the President would only be able to win such a suit if she acts under a power that is \"both 'exclusive' and 'conclusive' on the issue\" in dispute - a claim that \"must be 'scrutinized with caution.\"' 00 And as the Court noted in Zivotofsky, even when a President successfully proves that she has exclusive authority over a particular power, Congress can still use the Appropriations Clause to shape many of the President's policy decisions under that power. ' Most cases, therefore, will be rather clear cut: the courts will not need to sift out the two branches' substantive powers, and will be able to rule for Congress on the constitutional question. Appropriations Clause lawsuits, therefore, could simplify and help resolve otherwise intractable separation-of-powers disputes. In the context of this more limited and concrete legal question, the judiciary may be more willing to intervene on Congress's side in constitutional disputes between the political branches.\nThe possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is also valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases. Under the current state of our politics, it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits. 102\nSuch a President may spend without appropriation in violation of the Constitution if he lacks political hope of persuading Congress to vote in his favor,\"o3 or is willing to act in the face of potential political retribution. Or he may act when he mistakenly believes -or wants to believelo - that he has the authority to make national security expenditures without congressional approval. In these circumstances, only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making.\nA robust Appropriations Clause could thus strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally. But leaving aside potential benefits for the separation-of-powers jurisprudence, at the very least these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security.\n\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "not succeeded\nimbalance\neffectively vindicate\nFramers intended\ndisproportionate power\nexplicit restriction\npass a resolution\nbring a lawsuit\nviolating\nallege\nviolated\nopportunity\nserve\nbeneficial tool\nreinforcing\nuse\nmerely the threatened use\nrevive\nbiggest check\npolitical bargaining power\nreassert\nreinvigorate\nex post check\npolitical\nlegal accountability\ncurrently lacking\nnot free\nordinary controls\nchecks\nmerely because foreign affairs\nwent even further\nlowest ebb\nYoungstown\nredistribute\nonly a majority\none house\nvindicates\npossibility\nvaluable\ntrend\nexpense\ncontinues\nincreasingly valuable\nincreases\nnot impossible\nimagine\nimperial unitary executive\nrobust belief\nblatantly disregarding\nonly adjudication will allow\nrobust\nstrengthen\nhand\ndealing with\nreassert",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency.
Highlight Ratio: 0.1 | legislative reform
have not succeeded in correcting
national security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate
the Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive
First, Congress would appropriate funding for national security
attaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded
when the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress
would pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause
the lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by "draw [ing]" money "from the Treasury" not "in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use
or merely the threatened use
of these lawsuits
revive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making
Appropriations litigation
can
reassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes
judicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach
such a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making
the majority clarified that " [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue
Justices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers
the President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb"' under the
Youngstown framework
Appropriations litigation
redistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions
A congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power
The possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is
valuable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases
it is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits
only adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making
A robust Appropriations Clause could
strengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally
these lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security | Congress
would
bring
lawsuit
for violating
Clause
use
or
threatened use
of
lawsuits
revive
biggest check on Executive war making and
bargaining power
judicial review
reinvigorate
ex post check
create
accountability
majority clarified
Executive is not free from
controls
because foreign affairs
possibility of
lawsuit is
valuable if
trend of executive accretion
continues
adjudication
allow Congress
exercise
appropriations power | 627 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: 2. Congressional suits---plank one and two sue if they do which bolsters solvency.\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.1",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "legislative reform\nhave not succeeded in correcting\nnational security imbalance. An Appropriations Clause case could more effectively vindicate\nthe Framers intended and prevent the accretion of disproportionate power to the Executive\nFirst, Congress would appropriate funding for national security\nattaching an explicit restriction stating that no funds are being appropriated for purpose x, or appropriating in narrow categories such as to make clear through its omission that purpose x has not been funded\nwhen the Executive pursues x by withdrawing and spending funds that have been appropriated for another activity, Congress\nwould pass a resolution to bring a lawsuit against the Executive for violating the Appropriations Clause\nthe lawsuit would allege that the President violated the Constitution by \"draw [ing]\" money \"from the Treasury\" not \"in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.\"\" Congressional Appropriations Clause litigation has the opportunity to serve as a beneficial tool for reinforcing the appropriations power in national security. The use\nor merely the threatened use\nof these lawsuits\nrevive Congress's biggest check on Executive war making and increase Congress's political bargaining power in national security policy making\nAppropriations litigation\ncan\nreassert Congress's constitutional role in national security disputes\njudicial review can reinvigorate appropriations as an ex post check on executive overreach\nsuch a check would create political and legal accountability that is currently lacking in national security policy making\nthe majority clarified that \" [t] he Executive is not free from the ordinary controls and checks of Congress merely because foreign affairs are at issue\nJustices went even further in their defense of Congress's role in the separation of powers\nthe President's power reaches 'its lowest ebb\"' under the\nYoungstown framework\nAppropriations litigation\nredistribute the burdens of making war and funding national security actions\nA congressional Appropriations Clause lawsuit-requiring only a majority of one house to authorize suit -vindicates the original constitutional distribution of burdens and power\nThe possibility of an Appropriations Clause lawsuit is\nvaluable if the trend of executive accretion of national security power at the expense of Congress continues. This kind of lawsuit will become increasingly valuable if the constitutional imbalance in power increases\nit is not impossible to imagine an imperial unitary executive with a robust belief in an inherent executive spending authority winning the presidency and blatantly disregarding Congress's appropriations limits\nonly adjudication will allow Congress to exercise its appropriations power to check executive war making and unilateral national security policy making\nA robust Appropriations Clause could\nstrengthen Congress's constitutional hand in dealing with the Executive generally\nthese lawsuits could help Congress reassert its constitutional role in national security",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Congress\nwould\nbring\nlawsuit\nfor violating\nClause\nuse\nor\nthreatened use\nof\nlawsuits\nrevive\nbiggest check on Executive war making and\nbargaining power\njudicial review\nreinvigorate\nex post check\ncreate\naccountability\nmajority clarified\nExecutive is not free from\ncontrols\nbecause foreign affairs\npossibility of\nlawsuit is\nvaluable if\ntrend of executive accretion\ncontinues\nadjudication\nallow Congress\nexercise\nappropriations power",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: The 1AC has fallen prey to magical voluntarism—the hollow gesture of the ballot ignores material recalcitrance which promotes complacency and wish-fulfillment | **edited for language
By its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms.
