It is simplistic to assume that the problems women face now, are the same that they faced in the 1920’s. All they have in common is that, in some sense, women are used for men’s ends. In the 1920’s it was primarily as housewives, but now, it is as sexual objects. The kinds of images of women employed in advertisement and most kinds of media testify to this, and in pornography these views are expressed in a particularly forceful way.  Furthermore, it is a misconception to say that pornography can lead to revolutionary gender stereotypes when fundamentally it depends on stereotypes, the sexy teacher/nurse/friends’ mother being common themes. Through pornography, the best women can achieve is to jump through one label to another. Why? Because it is an industry fundamentally controlled by men, for men.  As a result, furthermore, there can be no self-expression when you are doing what a director (often male) tells you to do.  Even if the feminist movement has in fact succeeded in promoting their values in a portion of pornographic films, this will have no effect if people do not watch it. There is nothing to indicate that soft, female-friendly pornography will be more appealing to men than what is currently all over the net: over 100,000 sites offer illegal child pornography, and over 10,000 hard-core pornography films are released every year and the numbers increase exponentially (Techmedia Network). [1]  [1] Techmedia Network. Internet Pornography Statistics. TopTenReviews, n.d.


economic policy international africa society gender house believes feminisation

Again employment needs to be contextualised with what type of jobs are provided and entered into. It remains questionable as to whether the mental health of women improves if women are employed to work within hazardous work environments, or where there is no job security.  For example domestic workers remain vulnerable to different abuses - such as non payment, excessive work hours, abuse, and forced labour. Women may be vulnerable to gender based violence on their way to work. Furthermore, street traders are placed in a vulnerable position where the right to work is not respected. The forced eviction and harassment of female street-traders is a common story, underlined by political motivations. A recent example includes the eviction of street hawkers in Johannesburg [1] .  [1] See further readings: WIEGO, 2013.


For rights to be granted women need to be able to have a position within trade unions, and policy change is required.  A recent study shows fewer women than men are found in trade unions across eight African countries looked at in a study(Daily Guide, 2011). The greatest degree of women’s involvement was from teacher and nurses unions, however, there remains a lack of representation at leadership levels. The lack of a united, or recognised, women’s voice in trade unions undermines aims for gender equality and mainstreaming for those women who are working.  Additionally, at a larger scale, policy change is required. Empowerment cannot occur where unequal structures remain - therefore the system needs to be changed. Governments need to engender social policy and support women - providing protection, maternity cover, pension schemes, and security, which discriminate against women and informal workers.


The relation between employment, money, and household poverty is not a simple correlation when we consider the type of jobs women are entering. In developing countries work in the informal economy is a large source of women’s employment (Chen et al, 2004). In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, 84% of women in non-agricultural work are in the informal economy (ILO, 2002). Only 63% of men work in the informal economy. Women represent a large proportion of individuals working in informal employment and within the informal sector. Informal employment means employment lacks protection and/or benefits, and the informal sector involves unregistered or unincorporated private enterprises.  Such a reality limits the capability to use employment to escape poverty (see Chant, 2010). With wages low, jobs casual and insecure, and limited access to social protection schemes or rights-based labour policies, women are integrated into vulnerable employment conditions. Data has shown informal employment to be correlated with income per capita (negative), and poverty (positive) (ILO, 2011). Further, the jobs are precarious and volatile - affected by global economic crisis.  Women’s employment in Africa needs to be met with ‘decent’ work [1] , or women will be placed in risky conditions.  [1] See further readings: ILO, 2014.


Yes education may help to determine the extent to which labour participation empowers women but it is the participation itself that is the actual tool that empowers. A well-educated woman who is kept at home doing nothing is not empowered no matter how good her education might have been. In Saudi Arabia there are more women in university than men yet there is 36% unemployment for women against only 6% for men (Aluwaisheg, 2013). The women are educated, not empowered.


With the right to work within the productive sphere, the responsibility of care becomes shared. This may take some time but eventually equality will be the result. If you consider the changes occurring within the developed world - such as improved access to child-care facilities and the rise of stay at home dads, the integration of women into paid employment shows changes in gender roles. The double burden may occur temporarily, but in the long-run it will fade.


Within Gender and Development the importance of bringing men into the picture of gender discrimination has been recognised. Therefore working with men will change enable gender roles to be changed.


How we define empowerment is broad - encompassing all changes that women are able to make, through agency, to tackle their subordinate position. Therefore labour force participation does provide empowerment. Labour participation provides an opportunity for women to control household resources, demand rights, and organise for equal justice. There is no silver bullet, or objective, to achieve women’s empowerment.


aw society family house would allow patenting genes

In the twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Laboratories offering patented genetic tests for research studies have been asked to “cease and desist” unless they refer materials to or get a license from the patent holder 1. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after countries threatened or actually invoked provisions of the WTO Treaty, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries 2. Those provisions would have permitted the governments to grant compulsory licenses.Further on, gene-patent holders can often control the useof ‘their’ gene; if they have the claim for the test, they can prevent a doctor from testing a patient’s blood for a specific genetic mutation and can stop anyone from doing research to improve a genetic test or to develop a gene therapy based on that gene 3.So any further research is in the mercy of the patent owner. Even if information is public, if it is not possible to use it and build upon it without permission. It is therefore possible for the patent holder simply to horde patents and prevents any research using that patent to the detriment of science, medicine and the patients who could be benefiting.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. BBC News, “Brazil to break AIDS drug patent”,  , accessed 15/9/2011.  3. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011


Patenting enables knowledge sharing  Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should have to give their permission for the use of the patent. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy.  On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement.  For example the Human Genome Sciences’ patented their discovery of the CCR5 receptor gene, which was then discovered by other scientists at the National Institutes of Health, that the small number of people missing the receptor appear to be immune to HIV 1. This could be done because Human Genome Sciences has a policy that "we do not use our patents to prevent anyone in academics or the nonprofit world from using these materials for whatever they want, so long as it is not commercial.2"  Patenting makes sure that the information is registered and shared. The other option, whereby companies do not patent the information and keep it as a “trade secret”, hurts everybody much more and slows down the rate of scientific progress.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  2. Chartrand, Sabra, "Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS" The New York Times, 6 March 2000,


Genes are intellectual property thus patentable  The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1  1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005


Of course genes should be treated different from any product or other invention; genes are the very basis for human life and to claim that anyone has the right to be regarded as the ‘owner’ of a particular gene, which we all share in our bodies, shows a venal disregard for humanity. If companies want to patent treatments which target specific genes, then that’s okay, but not the genes themselves.The University of Colorado explains: “Inventions include new processes, products, apparatus, compositions of matter, living organisms, and/or improvements to existing technology in those categories can be patented. Abstract ideas, principles, and phenomena of nature cannot be patented.”1  1. Patents FAQ Patents FAQ, University of Colorado,


We are happy to put a price on our ideas and knowledge, which are as much building blocks of life as our genes. Each individual already sells his ideas and has a price tag so patenting makes no further devaluation than that which is already there.Even if ownership of another person’s parts is immoral, morality never had a lot to do with gene patenting.Patent agencies allow such immoral things as poisons, explosives, extremely dangerous chemical substances, devices used in nuclear power stations, agro-chemicals, pesticides and many other things which can threaten human life or damage the environment to be patented. This is despite the existence of the public order and morality bar in almost all European countries.1So why make a difference with gene patenting, which does not harm, but may actually benefit a great amount of people.  1. Annabelle Lever , Is It Ethical To Patent Human Genes?, UCL 2008,


Firstly, it is not self-evident, that people have a right to use and possess something, such as medicine that they did not create.So why should people have the right to use a product that someone else discovered through the power of their own cognitive abilities. Actually demands to not patent and just research for the greater good are contradictory to the government taking care of all their people. The best way for the government to encourage medical research that provides these benefits is through patents. Patenting of genes is therefore a right that is based on the right to ownership of your own thoughts and should therefore be granted to the companies / individuals. There is no consistent legal basis for deciding that genes are not patent-eligible without deciding that many other ‘natural products’ are also ineligible.


