Uploaded by jeffdaniels42069

Neg Sept-Oct 2017

Link Chain: National service increases globalization, globalization increases crop demand, which
increases use and creation of GMOs, which kill off bees. Therefore increasing national service by making
it mandatory would kill of the bees and then eventually lead to the extinction of the human race.
Resolved: In the United States, national service ought to be compulsory.
National Service:
Cambridge Dictionary
the system in some countries by which young people, especially men, are ordered by law to spend a period of
time in the armed forces
Joey Cardillo, 2013, The Dangers of GMOS: A Quick Guide On Monsanto & Toxic GMOs In Our Food Supply ,
Joey Cardillo has been actively involved in the health & wellness community since 2009, through his popular blog
www.versatilehealth.com, Kindle Edition. p. – page number at the end of the car
To put this as simply as possible, the acronym “GMO” stands for “Genetically Modified Organism.” In other words,
an organism (like a plant, fish, and even some types of bacteria) that has genetic material, which has been
rearranged or modified in some way, shape, or form. These genes can then be added to other organisms by
means of “boosting” characteristics in some regards. There are three basic components to creating a GMO:
A gene that is going to be transferred.
The receiving organism.
The transfer vector – vehicle by which genes are transferred.
This entire process involves the insertion, mutation, modification or subtraction of genetic material in order
to alter the physical state of another. Cardillo, Joey (2013-07-02). The Dangers of GMOs: A Quick Guide On
Monsanto & Toxic GMOs In Our Food Supply (Kindle Locations 73-74). Versatile Health. Kindle Edition.
Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a
process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the
environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-beingin
societies around the world.
Ought is defined as should, expected to or compelled by duty or desire.
required; mandatory; obligatory: compulsory education. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compulsory
Value: Morality The definition for moral from merriam webster is “of or relating to principles of
right and wrong in behavior “
Value Criterion: Consequentialism Merriam Webster “the theory that the value and especially the
moral value of an act should be judged by the value of its consequences”
C1: Increased national service increases globalization
Globalization and militarism should be seen as two sides of the same coin. On one side,
globalization promotes the conditions that lead to unrest, inequality, conflict, and, ultimately, war.
On the other side, globalization fuels the means to wage war by protecting and promoting the
military industries needed to produce sophisticated weaponry. This weaponry, in turn, is used-or its
use is threatened-to protect the investments of transnational corporations and their shareholders.
1. Globalization Promotes Inequality, Unrest, and Conflict
Economic inequality is growing; more conflict and civil wars are emerging. It is important to see a
connection between these two situations.
Proponents of global economic integration argue that globalization promotes peace and economic
development of the Third World. They assert that "all boats rise with the tide" when investors and
corporations make higher profits. However, there is precious little evidence that this is true and
substantial evidence of the opposite.
The United Nation's Human Development Report (U.N. Development Programme, 1999: 3) noted that
globalization is creating new threats to human security. Economic inequality between Northern and
Southern nations has worsened, not improved. There are more wars being fought today-mostly in
the Third World-than there were during the Cold War. Most are not wars between countries, but
are civil wars where the majority of deaths are civilians, not soldiers.
The mainstream media frequently oversimplify the causes of the wars, with claims they are rooted in
religious or ethnic differences. A closer inspection reveals that the underlying source of such conflicts is
economic in nature. Financial instability, economic inequality, competition for resources, and
environmental degradation-all root causes of war-are exacerbated by globalization.
The Asian financial meltdown of 1997 to 1999 involved a terrible human cost. The economies of
Thailand, South Korea, and Indonesia crumbled in the crisis. These countries, previously held up by
neoliberal economists as the darlings of globalization, were reduced to riots and financial ruin. The
International Monetary Fund (IMF) stepped in to rescue foreign investors and impose austerity programs
that opened the way for an invasion by foreign corporations that bought up assets devalued by capital
flight and threw millions of people out of work. Political upheaval and conflict ensued, costing thousands
of lives.
Meanwhile, other countries watched as their neighbors suffered the consequences of greater global
integration. In India, citizens faced corporate recolonization, which spawned a nationalistic political
movement. Part of the political program was the development of nuclear weapons-seen by many as the
internationally accepted currency of power. Nuclear tests have put an already conflict-ridden region on
the brink of nuclear war.