—Theodor Adorno (1994, p. 129).
Over a decade ago anthropologists Jean and John L. Comaroff (1999) advanced∂ the provocative thesis that globalization in late capitalism has led to ‘‘a dramatic∂ intensification ... of appeals to enchantment,’’ often most discernable in industrializing countries such as South Africa (p. 282). From ‘‘get rich quick’’ pyramid∂ schemes to e-mail promises from millionaire widows in Nigeria, ‘‘capitalism has an∂ effervescent new spirit—a magical, neo-Protestant zeitgeist—welling up close to its∂ core’’ (p. 281). Of course, over a half-century ago Theodor Adorno (1994) inveighed∂ against astrology and soothsaying as indices of economic magic, underscoring the∂ ability of capitalism to promote the ‘‘doctrine of the existence of spirit’’ so central∂ to bourgeois consciousness. ‘‘In the concept of mind-in-itself,’’ argued Adorno,∂ ‘‘consciousness has ontologically justified and perpetuated privilege by making it independent of the social principle by which it is constituted. Such ideology explodes∂ in occultism: It is Idealism come full circle’’ (p. 133). What the Comaroffs point to is∂ not the arrival of a new form of magical thinking, then, but the intensification and∂ proliferation of postenlightenment gullibility via globalization—ironically in what is∂ presumably the age of cynical reason (e.g., Sloterdijk, 1987).
As human beings, academics are just as susceptible to magical thinking and∂ narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence as everyone else. Perhaps because at some∂ level of communication scholars tend to entertain a sense of the magical in the∂ idea of communication (see Peters, 1999), we have been particularly prone to a∂ philosophical belief in what we term ‘‘magical voluntarism,’’ the notion that human∂ agency is better understood as the ability to control a given phenomenon through∂ the proper manipulation of thoughts and symbols (e.g., language). Going well∂ beyond the straightforward idea that our thoughts necessarily influence our actions∂ in transforming the world around us, what we are calling magical voluntarism fosters∂ a deliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance, an inability to recognize the∂ structural, political, economic, cultural, and psychical limits of an individual’s ability∂ to act in her [their] own interests. Furthermore, magical voluntarism refuses to acknowledge∂ that there is a limit to the efficacy of symbolic action, beyond which persuasion and∂ thought alone fail to shift existing social relations.
In popular culture, magical voluntarism is typified by the bestselling book and∂ DVD The Secret (Byrne, 2006; Heriot, 2006), which teach the reader/viewer that∂ ‘‘[y]our life right now is a reflection of your thoughts. That includes all great things,∂ and all the things you consider not so great. Since you attract to you what you think∂ about most, it is easy to see what your dominant thoughts have been on every subject∂ of your life, because that is what you experienced’’ (Byrne, 2006, p. 9). The ‘‘magical,∂ neo-Protestant zeitgeist’’ typified by the raging success of The Secret (see McGee,∂ 2007) indicates that enchantment is not limited to developing countries, but is also a∂ crowning achievement of late capitalism in the postindustrial world.
Nor is magical thinking limited to popular culture. As a recent essay in this journal∂ by Sonja K. Foss, William J. Waters, and Bernard J. Armada (2007) demonstrates,∂ magical thinking has some purchase in the field of communication studies (see also∂ Geisler, 2005; Villadsen, 2008).1 According to Foss, Waters, and Armada, human∂ agency is simply a matter of consciously choosing among differing interpretations of∂ reality. We argue that the understanding of agency advanced by Foss, Waters, and∂ Armada is informed by the same voluntarist ideology that has enchanted The Secret’s∂ millions of readers.
Below we advance a conception of agency as an open question in order to combat∂ magical thinking in contemporary communication theory. Although we approach∂ the concept of agency from different theoretical standpoints (one of us from the∂ perspective of psychoanalysis, the other, classical Marxism), we are mutually opposed∂ to the (bourgeois) idealism of magical voluntarism in recent work in communication∂ and rhetorical studies on agency.2 Our primary vehicle of argument is a critique∂ of Foss, Waters, and Armada’s essay, ‘‘Toward a Theory of Agentic Orientation: Rhetoric and Agency in Run Lola Run,’’ which represents a magical-voluntaristic∂ brand of practical reason (phronesis) that is increasingly discredited among a number∂ rhetorical scholars. We are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that even in∂ ‘‘situations’’ such as ‘‘imprisonment or genocide ... agents have choices about how∂ to perceive their conditions and their agency ... [which] opens up opportunities for∂ innovating ... in ways unavailable to those who construct themselves as victims’’∂ (p. 33). The idea that one can choose an ‘‘agentic orientation’’ regardless of context∂ and despite material limitation not only ignores two decades of research within the∂ field of communication studies on agency and its limitations (and is thus ‘‘regressive’’∂ in more than one sense), but tacitly promotes a belief in wish-fulfillment through∂ visualization and the imagination, as well as a commitment to radical individualism∂ and autonomy. As a consequence, embracing magical voluntarism leads to narcissistic∂ complacency, regressive infantilism, and elitist arrogance.