Patenting inhibits research and therapeutics  The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, as such there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience.  The Human Genome Project is one of the government funded projects that makes all its research freely and publicly available. They are not driven by profit and offer information on their discoveries for free enabling others to build upon their findings.  The problem with patents is that companies claim ownership without regard towards moral issues. It is purely in the pursuit of their profits that they decide not to allow others to build on their findings and make the process of discovering treatments far more difficult. An example of this is the Myriad company which, whilst holding patents on BRCA 1 & 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. 1  Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can to the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.  1. Spektor, Michelle, "Genes Are Still Patentable, Federal Appeals Court Rules", Science Progress, 17 August 2011,


A liability regime not patents.  There are alternatives to the kind of blanket patenting that stifles innovation and drives up prices . The most obvious is to have no patents at all for genes which would result in a free for all but might have the result the proposition argues it would, that without any kind of pay back for the research no one will do the research in the first place.  However there are alternatives that prevent many of the problems of patents while still bringing in many of the benefits . This would be to have some kind of rights for the discover. Unlike patents there would be no right to refuse or provide conditions for access to the discovery. This would be a use now pay later system. Anyone could research using the discovery or seek to commercialize it but would have to pay a fee which would depend upon what the application was1. Palombi has proposed the creation of ‘Genetic Sequence Rights’ “the GSR would be administered using… the present ‘international’ patent system so as to minimize establishment costs and to facilitate its adoption. A GSR would be granted to the first person to file and disclose a genetic sequence defining genetic material of any origin and explaining its function and utility… The GSR would become part of an international electronic database which would be freely accessible by any person.  Upon registration the GSR holder would have the right to a GSR use fee (GSR fee). The GSR fee would vary depending on the nature of the use. For publicly funded institutions such as universities, experimental use would not attract a GSR fee, but for commercial entities, the GSR fee would apply commensurately with the nature of the use2.” This would therefore create a much fairer system that both encourages research for commercial purposes and for academic purposes.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO   2. Palombi, Luigi, “The Genetic Sequence Right: A Sui Generis Alternative to the Patenting of Biological Materials”, Patenting Lives Conference, 1-2 December 2005, p.18.  ,


Immoral to own a human life  Patenting genes and DNA fragments is immoral because of their significance for human life and welfare. It is immoral to own building blocks of the human life. Commercialization of human genes degrades value of human life. Once we give people the possibility to put an ownership tag on genes (basics of life), there is people who value human life merely based on monetary value. Bidding for the best gene, highest price and making the basics of life the same as buying a car. Andy Miah in his essay on Ethical Issues in Genetics argues: "Evidence of such disaffection has appeared most recently from the emergence of Ron's Angels, a company set up for the auctioning of female eggs and male sperm to infertile couples seeking 'exceptional' children. Whilst numerous companies of this kind now exist, Ron's Angels is interesting not simply for having arranged a standard and reasonable price for such genes; far from it. Rather, as indicated above, eggs and sperm are awarded to the highest bidder."1 Thus making the perception of human life what people believe is "fair to pay" and creating a race to figure out the cheapest ways of buying parts of the human body. 1 10) Miah, A., Patenting Human DNA. In Almond, B. & Parker, M. (2003) Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us?


Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor  The government and its laws should take care of all their people. Because the state is a construct built by all the people, who all pay taxes to support it, laws should also be based to benefit the greatest amount of people possible.In the case of the Myriad company, which holds, together with the University of Utah Research Foundation, rights over tests for ovarian cancer, it prevented cheaper tests being offered to the public. As a result, Myriad is the only company that can market a test for the mutations, and it charges as much as $3,000 . That is a price that for many is inaccessible. Patients’ state: “There is no other, cheaper test that you could go get in another laboratory, because they have the exclusive patent,” she explained, adding that Myriad also controls the efficacy of the test—second opinions are only available for certain surgeries 1.Because patenting harms the accessibility of diagnostics and testing, it should not be allowed.  1. Pratt P.A., Court Rules That DNA Is Information, Not Intellectual Property, published March 30th 2010,  , accessed 07/20/2011


Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents.  However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute.  Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/21/2011  3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”,  accessed 07/20/2011  4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011


society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute

The concept of a nation is an artificial one [1] – there is no logical reason why we should draw lines on maps and declare that people may not pass from one side of a line to another without permission. Moreover xenophobia and racism can only be tackled by exposure to people from other cultures, not insulation from them – and in any case, policy should not be dictated by the prejudices of a few racists.  [1] Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London 1991, p.5.


States must be responsible to their own citizens first  There will always be trafficking as long as there aren't open borders. And we should maintain strict controls on both immigration and asylum. States must focus on the needs of their people first, and the reaction of citizens in accepting countries is quite rightly the feeling that their hospitality and good intentions are being abused at the moment. The social harms that these feelings cause - suspicion, xenophobia, racism and disruption of social harmony and tolerance [1] - are too large and too damaging to the actual citizens of states to justify the maintenance of a failing system that may help some few outsiders. The responsibilities of governments to their own citizens must come first.  [1] Lægaard, Sune, ‘Immigration, Social Cohesion, and Naturalisation’, Centre for the Study of Equality and Multiculturalism, p.2


There have been no serious links between terrorism and the asylum system. The 9/11 hijackers all had visas and recent terror cells in Europe have all been 'home grown'. If anything an asylum system provides more security and border control for states. Even if there was no asylum system, people would still flee persecution but instead they would be forced to turn to people traffickers to circumvent all border controls, and thus never be documented or assessed at all. This would also increase the already huge numbers of migrants, especially women, who are exploited by traffickers in sex and underground industries, and also the sheer number of people present in a country of which the authorities have no knowledge.


The Whole System is broken  It is not clear that the system works at all. The majority of those who apply for asylum are working-age males, [1] which implies that there is a strong economic angle. And worse still, even if countries decide that an applicant has no basis to their claim they are frequently unable to deport them because they often go missing, as 75,000 in Britain have, [2] or because, perversely, they may be punished on return to their country for having sought refuge. So essentially the asylum system provides a loophole for unrestricted immigration, which is both expensive, and dangerous for states. In the age of global terrorism it is a huge risk to allow undocumented individuals to enter and roam freely within any country.  [1] Blinder, Scott, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, 23 March 2011.  [2] Whitehead, Tom, ’75,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years’, The Telegraph, 6 April 2011.


