Jump to content
feldsy

AT: Ecosophy

Recommended Posts

Willing to trade for answers to an ecosophy aff.  I'll also trade for 2ac answers to the ecosophy K.  Also if someone could explain exactly what ecosophy is that would be great (all i know is that its fairly similar to anthro).  PM me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

 

 

Foiled again

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many different bends of ecosophy, but most arguments contain a similar alternative: we should collectively reengage with personal consumption patterns and take responsibility for our own environmental harm.  This has a lot of strong literature behind it, and it dovetails nicely with other critiques, but you can bottleneck the whole thing with alternatives/perms which direct that immanent energy towards non-immanent goals.  This is a definitively competitive method that also has strong literature behind it.  You just have to win only state level (or analogous) systems can solve global warming.  There are many reasons "individuals" alone can't solve global warming even if we all worked together and instead broader coalitions are necessary to build things like nuclear energy, pass pollution caps, etc.  This lit base is very accessible and easy to find.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always take a turn to the right (or rather, the libertarian), and argue we should assign ownership of everything in nature to individuals, and allow owning individuals to take action to protect the value of their natural holdings by filing lawsuits.

 

(Directly clashes over the collectivist bent of ecosophy by making it about individual ownership and legal remedy, not sure how well that works as a 2AC response, but I could definitely see a negative strategy there).

 

Kinda crazy? Yeah, but the Lit definitely exists.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always take a turn to the right (or rather, the libertarian), and argue we should assign ownership of everything in nature to individuals, and allow owning individuals to take action to protect the value of their natural holdings by filing lawsuits.

What is nature? What are "individuals"?

 

I don't doubt that some libertarian somewhere has done their best to reconstruct a defense of the subject and of 'nature' but it seems like a lot of effort (and the payoff is that you then have to defend environmental instrumentality :/ )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always take a turn to the right (or rather, the libertarian), and argue we should assign ownership of everything in nature to individuals, and allow owning individuals to take action to protect the value of their natural holdings by filing lawsuits.

 

(Directly clashes over the collectivist bent of ecosophy by making it about individual ownership and legal remedy, not sure how well that works as a 2AC response, but I could definitely see a negative strategy there).

 

Kinda crazy? Yeah, but the Lit definitely exists.

I actually happen to have a kritik (though the alt is a policy option) that is pretty libertarian.  I might crawl through it and see if i can find any applicable cards.

 

My aff is also loaded with state/collective action k2 warming/enviorment cards, so i might run those on case

 

Though i hate to run something so generic, i feel like Cap would probably be a good option, since it would link pretty hard to an aff with such abstract concepts and could get some good root cause.

 

in case my first post wasn't clear, i'm hitting an ecosophy aff this weekend, so if anyone has any interesting neg strats besides those mentioned i'd love to hear them

Edited by feldsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always take a turn to the right (or rather, the libertarian), and argue we should assign ownership of everything in nature to individuals, and allow owning individuals to take action to protect the value of their natural holdings by filing lawsuits.

 

(Directly clashes over the collectivist bent of ecosophy by making it about individual ownership and legal remedy, not sure how well that works as a 2AC response, but I could definitely see a negative strategy there).

 

Kinda crazy? Yeah, but the Lit definitely exists.

 

why would you ever do this ever ... it reentrenches humanity's ownership over nature and completely ignores the kritik altogether

this argument is basically handing the aff/neg a link and cards that say "this is why we need the alt"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I have a vested interest in what people run against our aff. But the strategy of not actually responding and just reading framework/T seems very popular these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I have a vested interest in what people run against our aff. But the strategy of not actually responding and just reading framework/T seems very popular these days.

Shit my strategy against you at Heritage isn't a secret anymore........... 

Edited by MrEragonSaph
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you ever do this ever ... it reentrenches humanity's ownership over nature and completely ignores the kritik altogether

this argument is basically handing the aff/neg a link and cards that say "this is why we need the alt"

 

Because it turns the link, solves the impacts, and provides a different alt to the status quo.  Basically, it says that there isn't any real ownership of nature now, which is why tragedy of the commons stuff (ie, all their impacts) happens.  If there was true ownership, (individual) people would defend (their piece of) nature, and that would solve for environmental destruction by making most of it unprofitable.  (Ie, the market externalities that create a lot of current profit opportunities would disappear because ownership would create a litigating agent that would enforce those costs, thus changing the profit-calculus of businesses who would need to accomodate the environment in their models in a very tangible way).