| By its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms
globalization
led to
a dramatic
intensification
of
enchantment
get rich quick
pyramid
schemes
a magical
capitalism
promote the
doctrine of the existence of spirit
central
to bourgeois consciousness
ideology explodes
in occultism
Idealism come full circle’’
intensification and
proliferation
gullibility
academics are
susceptible to magical thinking and
fantasies of omnipotence
magical voluntarism
notion that human
agency is
understood as the ability to control
phenomenon through
proper manipulation
Going
beyond the
idea that
thoughts
influence
actions
transforming the world
magical voluntarism fosters
deliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance
inability to recognize
structural
political
economic
cultural
and psychical limits of an individual’s ability
to act in
their
interest
refuses to acknowledge
there is a limit to
efficacy of symbolic action
The Secret
teach
that
‘‘[y]our life
is a reflection of your thoughts
According to Foss, Waters, and Armada
agency is
a matter of consciously choosing
differing interpretations of
reality
the understanding of agency
is informed by
voluntarist ideology
Agentic Orientation
represents a magical-voluntaristic
brand of
reason
discredited among
scholars
We are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that
in
situations
such as
genocide
agents have choices about how
to perceive their conditions
The idea that one can choose
agentic orientation
regardless of context
and
material limitation
is
regressive
but tacitly promotes
wish-fulfillment
As a consequence
magical voluntarism leads to
complacency | 628 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: The 1AC has fallen prey to magical voluntarism—the hollow gesture of the ballot ignores material recalcitrance which promotes complacency and wish-fulfillment",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "**edited for language\n\nBy its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms.\n—Theodor Adorno (1994, p. 129).\nOver a decade ago anthropologists Jean and John L. Comaroff (1999) advanced∂ the provocative thesis that globalization in late capitalism has led to ‘‘a dramatic∂ intensification ... of appeals to enchantment,’’ often most discernable in industrializing countries such as South Africa (p. 282). From ‘‘get rich quick’’ pyramid∂ schemes to e-mail promises from millionaire widows in Nigeria, ‘‘capitalism has an∂ effervescent new spirit—a magical, neo-Protestant zeitgeist—welling up close to its∂ core’’ (p. 281). Of course, over a half-century ago Theodor Adorno (1994) inveighed∂ against astrology and soothsaying as indices of economic magic, underscoring the∂ ability of capitalism to promote the ‘‘doctrine of the existence of spirit’’ so central∂ to bourgeois consciousness. ‘‘In the concept of mind-in-itself,’’ argued Adorno,∂ ‘‘consciousness has ontologically justified and perpetuated privilege by making it independent of the social principle by which it is constituted. Such ideology explodes∂ in occultism: It is Idealism come full circle’’ (p. 133). What the Comaroffs point to is∂ not the arrival of a new form of magical thinking, then, but the intensification and∂ proliferation of postenlightenment gullibility via globalization—ironically in what is∂ presumably the age of cynical reason (e.g., Sloterdijk, 1987).\nAs human beings, academics are just as susceptible to magical thinking and∂ narcissistic fantasies of omnipotence as everyone else. Perhaps because at some∂ level of communication scholars tend to entertain a sense of the magical in the∂ idea of communication (see Peters, 1999), we have been particularly prone to a∂ philosophical belief in what we term ‘‘magical voluntarism,’’ the notion that human∂ agency is better understood as the ability to control a given phenomenon through∂ the proper manipulation of thoughts and symbols (e.g., language). Going well∂ beyond the straightforward idea that our thoughts necessarily influence our actions∂ in transforming the world around us, what we are calling magical voluntarism fosters∂ a deliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance, an inability to recognize the∂ structural, political, economic, cultural, and psychical limits of an individual’s ability∂ to act in her [their] own interests. Furthermore, magical voluntarism refuses to acknowledge∂ that there is a limit to the efficacy of symbolic action, beyond which persuasion and∂ thought alone fail to shift existing social relations.\nIn popular culture, magical voluntarism is typified by the bestselling book and∂ DVD The Secret (Byrne, 2006; Heriot, 2006), which teach the reader/viewer that∂ ‘‘[y]our life right now is a reflection of your thoughts. That includes all great things,∂ and all the things you consider not so great. Since you attract to you what you think∂ about most, it is easy to see what your dominant thoughts have been on every subject∂ of your life, because that is what you experienced’’ (Byrne, 2006, p. 9). The ‘‘magical,∂ neo-Protestant zeitgeist’’ typified by the raging success of The Secret (see McGee,∂ 2007) indicates that enchantment is not limited to developing countries, but is also a∂ crowning achievement of late capitalism in the postindustrial world.\nNor is magical thinking limited to popular culture. As a recent essay in this journal∂ by Sonja K. Foss, William J. Waters, and Bernard J. Armada (2007) demonstrates,∂ magical thinking has some purchase in the field of communication studies (see also∂ Geisler, 2005; Villadsen, 2008).1 According to Foss, Waters, and Armada, human∂ agency is simply a matter of consciously choosing among differing interpretations of∂ reality. We argue that the understanding of agency advanced by Foss, Waters, and∂ Armada is informed by the same voluntarist ideology that has enchanted The Secret’s∂ millions of readers.\nBelow we advance a conception of agency as an open question in order to combat∂ magical thinking in contemporary communication theory. Although we approach∂ the concept of agency from different theoretical standpoints (one of us from the∂ perspective of psychoanalysis, the other, classical Marxism), we are mutually opposed∂ to the (bourgeois) idealism of magical voluntarism in recent work in communication∂ and rhetorical studies on agency.2 Our primary vehicle of argument is a critique∂ of Foss, Waters, and Armada’s essay, ‘‘Toward a Theory of Agentic Orientation: Rhetoric and Agency in Run Lola Run,’’ which represents a magical-voluntaristic∂ brand of practical reason (phronesis) that is increasingly discredited among a number∂ rhetorical scholars. We are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that even in∂ ‘‘situations’’ such as ‘‘imprisonment or genocide ... agents have choices about how∂ to perceive their conditions and their agency ... [which] opens up opportunities for∂ innovating ... in ways unavailable to those who construct themselves as victims’’∂ (p. 33). The idea that one can choose an ‘‘agentic orientation’’ regardless of context∂ and despite material limitation not only ignores two decades of research within the∂ field of communication studies on agency and its limitations (and is thus ‘‘regressive’’∂ in more than one sense), but tacitly promotes a belief in wish-fulfillment through∂ visualization and the imagination, as well as a commitment to radical individualism∂ and autonomy. As a consequence, embracing magical voluntarism leads to narcissistic∂ complacency, regressive infantilism, and elitist arrogance.