Much of the fear of the asylum system being used by economic migrants is simply media hysteria and xenophobia. The vast majority of asylum claims (in the UK around 75%) are still rejected, which shows the system works. [1] Also it is not being abused in the way many people believe. Very few people are willing to leave their family and community, pay to travel thousands of miles to new country, in risky circumstances, with only a small chance of being accepted there, unless they have real reason to fear for their safety. The numbers of people seeking asylum are not historically unprecedented either, and most applicants still come from countries we recognise as dangerous, such as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Compared to other forms of immigration the numbers who are accepted via the asylum regime are negligible.  [1] Blinder, ‘Migration to the UK: Asylum’, 2011


The system is open to abuse  It is extremely difficult to tell if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not; for obvious reasons many will have little or no documentation, and all the evidence that they have suffered persecution may be in a faraway country and impossible to obtain. In many cases it may be impossible to prove that the person claiming asylum is even from the country that they claim to be from.  Asylum decisions are therefore based largely on a judgement call by the investigating officer on whether they thing the person in front of them is being truthful or not – that leaves the system open to motivated people who are economic migrants or may even pose a security threat.


Democratic nations can support like-minded groups in all manner of other ways, such as funding and training opposition groups, giving them international representation, and by applying pressure to oppressive governments. With individual asylum applicants they are still faced with the same problem of assessing who has genuinely taken a “brave and noble” step, which is very hard. Furthermore it is not at all clear that the hope of asylum is a motivator towards political action. Revolutions and resistance forces existed long before the creation of any formal asylum regime, and continue in the contemporary absence of any access to them. Often by harbouring those who have opposed oppressive regimes, perhaps in a similarly violent manner, states drastically reduce their ability to negotiate with and apply leverage to the authoritarian governments that are the problem in the first place.


It would be nice to offer safety to everyone who genuinely deserved it, but practically it is almost impossible to tell who is genuinely fleeing persecution, and who is simply seeking economic benefit. In many cases there may be a combination of the two. Tracking down the histories of applicants to verify their claim is frequently impossible, and enormously expensive. The point of moral obligations as opposed to legal obligations is that it is the donor who decides how great their sacrifice should be. States may perfectly fairly decide to try to protect refugees in more affordable and uncontroversial ways, such as providing aid to refugee camps and foreign governments who work nearer crisis areas. Accepting refugees is not obligatory.


The rights of refugees are a cornerstone of international law  Signatories of The 1951 Convention on Refugees have a legal responsibility to offer asylum to any foreign national who has a well-founded fear of persecution, for political, religious, ethnic or social reasons, and who is unwilling to return home. Moreover the refugee is protected against forcible return when his life may be threatened, something which is an obligation even for countries which are not parties to the convention bust respect as it is part of international customary law. [1] This treaty is one of the cornerstones of international human rights law, and as such states should uphold it to the letter.  [1] Jastram, Kate, and Achiron, Marilyn, Refugee Protection: A Guide to International Refugee Law’, P.14.


We must practice what we preach  Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best chance of change in such oppressive regimes.


We have a duty to help the persecuted  The principles which underlie the asylum regime are as valid as ever. Millions still face persecution, death and torture globally because of who they are or because of their convictions. Democratic countries still have a moral obligation to offer protection to these people. We all recognise it as a horrendous failing by the countries who turned away Jewish refugees in the early days of Nazism where both the United States and the UK turned away large numbers or refugees, [1] and only the Dominican Republic was willing to take in large numbers. [2] This should never happen again. Developed nations have both the wealth and security to make them the best destinations for those seeking refuge.  [1] Perl, William R., ‘The Holocaust conspiracy: an international policy of genocide’, 1989, pp.37-51  [2] Museum of Jewish Heritage, ‘”A Community Born in Pain and Nurtured in Love” Jews who were given refuge by Dominican Republic’, 8 January 2008.


The Convention on Refugeehood was written in, and for, a totally different world. Its framers would never have anticipated the ease with which global travel is now possible, allowing huge numbers both legitimate and illegitimate to apply for asylum. Migrants can now move between countries with ease, 'shopping' for the place they see as being softest. If democracies feel these numbers are too great they should always put restricting them ahead of out of date laws.


traditions law human rights international law society family house would require

Opposition agree that the culture and law of a nation has a prodigious impact on the conscience of its civilians. However, according to Alcinda Honwana, an anthropologist and authority on the topic of child soldiers, the problem does not "have its roots in African traditional culture." [i] Although culture has an impact on society, the issue of child soldiers is not affiliated with it.  Side proposition implied that conscripting children should be excusable if it is permitted by an authoritative body of local law. However, are laws based on value-sets that do not aspire to an accessible law making process more valid than the abiding law of that nation? No. Side opposition believe that the "rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law.” The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance and promotion of basic security and public order. Without it the nation will deteriorate.  The proposition mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. The DRC signed the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” on 21 September 1990. During this time era, Congo was not a declared democracy. However they have hitherto developed a more democratic and stable government. Additionally, DRC has not withdrawn from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thus accentuating the fact that they are strongly against conscription of children.  Being oblivious of the fact that conscripting child soldiers is illegal is no defence. As side opposition’s substantive material will show, both national and international systems of law are expected to take account of the fact that cultural, environmental and social plurality will lead to variable rates of compliance with particular laws. While it may be difficult to make community leaders liable for the creation of child soldiers, the ICC frequently seeks to make officials linked to state actors liable for failing to protect children from military recruitment [ii] .  Moreover, cultural relativism originally assumed some degree of parity and open exchange between communities with diverging cultural values. There is no parity between the value-sets of stable liberal democratic states and the adaptations that vulnerable cultures undergo in order to survive amongst prolonged military conflict.  Finally, it would damage the reputation and reduce the efficiency of the ICC if states were permitted to argue that regions in which child soldiers were active had an established tradition of military activity among the young.  [i] “Children’s Involvement in War: Historical and Social Contexts”, Alcinda Honwana, The Journal of the history of Childhood and Youth, Vol 1 2007  [ii] The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dylio, The International Criminal Court,


The proposition understates the extent to which the needs of child soldiers are catered to by international justice bodies. The Paris Principles [i] , which are used to guide the formation and functions of national human rights organisations, state that  “3.6 Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators...  3.7 Wherever possible, alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards for juvenile justice.”  Although not strictly binding, an onus is placed on bodies such as the ICC to seek alternatives to the trial process when dealing with children. (The Principles define a child as anyone less than 18 years of age).  Even where children are placed in the role of officers or recruiters, they are unlikely to be tried in the same fashion as an adult.  This leaves only the issue of social exclusion following the process of demobilisation and treatment. Many of the problems of reintegration highlighted by the proposition do not seem to be uniquely linked to ICC prosecutions. Columbian child soldiers are as likely to be perceived as threatening whether or not they have come to the attention of the ICC. The ICC does not create negative stereotypes of former child soldiers.  As noted above, it seems perverse to give military commanders an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Ranking officers are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. Realistically, the commanders of child solders, and the politicians who sanctioned their use are the only class of individuals pursued by the ICC.  Where the boundaries between community leader, military officer and political leader become blurred, the court will always be able to fall back on its discretion. Practically, however, this mixing of roles is only likely to be observed in marginal communities a few major conflict zones. This does not favour stepping away from established judicial practice in order to create an entirely new form of defence.  [i] “Principles and Guidelines On Children Associated With Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2007,