2. Globalization Fuels the Means to Wage War
The world economic system promotes military economies over civilian economies, pushing national
economic policies toward military spending. The World Trade Organization (WTO), one of the main
instruments of globalization, is largely based on the premise that the only legitimate role for a government
is to provide for a military to protect the interests of the country and a police force to ensure order within.
The WTO attacks governments' social and environmental policies that reduce corporate profits, and it has
succeeded in having national laws that protect the environment struck down. Yet the WTO gives
exemplary protection to government actions that develop, arm, and deploy armed forces and supply a
military establishment. Article X~ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows
governments free reign for actions taken in the interest of national security.
The Military-Corporate Complex
Since the end of the Cold War, President Eisenhower's 196.0s-era military-industrial complex has been
fundamentally challenged by globalization. Globalization has weakened the powers of the nation-state,
while freeing corporations to move profits and operations across national boundaries. Defense/military
contractors, once considered part of the national industrial base and regulated and nurtured as such, are
becoming detached from the nation-state and are able to pursue their interests independently.
Globalization and the transnationalization of defense / military corporations have replaced the militaryindustrial complex of the Cold War economy with a military-corporate complex of the new global
economy. This is based upon the dominance of corporate interests over those of the state. The weakened
state is no longer able to reign in weapons corporations and is trapped increasingly by corporate interests:
greater military spending, state subsidies, and a liberalization of the arms trade.
The Threat of Military Force Is Used to Protect Corporate Interests
According to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, "the hidden hand of the market will never
work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United
States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps" (Friedman, 1999).
Friedman illuminates the strategic relationship that exists between corporations and militaries. As
globalization extends the reach of corporate interests around the world, a matching military capacity must
be deployed to protect those interests. This is the underlying reason the U.S. military maintains the
capacity wage two major wars in different regions of the world simultaneously.
Globalization is driving a global war economy and creating the conditions for tremendous loss of human
life. Many writers and researchers have documented the decline in human rights, social justice,
environmental standards, and democracy caused by globalization. The inevitable outcome of
globalization will be more wars-especially in the Third World where globalization has its harshest effects.
Meanwhile, the elites of the industrialized world are confident that the global economy will continue to
provide them with wealth created from the resources and labor of the Third World. Their technologically
advanced militaries will protect them and their investments, insulating them from the violent effects of
What is required is a complete reassessment of the current global economic system, with the goal of
promoting genuine human security and development. Global financial institutions, such as the World
Trade Organization, that do not promote these goals must be revised or scrapped completely and replaced
with a system based upon principles of equity, peace, and democracy.
C2: Globalization increases use of GMOs
Jim Goodman on Jan 4, 2009
With the arrival of 2009, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
notes nearly a billion people a day go hungry worldwide. While India supplies Switzerland
with 80 percent of its wheat, 350 million Indians are food-insecure. Rice prices have nearly
tripled since early 2007 because, according to the International Rice Research Institute,
rice-growing land is being lost to industrialization, urbanization, and shifts to grain crops
for animal feed
C3: GMOs kill bees, causing extinction
But scientists believe that exposure to toxic pesticides is only one factor that has led to the decline of
honey bees in recent years. The destruction and fragmentation of bee habitats, as a result of land
development and the spread of monoculture agriculture, deprives pollinators of their diverse natural food
supply. This has already led to the extinction of a number of wild bee species. The planting of
genetically modified organism (GMO) crops – some of which now contain toxic insecticides within
their genetic structure – may also be responsible for poisoning bees and weakening their immune
Every spring millions of bee colonies are trucked to the Central Valley of California and other
agricultural areas to replace the wild pollinators, which have all but disappeared in many parts of the
country. These bees are routinely fed high-fructose corn syrup instead of their own nutritious honey. And
in an effort to boost productivity, the queens are now artificially inseminated, which has led to a
disturbing decline in bee genetic diversity. Bees are also dusted with chemical poisons to control mites
and other pathogens that have flourished in the overcrowded commercial colonies.
In 1923, Rudolph Steiner, the German founder of biodynamic agriculture, a precursor of the modern
organic movement, predicted that within a hundred years artificial industrial techniques used to breed
honey bees would lead to the species’ collapse. His prophecy was right on target!
Honey bees have been likened to the canaries in the coal mine. Their vanishing is nature’s way of
telling us that conditions have deteriorated in the world around us. Bees won’t survive for long if
we don’t change our commercial breeding practices and remove deadly toxins from their
environment. A massive pollinator die-off would imperil world food supplies and devastate
ecosystems that depend on them. The loss of these creatures might rival climate change in its
impact on life on earth.