\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "By its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms\nglobalization\nled to\na dramatic\nintensification\nof\nenchantment\nget rich quick\npyramid\nschemes\na magical\ncapitalism\npromote the\ndoctrine of the existence of spirit\ncentral\nto bourgeois consciousness\nideology explodes\nin occultism\nIdealism come full circle’’\nintensification and\nproliferation\ngullibility\nacademics are\nsusceptible to magical thinking and\nfantasies of omnipotence\nmagical voluntarism\nnotion that human\nagency is\nunderstood as the ability to control\nphenomenon through\nproper manipulation\nGoing\nbeyond the\nidea that\nthoughts\ninfluence\nactions\ntransforming the world\nmagical voluntarism fosters\ndeliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance\ninability to recognize\nstructural\npolitical\neconomic\ncultural\nand psychical limits of an individual’s ability\nto act in\ntheir\ninterest\nrefuses to acknowledge\nthere is a limit to\nefficacy of symbolic action\nThe Secret\nteach\nthat\n‘‘[y]our life\nis a reflection of your thoughts\nAccording to Foss, Waters, and Armada\nagency is\na matter of consciously choosing\ndiffering interpretations of\nreality\nthe understanding of agency\nis informed by\nvoluntarist ideology\nAgentic Orientation\nrepresents a magical-voluntaristic\nbrand of\nreason\ndiscredited among\nscholars\nWe are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that\nin\nsituations\nsuch as\ngenocide\nagents have choices about how\nto perceive their conditions\nThe idea that one can choose\nagentic orientation\nregardless of context\nand\nmaterial limitation\nis\nregressive\nbut tacitly promotes\nwish-fulfillment\nAs a consequence\nmagical voluntarism leads to\ncomplacency",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: The 1AC has fallen prey to magical voluntarism—the hollow gesture of the ballot ignores material recalcitrance which promotes complacency and wish-fulfillment
Highlight Ratio: 0.3 | By its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms
globalization
led to
a dramatic
intensification
of
enchantment
get rich quick
pyramid
schemes
a magical
capitalism
promote the
doctrine of the existence of spirit
central
to bourgeois consciousness
ideology explodes
in occultism
Idealism come full circle’’
intensification and
proliferation
gullibility
academics are
susceptible to magical thinking and
fantasies of omnipotence
magical voluntarism
notion that human
agency is
understood as the ability to control
phenomenon through
proper manipulation
Going
beyond the
idea that
thoughts
influence
actions
transforming the world
magical voluntarism fosters
deliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance
inability to recognize
structural
political
economic
cultural
and psychical limits of an individual’s ability
to act in
their
interest
refuses to acknowledge
there is a limit to
efficacy of symbolic action
The Secret
teach
that
‘‘[y]our life
is a reflection of your thoughts
According to Foss, Waters, and Armada
agency is
a matter of consciously choosing
differing interpretations of
reality
the understanding of agency
is informed by
voluntarist ideology
Agentic Orientation
represents a magical-voluntaristic
brand of
reason
discredited among
scholars
We are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that
in
situations
such as
genocide
agents have choices about how
to perceive their conditions
The idea that one can choose
agentic orientation
regardless of context
and
material limitation
is
regressive
but tacitly promotes
wish-fulfillment
As a consequence
magical voluntarism leads to
complacency | magic
thought is assimilated
to bourgeois consciousness
ideology explodes
in occultism
academic
magical thinking
fantasies of omnipotence
magical voluntarism
agency is
understood as
ability to
transform
the world
fosters
misrecognition of material recalcitrance
there is
limit to
efficacy of symbolic action
idea
one can choose
agentic orientation
regardless of context
and
material limitation
is
regressive
promotes
wish-fulfillment
complacency | 630 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: The 1AC has fallen prey to magical voluntarism—the hollow gesture of the ballot ignores material recalcitrance which promotes complacency and wish-fulfillment\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.3",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "By its regression to magic under late capitalism, thought is assimilated to late capitalist forms\nglobalization\nled to\na dramatic\nintensification\nof\nenchantment\nget rich quick\npyramid\nschemes\na magical\ncapitalism\npromote the\ndoctrine of the existence of spirit\ncentral\nto bourgeois consciousness\nideology explodes\nin occultism\nIdealism come full circle’’\nintensification and\nproliferation\ngullibility\nacademics are\nsusceptible to magical thinking and\nfantasies of omnipotence\nmagical voluntarism\nnotion that human\nagency is\nunderstood as the ability to control\nphenomenon through\nproper manipulation\nGoing\nbeyond the\nidea that\nthoughts\ninfluence\nactions\ntransforming the world\nmagical voluntarism fosters\ndeliberate misrecognition of material recalcitrance\ninability to recognize\nstructural\npolitical\neconomic\ncultural\nand psychical limits of an individual’s ability\nto act in\ntheir\ninterest\nrefuses to acknowledge\nthere is a limit to\nefficacy of symbolic action\nThe Secret\nteach\nthat\n‘‘[y]our life\nis a reflection of your thoughts\nAccording to Foss, Waters, and Armada\nagency is\na matter of consciously choosing\ndiffering interpretations of\nreality\nthe understanding of agency\nis informed by\nvoluntarist ideology\nAgentic Orientation\nrepresents a magical-voluntaristic\nbrand of\nreason\ndiscredited among\nscholars\nWe are particularly alarmed by the suggestion that\nin\nsituations\nsuch as\ngenocide\nagents have choices about how\nto perceive their conditions\nThe idea that one can choose\nagentic orientation\nregardless of context\nand\nmaterial limitation\nis\nregressive\nbut tacitly promotes\nwish-fulfillment\nAs a consequence\nmagical voluntarism leads to\ncomplacency",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "magic\nthought is assimilated\nto bourgeois consciousness\nideology explodes\nin occultism\nacademic\nmagical thinking\nfantasies of omnipotence\nmagical voluntarism\nagency is\nunderstood as\nability to\ntransform\nthe world\nfosters\nmisrecognition of material recalcitrance\nthere is\nlimit to\nefficacy of symbolic action\nidea\none can choose\nagentic orientation\nregardless of context\nand\nmaterial limitation\nis\nregressive\npromotes\nwish-fulfillment\ncomplacency",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: [2] Their abstract theorizing allows material harm to continue against indigenous people – we should instead focus on concrete particulars as a starting point as the only ethical strategy | The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us. We should know it in its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua. The jurispru- dence of outsiders teaches that these details and the emotions they evoke are relevant and impor- tant as we set out on the road to justice. These details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing into different places. For lawyers, our pro bono work may be the most effective means of ac- quiring a broader consciousness of oppression. Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.