 

This is straight up clash over what the best and most effective way to protect nature is.  The K gets to point to existing mechanisms (tort law), economics studies on market externalities related to pollution, and a whole host of other very real world things, and can make a plausible case to real solvency. 

 

(You should totally go after the ecosophy's alt as failing in practice, and emphasize that the end result - better actual protection for the environment - is the only thing that matters, and the neg's K functions better in the real world).

 

I'm not saying this is the best possible response, but I guarantee their answers to it will be perfunctory, and they may fail to see where the real clash is until the block, and thus go into rebuttals with a weak position.  If you were going to run it, you'd need to think long and hard about *how* ownership of nature gets assigned initially, which afaik is undercovered in the literature.  (its also been ~10 years since I looked at this literature, its probably evolved).

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it turns the link, Ks the impacts, and provides a different alt to the status quo.  Basically, it says that there isn't any real ownership of nature now, which is why tragedy of the commons stuff (ie, all their impacts) happens.  If there was true ownership, (individual) people would defend (their piece of) nature, and that would solve for environmental destruction by making most of it unprofitable.  (Ie, the market externalities that create a lot of current profit opportunities would disappear because ownership would create a litigating agent that would enforce those costs, thus changing the profit-calculus of businesses who would need to accomodate the environment in their models in a very tangible way).

 

1. doesnt turn the link -- how does it turn the link ??? it links so hard it's ridiculous lmao i don't understand at all

2. there is real "ownership" of nature now, and it's by humans -- we "own" the land that nature is on and we treat the things that live there like we own them because the non-human is worth nothing -- taken from head royce's awesome roadkill aff -- TO BE THE ANIMAL IS TO BE ALWAYS ALREADY SOCIALLY DEAD. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO AWAKEN EACH DAY TO A NEW HORROR MORE OBSCENE THAN THE LAST. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO BE TRANSFIGURED INTO MEAT THE MOMENT AFTER YOU LEAVE THE WOMB. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO SPEND EVERY WAKING MOMENT BURIED ALIVE IN A BURNING COFFIN. SOCIAL DEATH IS THE ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION OF IRRETRIEVABLE NEGATION. -- AND -- THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF MODERNITY HAS BEEN THE SUSTAINED, DELIBERATE, AND INVISIBLE MURDER OF PLANET EARTH. CIVIL SOCIETY IS COMPLICIT IN THE REPRODUCTION OF AN ONTIC ORDER PREMISED ON THE CONSTITUTIVE XENOCIDE OF ALL OTHER FORMS OF LIFE. THE POLITICAL IS EMPTY AND VACUOUS—LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE HAVE BECOME TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN—EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF ACADEMIC PARLANCE BUT EVERYONE MURDERS OUR CLOSEST BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE SAME WAY. 

3. none of what you're talking about happens in the squo where people ~own~ land already, or if it is, it's not happening widely

4. (btw I'm not sure if ecosophy and anthropocentrism can function together, this card assumes it can -- i don't have an ecosophy k so i don't know) The NEGs attempt to create a more sustainable society misses the point. Sociality itself is built of anthropocentrism. Reformism only serves to mask the need for total change. Tarik Kochi and Noam Ordan, Prof @Sussex Law School and Prof at Bar Llan University, boarderlands, An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity, Volume 7 Number 3, 2008

 

This is straight up clash over what the best and most effective way to protect nature is.  The K gets to point to existing mechanisms (tort law), economics studies on market externalities related to pollution, and a whole host of other very real world things, and can make a plausible case to real solvency. 

 

no decent team is going to let the judge even think about buying that libertarianism will save the environment -- stuff i said above -- and -- the debate isnt about arguing existing mechanisms it's about providing the best alternative or policy option

 

 

(You should totally go after the ecosophy's alt as failing in practice, and emphasize that the end result - better actual protection for the environment - is the only thing that matters, and the neg's K functions better in the real world).

 

there's no such thing as "better actual protection for the environment" -- and this places us as the savior of the natural, separate from it. it puts human above and says that we are necessary to keep something that has been living without us for MILLIONS of years as the only capable thing of protecting it, a simplistic being that has managed to decimate a majority of the natural world in the past, what, 2000 years?