Side proposition are attempting to make an argument in favour of reforming the ICC’s prosecution guidelines, but are doing so in terms of the culturally relative definition of adulthood. In other words, side proposition are trying to discuss war, realpolitik and international justice using the language of social anthropology. This approach is flawed.  Arguments about the appropriate age to allow a child to hunt, to leave school or to marry pale beside the life-and-death significance of participation in warfare. A child does not become an adult by acting like a soldier, and those who recruit children into military organisations do not necessarily view them as adults. Indeed, children are seen as easy targets for recruitment, due to their emotional immaturity, their gullibility and deference to those who wield authority.  Children may join armed groups out of necessity, and in the interests of survival, but this does not mean that those armed groups should accept child volunteers, or should escape criminal liability when they do so. Although the west is now a safe and prosperous place to live, the categories of war crime that the ICC prosecutes were created in response to the depravity and ruthlessness of conflicts that liberal-democracies experienced directly.  The developed, liberal democratic world is not blind to the sense of necessity that drives children to take up arms. However, it understands only too well that child soldiers are unnecessary. Children do not autonomously organise into armed militias – they are recruited by states and groups with defined political and military objectives. Such groups should be aware that there is no value or necessity underlying the use of children in combat, and should be made legally accountable when they flaunt this norm.


The ICC is not likely to target children or the leaders of marginalised communities when prosecuting the use of child soldiers. Officials of states parties who play a role in commanding and deploying military units can be held liable for failing to prevent the use of child soldiers at a local level.  If the agony of their circumstances forces a community to recruit ever younger boys into its militia, then officers, ministers or heads of state, along with the commanders of non-state actors, can be brought to trial for allowing children to be used as soldiers. This will be the case whether these individuals do so negligently or by omission. A guilty party need not engage in a positive act.  ICC prosecutors and judges exercise their discretion in order to avoid the types of injustice that the proposition describes. The lack of prosecutions relating to the ad-hoc use of child soldiers by pro-independence groups in South Sudan underlies this fact [i] .  Moreover, the ICC is bound by the principle of complementarity, an obligation to work alongside the domestic courts and legislators of the states that refer potential war crimes to the international community. If a state’s corpus of law allows for a margin of appreciation in judging the actions of isolated and endangered communities, these principles must also be reflect in the investigation and inquiries conduct by the ICC.  Complementarity enables the ICC to function with the flexibility and insight that proposition assume it lacks.  [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009


As noted above, the definition of adulthood accepted within western liberal democracies is not a cultural absolute. It can be argued that the legal cut-off point- be it sixteen, eighteen or twenty-one years of age- is largely arbitrary. Children who care for disabled parents take on adult responsibilities inconceivable to many undergraduate students. Many developing world cultures would regard the under-emphasis of practical skills and physical training that exists in the education systems of knowledge-based western economies to be tantamount to neglect.  In both war-torn Afghanistan and peaceful Botswana, a boy of fourteen is considered old enough and able enough to hunt; to protect his younger siblings; to marry or to be responsible for a harvest. Why should an Afghani child or his parents be condemned for allowing him to participate in the defence of his community? A family in a similar position in Botswana may never have been confronted with that choice. Although they might find the idea appalling in peace-time, the pressing necessity of war can cause opinions and beliefs to become highly flexible.  This restatement of cultural relativism goes hand in hand with side proposition’s concluding objection. Although a culture can quickly assimilate and normalise necessary practices- such as arming children- it need not think that they are objectively good and valuable. It may be keen to abandon the practice.  A community that responds to an urgent need to arm children may not want to arm children.  Side opposition regard the use of child soldiers as symptomatic of cultural depravity, of a callous attitude to suffering. This approach patronises communities subject to privations and abuses now unknown in the west. It assumes that traditions cannot be overturned and that societies in the developing world will hasten to use their children as cannon-fodder for without devoting any thought or debate to the risks involved.


The purpose of the resolution is not to eliminate conflict in the developing world. Side proposition are merely seeking to remove the harmful side effects of the way in which the use of child soldiers is currently prosecuted – the risk of criminalising children and teenagers, the stigma attached to being a child soldier, and the condemnation of communities that rely on child soldiers for protection.  Children are already the victims of atrocities perpetrated against civilians. They already volunteer to engage in military service. Armed groups that target civilian populations have already broken international law and have proven willing to do so repeatedly. Children will always be a target, whether or not they have sought out the means with which to defend themselves.  With the international community unwilling to provide wide-ranging policing and supervision of international legal norms, it is not just to condemn individuals and communities who unwillingly take up arms to try to survive attacks by groups who flagrantly disregard international law.  Peaceful communities forced to adopt abnormal survival strategies in the face of lawless aggression should be given the opportunity to compel the ICC to make situation specific judgments.


It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity.  Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it.  Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian.  Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy.


economic policy society immigration house believes developing nations should

People who move to the cities have chosen to move from their families and dear ones, because they want to create a new and better life for themselves. Armed with great motivation, they enter the cities and are often prepared to undertake work that others do not want to do, hoping to climb the social ladder later on. Interestingly it is often the case that those in slums have a higher rate of employment than those not living in slums. In Uganda for example only 9% of young men are neither in school or employment compared to 16% for those not living in slums. [1] This benefits the development of the city and it is only with this extra workforce that the city can fully develop, thus most big cities have at some point had slums, such as London’s East End in the 19th Century. It might take time, but for the long-term benefits of the cities, rural-urban migration should be promoted. An example of this slow kind of development is the progress that is seen today in Kibera outside of Nairobi where small parts of the shanty-towns are gradually converted into lower middle-class communities.  [1] Mboup, Gora, “Measurement/indicators of youth employment”, Expert Group Meeting on Strategies for Creating Urban Youth Employment Solutions for Urban Youth in Africa, June 2004, www.un.org/esa/socdev/social/presentation/urban_mboup.ppt


The argument is based on the idea that there is a lot of investment that is just waiting to be made in rural areas. In reality, this is not so. Until there are real investors who are prepared to change the conditions of rural areas in developing countries, it is morally bankrupt to force people to remain in an untenable situation as marketing material for hypothetical investment.


The government has a right to make some decisions on behalf of the people, but not any decision. Once the state acts against one group of people to further the interest of an already privileged group of people it loses this right as the state exists to protect everyone in society not just the majority or a privileged group. This is precisely the case in this motion. People who live in rural areas are already disenfranchised and condemned to terrible conditions, and the proposal only serves those who want their comfortable bourgeois life to be even more comfortable.


The principle at the heart of this debate is that of the rights of the individual. While it might be true that a large group of people make uninformed decisions, a ban on any decisions in relation to where people live will keep the individuals from making any decisions, informed and uninformed. The damage to those who actually could improve their lives greatly outweighs the benefits, especially as the resources that would be needed for this policy could be used to educate and inform people in rural areas and thus improve the basis of their decisions.


This kind of argument underestimates the capacity of human potential. People in rural communities devote all their efforts and their creativity towards getting to the cities because they believe it is the best for them and their families. If they do not have this option, they can devote that energy to their community and make it grow to compete with the cities. It is then the duty of the government that imposes this restriction to support such commitments by giving them the right conditions to improve their situation by investing in rural areas as much as urban ones.