Holding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge. Whisperings at Yale and elsewhere about how deconstructionist heroes were closet fascists remind me of how important it is to stay close to oppressed communities. High talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?" If you have been made to feel, as I have, that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist! Read what Professor Williams, Professor Scales-Trent, and other feminists and people of color are writing.' The reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about law and theory. | The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us
in its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua.
These details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing
Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.
Holding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge
High talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?" If you have been made to feel
that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!
The reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point | 631 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: [2] Their abstract theorizing allows material harm to continue against indigenous people – we should instead focus on concrete particulars as a starting point as the only ethical strategy",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us. We should know it in its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua. The jurispru- dence of outsiders teaches that these details and the emotions they evoke are relevant and impor- tant as we set out on the road to justice. These details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing into different places. For lawyers, our pro bono work may be the most effective means of ac- quiring a broader consciousness of oppression. Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail. \n\nHolding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge. Whisperings at Yale and elsewhere about how deconstructionist heroes were closet fascists remind me of how important it is to stay close to oppressed communities. High talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: \"Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?\" If you have been made to feel, as I have, that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist! Read what Professor Williams, Professor Scales-Trent, and other feminists and people of color are writing.' The reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about law and theory.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us\nin its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua.\nThese details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing\nAbstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.\nHolding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge\nHigh talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: \"Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?\" If you have been made to feel\nthat such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!\nThe reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: [2] Their abstract theorizing allows material harm to continue against indigenous people – we should instead focus on concrete particulars as a starting point as the only ethical strategy
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us
in its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua.
These details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing
Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.
Holding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge
High talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?" If you have been made to feel
that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!
The reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point | The multiple consciousness I urge
is
a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us
in its con- crete particulars
These details are accessible
Abstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction
allows theorists to discuss
with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives
mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.
High talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign,
can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: "Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying
What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?" If you have been made to feel
that such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!
The reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point | 633 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: [2] Their abstract theorizing allows material harm to continue against indigenous people – we should instead focus on concrete particulars as a starting point as the only ethical strategy\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see all points of view, but a deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us\nin its con- crete particulars. We should know of our sister carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel, our sister trembling at 3 a.m. in a shelter for battered women, our sisters holding bloodied children in their arms in Cape Town, on the West Bank, and in Nicaragua.\nThese details are accessible to all of us, of all genders and colors. We can choose to know the lives of others by reading, studying, listening, and ventur- ing\nAbstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction, criticized by both feminists and scholars of color, is the, method that allows theorists to discuss liberty, property, and rights in the aspirational mode of liberalism with no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives. Much in our mainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.\nHolding on to a multiple consciousness will allow us to op- erate both within the abstractions of standard ju- risprudential discourse, and within the details of our own special knowledge\nHigh talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign, process, and law can mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: \"Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying for my sis- ter who is carrying buckets of water up five flights of stairs in a welfare hotel? What do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?\" If you have been made to feel\nthat such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!\nThe reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The multiple consciousness I urge\nis\na deliberate choice to see the world from the standpoint of the oppressed. That world is ac- cessible to all of us\nin its con- crete particulars\nThese details are accessible\nAbstraction and detachment are ways out of the discomfort of direct confrontation with the ugliness of oppression. Abstraction\nallows theorists to discuss\nwith no connection to what those concepts mean in real people's lives\nmainstream intellectual training values abstraction and denigrates nitty-gritty detail.\nHigh talk about lan- guage, meaning, sign,\ncan mask racist and sexist ugliness if we never stop to ask: \"Exactly what are you talking about and what is the implication of what you are saying\nWhat do you propose to do for her today, not in some abstract future you are creating in your mind?\" If you have been made to feel\nthat such inquiry is theoretically unsophisticated, and quaintly naive, re- sist!\nThe reality and detail of op- pression are a starting point",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy | The COVID-19 pandemic sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions. In today’s chaotic cycle of rapid change, growing complexity, and radical uncertainty, the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected. To be sure, the fallout from COVID-19 has revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains, our society, our economy, and—most pertinent for this report— our national security strategy, which relies on all three. The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force. We are living far from “equilibrium system,” when novel and even catastrophic change are most likely. However, in every alternative future—no matter how severe or unexpected—there are always winners and losers. The organizations best positioned to seize and incorporate the exploits of the new order will be those with the capability to perceive, learn, and adapt even when the signals from tomorrow may seem utterly ridiculous today.
Lt Col Jacob S. Sotiriadis, USAF, Ph.D.
Chief, Strategic Foresight and Futures Branch, AFWIC
Jairus Victor Grove, Ph.D.
Director, the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies
The University of Hawaii at Manoa
Washington, D.C., June 2020 | COVID
sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions
the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected
COVID
revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains
society
economy, and
national security
The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D
o
D
and
the Air Force
Jairus Victor Grove | 634 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "The COVID-19 pandemic sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions. In today’s chaotic cycle of rapid change, growing complexity, and radical uncertainty, the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected. To be sure, the fallout from COVID-19 has revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains, our society, our economy, and—most pertinent for this report— our national security strategy, which relies on all three. The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force. We are living far from “equilibrium system,” when novel and even catastrophic change are most likely. However, in every alternative future—no matter how severe or unexpected—there are always winners and losers. The organizations best positioned to seize and incorporate the exploits of the new order will be those with the capability to perceive, learn, and adapt even when the signals from tomorrow may seem utterly ridiculous today.\nLt Col Jacob S. Sotiriadis, USAF, Ph.D.\nChief, Strategic Foresight and Futures Branch, AFWIC\nJairus Victor Grove, Ph.D.\nDirector, the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies\nThe University of Hawaii at Manoa\nWashington, D.C., June 2020",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "COVID\nsheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions\nthe national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected\nCOVID\nrevealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains\nsociety\neconomy, and\nnational security\nThe primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D\no\nD\nand\nthe Air Force\nJairus Victor Grove",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy | COVID
sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions
the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected
COVID
revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains
society
economy, and
national security
The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D
o
D
and
the Air Force
Jairus Victor Grove | COVID
sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions
the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected
COVID
revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains
society
economy, and
national security
The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D
o
D
and
the Air Force
Jairus Victor Grove | 635 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "COVID\nsheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions\nthe national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected\nCOVID\nrevealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains\nsociety\neconomy, and\nnational security\nThe primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D\no\nD\nand\nthe Air Force\nJairus Victor Grove",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "COVID\nsheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions\nthe national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected\nCOVID\nrevealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains\nsociety\neconomy, and\nnational security\nThe primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D\no\nD\nand\nthe Air Force\nJairus Victor Grove",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio.