 

also the alt solves best because it involves a personal recognition of the issues & doing something without having to have a real benefit or material gain -- investigating your own use of nature and making changes like that removes any profit motive, provides more permanence, and teaches future individuals -- a libertarian approach of "i own this" doesn't do this at all because there's no real education behind it -- and -- you only become responsible for your own land, all other land is meaningless to you

 

if i missed anything im being distracted by a cute kitty and a headache

Edited by georgebushsdogpaintings
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it turns the link, Ks the impacts, and provides a different alt to the status quo.  Basically, it says that there isn't any real ownership of nature now, which is why tragedy of the commons stuff (ie, all their impacts) happens.  If there was true ownership, (individual) people would defend (their piece of) nature, and that would solve for environmental destruction by making most of it unprofitable.  (Ie, the market externalities that create a lot of current profit opportunities would disappear because ownership would create a litigating agent that would enforce those costs, thus changing the profit-calculus of businesses who would need to accomodate the environment in their models in a very tangible way).

 

1. doesnt turn the link -- how does it turn the link ??? it links so hard it's ridiculous lmao i don't understand at all

Stop drinking the kool-aid for a moment. You don't get it because you're in love with your authors.

 

There's a large wealth of economics literature about market externalities and the environment. Many environmental harms happen because the natural 'good' which is damaged isn't owned, so no one has standing to file grievances or charge 'rent' for its use. Air and water are unowned in any legal sense, and so when a company dumps chemicals into a river there's usually no legal recourse, and thus no cost to the company to do so. (And while *some* of this behavior has been regulated by the EPA in the last 40 years, the government is a terrible steward who often overlooks violations and isn't sufficiently motivated to vigorously defend the environment. These enforcement problems are the natural consequence of the lack of ownership in the libertarian worldview, and there's good legal and economic evidence to make a reasonable case).

 

 

 

 

2. there is real "ownership" of nature now, and it's by humans -- we "own" the land that nature is on and we treat the things that live there like we own them because the non-human is worth nothing -- taken from head royce's awesome roadkill aff -- TO BE THE ANIMAL IS TO BE ALWAYS ALREADY SOCIALLY DEAD. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO AWAKEN EACH DAY TO A NEW HORROR MORE OBSCENE THAN THE LAST. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO BE TRANSFIGURED INTO MEAT THE MOMENT AFTER YOU LEAVE THE WOMB. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO SPEND EVERY WAKING MOMENT BURIED ALIVE IN A BURNING COFFIN. SOCIAL DEATH IS THE ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION OF IRRETRIEVABLE NEGATION. -- AND -- THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF MODERNITY HAS BEEN THE SUSTAINED, DELIBERATE, AND INVISIBLE MURDER OF PLANET EARTH. CIVIL SOCIETY IS COMPLICIT IN THE REPRODUCTION OF AN ONTIC ORDER PREMISED ON THE CONSTITUTIVE XENOCIDE OF ALL OTHER FORMS OF LIFE. THE POLITICAL IS EMPTY AND VACUOUS—LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE HAVE BECOME TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN—EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF ACADEMIC PARLANCE BUT EVERYONE MURDERS OUR CLOSEST BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE SAME WAY. [/size]

That's an awful card.

1. No warrants, just claims.

2. Nothing about ownership

3. Even if there's a tenuous connection to an argument about collective assumption of ownership/stewardship now, its not ownership in the legal sense, and that's why it fails. Legal standing to bring suit in court is key. This is exactly what I meant when I said the 2AC responses would be perfunctory and miss the clash. Prophecy fulfilled.

4. My position is agnostic on the question of whether animals and plants are ethically equivalent to humans or not. Functionally, they cannot bring suit in a court of law, so humans have to speak for them when they are harmed, and that's the only thing that matters. I'll happily grant the ethical claims, but they're irrelevant if our goal is to protect anything.

5. Nature more generally cannot and should not be anthropomorphized as an individual entity. Their representation is bad to the extent it does that.

6. And nature or natural features and processes like lakes, rivers, forests also can't bring suit in a court of law. Only by assigning ownership to a human being can these things be represented in a manner which is interested and motivated in their defense.

 

 

 

 

3. none of what you're talking about happens in the squo where people ~own~ land already, or if it is, it's not happening widely[/size]

 

Most of the major environmental harms are done to *commons*, that is, land or other natural 'objects' (in a general sense) which is not owned or is 'owned in common' and thus effectively owned by no one. There is a wealth of law on the matter in the UK and the US.

