Jump to content
Solax10

Overfishing Aff?

Recommended Posts

I was doing some research and I found what I think to be a really unique advantage to an overfishing aff or a plan that could claim overfishing as an advantage. My question is what are some possible aff's for next year that solves overfishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this probably has solvency in the bag

KOCHI AND ORDAN 8, Lecturer in Law and International Security at the U of Sussex, and *Research in Translation Studies at Bar Ilan U, (Tarik and Noam, “An argument for the global suicide of humanity†borderlandsâ€, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6981/is_3_7/ai_n31524968/         

The global suicide of humanity

How might such a standpoint of dialectical, utopian anti-humanism reconfigure a notion of action which does not simply repeat in another way the modern humanist infliction of violence, as exemplified by the plan of Hawking, or fall prey to institutional and systemic complicity in speciesist violence? While this question goes beyond what it is possible to outline in this paper, we contend that the thought experiment of global suicide helps to locate this question--the question of modern action itself--as residing at the heart of the modern environmental problem. In a sense perhaps the only way to understand what is at stake in ethical action which responds to the natural environment is to come to terms with the logical consequences of ethical action itself. The point operates then not as the end, but as the starting point of a standpoint which attempts to reconfigure our notions of action, life-value, and harm. For some, guided by the pressure of moral conscience or by a practice of harm minimisation, the appropriate response to historical and contemporary environmental destruction is that of action guided by abstention. For example, one way of reacting to mundane, everyday complicity is the attempt to abstain or opt-out of certain aspects of modern, industrial society: to not eat non-human animals, to invest ethically, to buy organic produce, to not use cars and buses, to live in an environmentally conscious commune. Ranging from small personal decisions to the establishment of parallel economies (think of organic and fair trade products as an attempt to set up a quasi-parallel economy), a typical modern form of action is that of a refusal to be complicit in human practices that are violent and destructive. Again, however, at a practical level, to what extent are such acts of nonparticipation rendered banal by their complicity in other actions? In a grand register of violence and harm the individual who abstains from eating non-human animals but still uses the bus or an airplane or electricity has only opted out of some harm causing practices and remains fully complicit with others. One response, however, which bypasses the problem of complicity and the banality of action is to take the non-participation solution to its most extreme level. In this instance, the only way to truly be non-complicit in the violence of the human heritage would be to opt-out altogether. Here, then, the modern discourse of reflection, responsibility and action runs to its logical conclusion--the global suicide of humanity--as a free-willed and 'final solution'. 

 

 

This is a joke. A dark joke, yes, but a joke. Don't none of y'all get uppity about it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this probably has solvency in the bag

KOCHI AND ORDAN 8, Lecturer in Law and International Security at the U of Sussex, and *Research in Translation Studies at Bar Ilan U, (Tarik and Noam, “An argument for the global suicide of humanity†borderlandsâ€, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6981/is_3_7/ai_n31524968/         

The global suicide of humanity

How might such a standpoint of dialectical, utopian anti-humanism reconfigure a notion of action which does not simply repeat in another way the modern humanist infliction of violence, as exemplified by the plan of Hawking, or fall prey to institutional and systemic complicity in speciesist violence? While this question goes beyond what it is possible to outline in this paper, we contend that the thought experiment of global suicide helps to locate this question--the question of modern action itself--as residing at the heart of the modern environmental problem. In a sense perhaps the only way to understand what is at stake in ethical action which responds to the natural environment is to come to terms with the logical consequences of ethical action itself. The point operates then not as the end, but as the starting point of a standpoint which attempts to reconfigure our notions of action, life-value, and harm. For some, guided by the pressure of moral conscience or by a practice of harm minimisation, the appropriate response to historical and contemporary environmental destruction is that of action guided by abstention. For example, one way of reacting to mundane, everyday complicity is the attempt to abstain or opt-out of certain aspects of modern, industrial society: to not eat non-human animals, to invest ethically, to buy organic produce, to not use cars and buses, to live in an environmentally conscious commune. Ranging from small personal decisions to the establishment of parallel economies (think of organic and fair trade products as an attempt to set up a quasi-parallel economy), a typical modern form of action is that of a refusal to be complicit in human practices that are violent and destructive. Again, however, at a practical level, to what extent are such acts of nonparticipation rendered banal by their complicity in other actions? In a grand register of violence and harm the individual who abstains from eating non-human animals but still uses the bus or an airplane or electricity has only opted out of some harm causing practices and remains fully complicit with others. One response, however, which bypasses the problem of complicity and the banality of action is to take the non-participation solution to its most extreme level. In this instance, the only way to truly be non-complicit in the violence of the human heritage would be to opt-out altogether. Here, then, the modern discourse of reflection, responsibility and action runs to its logical conclusion--the global suicide of humanity--as a free-willed and 'final solution'. 