Freedom of movement is not an intrinsic human right, but rather a right that can and should be given by the state where it is possible. For example the state puts people into prisons; this infringes their freedom of movement. This is partially as punishment, but the core rationale for this is to protect the people outside of the prison from potentially dangerous people. [1] But for that, there would be significantly cheaper and more efficient ways of punishing criminals. The people whose freedom of movement is restricted are a threat to people living in the cities and to the economy of the nation as a whole. In the better interest of the nation and to protect innocent people whose lives will be damaged by unrestricted migration, these people must accept restricted freedom of movement.  [1] See the debatabase debate ‘ This House believes criminal justice should focus more on rehabilitation ’


While factually true for developed nations, this point completely disregards the reality of developing nations. Most of the labour that is available is unskilled, whether it is in the rural or urban communities. There is little reason to believe that the poor will automatically be able to gain better education should they move to the city. The harm caused by letting migrants flood the cities to lead a miserable life greatly outweighs that of having one or two too intelligent farmers who miss out on their calling.


No amount of confusion can compare with the nearly anarchical state of places like Nairobi, where there is no law and very little state. [1] In the current situation where there is a menacing trend that threatens the very fabric of society, even if the law would not work to its full effect, it is better for it to work partially than not to have it at all. Corruption is a separate issue that already festers in these regions under the status quo and does not need this extra policy to thrive. This must be dealt with separately, but it is indeed regrettable if a good policy is kept from being put into practice from fear of a phenomenon that is in no manner causally contingent upon the policy.  [1] Maxwell, Daniel., “The Political Economy of Urban Food Security in Sub-Saharan Africa.” 11, London : Elsevier Science Ltd., 1999, World Development, Vol. 27, p. 1939±1953. S0305-750X(99)00101-1.


This harm, realistically, is minimal. Those who want to buy guns would still buy them illegally without 3D printers. Guns can be cheap in the black market since they can be mass produced, and to print a gun one first has to purchase a printer, the materials and often also the blueprints. This is similarly the case for other illegal substances. The risk that things can be used for harmful purposes is not a sufficient reason, because those who want to harm themselves or others have the means to do so already. That is why the Madrid bombers were able to develop their own bombs from the internet before 3D printers had been developed: where there is a will, there will always be a way, and it is the will and not the way that it is ever useful to tackle.


Private 3D printers make it impossible to regulate illegal products  As the technology develops, it seems likely that guns like the one created by Defense Distributed will continue to appear, becoming cheaper, more functional and more accessible. While the US succeeded in promptly removing the blueprints, removing blueprints from the internet will quickly prove impossible as the phenomenon inevitably becomes more widespread.5  This is dangerous for all the same reasons that we do not allow people to produce their own weapons: we cannot ensure criminals or mentally ill people do not gain access to them, and we cannot track them after they have been used to commit a crime. Furthermore, they can be made of plastic, thus making them essentially undetectable to most security scans. When weapons become so easily accessible, crimes become easier for terrorists or criminals to commit, and thus more crimes take place. By banning printers before blueprints spread, we could avoid disasters such as the 2004 bombings in Madrid, in which the bombs were produced from instructions on the internet6.  Similarly, the production of drugs and other illegal substances becomes impossible to regulate when anybody can produce anything in their own homes from plans on the internet. Restricting the spread of blueprints online is impossible, so the physical means of production must be regulated before they become irreversibly accessible. Banning household 3D printers, therefore, is a necessary step to uphold the rules we find important to our safety.  [5] Winter, Jana. “Homeland Security bulletin warns 3D-printed guns may be ‘impossible’ to stop”, FoxNews.com, Fox News. 23 May 2013.   [6] “Online University: Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists”, Spiegel Online International. 17 August 2006.


If you purchase a poor quality product, you are the one to blame: this is already the case now if one chooses to buy a cheaper product from a less reliable source. Under a 3D printer market you are still likely to be purchasing most of your products from reliable brands with an incentive to keep producing quality products as they want you to return and buy more of their products. If you choose not to, you are aware of the risk you take, and can easily inform yourself of the risks on peer review websites and forums before making your choice.


Solid piracy will become as problematic as virtual piracy  Intellectual property law is split into copyright, design protection, patents, and trademarks. All areas can be easily infringed by 3D printing.13 There is no meaningful way of sustaining these laws against individuals who choose to use 3D printers to benefit from the hard work of others. Much in the same way one can steal music online, blueprints for products can be decoded or stolen and subsequently reproduced at almost no expense. It may be impossible to determine where this has been done.14 This is unjust in itself, but it also creates a large deterrent from innovating by removing the profit incentive. Corporations and individuals will be pushed away from creating high quality innovative products if they know their blueprints can be pirated and spread online for free or for less than they themselves charge, making their effort in creating them worthless.  [13] Gehl, Mary. “The Implications of 3D Printing”, Technology, Koinonia House. September 2012.   [14] Lawrence, Jon. “3D Printing: legal and regulatory issues”, Economic Frontiers Australia. 8 August 2013.


3D printers promote uncontrolled consumerism  While 3D printing may revolutionise professional manufacturing and lead to less waste, in the household it promotes mindless consumerism. By producing anything desired cheaply and more accessibly, without even having to leave your house, they encourage people consume much more than they otherwise would. This happens because individual consumers tend not to be concerned about the sustainability implications of every purchase: they will do so even less when 3D printers allow instant gratification.  On one hand, it can make people more dependent on material possessions, which makes it harder for them to attain more sustainable forms of happiness. Additionally, this eventually leads to more waste and overproduction, reversing all the potential benefits of industrial 3D printing.


Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.


For the people for whom the illegality of piracy is not a deterrent, the illegality of owning a domestic 3D printer will not be an obstacle either. Banning 3D printers may only result in large scale 3D printer manufacturing piracy.  Under this model, on the other hand, even if there is a slight infringement on intellectual property, a tax can be imposed on the private ownership on 3D printers that is used for rewarding innovation.15  [15] See “This house would abolish intellectual property rights”, Debatabase.


This argument ignores the massive impact 3D printers can have on long-term sustainability, by providing access to the goods the Third World needs to get out of poverty.10 Food, water, medicine and shelter are examples of things that are expensive to transport and difficult to spread, and yet can be produced by 3D printers at a much lower cost. When the things that are scarce in the third world become less scarce, developing countries will be able to compete more fairly with the Western world.  Even in the short term, these harms will not happen. The only short term consequence will be a shift from this labour-intensive form of production into another labour-intensive sector. A massive surplus of cheap labour will still attract new investors in other sectors where 3D printers do not have a monopoly. This is already the case with investment into call centres in India and the Philippines11, and tourism throughout the developing world12.  [10] “A third-world dimension”, The Economist. 3 November 2012. www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21565577-new-manufacturing-technique-could-help-poor-countries-well-rich-ones  [11] McGeown, Kate. “The Philippines: The world´s hotline”. BBC News. 17 July 2011.   [12] Samimi, Ahmad, Sadeghi, Somaye, and Sadeghi, Soraya. “Tourism and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: P-VAR Approach”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2011.