 

 

 

 

4. (btw I'm not sure if ecosophy and anthropocentrism can function together, this card assumes it can -- i don't have an ecosophy k so i don't know) [/size]

The NEGs attempt to create a more sustainable society misses the point. Sociality itself is built of anthropocentrism. Reformism only serves to mask the need for total change. Tarik Kochi and Noam Ordan, Prof @Sussex Law School and Prof at Bar Llan University, boarderlands, An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity, Volume 7 Number 3, 2008

Aff's advocacy leads to a world where the harms are completely unaffected, because there is no mechanism to stop people from violating it. It requires a degree of agent-hood in a legal context that is impossible for almost all non-human entities, even in theory. Maybe one day Dolphins will defend themselves in court and in public opinion, but trees never will. A vote for the aff is, at best, a vote for the status quo to effectively continue as normal, which means they solve none of their harms.

 

In the worst case, the aff removes those most interested in nature's defense from the social dialog, because they reject society entirely. This completely turns the aff, because without those dissenting voices, the harms they decry are magnified.

 

Only the neg has a real and tangible alternative which makes a functional difference in the real world. Vote neg for an advocacy that can and will change things and make nature actually safer. The aff is just so many pretty words. Pretty words will not stop the destruction of our natural world.

 

 

 

 

This is straight up clash over what the best and most effective way to protect nature is.  The K gets to point to existing mechanisms (tort law), economics studies on market externalities related to pollution, and a whole host of other very real world things, and can make a plausible case to real solvency. 

 

no decent team is going to let the judge even think about buying that libertarianism will save the environment -- stuff i said above -- and -- the debate isnt about arguing existing mechanisms it's about providing the best alternative or policy option

No judge who isn't stoned is going to buy that people will voluntarily withdraw from society (and do what, exactly?) or stop hurting nature just because someone kritiks our use of it. We've seen the real world. What do companies do when hippies chain themselves to trees? They call the police to remove them, or go cut down other trees.

 

Actually protecting nature requires advocacies which actually stop natural harms. The neg makes a case for something which does this. The aff's alt doesn't even rise to the minimum level of plausibility in this regard.

 

 

 

 

(You should totally go after the ecosophy's alt as failing in practice, and emphasize that the end result - better actual protection for the environment - is the only thing that matters, and the neg's K functions better in the real world).

 

there's no such thing as "better actual protection for the environment" -- and this places us as the savior of the natural, separate from it. it puts human above and says that we are necessary to keep something that has been living without us for MILLIONS of years as the only capable thing of protecting it, a simplistic being that has managed to decimate a majority of the natural world in the past, what, 2000 years?

So we should kill all the humans? Seriously, this doesn't even rise to the level of logical thought.

 

If we can quantify harm to the environment, then we can quantify when it is better or worse protected. Your argument denies your own harms and kills any motivation to do the aff in the first place. Vote neg because we're the only side making sense.

 

At the very least the judge must accept that if we can measure and name harms to the environment, then we can measure protection from those harms as well.

 

Finally, this doesn't separate us from nature - just like someone who saves themself hasn't made themself separate from themself. The argument is logically incoherent. Saving nature also saves us - that's why the neg is advocating measures which will protect the natural world.

 

 

 

 

also the alt solves best because it involves a personal recognition of the issues & doing something without having to have a real benefit or material gain -- investigating your own use of nature and making changes like that removes any profit motive, provides more permanence, and teaches future individuals -- a libertarian approach of "i own this" doesn't do this at all because there's no real education behind it -- and -- you only become responsible for your own land, all other land is meaningless to you

Reality check: people rarely, if ever, do anything without real benefit or material gain. That gain may be *social* benefit, like running ecosophy because it signals the right beliefs to hang with the 'cool kids', or just because you want to get in the pants of some hot male believer. (Or female, I don't judge). The only real motivator is benefit: real or perceived. Show me the person who doesn't act in what they perceive to be their interest and you'll find a corpse.

 

Removing the profit motive is impossible. Oh, it doesn't have to be a capitalist 'its about the money' profit motive. But we can equally well talk about profit in favors owed or social and/or political capital, or just profit in personal development. The root of motive is profit of some kind.

 

There's no permanence without enforcement. Only the neg provides any enforcement mechanism. Pretty words do not stop pollution, deforestation, or any other harm to nature.

 

There's no better education on the aff. Both sides teach the value of nature. The libertarian side better motivates this education - owners need to be educated in the value of their property so they can be adequate defenders of it against encroachment. This means a solid grounding in ecology, evolution, chemistry, geology, and other natural processes. Without this knowledge, owners will be less able to recognize harms and bring suit against violators. The negative is entirely in favor of extensive and comprehensive environmental education.

 

And learning to value your own land as natural habitat also teaches you to value all natural habitat and appreciate that held by others. Further, you need to respect the natural holdings of others, lest you do harm to their holdings and they bring suit against you.