Still, this is a disaster that does not need to happen. Germany and France have already banned
pesticides that have been implicated in the deaths of bees. There is still time to save the bees by
working with nature rather than against it, according to environmentalist and author Bill McKibben:
“Past a certain point, we can’t make nature conform to our industrial model. The collapse of beehives is a
warning – and the cleverness of a few beekeepers in figuring out how to work with bees not as masters
but as partners offers a clear-eyed kind of hope for many of our ecological dilemmas.”
GM crops in sub-Saharan Africa will lead to the loss of biodiversity, kill earthworms and create strains of
super-viruses that devastate eco-systems
Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Peter Rosset, Food First/Institute for Food and
Development Policy, Oakland, California October 1999 Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure
food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world
7. The global fight for market share markets is leading companies to massively deploy transgenic crops around the world (more than 30 million
hectares in l998) without proper advance testing of short- or long-term impacts on human health and ecosystems. In the U.S., private sector
pressure led the White House to decree "no substantial difference" between altered and normal seeds, thus evading normal FDA and EPA testing.
Confidential documents made public in an on-going class action lawsuit have revealed that the FDAs own scientists do not agree with this
determination. One reason is that many scientists are concerned that the large scale use of transgenic crops poses a series of environmental risks
that threaten the sustainability of agriculture (Goldberg, l992; Paoletti and Pimentel l996; Snow and Moran l997; Rissler and Mellon l996;
Kendall et al l997 and Royal Society l998): The trend to create broad international markets for single products, is simplifying cropping systems
and creating genetic uniformity in rural landscapes. History has shown that a huge area planted to a single crop variety is very vulnerable to new
matching strains of pathogens or insect pests. Furthermore, the widespread use of homogeneous transgenic varieties will unavoidably lead to
"genetic erosion," as the local varieties used by thousands of farmers in the developing world are replaced by the new seeds (Robinson l996). 2.
The use of herbicide resistant crops undermine the possibilities of crop diversification thus reducing agrobiodiversity in time and space (Altieri
l994). 3. The potential transfer through gene flow of genes from herbicide resistant crops to wild or semidomesticated relatives can lead to the
creation of superweeds (Lutman l999). 4. There is potential for herbicide resistant varieties to become serious weeds in other crops (Duke l996,
Holt and Le baron l990). 5. Massive use of Bt crops affects non-target organisms and ecological processes. Recent evidence shows that the Bt
toxin can affect beneficial insect predators that feed on insect pests present on Bt crops (Hilbeck et al l998), and that windblown
B. Bees are key to the food supply. Colony collapse risks human extinction
Hutaff 07 (Matt Hutaff, “Give Bees a Chance,” The Simon, May 1, , pg.
Rumor has it Albert Einstein once declared
humanity could only outlive the bee by about
four years. His reasoning was simple: "no more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." Nothing like entomological doomsday scenarios from a classical physicist, right? Nonetheless,
it looks like we're poised to find out if the godfather of relativity is right. Bees are disappearing at an alarming rate, particularly in the United States and Germany. And while it's
normal for hive populations to fall during colder winter months, the recent exodus is puzzling beekeepers and researchers around the world. Are we witnessing the death throes of
the human race firsthand? Will the bee go the way of the dodo? Not likely, but I'll tell you one thing – whatever's driving the collapse of the bee population, it's man-made. "During
the last three months of 2006, we began to receive reports from commercial beekeepers of an alarming number of honey bee colonies dying in the eastern United States," says
Maryann Frazier, an apiarist with Penn State University. "Since the beginning of the year, beekeepers from all over the country have been reporting unprecedented losses,"
including one gentleman who's lost 800 of his 2,000 colonies in less than four months. Those losses are atypical. The usual causes of death, aside from climate, are varroa mites,
hive beetles, and wax moths, which infest hives weakened by sickness and malnutrition. Annual casualties tend to hover in the 20th percentile, and beekeepers work with
entomologists to protect their investments via antibiotics, miticides, and advanced pest management. Not so today. The current blight has spread across the country rapidly, leaving
abandoned hives full of uneaten food and unhatched larvae. Natural predators brave enough to enter behave erratically, "acting in a way you normally don' t expect them to act,"
says beekeeper Julianne Wooten. And whereas naturally abandoned hives are infested by other insects within a short period of time, hives affected by what is tentatively labeled
