Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

47 Good

About Pan2k4

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Name
    Chengxin Pan
  • School
    Australian National University
  1. If you wait awhile for the season to start, the college topic is partially debating legalizing of organ sales, so I'm sure you'll find lots of evidence both ways on presumed consent for organ procurement.
  2. getting ready my stavrakakis yo
  3. Mestiza Consciousness against Borders Affirmative Desire Externalization against Zapatistas 1-Off Anthro against Policy Affs
  4. To add on to Zuul's post: (feel free to retag these cards) Biotech causes massive wealth inequalities - devalues indigenous epistemologies and technologies in favor of Eurocentric mastery over nature - causes genetic instability and agricultural collapse Lander ‘09 (Edgardo Lander, Professor at Universidad Central de Venezuela, and associated to CLACSO (Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales, “Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the ‘Natural’ Order of Global Capital, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Special Issue Epistemologies of Transformation: The Latin American Decolonial Option and its Ramifications, Fall 2009, Department of Culture and Identity, Roskilde University, p. 57-60, www.postkolonial.dk/artikler/LANDER.pdf)//CV Since the Eurocentric colonial assumption is that the only possible knowledge is Western university and industrial knowledge, it follows that only knowledges which correspond to this paradigm can be registered and protected as intellectual property. All other ways of knowing can be freely appropriated (Khor, n.d.). In the case of biotechnology, all indigenous and rural knowledges and technologies involving the selection, combination, and preservation of diverse species are denied and devalued, since they are classified as part of nature. Thus, the selection and cultivation of vegetable species (plant breeding) is not considered to be either true production, knowledge, or technological application, for real breeding only begins when the “primitive germ plasm†is mixed or crossbred by scientists in international laboratories (Shiva 1997, 51 – 52). According to Vandana Shiva (1997, 9), one can identify three types of creativity: 1. The creativity inherent to living organisms that allows them to evolve, recreate, and regenerate themselves. 2. The creativity of indigenous communities that have developed knowledge systems to conserve and utilize the rich biological diversity of our planet. 3. The creativity of modern scientists in university or corporate laboratories who find ways to use living organisms to generate profits. Given the hierarchical dualities between culture and nature — and between scientific knowledge and empirical and/or traditional knowledge — that characterize Eurocentric knowledge, the only kind of creativity that can be recognized, and thus protected as intellectual property, is based on the third type of creativity. Beginning with the reductive principle of genetic engineering, according to which it is possible to create life, the intellectual property rights agreements oblige governments worldwide to recognize patents on life, or other forms of protection of the private ownership of life. Just as resources formerly considered to be commons, or of communal use, were privately appropriated through the enclosure and private appropriation of fields, rivers, lakes, and forests, leading to the expulsion of European peasants from their land and their forced conversion into factory workers during the Indus trial Revolution, through biopiracy, legalized by the agreements protecting intellectual property, the ancestral collective knowledge of peoples in all parts of the world is being expropriated and converted into private property, for whose use its own creators must pay. This represents the dispossession or private appropriation of intellectual commons (Shiva 1997, 10). The potential — but also real — impact of these ways of defining and imposing the defence of so - called intellectual property are multiple, yet another expression of the tendency, in the current process of globalization, to concentrate power in Northern businesses and countries, to the detriment of the poor majorities in the South. At stake are matters as critical as the survival of life-forms and choices that do not completely fit within the universal logic of the market, as well as rural nutritional self-sufficiency and access to food and health services for the planet’s underprivileged majorities. As a consequence of the establishment of patents on varieties of life - forms, and the appropriation/ expropriation of rural/ communal knowledge, by transnational seed and agrochemical companies, the patterns of rural production are changing ever more quickly, on a global scale. Peasants become less and less autonomous, and they depend more and more on expensive consumables they must purchase from transnational companies (Gaia Foundation and GRAIN 1998). These companies