 

And its not just land - we feel that individuals should own a share of the air, and that waters and the organisms that live in all natural environments, and any other part of nature, should be owned so that any infringement on the natural world will not be allowed to pass without the value of that resource being paid for. Any other solution will inevitably leave market externalities that cause undue harm to nature.

 

-------------

 

At least that's how I'd defend the libertarian option.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip (i read it but it's a long ass quote)

*claps*

 

also the bold stuff i posted was just the taglines, the cards themselves weren't available or i would have posted the important bits or re-tagged it if the card didn't actually talk about that

the kochi card is out of my file tho so it's #legit

 

i still wouldn't run this in a round tho because a. people probably have better ev than me b. people are probably more awake than me c. the people running ecosophy probably know it better than me. overall the argument is too close to what the aff itself critiques ad i'm not a fan of putting my hand too close to the fire

Edited by georgebushsdogpaintings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop drinking the kool-aid for a moment. You don't get it because you're in love with your authors.

 

There's a large wealth of economics literature about market externalities and the environment. Many environmental harms happen because the natural 'good' which is damaged isn't owned, so no one has standing to file grievances or charge 'rent' for its use. Air and water are unowned in any legal sense, and so when a company dumps chemicals into a river there's usually no legal recourse, and thus no cost to the company to do so. (And while *some* of this behavior has been regulated by the EPA in the last 40 years, the government is a terrible steward who often overlooks violations and isn't sufficiently motivated to vigorously defend the environment. These enforcement problems are the natural consequence of the lack of ownership in the libertarian worldview, and there's good legal and economic evidence to make a reasonable case).

 

 

 

 

That's an awful card.

1. No warrants, just claims.

2. Nothing about ownership

3. Even if there's a tenuous connection to an argument about collective assumption of ownership/stewardship now, its not ownership in the legal sense, and that's why it fails. Legal standing to bring suit in court is key. This is exactly what I meant when I said the 2AC responses would be perfunctory and miss the clash. Prophecy fulfilled.

4. My position is agnostic on the question of whether animals and plants are ethically equivalent to humans or not. Functionally, they cannot bring suit in a court of law, so humans have to speak for them when they are harmed, and that's the only thing that matters. I'll happily grant the ethical claims, but they're irrelevant if our goal is to protect anything.

5. Nature more generally cannot and should not be anthropomorphized as an individual entity. Their representation is bad to the extent it does that.

6. And nature or natural features and processes like lakes, rivers, forests also can't bring suit in a court of law. Only by assigning ownership to a human being can these things be represented in a manner which is interested and motivated in their defense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the major environmental harms are done to *commons*, that is, land or other natural 'objects' (in a general sense) which is not owned or is 'owned in common' and thus effectively owned by no one. There is a wealth of law on the matter in the UK and the US.

 

 

 

 

 

Aff's advocacy leads to a world where the harms are completely unaffected, because there is no mechanism to stop people from violating it. It requires a degree of agent-hood in a legal context that is impossible for almost all non-human entities, even in theory. Maybe one day Dolphins will defend themselves in court and in public opinion, but trees never will. A vote for the aff is, at best, a vote for the status quo to effectively continue as normal, which means they solve none of their harms.

 

In the worst case, the aff removes those most interested in nature's defense from the social dialog, because they reject society entirely. This completely turns the aff, because without those dissenting voices, the harms they decry are magnified.

 

Only the neg has a real and tangible alternative which makes a functional difference in the real world. Vote neg for an advocacy that can and will change things and make nature actually safer. The aff is just so many pretty words. Pretty words will not stop the destruction of our natural world.

 

 

 

 

No judge who isn't stoned is going to buy that people will voluntarily withdraw from society (and do what, exactly?) or stop hurting nature just because someone kritiks our use of it. We've seen the real world. What do companies do when hippies chain themselves to trees? They call the police to remove them, or go cut down other trees.

 

Actually protecting nature requires advocacies which actually stop natural harms. The neg makes a case for something which does this. The aff's alt doesn't even rise to the minimum level of plausibility in this regard.

 

 

 

 

So we should kill all the humans? Seriously, this doesn't even rise to the level of logical thought.

 

If we can quantify harm to the environment, then we can quantify when it is better or worse protected. Your argument denies your own harms and kills any motivation to do the aff in the first place. Vote neg because we're the only side making sense.

 

At the very least the judge must accept that if we can measure and name harms to the environment, then we can measure protection from those harms as well.