Tag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy
Highlight Ratio: 0.5 | COVID
sheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions
the national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected
COVID
revealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains
society
economy, and
national security
The primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D
o
D
and
the Air Force
Jairus Victor Grove | the national security establishment must develop
skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected
COVID
revealed
vulnerabilities for
supply chains
society
economy, and
national security
Rather than
“definitive” conclusions or
policy
recommendations, this document
challenges us to consider
the future
defy accepted probabilities to affect the D
o
D | 636 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, highlight the text to support the argument. Highlight approximately the amount of text specified by the highlight ratio. \n\nTag: Reading Grove is pedagogically inconsistent — he helped publish a military white paper and concedes that we should develop a new national security strategy\n\nHighlight Ratio: 0.5",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "COVID\nsheds an important light on the criticality of futures-based thinking to move us beyond conventional assumptions and positions\nthe national security establishment must develop the skills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected\nCOVID\nrevealed overlooked vulnerabilities for our supply chains\nsociety\neconomy, and\nnational security\nThe primary aim of this report is to disrupt how we conceptualize national security futures. Rather than arrive at “definitive” conclusions or prescribe budgetary, policy, or force structure recommendations, this document instead challenges us to consider how the future can defy accepted probabilities to affect the D\no\nD\nand\nthe Air Force\nJairus Victor Grove",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the national security establishment must develop\nskills and flexibility to adapt to the unexpected\nCOVID\nrevealed\nvulnerabilities for\nsupply chains\nsociety\neconomy, and\nnational security\nRather than\n“definitive” conclusions or\npolicy\nrecommendations, this document\nchallenges us to consider\nthe future\ndefy accepted probabilities to affect the D\no\nD",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument.
Tag: Finishing McMichael |
32 According to one report:
Countries like Bangladesh can’t buy the rice they need now because the prices are so high. For years the World Bank and the IMF have told countries that a liberalized market would provide the most efficient system for producing and distributing food, yet today the world’s poorest countries are forced into an intense bidding war against speculators and traders, who are having a field day. Hedge funds and other sources of hot money are pouring billions of dollars into commodities to escape sliding stock markets and the credit crunch, putting food stocks further out of poor people’s reach. According to some estimates, investment funds now control 50-60% of the wheat traded on the world’s biggest commodity markets.33
In effect, the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime, where the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target, and control by either financial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation (even with record harvests of staple crops).34 Food stocks are highly centralized—five corporations control 90 percent of the international grain trade, three countries produce 70 percent of exported corn, and the thirty largest food retailers control one-third of world grocery sales.35 Arguably, such concentration of corporate power was enabled by the vision articulated by the chairman of Cargill: “There is a mistaken belief that the greatest agricultural need in the developing world is to develop the capacity to grow food for local consumption. This is misguided. Countries should produce what they produce best—and trade.”36
Liberalized trade relations, under WTO rules, have restructured food circuits, deepening a food dependency that started when prices were low. Wheat imports in Africa increased “by 35 percent between 1996 and 2000, while the total value of these ever-cheaper imports actually fell by 13 percent, on average”37; about 70 percent of countries in the global South are net food importers38; and in 2007, the “food import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose.”39 Such food dependency often results from import surges of low-price products that harm local producers. Thus, the FAO noted 669 cases of poultry import surges between 1983 and 2003, 50 percent of which occurred in Africa, responsible for only 5 percent of global poultry trade. During this time 70 percent of Senegal’s poultry industry and 90 percent of Ghana’s local poultry production were wiped out by poultry imports from the United States, the European Union, and Brazil.40 Meanwhile, the debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South. International agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments (for example, Malawi)41 had to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt,42 and governments like that of India sold grain reserves on the world market.43 The transnational peasant movement, Vía Campesina, noted:
National food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies. They act as speculators instead of protecting farmers and consumers. Likewise, guaranteed price mechanisms are being dismantled all over the world as part of the neo-liberal policies package, exposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility.4
Paul Krugman invoked this problem in a New York Times column, “Grains Gone Wild,”
Governments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.45
Not unlike the dismantling, or deterioration, of customary grain reserves in colonial hinterlands, the corporate food regime substitutes the price mechanism for public methods of meeting social needs for food provisioning. The consequence has been the removal of obstacles to the rapid passing along of price increases for staple foods. But transmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets, rather it is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector. A case in point is the Mexican corn market. While corn prices fell continuously following NAFTA’s liberalization of corn imports from the United States, tortilla prices in Mexico tripled during the 1990s. And during 2006, when world corn prices did rise rapidly, tortilla prices doubled again, so that “low-income people found themselves priced out of the tortilla market, and forced into less-nutritious alternatives like white bread and ramen noodles.”46 With only two food processors controlling 97 percent of the industrial corn flour market, and the state reducing food subsidies, tortilla riots have become part of the political landscape—spurred by a 10 percent reduction in wages resulting from rural migrants displaced by corn imports.47
Emblematic of the food crisis, Mexican underconsumption is related to the construction of profitability. While real wages have declined as tortilla prices increased, the production cost of tortillas has been cut—as industrial methods have adulterated the food commodity for the working poor. That is, capital has managed with state support to reduce costs and raise prices—an accomplishment depending on conditions of neoliberal trade relations, complemented by cronyism and the privatization of the Mexican state.