have also developed a “terminator†technology deliberately designed so that harvested seeds cannot germinate, forcing peasants to buy new seeds for each planting cycle (Ho and Traavik, n.d.; Raghavan, n.d.). All of this has had a profound impact, as much on the living conditions of millions of people as on genetic diversity on the planet Earth. The “freedom of commerce†that the interests of these transnational companies increasingly impose on peasants throughout the world is leading to a reduction in the genetic variety of many staple food crops. This reduction in genetic diversity, associated with an engineering view of agriculture and based on an extreme, industrial type of control over each phase of the productive process — with genetically modified seeds and the intensive use of agrochemicals — drastically reduces the auto-adaptive and regenerative ability of ecological systems. And nevertheless, the conservation of biodiversity requires the existence of diverse communities with diverse agricultural and medical systems that utilize diverse species in situ. Economic decentralization and diversification are necessary conditions for biodiversity conservation. (Shiva 1997, 88) Agricultural biodiversity has been conserved only when farmers have total control over their seeds. Monopoly rights regimens for seeds, either in the form of breeders’ rights or patents will have the same impact on in situ conservation of plant genetic resources as the alienation of rights of local communities has had on the erosion of tree cover and grasslands in Ethiopia, India and other biodiversity-rich regions. (99) 12 As much as for preserving genetic diversity — an indispensable condition of life — as for the survival of rural and indigenous peoples and cultures all over the planet — a plurality of ways of knowing must coexist, democratically. Current colonial trends toward an intensified, totalitarian monoculture of Eurocentric knowledge only lead to destruction and death. Biotechnology assumes we can master and commodify the building blocks of life - undermining solutions to poverty and famine and entrenching neoliberal dominanceMcAfee 8 (Kathleen McAfee, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, Neoliberalism on the molecular scale. Economic and genetic reductionism in biotechnology battles http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/GEI-readings/macafee-biotech.pdf) The past five years have seen heated international disputes about the patenting of genes, crop varieties, and genetic engineering techniques, about trade in biotechnology products, and about control of the world s ‘‘genetic resources’’––the raw-material inputs for medical and agricultural biotechnology. These biotechnology battles are being played out in the World Trade Organization (WTO), the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, the Conventional on Biological Diversity (CBD), and other international arenas. The United States government, intent on reinforcing the dominant position of its own biotechnology-based industries, has fought hard for the acceptance of genetically engineered crops, for liberalization of biotechnology trade, and for the worldwide standardization of private intellectual property rights to biotechnology and its products. Private-sector positions and US policy in these global fora are framed by a neoliberal approach to biotechnology regulation. This approach, I contend, depends upon two forms of reductionist discursive practices: molecular-genetic reductionism and economic reductionism. Economic-reductionist arguments are mobilized in international debates to support the private ownership and market-based management of biotechnology and the interests of biotechnology firms. These arguments, in turn, make use of genetic-reductionist representations of ‘‘genes’’ and ‘‘genetic codes’’. However, such representations are supported neither by the theories and practices of contemporary molecular biology nor by the actual experiences of scientists and farmers who work with genetically modified organisms. The discourse of molecular-genetic reductionism postulates specific traits that are ‘‘caused’’ by one or more ‘‘genes’’, whether in humans or fish, bacteria or corn. It conceptualizes genes as discrete entities: functional units of information which can be characterized precisely, counted, added or subtracted, altered, switched on and off, or moved from one organism or one species to another by means of genetic engineering. The metaphor of the determinant ‘‘gene’’, although appealing in its simplicity, is seriously misleading. Nevertheless, the notion of ‘‘genes’’ as unitary objects with stable, predictable properties provides conceptual support for treating genetic constructs as tradable commodities which are subject to market exchange and to the assumptions of neoclassical economics. The dominant paradigm of environmental resource management attempts to incorporate nature within this neoclassical economic framework, emphasizing the role of markets in the valuation and allocation