Jump to content
teleportmassive

Biod Moral Obligation And Impact Calc

Recommended Posts

There was a card around here at one point that claimed a moral obligation to prevent BioD collapse - does anyone know the one I'm talking about?  What about other impact calc type cards/analysis re: biod?  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Preserving biodiversity is a moral imperative – other species have a right to exist
Kucinich, 94(John, Judge specializing in Environmental Law, Environment Law Review, Spring, p. 501)

 

Finally, and least pragmatic, is the moral duty not to exterminate our fellow
AND
posterity of a heritage their own ancestors had passed down for their enjoyment.

 

^that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outweighs the case

Tobin 90 [Tichard Tobin, The Expendable Future, 1990, p.22]

Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.† Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions.  To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war.  As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations.  The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.

 

Species extinction is a decision rule

Florida Journal of International Law 1994 (9 Fla. J. Int'l L. 189)

It is our responsibility, as tenants on the global commons, to prevent that which is within our power to prevent. As Senator Alan Cranston once said: The death of a species is profound, for it means nature has lost one of its components, which played a role in the inter-relationship of life on earth. Here the cycle of birth and death ends. Here there is no life, no chance to begin again - simply a void. To cause the extinction of a species, whether by commission or omission, is unqualifiedly evil. The prevention of this extinction ... must be a tenet among [hu]man's moral responsibilities. n86 show how we are all connected."

 

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Species extinction is a decision rule

Florida Journal of International Law 1994 (9 Fla. J. Int'l L. 189)

It is our responsibility, as tenants on the global commons, to prevent that which is within our power to prevent. As Senator Alan Cranston once said: The death of a species is profound, for it means nature has lost one of its components, which played a role in the inter-relationship of life on earth. Here the cycle of birth and death ends. Here there is no life, no chance to begin again - simply a void. To cause the extinction of a species, whether by commission or omission, is unqualifiedly evil. The prevention of this extinction ... must be a tenet among [hu]man's moral responsibilities. n86 show how we are all connected."

 

I don't think this card helps as much as you think it does. If you were running this to try to outweigh my nuclear war impact,

a. If I prove nuclear war would at least cause extinction of the human race, I access this card because it's the death of a species.

b. If I prove nuclear war would kill more species than a bit of transportation infrastructure investment would, I access the biggest internal link to preserving biodiversity and thus the D-rule flows my way.

The bolded parts show what I'm talking about.

 

Of course I feel like this applies to any biodiversity impact, but this card especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Preserving biodiversity is a moral imperative – other species have a right to exist

Kucinich, 94(John, Judge specializing in Environmental Law, Environment Law Review, Spring, p. 501)

 

Finally, and least pragmatic, is the moral duty not to exterminate our fellow

AND

posterity of a heritage their own ancestors had passed down for their enjoyment.

 

^that one?

Do you have the full text on that by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Outweighs the case

Tobin 90 [Tichard Tobin, The Expendable Future, 1990, p.22]

Norman Meyers observes, no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species.† Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions.  To Wilson, the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse, the depletion of energy supplies, or even nuclear war.  As frightful as these events might be, Wilson reasons that they can “be repaired within a few generations.  The one process ongoing…that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.

Wouldn't nuclear war kill a bunch of species? And destroy natural habitats? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wouldn't nuclear war kill a bunch of species? And destroy natural habitats? 

 

 

Yup. Explosions don't discriminate.

 

Question for someone who regularly runs this kind of impact: How do you respond to that argument (that nuclear war is a bigger threat to bio-d than transportation infrastructure is)? Is there any good evidence on that?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have the full text on that by any chance?

 

Finally, and least pragmatic, is the moral duty not to exterminate our fellow passengers on this planet. With its origins at least as ancient as the biblical injunction to “replenish†the earth as its caretakers, this moral duty has strong precedential support. Although most people accept the propriety of human use of other species, they would draw the line at exploiting these species into extinction. Thus moral duty may be seen as an obligation to refrain from “murdering†another species, because that species has in some sense a right to exist. Additionally, people may want to preserve other species as a living legacy for their children and grandchildren, feeling it is wrong to deprive their posterity of a heritage their own ancestors had passed down for their enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup. Explosions don't discriminate.

 

Question for someone who regularly runs this kind of impact: How do you respond to that argument (that nuclear war is a bigger threat to bio-d than transportation infrastructure is)? Is there any good evidence on that?

 

magnitude - bombs only destroy the surrounding area and won't totally exterminate a species - biodiversity loss means the loss of trigger/keystone species, spreading through the rest of the world. nukes only hurt a small perimeter

 

probability - read some cards about how nuke miscalc/launches are unlikely, and biod loss is way more probable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magnitude - bombs only destroy the surrounding area and won't totally exterminate a species - biodiversity loss means the loss of trigger/keystone species, spreading through the rest of the world. nukes only hurt a small perimeter

 

Winning on magnitude would be difficult in my opinion. If people prove that Nuke war would wipe out the entire human race, it would obviously kill countless species. Humans are spread far out, while some species are confined to small places. In other words, animals are a lot more vulnerable than humans, so if nukes are powerful enough to kill us, a lot of animal species won't stand a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres the link to all the biodiversity cards on the wiki:

http://wiki.debatecoaches.org/search/view/biodiversity

 

This thread answers that question too:

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/53918-environmental-d-rule/

 

biodiversity loss causes collapse and human extinction.  Diner in '94
Major David Diner, JAG Corps, United States Army, Winter 1994, Military Law Review, 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161, p. 170-173


1. Why Do We Care? -- No species has ever dominated its fellow species as man has. In most cases, people have assumed the God-like power of life and death -- extinction or survival -- over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race. In past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existingspecies perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should the world be concerned now? The prime reason is the world’s survival. Like all animal life, humans live off of other species. At some point, the number of species could decline to the point at which the ecosystem fails, and then humans also would become extinct. No one knows how many species the world needs to support human life, and to find out -- by allowing certain species to become extinct -- would not be sound policy. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind.

 

2. Ecological Value. -- Ecological value is the value that species have in maintaining the environment. Pest, erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Plants and animals also provide additional ecological services -- pollution control, oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation.

 

3. Scientific and Utilitarian Value. -- Scientific value is the use of species for research into the physical processes of the world. Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct utility humans draw from plants and animals. Only a fraction of the earth’s species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately need the species that it is exterminating today. To accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew could save mankind may be difficult for some. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpations could affect a directly useful species negatively. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of a species affects other species dependent on it. Moreover, as the number of species decline, the effect of each new extinction on the remaining species increases dramatically.

 

4. Biological Diversity. -- The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity. As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world’s biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. “The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.†By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings, mankind [humankind] may be edging closer to the abyss. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many responses - thanks!  I'm still wondering if there's a good approach (besides mitigation of the extinction claim) to what others have been talking about, the fact that nuclear war also wipes out species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...