The consolidation of agribusiness under the neoliberal food regime thus set the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines. This enables corporate profits from price fixing, in addition to the transmission of rising prices through processes of corporate integration of markets in agricultural and food products. The monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system not only means producers receive low prices for their products, but also that traders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices. Rates of profit for agribusiness have soared; for example, in 2007, Cargill’s profits rose 36 percent, ADM’s 67 percent, and Bunge’s 49 percent, while in the first quarter of 2008, Cargill’s net earnings rose 86 percent, ADM’s gross profits were up 55 percent, and Bunge’s gross profits increased by 189 percent. Fertilizer companies profited also—for example, in 2007 Potash Corporation’s profits rose 72 percent, and Mosaic’s profits rose 141 percent, while, in the first quarter of 2008, Potash’s net income rose 186 percent and Mosaic’s net income rose more than 1,200 percent. Meanwhile, seed and agrochemical corporations reported unusual profits for 2007: Monsanto, 44 percent; DuPont, 19 percent; and Syngenta, 28 percent.48 Rising prices for inputs like fertilizer, seed, and chemical sprays explains why most small farmers have not benefited from rising food prices. GRAIN remarks:
Intimately involved with the shaping of the trade rules that govern today’s food system and tightly in control of markets and the ever more complex financial systems through which global trade operates, these companies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits. People have to eat, whatever the cost.49
Conclusion
Corporate control through a food regime based in market liberalization is a proximate cause of the globalization of a system in which food price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world. But its roots lie in the industrial agricultural model, and its heavy fossil-fuel dependence. As a recent Chatham House report claims, producing “one tonne of maize in the US requires 160 litres of oil, compared with just 4.8 litres in Mexico where farmers rely on more traditional methods. In 2005, expenditure on energy accounted for as much as 16% of total US agricultural production costs, one-third for fuel, including electricity, and two-thirds indirectly for the production of fertilizer and chemicals.”50 The latter is, of course, responsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping (originating in the colonial plantation system) have intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils. This means that while there is still arable land available globally, soils in use exhibit forms of exhaustion and erosion that suggest the world faces steadily declining yields under the present regime of dependency on petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.
| the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime
where the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target
and control by
financial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation
Liberalized trade relations
have restructured food circuits
deepening a food dependency that started when prices were low
food import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose
the debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South
International agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments
had to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt
National food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies
exposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility
transmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets
it is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector
The consolidation of agribusiness
set the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines
This enables corporate profits from price fixing
The monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system
means
traders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices
the trade rules that govern today’s food system
companies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits
food price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world
its roots lie in the industrial agricultural model
US agricultural production
The latter is
responsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping
have intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils
while there is still arable land
soils
exhibit forms of
erosion that suggest the world faces
declining yields | 637 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, underline the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Finishing McMichael",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "\n32 According to one report:\nCountries like Bangladesh can’t buy the rice they need now because the prices are so high. For years the World Bank and the IMF have told countries that a liberalized market would provide the most efficient system for producing and distributing food, yet today the world’s poorest countries are forced into an intense bidding war against speculators and traders, who are having a field day. Hedge funds and other sources of hot money are pouring billions of dollars into commodities to escape sliding stock markets and the credit crunch, putting food stocks further out of poor people’s reach. According to some estimates, investment funds now control 50-60% of the wheat traded on the world’s biggest commodity markets.33\nIn effect, the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime, where the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target, and control by either financial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation (even with record harvests of staple crops).34 Food stocks are highly centralized—five corporations control 90 percent of the international grain trade, three countries produce 70 percent of exported corn, and the thirty largest food retailers control one-third of world grocery sales.35 Arguably, such concentration of corporate power was enabled by the vision articulated by the chairman of Cargill: “There is a mistaken belief that the greatest agricultural need in the developing world is to develop the capacity to grow food for local consumption. This is misguided. Countries should produce what they produce best—and trade.”36\nLiberalized trade relations, under WTO rules, have restructured food circuits, deepening a food dependency that started when prices were low. Wheat imports in Africa increased “by 35 percent between 1996 and 2000, while the total value of these ever-cheaper imports actually fell by 13 percent, on average”37; about 70 percent of countries in the global South are net food importers38; and in 2007, the “food import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose.”39 Such food dependency often results from import surges of low-price products that harm local producers. Thus, the FAO noted 669 cases of poultry import surges between 1983 and 2003, 50 percent of which occurred in Africa, responsible for only 5 percent of global poultry trade. During this time 70 percent of Senegal’s poultry industry and 90 percent of Ghana’s local poultry production were wiped out by poultry imports from the United States, the European Union, and Brazil.40 Meanwhile, the debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South. International agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments (for example, Malawi)41 had to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt,42 and governments like that of India sold grain reserves on the world market.43 The transnational peasant movement, Vía Campesina, noted:\nNational food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies. They act as speculators instead of protecting farmers and consumers. Likewise, guaranteed price mechanisms are being dismantled all over the world as part of the neo-liberal policies package, exposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility.4\nPaul Krugman invoked this problem in a New York Times column, “Grains Gone Wild,”\nGovernments and private grain dealers used to hold large inventories in normal times, just in case a bad harvest created a sudden shortage. Over the years, however, these precautionary inventories were allowed to shrink, mainly because everyone came to believe that countries suffering crop failures could always import the food they needed.45\nNot unlike the dismantling, or deterioration, of customary grain reserves in colonial hinterlands, the corporate food regime substitutes the price mechanism for public methods of meeting social needs for food provisioning. The consequence has been the removal of obstacles to the rapid passing along of price increases for staple foods. But transmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets, rather it is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector. A case in point is the Mexican corn market. While corn prices fell continuously following NAFTA’s liberalization of corn imports from the United States, tortilla prices in Mexico tripled during the 1990s. And during 2006, when world corn prices did rise rapidly, tortilla prices doubled again, so that “low-income people found themselves priced out of the tortilla market, and forced into less-nutritious alternatives like white bread and ramen noodles.”46 With only two food processors controlling 97 percent of the industrial corn flour market, and the state reducing food subsidies, tortilla riots have become part of the political landscape—spurred by a 10 percent reduction in wages resulting from rural migrants displaced by corn imports.47\nEmblematic of the food crisis, Mexican underconsumption is related to the construction of profitability. While real wages have declined as tortilla prices increased, the production cost of tortillas has been cut—as industrial methods have adulterated the food commodity for the working poor. That is, capital has managed with state support to reduce costs and raise prices—an accomplishment depending on conditions of neoliberal trade relations, complemented by cronyism and the privatization of the Mexican state.