 

Finally, this doesn't separate us from nature - just like someone who saves themself hasn't made themself separate from themself. The argument is logically incoherent. Saving nature also saves us - that's why the neg is advocating measures which will protect the natural world.

 

 

 

 

Reality check: people rarely, if ever, do anything without real benefit or material gain. That gain may be *social* benefit, like running ecosophy because it signals the right beliefs to hang with the 'cool kids', or just because you want to get in the pants of some hot male believer. (Or female, I don't judge). The only real motivator is benefit: real or perceived. Show me the person who doesn't act in what they perceive to be their interest and you'll find a corpse.

 

Removing the profit motive is impossible. Oh, it doesn't have to be a capitalist 'its about the money' profit motive. But we can equally well talk about profit in favors owed or social and/or political capital, or just profit in personal development. The root of motive is profit of some kind.

 

There's no permanence without enforcement. Only the neg provides any enforcement mechanism. Pretty words do not stop pollution, deforestation, or any other harm to nature.

 

There's no better education on the aff. Both sides teach the value of nature. The libertarian side better motivates this education - owners need to be educated in the value of their property so they can be adequate defenders of it against encroachment. This means a solid grounding in ecology, evolution, chemistry, geology, and other natural processes. Without this knowledge, owners will be less able to recognize harms and bring suit against violators. The negative is entirely in favor of extensive and comprehensive environmental education.

 

And learning to value your own land as natural habitat also teaches you to value all natural habitat and appreciate that held by others. Further, you need to respect the natural holdings of others, lest you do harm to their holdings and they bring suit against you.

 

And its not just land - we feel that individuals should own a share of the air, and that waters and the organisms that live in all natural environments, and any other part of nature, should be owned so that any infringement on the natural world will not be allowed to pass without the value of that resource being paid for. Any other solution will inevitably leave market externalities that cause undue harm to nature.

 

-------------

 

At least that's how I'd defend the libertarian option.

 

 

lol why wouldn't you just read enviro managerialism good? It seems like this counterplan strategy with a libertarianism net benefit is extra baggage to just simply impact turning the aff. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol why wouldn't you just read enviro managerialism good? It seems like this counterplan strategy with a libertarianism net benefit is extra baggage to just simply impact turning the aff. 

 

Because the point is that enviro-managerialism (at least by governments) also fails - they lack the proper incentives and oftentimes legal standing to bring suit to defend the environment.  At least if I'm understanding what you mean by enviro-managerialism correctly.  Most of the strongest evidence for the above is going to be about either tort law or economic externalities, where there are obvious deficiencies in the SQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After all this fine discussion, i think i'll just say no to both sides and run Rights Malthus.  Seems like a solid plan

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 TO BE THE ANIMAL IS TO BE ALWAYS ALREADY SOCIALLY DEAD. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO AWAKEN EACH DAY TO A NEW HORROR MORE OBSCENE THAN THE LAST. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO BE TRANSFIGURED INTO MEAT THE MOMENT AFTER YOU LEAVE THE WOMB. SOCIAL DEATH IS TO SPEND EVERY WAKING MOMENT BURIED ALIVE IN A BURNING COFFIN. SOCIAL DEATH IS THE ONTOLOGICAL CONDITION OF IRRETRIEVABLE NEGATION. -- AND -- THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF MODERNITY HAS BEEN THE SUSTAINED, DELIBERATE, AND INVISIBLE MURDER OF PLANET EARTH. CIVIL SOCIETY IS COMPLICIT IN THE REPRODUCTION OF AN ONTIC ORDER PREMISED ON THE CONSTITUTIVE XENOCIDE OF ALL OTHER FORMS OF LIFE. THE POLITICAL IS EMPTY AND VACUOUS—LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE HAVE BECOME TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN—EVERYONE HAS A DIFFERENT FLAVOR OF ACADEMIC PARLANCE BUT EVERYONE MURDERS OUR CLOSEST BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE SAME WAY. 

 

Sheesh, I wish that was a tagline to something I had written. Like maybe something from here: 

 

http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex/article/download/4090/3163 (warning, .pdf). 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh, I wish that was a tagline to something I had written. Like maybe something from here: 

 

http://www.phaenex.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/phaenex/article/download/4090/3163 (warning, .pdf). 

 

I've never really been that persuaded by anthropocentrism or critical animal studies kritiks (probably because I've never had a good discussion or debate concerning either) but your essay is really good, I'm enjoying it a lot. Thanks for sharing it!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never understood the Baudrillard card very well. What follows is my best attempt at interpreting it. I'd be grateful for any help I get from you who have different readings of his work here, especially those of you who are more experienced with Baudrillard's main writings.
 