of natural resources, including genetic information (Costanzaetal., 1997; Dixon/World Bank, 1997). The values of nature are equated with the prices, in actual or hypothetical international markets, of natural resources such as timber and medicinal-plant samples and of ecosystem services such as tourism sites, CO 2 sequestration, and water filtration. This approach is reductionist in that it treats nature and its components as quantifiable and as separable, at least conceptually, from their contexts in living nature and society, while it obscures the effects of political, cultural, and ecological factors on market transactions and resource values. The two discourses of economic and molecular genetic reductionism are linked and mutually reinforcing in multilateral policy debates. Doubly reductionist representations of genetics and biotechnology are mobilized by those stress biotechnology s scientific status and advocate minimal biotechnology regulation and globalized intellectual property rights (IPRs). Such representations are critiqued by those who stress the risks and limitations of technological solutions to problems of hunger and poverty and the need for policies that are specific to particular ecosystems, socioeconomic conditions, and local and national development strategies. Disputes over these issues have embroiled multilateral fora, especially the WTO and its Agreement on Trade-RelatedIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPS),the CBD and its newBiosafety Protocol, and the 2001 international Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. These disputes involve shifting alliances among the US and European and developing countries, tensions between social movements and states, and collisions between emerging institutions of environmental and economic governance. More than biotechnology per se is at stake: conflict over biotechnology has become a flashpoint of resistance to globalized governance under US hegemony.
  5. Pan2k4

    Big affs

    Has anyone thought of how to work in a Bataille expenditure aff on this topic?
  6. Based on the 2AR, I vote for Zoidberg. Because why not Zoidberg? Also, congrats at state! (Will post Kumbaya lyrics later)
  7. Here the May Card: Trying to change the world is a liberating experience that creates a new and life-affirming ontology that is crucial to living in the world. Rejecting this leads to a hatred of the world and all the K’s impacts. May 05 (Todd May, Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University. “To Change the World, to Celebrate Life,†Philosophy and Social Criticism 31 (5-6)) And what happens from there? From the meetings, from the rallies, from the petitions and the teach-ins? What happens next? There is, after all, always a next. If you win this time – end aid to the contras, divest from apartheid South Africa, force debt-forgiveness by technologically advanced countries – there is always more to do. There is the de-unionization of workers, there are gay rights, there is Burma, there are the Palestinians, the Tibetans. There will always be Tibetans, even if they aren’t in Tibet, even if they aren’t Asian. But is that the only question: Next? Or is that just the question we focus on? What’s the next move in this campaign, what’s the next campaign? Isn’t there more going on than that? After all, engaging in political organizing is a practice, or a group of practices. It contributes to making you who you are. It’s where the power is, and where your life is, and where the intersection of your life and those of others (many of whom you will never meet, even if it’s for their sake that you’re involved) and the buildings and streets of your town is. This moment when you are seeking to change the world, whether by making a suggestion in a meeting or singing at a rally or marching in silence or asking for a signature on a petition, is not a moment in which you don’t exist. It’s not a moment of yours that you sacrifice for others so that it no longer belongs to you. It remains a moment of your life, sedimenting in you to make you what you will become, emerging out of a past that is yours as well. What will you make of it, this moment? How will you be with others, those others around you who also do not cease to exist when they begin to organize or to protest or to resist? The illusion is to think that this has nothing to do with you. You’ve made a decision to participate in world-changing. Will that be all there is to it? Will it seem to you a simple sacrifice, for this small period of time, of who you are for the sake of others? Are you, for this moment, a political ascetic? Asceticism like that is dangerous. Freedom lies not in our distance from the world but in the historically fragile and contingent ways we are folded into it, just as we ourselves are folds of it. If we take Merleau-Ponty’s Being not as a rigid foundation or a truth behind appearances but as the historical folding and refolding of a univocity, then our freedom lies in the possibility of other foldings. Merleau-Ponty is not insensitive