Technology should not circumvent consumer protection laws  The great appeal of 3D printers is that they make consuming more efficient than normal methods: however, normal methods are inefficient in part because they undergo important checks and balances. Without proper regulations, standards are quickly dropped to save money and the health of thousands of consumers is put at risk. Such is the case in China, where consumer protection regulations are inefficient.7 Through 3D printing this becomes a global problem. Any company, real or fake, can sell products online without them having been approved. This means that people may buy dangerous products from unidentifiable, and thus legally unaccountable, companies. Shifting the burden of ensuring safety standards away from companies and onto consumers, who have significantly less information, is a threat to consumers’ health and safety.  [7] “China again heads EU’s dangerous products list”, EUbusiness. 16 April 2010.


Household 3D printing can, in the short term, destroy developing economies  All nations to develop economically depend on the importation of capital. In most cases, this takes the shape of labour-intense manufacturing. In fact, scarcely any countries have developed without transitioning through having a large manufacturing sector.8 It takes time for these countries to develop the capital and infrastructure to enter higher barrier to entry markets, such as the service sector. Transitioning without of manufacturing is therefore not an option for the majority of developing nations, and the exceptions that have succeeded in creating economic growth without large scale manufacturing, such as India and Sri Lanka, relied on spectacular luck.9 As a result, many developing nations depend on exporting cheap products to the developed world, where consumption is the highest.  If demand for the goods they produce is satisfied in the developed world, such countries will be unable to export. Because of the labour intensiveness of the manufacturing this will affect a large number of people. Short term drops in growth are particularly harmful in the developing world, where social security is too underdeveloped to cushion their effect. People who work long hours for minimal wages do so because unemployment is not an option. Were these factories to have to close suddenly, the social consequences would be devastating.  3D printers provoke this to happen by satisfying all demand for cheap products. When individuals in Western liberal democracies can get access to cheaper products from their own home, developing nations will be unable to compete, and their exports fall substantially. 3D printers should remain at the industry level, where companies are more likely to rationally prefer importing cheap products over the extra costs of using 3D printers, such as electricity, and are likely to continue trade with the Third World.  [8] “Breaking In and Moving Up: New Industrial Challenges for the Bottom Billion and the Middle Income Countries”, Industrial Development Report, United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). 2009.   [9] “The Service Elevator”, The Economist. 19 May 2011.


The difference is minimal between only companies having 3D printers and extending them to households. Printer owners would, for example, still have to purchase and transport printing materials. Many printers still involve large levels of waste19, and these are probably the lower quality printers that individual consumers are more likely to afford. Furthermore, household printing can actually harm the environment by provoking people to consume more than they would if price and convenience were deterrents. Industrial printing on its own can make a significant difference in terms of eco-friendly production: this should not be compromised by dropping all limits on production.  [19] Faludi, Jeremy. “Is 3D printing an environmental win?”, GreenBiz. 19 July 2013.


There is still a need for expertise: although they make manufacturing easier, 3D printers require knowledge that most people do not have. Most people will still be unable to create most products from scratch (and it may be dangerous to try). Individuals will therefore still have to rely on companies for their everyday needs. It is also untrue that they will never have to leave their home, since they will also need to purchase and transport printing materials.


Banning 3D printers wastes a chance for innovation  Right now, there are large barriers to entry for individuals and small companies trying to enter any market. Economies of scale make it hard for them to compete with large manufacturers, and they are additionally bound to slow and inefficient quality regulations. This severely limits any kind of innovation. The collective possession of 3D printers would facilitate creation. Anybody could have an idea and implement it into a solid product, which is cheap to produce in your own home without economies of scale. There are already examples all over the world of people creating innovating prototypes and attracting investors16. 3D printing therefore means that anyone can set up in manufacturing without large start-up costs. This means that the flow of ideas in society and the discussion that accompanies it – such as people posting blueprints on blogs and forums and improving each other’s products – would develop infinitely faster than when it is limited to large manufacturers.17  [16] Palermo, Elizabeth. “10 Amazing 3D-Printing Startups”, Business News Daily. 18 June 2013.   [17] Wainwright, Oliver. “Is DIY design more than a passing fad?”, Architecture and Design Blog, The Guardian. 24 July 2013.


The state should refrain from imposing bans  In Western liberal democracies, we generally consider an individual’s private sphere to be worth protecting. We only give the state license to violate it when something is objectively largely harmful to that person or to society. When something is not very clearly harmful we let people make their own decisions because the state is not infallible in its judgements about what lifestyles are better than others.  Therefore, simply saying that there is a risk that printers will be misused is not sufficient grounds for banning them altogether. If technology makes it easier for people to do what they want, this is a good thing; if people then want to do things that we consider harmful this is a problem in itself. The solution is not to ban an entire means of production in order to stop a minority from producing dangerous things, but to educate people about the risks so they can freely make better decisions. Making it harder for people to do bad things is useless, furthermore, since those that wish to purchase a gun or take drugs can already find ways of doing so without 3D printers. One may even argue that it is better for everybody to have access to a gun, for example, and not only those who are willing to break the law to get one.


3D printing opens the doors to a post-scarcity society  Industrial 3D printing allows for a cheaper, faster and more sustainable form of production, but somebody still has to sell and purchase the products. Household 3D printers give people the possibility of producing otherwise inaccessible things for a minimal cost, up to hundreds of times cheaper than their current store price20. Numerous websites, such as Thingiverse21, already act as databases for free printable designs. This trend would allow people to save thousands on necessities: food, appliances, medicine, and human organs are some examples. Even systems for power production or more efficient ways of collecting sustainable energy could be created. This would make scarcity disappear as we know it, and thus tackle one of society’s greatest problems. This is a very long way off even with 3D printers but if it is to occur it is essential that the means of production not be monopolised by companies.  [20] Kelly, Heather. “Study: At-home 3-D printing could save consumers ‘thousands’”, What’s Next, CNN. 31 July 2013.   [21] Thingiverse, Makerbot Industries.


Household 3D printers would reduce the environmental harms of consuming  The more is produced by 3D printing, the better: it makes consuming much more environmentally friendly. They involve less transportation costs, no large scale factories, and by involving additive manufacturing, they can use as little as only a tenth of the material that subtractive manufacturing would require.18 When households, and not only companies, have access to 3D printers, companies will no longer have to move products around the world, but can sell electronic blueprints instead. Furthermore, things are only actually produced after they have been purchased, reducing waste even more.  [18] “Print me a Stradivarius”, The Economist. 10 February 2011.


The restrictions on what the state can ban are only valid inasmuch as they protect fundamental right. The supposed right to 3D printers is not fundamental, but is derived from a right to own good things, if they are available. If the state can provide an alternative that yields similar benefits it does not actually infringe any fundamental right by banning their domestic use. For example, industrial 3D printed manufacturing also provides cheap and innovative products. On the other hand, the potential harms of domestic printers are exponential, and we do not have a right to anything that causes harm to society. The state therefore has a mandate to ban 3D printers in households.


Democratising manufacturing gives people more freedom  Individuals are the most fit to decide for themselves what they need and what they want to be happy. When corporations attempt to match demand they do so imperfectly because they have to cater to large numbers of people. Letting people create and customise whatever they want gives them, quite literally, an infinite selection to choose from. This maximises freedom for the consumer and leads to a better quality of life: most of your needs can be met exactly as you want them, without even having to leave your home.


