Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Resolved: The appropriation
of outer space by private
entities is unjust.
:
Copyright 2021 by Champion Briefs, LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or
retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
copyright owner and the publisher.
Resources for Speech & Debate
Our briefs help students expand their knowledge
base, improve their analytical skills, and prepare
for competition. Each brief includes:
Varied perspectives from expert writers
In-depth topic analyses
Cited evidence sorted by argument
Peer-reviewed and edited guidance
Background information & topic framing
Bac
Lincoln-Douglas
Public Forum
Non-Subscription: $89.97
Subscription: $79.99
Non-Subscription: $179.94
Subscription: $159.99
Includes briefs for every Lincoln-Douglas debate topic
from September through April plus briefs for the novice
topic and for NSDA National Tournament
Includes briefs for every Public Forum debate topic
from September through April plus briefs for the NCFL
and NSDA National Tournaments
PF/LD Combo
Non-Subscription: $269.91
Subscription: $229.99
We accept purchase orders and all major credit cards
www.ChampionBriefs.com
The Evidence Standard
Jan/Feb 2022
The Evidence Standard
Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources
that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:
1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit
deception.
4. We will never knowingly support or distribute studies, news articles, or other
materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information that we distribute.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve
the goals and vision of this activity.
These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to
advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs
5
Letter from the Editor
Jan/Feb 2022
Letter from the Editor
The 2021-2022 debate season continues as we get a new topic to investigate. This time
we get to explore the final frontier with the topic Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by
private entities is unjust.
This resolution provides many interesting avenues for debaters to explore are so many
questions and ways to approach this topic that no matter your preferred style of debate you’ll
be able to find supportive literature. Our researchers took a balanced approach to the topic to
provide evidence that will be helpful to debaters of all styles. In this edition you’ll find
traditional arguments that defend the concept of property rights, utilitarian ones that look at
the costs and benefits of private space commercialization, and finally arguments that critically
examine the motivations behind space explorations.
Growing up, I can remember watching in awe the very first time I saw the space shuttle
launch and like the generations before me who saw the Apollo missions, I began to dream of a
future with humanity living out amongst the stars. Generations of explorers have pioneered
new trails whether they be across mountains and valleys or the vast oceans yet our ventures
into the cosmos are just beginning. Each time an explorer seeks out something new, they do
things someone once said was impossible. Sailing out of the sight of land, breaking the bonds of
gravity, and reaching the moon were all once thought to be difficult to accomplish. Entering the
new year with this new topic I’m reminded of a quote by the first American woman in space ,
Sally Ride: “The stars don't look bigger, but they do look brighter.” Keep reaching for the stars,
you may not get to them but as long as you’re reaching they’ll get brighter . Good luck!
Daniel Shatzkin
Editor-in-Chief
Champion Briefs
6
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard ....................................................................... 5
Letter from the Editor ......................................................................... 6
Table of Contents ............................................................................... 7
Topic Analyses .................................................................................. 20
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage ..................................................................................................... 21
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher ......................................................................................................... 32
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown .............................................................................................................. 40
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek ...................................................................................................... 49
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi ................................................................................................. 59
Affirmative Cases.............................................................................. 66
AFF: International Law AC ................................................................. 67
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits appropriation by private actors even if it doesn't mention them by
name---this is the best reading of the treaty text. ................................................................................ 68
The distinction between sovereignty and control over space objects, while coherent, does not justify
property rights in space. ........................................................................................................................ 70
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits private property in space---Article II bars “national appropriation,”
and states are responsible for the private companies incorporated in their jurisdictions. .................. 71
Because private property rights derive from the authority of a national sovereign, the Outer Space
Treaty's prohibition on “national appropriation” of space includes the private sector. ....................... 73
International law is key to norms of care and respect between states, and it's most consistent with
other frameworks such as util or Kantiansm. ........................................................................................ 75
The Outer Space Treaty is binding for countries that ratified it, and it's succeeded for over 50 years
despite lacking an enforcement mechanism. ........................................................................................ 77
Treaties are far more relevant in the international sphere than customary international law---the best
data proves. ........................................................................................................................................... 78
The “common heritage of mankind” doctrine in international law rules out profit-driven appropriation
of outer space resources. Exploitation of space resources must be managed by an international
authority, not private actors, for the benefit of all people. .................................................................. 80
Article II of the OST precludes private sector appropriation. ................................................................ 81
States authorizing appropriation are functionally delegating corporations as sovereigns, which
violates the prohibition on “national appropriation.”........................................................................... 82
The Moon Treaty of 1979 prohibits private sector appropriation. ....................................................... 83
Even though the US, Russia, and China have not ratified the Moon Treaty, it still has binding force and
significance as customary international law.......................................................................................... 85
Non-appropriation is customary international law. .............................................................................. 88
Champion Briefs
7
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
The non-appropriation principle in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty prevents conflicts between
states in space---that turns util. ............................................................................................................ 89
The text, history, and intent of the Outer Space Treaty confirm that it prohibits private property in
space as much as state-owned property. .............................................................................................. 90
Article II is legally binding---it has more legal force than a mere resolution by the UN General
Assembly. .............................................................................................................................................. 92
AFF: Public Appropriation AC ............................................................ 94
Appropriation of outer space should be public, not private. A Galactic Wealth Fund should
democratize the benefits of resource extraction in space, like the sovereign wealth fund for oil
revenue in Alaska. ................................................................................................................................. 95
Private appropriation of asteroid resources will create artificial scarcity to guarantee profits, when
asteroid mining could ensure that the world has an unlimited energy supply. An international body
should take asteroid mining out of private hands to fairly distribute the wealth and other gains of
asteroid mining. ..................................................................................................................................... 97
Because public funding is responsible for innovations in space exploration, it's only right that the
gains of appropriation should be socialized as well. ............................................................................. 99