to this point. His elusive concept of the invisible seems to gesture in this direction. Of painting, he writes: the proper essence of the visible is to have a layer of invisibility in the strict sense, which it makes present as a certain absence … There is that which reaches the eye directly, the frontal properties of the visible; but there is also that which reaches it from below … and that which reaches it from above … where it no longer participates in the heaviness of origins but in free accomplishments.9 Elsewhere, in The Visible and the Invisible, he says: if … the surface of the visible, is doubled up over its whole extension with an invisible reserve; and if, finally, in our flesh as the flesh of things, the actual, empirical, ontic visible, by a sort of folding back, invagination, or padding, exhibits a visibility, a possibility that is not the shadow of the actual but its principle … an interior horizon and an exterior horizon between which the actual visible is a partitioning and which, nonetheless, open indefinitely only upon other visibles …10 What are we to make of these references? We can, to be sure, see the hand of Heidegger in them. But we may also, and for present purposes more relevantly, see an intersection with Foucault’s work on freedom. There is an ontology of freedom at work here, one that situates freedom not in the private reserve of an individual but in the unfinished character of any historical situation. There is more to our historical juncture, as there is to a painting, than appears to us on the surface of its visibility. The trick is to recognize this, and to take advantage of it, not only with our thoughts but with our lives. And that is why, in the end, there can be no such thing as a sad revolutionary. To seek to change the world is to offer a new form of life-celebration. It is to articulate a fresh way of being, which is at once a way of seeing, thinking, acting, and being acted upon. It is to fold Being once again upon itself, this time at a new point, to see what that might yield. There is, as Foucault often reminds us, no guarantee that this fold will not itself turn out to contain the intolerable. In a complex world with which we are inescapably entwined, a world we cannot view from above or outside, there is no certainty about the results of our experiments. Our politics are constructed from the same vulnerability that is the stuff of our art and our daily practices. But to refuse to experiment is to resign oneself to the intolerable; it is to abandon both the struggle to change the world and the opportunity to celebrate living within it. And to seek one aspect without the other – life-celebration without world-changing, world-changing without life-celebration – is to refuse to acknowledge the chiasm of body and world that is the wellspring of both. If we are to celebrate our lives, if we are to change our world, then perhaps the best place to begin to think is our bodies, which are the openings to celebration and to change, and perhaps the point at which the war within us that I spoke of earlier can be both waged and resolved. That is the fragile beauty that, in their different ways, both Merleau- Ponty and Foucault have placed before us. The question before us is whether, in our lives and in our politics, we can be worthy of it.
  8. Couldn't find anything. At best, an internal link to Taiwanese war. Then read Taiwan war goes nuclear Chinese growth prevents global economic collapse, war over Taiwan and CCP collapse Lewis '08 [Research Director of the Economic Research Council, 2008, “Industry will put innovation on fast track,†World Finance, May 13th, Available Online at http://www.worldfinance.com/home/final-bell/the-nightmare-of-a-chinese-economic-collapse] In 2001, Gordon Chang authored a global bestseller "The Coming Collapse of China." To suggest that the world’s largest nation of 1.3 billion people is on the brink of collapse is understandably for many, a deeply unnerving theme. And many seasoned “China Hands†rejected Chang’s thesis outright. In a very real sense, they were of course right. China’s expansion has continued over the last six years without a hitch. After notching up a staggering 10.7 percent growth last year, it is now the 4th largest economy in the world with a nominal GDP of $2.68trn. Yet there are two Chinas that concern us here; the 800 million who live in the cities, coastal and southern regions and the 500 million who live in the countryside and are mainly engaged in agriculture. The latter – which we in the West hear very little about – are still very poor and much less happy. Their poverty and misery do not necessarily spell an impending cataclysm – after all, that is how they have always have been. But it does illustrate the inequity of Chinese monetary policy. For many years, the Chinese yen has been held at an artificially low value to boost manufacturing exports. This has clearly worked for one side of the economy, but not for the purchasing power of consumers and the rural poor, some of who are getting