colony collapse disorder (CCD) are avoided. California and Texas have been hit particularly hard by the sudden disappearance of bees, but dozens of other states are reporting
major losses as well. And when you consider bees are big business as well as a critical part of the food chain, that vanishing act is no laughing matter. Consider:
bees are
essential for pollinating over 90 varieties of vegetables and fruits, including apples, avocados, blueberries, and
cherries; pollination increases the yield and quality of crops by approximately $15 billion annually; and California's almond industry alone contributes $2 billion to the local
economy, and depends on 1.4 million bees, which are brought in from all over the United States. Bees stimulate the food supply as well as the economy. So what's the cause of
colony collapse? Suspicions are pointed in several different directions, including cell phone transmissions and agricultural pesticides, some of which are known to be poisonous to
bees. But if these two factors are responsible, why are the deaths not a global phenomenon? The bee collapse began in isolated pockets before progressing rapidly around the
nation. If cell phones are to blame, shouldn't the effect have been simultaneous, and witnessed years ago? And if pesticides are strictly to blame, shouldn't beekeepers near major
. Several
scientists have come forward with the startling claim that genetically modified food –
you know, that blessing from above that would solve famine and put food in the belly of every undernourished, Third World child – is destroying bees. How
farm systems be able to track those pollutants and narrow the field of possible suspects? Perhaps they have – and the culprit is bigger than we imagine
could something so wondrous as pest-resistant corn kill millions upon millions of bees? Simple – by producing so much natural pesticide that bees are either driven mad or away
Most genetically-modified seeds have a transplanted segment of DNA that creates a
well-known bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), in its cells. Normally Bt is not a problem – it's a naturally-occurring pesticide that's been used as a
spray for years by farmers looking to control crop damage from butterflies. And it's effective at helping beekeepers keep bees alive, too – Bt is sprayed under hive lids to keep
"instead of the bacterial solution being sprayed on the plant,
where it is eaten by the target insect, the genes that contain the insecticidal traits are
incorporated into the genome of the farm crop," writes biologist and beekeeper John
those pesky wax moths from attacking. But
McDonald. "As the transformed plant grows, these Bt genes are replicated along with the plant genes so
that each cell contains its own poison pill that kills the target insect. "Canadian beekeepers have detected
the disappearance of the wax moth in untreated hives, apparently a result of worker bees foraging in fields of transgenic canola plants. [And] the planting of transgenic corn and
soybean has increased exponentially, according to statistics from farm states. Tens of millions of acres of transgenic crops are allowing Bt genes to move off crop fields."
McDonald's analysis stands up under scrutiny. A former agronomist has commented that the one trial of GM crops in the Netherlands quickly led to colony collapse within 100
kilometers of the fields, and it's reasonable to hypothesize nature's pollinators would bear an averse reaction to plants with poison coursing through every stem. "The amount of Bt
in these plants is enough to trigger allergies in some people, and irritate the skin and eyes of farmers who handle the crops," writes Patrick Wiebe. "In India, when sheep were used
to clear a field of leftover Bt cotton, several sheep died after eating it." If it can kill a sheep, it can certainly kill a bee. What can be done? Precious little if gene-modified plants are
the genesis of colony collapse.
"There is no way to keep genetically modified genes from escaping into
the wild," says Mike Rivero. "Wild varieties of corn in Mexico have been found to contain artificial genes
carried by the wind and bees. Indeed it is probable that the gene that makes the plant cells manufacture a
pesticide has already escaped, which means this problem will only spread. "This is far more dangerous than
a toxic spill, which confines itself to the original spill and the downwind/downstream plumes . A mistake
in a gene, once allowed into the wild, can spread across the entire planet." Genetically-modified
food is produced by companies such as Monsanto (how many of its scientists do you think drive a hybrid?). Despite a number of tests, the food created by these gene-spliced crops
are considered a failure. It consistently makes animals ill, increases liver toxicity, and damages kidneys. What's the incent ive to grow this food? What's the incentive to eat it? In
our dash to trademark the very building blocks of our food supply, companies experimenting with "upgrading" crops may have irreparably damaged one of nature's most important
contributors. Instead of approaching famine from a balanced perspective, corporations have patented the right to subsist. If Einstein's lesser-known theory is right, they have
unwittingly become Shiva, the destroyer of worlds.