\nThe consolidation of agribusiness under the neoliberal food regime thus set the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines. This enables corporate profits from price fixing, in addition to the transmission of rising prices through processes of corporate integration of markets in agricultural and food products. The monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system not only means producers receive low prices for their products, but also that traders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices. Rates of profit for agribusiness have soared; for example, in 2007, Cargill’s profits rose 36 percent, ADM’s 67 percent, and Bunge’s 49 percent, while in the first quarter of 2008, Cargill’s net earnings rose 86 percent, ADM’s gross profits were up 55 percent, and Bunge’s gross profits increased by 189 percent. Fertilizer companies profited also—for example, in 2007 Potash Corporation’s profits rose 72 percent, and Mosaic’s profits rose 141 percent, while, in the first quarter of 2008, Potash’s net income rose 186 percent and Mosaic’s net income rose more than 1,200 percent. Meanwhile, seed and agrochemical corporations reported unusual profits for 2007: Monsanto, 44 percent; DuPont, 19 percent; and Syngenta, 28 percent.48 Rising prices for inputs like fertilizer, seed, and chemical sprays explains why most small farmers have not benefited from rising food prices. GRAIN remarks:\nIntimately involved with the shaping of the trade rules that govern today’s food system and tightly in control of markets and the ever more complex financial systems through which global trade operates, these companies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits. People have to eat, whatever the cost.49\nConclusion\nCorporate control through a food regime based in market liberalization is a proximate cause of the globalization of a system in which food price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world. But its roots lie in the industrial agricultural model, and its heavy fossil-fuel dependence. As a recent Chatham House report claims, producing “one tonne of maize in the US requires 160 litres of oil, compared with just 4.8 litres in Mexico where farmers rely on more traditional methods. In 2005, expenditure on energy accounted for as much as 16% of total US agricultural production costs, one-third for fuel, including electricity, and two-thirds indirectly for the production of fertilizer and chemicals.”50 The latter is, of course, responsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping (originating in the colonial plantation system) have intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils. This means that while there is still arable land available globally, soils in use exhibit forms of exhaustion and erosion that suggest the world faces steadily declining yields under the present regime of dependency on petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides.\n\n",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime\nwhere the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target\nand control by\nfinancial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation\nLiberalized trade relations\nhave restructured food circuits\ndeepening a food dependency that started when prices were low\nfood import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose\nthe debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South\nInternational agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments\nhad to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt\nNational food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies\nexposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility\ntransmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets\nit is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector\nThe consolidation of agribusiness\nset the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines\nThis enables corporate profits from price fixing\nThe monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system\nmeans\ntraders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices\nthe trade rules that govern today’s food system\ncompanies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits\nfood price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world\nits roots lie in the industrial agricultural model\nUS agricultural production\nThe latter is\nresponsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping\nhave intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils\nwhile there is still arable land\nsoils\nexhibit forms of\nerosion that suggest the world faces\ndeclining yields",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |
Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument.
Tag: Finishing McMichael | the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime
where the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target
and control by
financial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation
Liberalized trade relations
have restructured food circuits
deepening a food dependency that started when prices were low
food import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose
the debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South
International agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments
had to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt
National food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies
exposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility
transmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets
it is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector
The consolidation of agribusiness
set the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines
This enables corporate profits from price fixing
The monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system
means
traders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices
the trade rules that govern today’s food system
companies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits
food price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world
its roots lie in the industrial agricultural model
US agricultural production
The latter is
responsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping
have intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils
while there is still arable land
soils
exhibit forms of
erosion that suggest the world faces
declining yields | inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime
price inflation
extreme price volatility
set the stage for the world food crisis.
responsible for the crisis of “peak soil,”
declining yields | 638 | [
{
"content": "Based on the argument in the tag, emphasize the rhetorically powerful parts of the text to support the argument. \n\nTag: Finishing McMichael",
"role": "system"
},
{
"content": "the crisis revealed the inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime\nwhere the large-scale commodification of food renders it a speculative target\nand control by\nfinancial markets or agribusiness enables price inflation\nLiberalized trade relations\nhave restructured food circuits\ndeepening a food dependency that started when prices were low\nfood import bill of developing countries rose by 25 percent as food prices rose\nthe debt crisis encouraged the dismantling of strategic grain reserves in the global South\nInternational agencies such as the IMF proposed conditions that governments\nhad to reduce strategic grain reserves to defray debt\nNational food reserves have been privatised and are now run like transnational companies\nexposing farmers and consumers to extreme price volatility\ntransmission of rising commodity prices is not simply a matter of integration of markets\nit is a result of consolidation of power in the agri-food sector\nThe consolidation of agribusiness\nset the stage for the world food crisis. Liberalization and privatization combine to accelerate food circulation globally and restructure food production and retailing along corporate lines\nThis enables corporate profits from price fixing\nThe monopoly structure of the heavily subsidized agribusiness food system\nmeans\ntraders, processors, and retailers are in a position to raise food prices\nthe trade rules that govern today’s food system\ncompanies are in perfect position to turn food scarcity into immense profits\nfood price increases are encouraged and rapidly transmitted around the world\nits roots lie in the industrial agricultural model\nUS agricultural production\nThe latter is\nresponsible for the crisis of “peak soil,” as inorganic fertilizers and monocropping\nhave intensified the “metabolic rift,” interrupting the natural carbon and nutrient cycles and degrading soils\nwhile there is still arable land\nsoils\nexhibit forms of\nerosion that suggest the world faces\ndeclining yields",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "inherent vulnerabilities of the neoliberal food regime\nprice inflation\nextreme price volatility\nset the stage for the world food crisis.\nresponsible for the crisis of “peak soil,”\ndeclining yields",
"role": "assistant"
}
] |