A post-scarcity society is unrealistic. 3D printers still come with large costs, in terms of machinery, materials and blueprints. Those that can afford the more complex printers and the higher quality materials will benefit much more than others. While these costs exist, and there is no near future in which they do not, scarcity will continue to be a problem. This is especially the case since the need for expertise remains. The vast majority of products of reasonable quality will still be produced by corporations with a profit incentive, and available only to those who can afford them.


Household 3D printers will, in practice, hamper innovation both from companies and individuals. Firstly, individuals will still be faced with the large barrier to entry of lacking sufficient expertise to produce much of what they want. Any “flow of ideas” that may arise will only be composed of low-quality designs. Secondly, individuals will have less incentive to innovate when the market is out of control and free designs are floating all over the internet. Any attempt at differentiation is impossible.  Thirdly, and more importantly, the problems with copyright law once 3D printers are domestic will deter both companies and individuals from innovating. Revolutionary products require effort and knowledge to design: they will not be created without a profit incentive.


Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past. The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further [1] . Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan [2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming.  [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13  [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20


Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia  The dam will produce significant economic potential for Ethiopia. In 2013, Ethiopia had to import 125,000 metric tonnes of coal to fuel its power stations. Over 50% of the country’s imports are orientated towards meeting its fuel demands [1] . If Ethiopia can replace these imports with its own energy then it can make significant savings. The diverted money could be contributed towards development, which would be assisted by greater accessibility to electricity. In addition to this, 12,000 jobs will be created [2] and Ethiopia will become an energy exporter. The excess energy from powering Africa will be enough to supply the surrounding region, making energy a viable export market for Ethiopia to tap in to [3] . In combination with the greater access electricity dependent to income-generating activities, these factors give Ethiopia hope of a positive economic future.  [1] Tekle,T. ‘Ethiopia imports $1 billion in fuel from Sudan via Djibouti’ in Sudan Tribune 30 March 2013  [2] Joy,O. ‘Earth, Wind, and Water: Ethiopia bids to be Africa’s powerhouse’ CNN 8 November 2013  [3] Ibid


GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia.  [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13


The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia  When the dam is in full effect, it should be able to provide the entirety of Ethiopia’s population with electricity. The United Nations Foundation placed access to energy as a high priority for developing countries, it enables access to key services and enables more income-generating activities [1] . If Ethiopia discontinued the project, then they would deprive their citizens of economic and health security. Using energy from a dam will have its own benefits. The energy will be renewable source and will provide energy security for this developing state, thus justifying the project.  [1] The United Nations Foundation ‘What We do: Achieving Universal Energy Access’ data accessed 10 December 2013


While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields [1] , and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity.  [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013


Environmental Benefits of the GERD  GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia.  [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13


A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow. While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region [1] . The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative [2] .  [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13  [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010


The colonial era agreement is outdated and does not apply to the modern world. Ethiopia’s population has now exceeded 90 million, which is more than Egypt’s 83 million, and yet it only has a small claim to the river. Many upstream countries, like Uganda, feel that the downstream countries have constrained and damaged them by denying access to majority of the Nile’s water [1] . These states have created a new agreement the Cooperative Framework Agreement in which there is a “principle of equitable… utilization” and each “state has the right to use within its territory”. [2] The upstream countries argue supersedes the old colonial treaty if it ever had any validity. [3] The Ethiopian government has assured Egypt and Sudan that they will receive enough water to live off comfortably. Sudan has been satisfied by the rearrangements [4] which implies that Ethiopia will not deprive downstream countries of access to the Nile.  [1] Schwartzstein, Water Wars  [2] ‘Article 3’, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, International Water Law, 2010  [3] Ibrahim, ‘The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement’, p.302  [4] Peppeh,K. ‘Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt meet again to discuss GERD’ Zegabi 8 December 2013


Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam  Ethiopia’s decision to become an energy hub has led to the construction of unnecessary dams in the face of viable alternatives. Ethiopia has already constructed nine dams which produce more energy than the country consumes [1] . A significant disadvantage of these dams is that droughts can lower their energy output which, combined with lower river levels for nine months of the year, results in the dams being ineffective [2] . The Ethiopian government has already announced plans for a geothermal plant being built for 2018 to offset the disadvantages of the current dams [3] . The geothermal plant costs $0.7 billion less than the hydroelectric dam, and the company constructing it claim it will produce twice as much energy as the hydroelectric dam when the latter is at its peak [4] . It would be more viable, therefore, to invest in thermal energy rather than another hydroelectric project.  [1] US Energy Information Administration ‘Ethiopia’ 30 April 2013  [2] International Rivers ‘Ethiopia’s Biggest Dam Oversized, Experts say’ 5 September 2013  [3] Wikipedia ‘Energy in Ethiopia’ data accessed 11/12/13  [4] Maasho,A. ‘Ethiopia to get $4billion investment for leap into geothermal power’, Reuters, 24 October 2013


Natural Flow Theory  Natural Flow Theory (NTF) is the concept that every riparian user (land touching the water) has a right to the water unaltered and undiminished [1] . Dams tend not to disrupt water flow directly, however water use and evaporation from the large reservoir upstream from the dam could reduce the flow of the Blue Nile. In turn, this could affect downstream countries. Evaporation from the Aswan dam in Ethiopia amounts to around 14 billion cubic metres [2] . The GERD will face similar problems, meaning that the downstream countries will have a reduced water flow. The reservoir will also become a tempting target for large agricultural businesses as well. These companies, many of them foreign, have taken part in ’land grabbing’ to secure water before for large irrigation projects [3] and could potentially tap in to the large reservoir. A similar example is the Colorado River, where dams and irrigation projects have reduced the flow of the river and impacted heavily on the river delta [4] . These threats to the Blue Nile’s river flow demonstrate the likelihood of decreased access to water in the downstream countries, violating the major principle of NTF.  [1] Smolen,M., Mittelstet,A. & Harjo,B. ‘Whose Water is it anyway?’ Southern Region Water Program August 2012  [2] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13  [3] Fisher,S. ‘Africa for Sale’ International Rivers September 2011  [4] Wikipedia ‘Colorado River’ date accessed 12/12/13


Egypt and Sudan will have their legal rights infringed  The two downstream countries have a combined claim to a majority of the River Nile’s water. Through the Nile Waters Agreement, an old colonial treaty, Egypt and Sudan are owed 48 billion m³ and 4 billion m³ of water from the Nile respectively [1] . Each country also has a veto on any upriver activity. Both of these rights are known but ignored by the Ethiopian government, in violation of an internationally recognised treaty. This has led Egypt to be particularly prominent in claiming that their rights are being abused as 70 billion m³ of water from the Blue Nile (which they are dependent on) is used by the Ethiopians. This is a violation of the Nile Rivers Agreement and demonstrates Ethiopia’s poor position to justify the GERD construction.  [1] Azikiwe,A. Water and the Geopolitics of the Nile Valley: Egypt confronts Ethiopia, GlobalResearch.ca


Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers. Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused [1] .  [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12


Hydroelectric dams require massive initial investments. True, dams generate cheap electricity, when the dams are eventually built. But building dams is incredibly costly. Actual costs for hydropower dams are almost always far higher than estimated; in a number of cases, the actual cost was more than double the estimated cost. The Itaipu Dam in South America cost $20 billion and took 18 years to build. This was 488% higher than originally estimated. [1] Given that there are cheaper alternatives than large-scale dams for renewable and accessible energy, dams aren’t worth it from an economic perspective.  [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.