 Hence the recent proposal, following this same logic, from the moment it achieved the status of virtual waste-product, to accord nature international recognition of its rights, to elevate it to the status of a subject in law. Thus the 'contrat nature/"" amounts to a definitive recognition of nature as waste. Just as, in bygone days, the recognition of the rights of the unfortunate meant not their emancipation as citizens, but their liberation as the unfortunate. It is always the same with rights: the right to water, the right to air, the right to existence, etc. It is when all these fine things have disappeared that the law arrives to grant their disappearance official recognition. The law is like religious faith. If God exists, there is no need to believe in Him. If people do believe in Him, this is because the self-evidence of his existence has passed away. Thus, when people obtain the right to life, the fact is that they are no longer able to live. When nature is recognized as a subject in law, as it is by Michel Serres, we have objectified it to death, and this ecological cover merely asserts our right to go on doing so.

 

I see this as a pretty straightforward empirical claim - the push for rights has always come too late.

 

 All this has been brought about by the highly dubious way in which the concept of nature has evolved. What was initially matter became energy. The modern discovery of nature consists in its liberation as energy and in a mechanical transformation of the world.

 

Nature was originally thought of as very static and ontological. Then we started thinking of nature in terms of a fluctuating and dynamic environment. I'm not confident that last bit is correct because it's not clear to me exactly what he means by this concept of nature as energy.

 

After having first been matter, and then energy, nature is today becoming an interactive subject. It is ceasing to be an object, but this is bringing it all the more surely into the circuit of subjection. A dramatic paradox, and one which also affects human beings: we are much more compromised when we cease to be objects and become subjects. This is a trick that was pulled on us long ago, in the name of absolute liberation. Let's not pull the same one on nature. For the ultimate danger is that, in an interactivity built up into a total system of communication, there is no other; there are only subjects - and, very soon, only subjects without objects. All our problems today as civilized beings originate here: not in an excess of alienation, but a disappearance of alienation in favour of a maximum transparency between subjects.


I don't have a clue. It sounds vaguely similar to biopolitical arguments but I was under the impression Baudrillard didn't subscribe to those. Could someone elucidate the main differences between his view and Foucault's, or explain why my impression is off?

 

An unbearable situation, all the more so for the fact that, in foisting on nature the status of a subject in law, we are also foisting on it all the vices of subjectivity, decking it out, in our own image, with a bad conscience, with nostalgia (for a lost object which, in this case, can only be us), with a range of drives - in particular, an impulse for revenge. The 'balance' we hear so much of in ecology ('out of balance') is not so much that of planetary resources and their exploitation as the metaphysical one between subject and object.

 

Again this seems straightforward: the idea that nature is inherently in equilibrium is wrong and ideologically motivated. He starts to characterize this view as ressentiment.
 

 â€‹Now, that metaphysical subject object balance is being upset and the subject, armed as he is with all the technologies of advanced communication (technologies on whose horizon the object has disappeared), is the beneficiary. Once that balance is disrupted, it inevitably sparks violent reactions on the part of the object. Just as individuals counter the transparency and virtual responsibility inflicted on them as subjects with unexplainable acts, acts of resistance, failure, delinquency and collective disorder, so nature counters this enforced promotion, this consensual, communicational blackmail, with various forms of behaviour that are radically other, such as catastrophes, upheavals, earthquakes and chaos. It would seem that nature does not really feel a sense of responsibility for itself, nor does it react to our efforts to give it one. We are, admittedly, indulging in" a (bad) ecological conscience and attempting, by this moral violence, to stave off possible violence on nature's part. But if, by offering it the status of subject, we are handing it the same poisoned chalice as we gave to the decolonized nations, we ought not to be surprised if it behaves irrationally merely so as to assert itself as such. Contrary to the underlying Rousseauist ideology, which argues that the profound nature of the liberated subject can only be good and that nature itself, once emancipated, cannot but be endowed with natural equilibrium and all the ecological virtues, there is nothing more ambiguous or perverse than a subject. Now, nature is also germs, viruses, chaos, bacteria and scorpions, significantly eliminated from Biosphere 2 as though they were not meant to exist. Where are the deadly little scorpions, so beautiful and so translucent, which one sees in the Desert Museum not far away, scorpions whose magical sting certainly performs a higher, invisible – but necessary - function within our Biosphere 1: the incarnation of evil, of the venomous evil of chance, the mortal innocence of desire (the desire for death) in the equilibrium of living beings? What they have forgotten is that what binds living beings together is something other than an ecological, biospherical solidarity, something other than the homeostatic equilibrium of a system: it is the cycle of metamorphoses. Man is also a scorpion, just as the Bororo are araras and, left to himself in an expurgated universe, he becomes, himself, a scorpion. In short, it is not by expurgating evil that we liberate good. Worse, by liberating good, we also liberate evil. And this is only right: it is the rule of the symbolic game. It is the inseparability of good and evil which constitutes our true equilibrium, our true balance. We ought not to entertain the illusion that we might separate the two, that we might cultivate good and happiness in a pure state and expel evil and sorrow as wastes. That is the terroristic dream of the transparency of good, which very quickly ends in its opposite, the transparency of evil.