 

 

This is a joke. A dark joke, yes, but a joke. Don't none of y'all get uppity about it.

 

If we are all dead then there is no overfishing. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain to me what the link is saying. I get that the UN has been trying to solve overfishing and the want to strengthen the treaty

basically

I would double check to make sure this hasn't happened already though, the article is from 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically

I would double check to make sure this hasn't happened already though, the article is from 2006

From http://www.waresources.com.au/overfishing-statistics-everyone-should-know/ in 2013 So even if the UN has tried to combat overfishing it isn't working so we have to do something else.

 

 

  • According to the United Nations, 17% of fish stocks worldwide are currently overexploited; 52% are fully exploited; and 7% are depleted. This means that only an estimated 20% of worldwide fish stocks are not already at or above their capacity.
  • Approximately 90% of fish stocks of large predatory fish are already gone, as overfishing has disproportionately targeted the largest fish at the top of the food chain.
  • Catches of Pacific herring have decreased by 71% since the 1960s, with Atlantic herring catches falling by 63%. Atlantic Cod catches have fallen by 69% in the same time.
  • Total harvesting of wild fish from the world’s oceans stands atapproximately 90 million tons, a number which has been level since the mid-1990s.
  • Commercial fishing from the world’s lakes and rivers has quadrupled in the last 50 years to now total 8.7 million tons annually – and growing.
  • Depending on the estimate, overfishing leads to a loss of between $6 and $36 billion in food production revenue every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are all dead then there is no overfishing. Thanks!

I mean it seems fairly obvious don't it? The root cause of overfishing is people. Even if we massively reduced the demand for fish or the amount of people it would eventually rise in the long run barring meteor strikes or aliens. Ergo this is the only permanent fix. Go big or go home. Either you truly care about the fish or you're just a poser, using their plight to win pieces of plastic glued to marble bases. WHICH IS IT?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it seems fairly obvious don't it? The root cause of overfishing is people. Even if we massively reduced the demand for fish or the amount of people it would eventually rise in the long run barring meteor strikes or aliens. Ergo this is the only permanent fix. Go big or go home. Either you truly care about the fish or you're just a poser, using their plight to win pieces of plastic glued to marble bases. WHICH IS IT?!

We have to be topical so Im thinking about having a plan that developes a destroy the world-inator in the ocean. Solves every single advantage possible. This card will lead us to TOC victory!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone have any cool ideas they wouldn't mind sharing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give back the land K aff where the plan is for all non-Native Americans  to commit suicide using cards from malthus about how population is root cause of all bad things. Solves case. 

Edited by RainSilves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give back the land K aff where the plan is for all non-Native Americans  to commit suicide using cards from malthus about how population is root cause of all bad things. Solves case.

 

Okay squirreloid, will you at least agree this one is extra topical on fish populations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Missouri so these K affs wont do so well for me, are there any topical flay friendly plans that could combat overfishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go check the V-Debate forums for a salmon aff, or maybe it was the oceans forum? I know I just saw one on here.

 

You're in west-mo right, not east-mo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go check the V-Debate forums for a salmon aff, or maybe it was the oceans forum? I know I just saw one on here.

 

You're in west-mo right, not east-mo?

Yeah im in the KC area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could look at the idea of catch sharing. One of my teams used catch sharing as solv for overfishing. It might be a little sketchy on effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay squirreloid, will you at least agree this one is extra topical on fish populations?

 

Yeah, I'll agree that's xT.  =)

 

(Somehow missed this thread)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone have any cool ideas they wouldn't mind sharing?

Sustainable Fisheries, It is a pretty cool aff if you can get past the T debate. I can Pm you a 1AC if you would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...