Hydroelectric dams provide cheap access to renewable energy  In 2010, about 1.4 billion people had no access to electricity. [1] Hydropower provides a source of energy that is cheaper even than conventional coal. [2] Large dams can last for over a hundred years [3] and are easy to switch on and off according to demand, making them very cost-effective. Given that having no access to electricity makes work and study nearly impossible, alleviating global poverty by giving access to electricity is an important step to take.  [1] IEA, Access to Electricity, 2010  [2] Wikipedia. Cost of electricity by source.  [3] WWF, Dam Right!, 2003


As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]  [1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002  [2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003


Hydro electric dams reduce carbon dioxide emissions  Hydroelectric dams burn no fossil fuels so emit no greenhouse gasses at all in producing energy. Suppose we replace all coal fired power stations with hydroelectric power stations. In 2010, over 42% of global electricity production was produced through coal, accounting for over 28% of global carbon dioxide emissions. [1] Since there is more than enough potential capacity for hydropower, [2] we could hypothetically completely replace coal and even other fossil fuels for electricity, thus helping cut down greenhouse gas emissions massively.  [1] IEA, Power generation from coal, 2010  [2] Energy Consumers Edge. Hydropower dams pros and cons.


Hydroelectric dams don’t reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dams currently hold off about 15% of global freshwater runoff. If we want to sustain biodiversity and river-related goods and services, we can’t easily increase the number of dams. [1] Also: building dams requires cutting down forests, which themselves are important tools in combating greenhouse gases, since they consume and ‘lock up’ carbon dioxide. Plus, the construction of the dams themselves releases carbon dioxide. Finally: global energy demand is expected to continue increasing, [2] meaning that hydropower will probably just be added to the supply and not replace coal.  [1] International Rivers, Frequently Asked Questions.  [2] IEA, World Energy Outlook, 2010, Executive summary


Hydroelectric dams can be used to provide flood control and irrigation  The large water reservoirs created by hydroelectric dams can provide facilities for water sports and can become tourist attractions themselves. The reservoirs can be used for irrigation to help farmers and can be a means for flood control. A prime example of this is the Tennessee Valley Authority, an organisation responsible for flood control, electricity generation, economic development and even fertilizer generation in the Tennessee Valley in the U.S., spanning parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia. [1]  [1] Tennessee Valley Authority, homepage.


Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.


Hydroelectric dams can mitigate methane emissions. Dams can capture the methane released from their reservoir and even use it to their benefit: an experimental project in Brazil showed that hydroelectric dams can capture the methane and burn it to produce even more energy, whilst at the same time preventing the methane from being released. [1]  [1] BBC News, Earthquake risk from dams, 2002


Hydro electric dams destroy existing ecosystems  Large dams wreak havoc with the environment: they destroy habitats and ecosystems both further upstream and downstream. They prevent salmon from swimming upstream to spawn. The water going through them is often warmer and devoid of nutrients, depriving downstream riverine wildlife of their natural habitat. A shocking example is China’s Three Gorges Dam, which Scientific American called ‘an environmental disaster’. [1]  [1] Scientific American, ‘China’s Three Gorges Dam: An environmental disaster?’ 2008


Hydroelectric dams destroy communities  What applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3]  [1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009  [2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003  [3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007


Hydroelectric dams increase methane emissions  Hydroelectric dams emit a lot of methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. This happens when the plants and vegetation submerged in the reservoir start to rot under water: they then produce methane which bubbles up and is released into the atmosphere. On balance, some dams produce more greenhouse gasses than conventional power plants running on fossil fuel. [1]  [1] New Scientist, ‘Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed’, 2005


Hydroelectric dams can mitigate the ecological impact. Hydroelectric dams can take steps to mitigate their environmental impact. For example, for salmon, dams these days have ‘fish ladders’, allowing them to reach their spawning grounds. For these and other sustainability measures, the International Hydropower Association developed several guidelines and protocols to minimize ecological impact as far as possible. [1]  [1] International Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol.


Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays.


The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent  Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic.  Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms [i] .  The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs [ii] . Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year [iii] .  [i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012.   [ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006.   [iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”.


This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.


Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked  It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue.  If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else.  Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] .  [i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012,   [ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15.   [iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012.   [iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012,   [v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011.


It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.


The necessary research alone will take time and should be a priority  There are significant research challenges that need to be addressed in terms of envisaging what an adaptation regime would look like. For example how adaptation would tie into to other types of change – social, economic, demographic, etc. Answering these questions, alone, will take time but are a necessary precursor to building a realistic adaptation routine [i] .  The urgency here comes from the fact that it will take time to establish new systems to work on this at an international level. One of the difficulties demonstrated by the experience of initial studies of climate change was that it needed to be conducted on a global scale, frequently involving complex and expensive modeling systems. There are several backstages to establishing this and the majority of relevant academics are currently working on prevention models rather than designing an entire new framework of prediction.  Developing such frameworks will require the focus of governments, in terms of research funding policies and agreeing enforcement and delivery models.  Given the choice between building a framework that can work and focussing on one that hasn’t, the choice seems to be fairly obvious [ii] .  [i] National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility website.   [ii] See also the UN site here


Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.


Opposition concedes that adaptations will happen as individuals respond to climate change, it is only fair and sensible that governments should make sure those changes happen in a managed fashion. To take one, small example; the increasing unwillingness of insurers to accept the risks of flooding for homes and businesses in some parts of the world requires a governmental response; many of those who bought homes that may be affected by flooding bought that property before they would have known about climate change.


The focus on prevention should not be diluted  It has taken three decades to drag most polluting business and many governments – and some are not yet there – to this stage of accepting that mitigation is necessary. Many remain unwilling to accept reality and are only making those grudging efforts they have undertaken because of the full force of global public opinion and the efforts of some governments and international bodies. Moving that focus simply allows those who weren’t happy about the challenges of carbon reduction to go back to the bad, old days.  Equally it allows industries such as coal off the hook at the very point when the pressure is really starting to count [i] . Some of the myths about clean coal or the supposedly environmental sensitivity of uranium mining are now sinking into the public consciousness – saying ‘let’s do this instead’ would run the risk of a return to business as usual.  [i] Michael McCarthy. UK to push for global Green accounting system. The Independent. 10 February 2012.


Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations  Pollution is a global problem, with the greenhouse gas emissions of richer nations impacting on their poorer neighbours. Adaptation would most likely take place on a predominantly national basis, allowing those with the resources – built on their historical use of carbon energy – to find ways to adapt to some of the problems caused by Climate Change, while poorer nations are left without the capacity to do so.  Only a global focus on combating the basic causes of climate change will tackle the problem in a fair and equitable way, as richer nations cut back on their carbon-enriched lifestyles while developments in technologies offer benefits to the world as a whole rather than those who are already carbon rich as a result of geological or historical accident [i] .  [i] See the Jamaica Declaration 1994.


Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies  The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity.


Some of the required adaptations are impossible  In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] .  As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality.  Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention.  [i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012.


Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.


The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.