 

What confuses me here is the causal terminology he uses. It's clear that nature is violent and doesn't fit into the preconceived and whitewashed notions that some ecologists have. But he speaks as though conceptualizing nature as peaceful will somehow result in more violent consequences. Is he just speaking with exaggeration, or is there something more behind this? Is the idea that unless we're actively subjugating nature it will rise up and kill us?

 

We must not reconcile ourselves with nature. It seems that the more the human race reconciles itself with nature, the less it is reconciled with itself. Above and beyond the violence it inflicts on others, there is a violence specific to the human race in general, a violence of the species against itself in which it treats itself as a residue, as a survivor - even in the present - of a coming catastrophe. As if it too were ready to repent of an evolution which has brought it such privileges and carried it to such extremes. This is the same conjuncture as the one to which Canetti refers, in which we stepped out of history, except that here we have not stepped out of history, but have passed a point beyond which nothing is either human or inhuman any longer and what is at stake, which is even more immense, is the tottering of the species into the void. It is quite possible that, in this process, the species itself is commencing its own disappearance, either by disenchantment with - or ressentiment towards - itself, or out of a deliberate inclination which leads it here and now to manage that disappearance as its destiny.

 

Humans are going to act in the ways that are natural for humans. A human who rejects human value systems is somewhere in between nihilism and ressentiment because value systems can't be created out of thin air.

 

Surreptitiously, in spite of our superiority (or perhaps because of it), we are carrying over on to our own species the treatment we mete out to the others, all of which are virtually dying out. In an animal milieu which has reached saturation point, species are spontaneously dissuaded from living. The effects produced by the finite nature of the earth, for the first time contrasting violently with the infinity of our development, are such that our species is automatically switching over to collective suicide. Whether by external (nuclear) violence or internal (biological) virulence.

 

Is he saying that humans are at their carrying capacity and will die because of overpopulation? This seems almost to contradict what he was writing about before because the sentiment of this message would seem to support environmentalism. It confuses me. Best guess: perhaps he's arguing that environmentalism is unnecessary because we'll kill ourselves but nature will remain despite our actions?
 

We are subjecting ourselves as a human species to the same experimental pressure as the animal species in our laboratories. Man is without prejudice: he is using himself as a guinea-pig, just as he is using the rest of the world, animate or inanimate. He is cheerfully gambling with the destiny of his own species as he is with that of all the others. In his blind desire to know more, he is programming his own destruction with the same ease and ferocity as the destruction of the others. He cannot be accused of a superior egoism. He is sacrificing himself, as a species, to an unknown experimental fate, unknown at least as yet to other species, who have experienced only natural fates. And, whereas it seemed that, linked to that natural fate, there was something like an instinct of self-preservation - long the mainstay of a natural philosophy of individuals and groups - this experimental fate to which the human species is condemning itself by unprecedented, artificial means, this scientific prefiguring of its own disappearance, sweeps away all ideas of a self-preservation instinct. The idea is, indeed, no longer discussed in the human sciences (where the focus of attention would seem, rather, to be on the death drive) and this disappearance from the field of thought signals that, beneath a frenzy for ecological conservation which is really more to do with nostalgia and remose, a wholly different tendency has already won out, the sacrificing of the species to boundless experimentation.

 

He denies that humans are prejudiced against the environment specifically, pointing out that we're risking our own lives as well as the lives of animals. Is he contending that humans don't have enough self interest and that's why we're not saving the environment? Is he further arguing that criticisms of anthropocentrism make it harder to motivate action because they criticize human motivational systems? That's the best interpretation I can come up with, but it doesn't feel like I've covered everything.

pls halp

Edited by Squidpaste
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

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...