even poorer. The central reason for this has been the inability of Chinese monetary policy to adequately support both Chinas. Meanwhile, rural unrest in China is on the rise – fuelled not only by an accelerating income gap with the coastal cities, but by an oft-reported appropriation of their land for little or no compensation by the state. According to Professor David B. Smith, one of the City’s most accurate and respected economists in recent years, potentially far more serious though is the impact that Chinese monetary policy could have on many Western nations such as the UK. Quite simply, China’s undervalued currency has enabled Western governments to maintain artificially strong currencies, reduce inflation and keep interest rates lower than they might otherwise be. We should therefore be very worried about how vulnerable Western economic growth is to an upward revaluation of the Chinese yuan. Should that revaluation happen to appease China’s rural poor, at a stroke, the dollar, sterling and the euro would quickly depreciate, rates in those currencies would have to rise substantially and the yield on government bonds would follow suit. This would add greatly to the debt servicing cost of budget deficits in the USA, the UK and much of euro land. A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a decline in China’s economic growth rate. That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep China’s society stable – ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating unemployment - the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesn’t end there. That will at best bring a global recession. The crucial point is that communist authoritarian states have at least had some success in keeping a lid on ethnic tensions – so far. But when multi-ethnic communist countries fall apart from economic stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they don’t become successful democracies overnight. Far from it. There’s a very real chance that China might go the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union – chaos, civil unrest and internecine war. In the very worst case scenario, a Chinese government might seek to maintain national cohesion by going to war with Taiwan – whom America is pledged to defend.
  9. Pan2k4

    Transhumanism K

    Pretty sure Nick Bostrom writes a lot about transhumanism
  10. That's ok. I went 200 over the word limit, so if you wanted to do 1500-1600 for the 2AR I'd totally be OK with that. In fact, I insist because now I feel bad. Well, the long-awaited 2NR. thank you to everyone who participated, watched, or judged. This debate was great and I had a lot of fun Order: T, CP, DA, Solvency, Human Rights Adv https://www.dropbox.com/s/x5a2w9y6wv5xabn/2NR%20V-Debate.docx
  11. I'm not sure but I think this is similar to what you might possibly be getting at: Resist the attempt to take everything and lay the world open to analysis. We must maintain the intelligence of mystery or suffer planetary symbolic extinctionBaudrillard 2010 CARNIVAL AND CANNIBAL p 70-3 In the Promethean Perspective of unlimited growth, there is not merely the desire to make everything function, to liberate everything, but also the desire to make everything signify. Everything is to be brought under the aegis of meaning (and reality). In some cases we know that knowledge will forever escape us. But in the immense majority of cases we do not even know what has disappeared and has always already eluded us. Now, science makes a systematic effort to eradicate this secret area, this "constellation of the mystery" and to eliminate this demarcation line between the violable and the inviolable. All that is concealed must be revealed; everything must be reducible to analysis. Hence the whole effort (particularly since the death of God, who restrained this attempt to break open the natural world) leads us to an extension of the field of meaning (of knowledge, analysis, objectivity, and reality). Now, everything inclines us to think that this accumulation, this over-production, this proliferation of meaning, constitutes (a little like the accumulation of greenhouse gases) a virtual threat for the species (and for the planet), since it is gradually destroying, through experimentation, that domain of the inviolable that serves us, as it were, as an ozone layer and protects us from the worst - from the lethal irradiation and obliteration of our symbolic space. Shouldn't we then, work precisely in the opposite direction, to extend the domain of the inviolable? To restrain the production of greenhouse gases, to reinforce that constellation of the mystery and that intangible barrier that serves as a screen against the welter of information, interaction and universal exchange. The countervailing work exists - it is the work of thought. Not the analytic work of an understanding of causes, of the dissection of an object-world, not the work of a critical, enlightened thought, but another form of understanding or intelligence, which is the intelligence of mystery.
  • Create New...