The ASTEROIDS Act proves that proponents of private appropriation of asteroids would create a legal
regime that simultaneously bans public appropriation. ..................................................................... 100
The private sector doesn't usually have the incentive to innovate without generous public support---in
exchange for supporting outer space appropriation, the US government should receive equity in
private space companies. .................................................................................................................... 101
Through a partial ownership system, the international community can run a market in space
resources without any company engaging in appropriation. .............................................................. 105
The UN Law of the Sea Treaty sets a precedent for public ownership and redistribution of space
resources. ............................................................................................................................................ 108
Moral concern for the common good, as opposed to purely private pursuits, is a prerequisite to any
political community. ............................................................................................................................ 109
If states collectively amend the non-appropriation principle of the Outer Space Treaty to permit
public appropriation of asteroids, that prevents the wars and chaos that would result from conflicting
private developments. ........................................................................................................................ 113
An international body that redistributes the benefits of appropriation to non space-faring nations will
mitigate conflicts between nations. .................................................................................................... 114
Redistributing the benefits of space mining to developing countries is key to achieving the UN's
Sustainable Development Goals. A global payment system is technically feasible............................. 115
AFF: Neoliberalism AC .................................................................... 116
The Left needs to engage with outer space policy---inaction cedes the political to corporations
developing space, which increases inequality. .................................................................................... 117
Capitalist development of outer space is integral to the expansionary logic of capital, which depends
upon “spatial fixes.” The extent to which the private space sector exalts the entrepreneurial self while
depending upon state support is the hypocrisy central to neoliberalism. .......................................... 120
Private sector appropriation of space is fundamentally about ensuring that capitalism can outlive the
Earth. ................................................................................................................................................... 126
Private sector appropriation of space is antithetical to the idea of space as a global commons--consequently, appropriation will only benefit a tiny elite of rich space capitalists. ........................... 130
Champion Briefs
8
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Private sector appropriation of space depends upon a form of extractive capitalism that increases
wealth inequality. ................................................................................................................................ 133
Neoliberalism precludes ethics by reducing decision-making to economic self-interest.................... 134
Private appropriation of outer space is fundamentally about making outer space safe for capitalism
and perpetuating the logic of profit on Earth...................................................................................... 136
Private appropriation of outer space by billionaires is part of capitalism's drive toward expansion. 138
Capitalism depends upon an insatiable desire to geographically expand the market---this is the
“spatial fix.” ......................................................................................................................................... 140
The social contradictions of capital's geographic expansion lead to an extreme concentration of
income and wealth in the hands of the richest people, and ongoing conflicts between territorial
regimes. ............................................................................................................................................... 144
AFF: Global Security AC ................................................................... 146
National appropriation of territory by any means in space violates the article 2 of the Outer Space
Treaty. ................................................................................................................................................. 147
Enterprise rights allow for extraction and commercialization while not extending ownership over
territory in outer space. ...................................................................................................................... 148
Ownership claims in space risk conflict—empirically sovereignty is enforced via the military. ......... 149
The non-appropriation doctrine helps ensure peaceful activities in space......................................... 150
Recognizing private ownership of is functionally national appropriation. It’s a distinction without a
difference. ........................................................................................................................................... 151
Enterprise rights would encourage diplomacy between states to resolve disputes before conflict
occurs. ................................................................................................................................................. 152
Property rights will lead to the weaponization of space. .................................................................... 153
Interpretations of the Outer Space Treaty prevents private property rights. ..................................... 154
Weaponization risks nuclear war it. .................................................................................................... 156
AFF: Colonialism AC ........................................................................ 157
The appropriation of outer space by private entities perpetuates a colonial model of property rights
tied to national sovereignty. The “first come, first serve” model of appropriation will lead to unequal
outcomes that disadvantage the Global South. .................................................................................. 158
The outsourcing of outer space exploration to private corporations is connected to the legacy of
corporations' participation in colonialism. .......................................................................................... 163
Resisting colonial mindsets and policies should be the first ethical priority in debates about outer
space.................................................................................................................................................... 165
Private appropriation and commodification of space is connected to the historical legacy and presentday practices of colonialism. ............................................................................................................... 167
Attempts to colonize space have material harms for Indigenous people on Earth, in the form of
violent dispossession. .......................................................................................................................... 169
Megaconstellations of satellites, such as Starlink by SpaceX, cause light pollution---this is another
form of colonization because of the devastating effects it has on indigenous people. ...................... 171
Mining of asteroids and the Moon is antithetical to Indigenous cosmologies.................................... 173
Indigenous people are still silenced during consultation processes, so prior consultation fails to be an
alternative to the Aff. .......................................................................................................................... 175
Champion Briefs
9
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
The effort to colonize space is a form of colonial world-building linked to the racist legacy of
colonialism on Earth. Even though there aren't people living on the moon, space is built for people,
and that colonialist legacy will influence who is included in the space appropriation project. .......... 177
AFF: Borders AC .............................................................................. 180
Property rights are inextricably tied to border creation and maintenance. ....................................... 181
That means that property rights, when extended to space, inevitably lead to the creation of borders.
............................................................................................................................................................. 183
Conceptual neoliberal geopolitics such as borders exploit the entire world - voting negative blows that
up even further.................................................................................................................................... 185
Borders create a global apartheid and entrench inequality - in space, this scope increases. Drawing
borders upon the inky black of space creates the first interplanetary resource apartheid. ............... 189
Border securitization and enforcement structures slaughter innocents............................................. 190
The border regime is inherently violent and creates systematic conditions for violence to people and
to the environment - violence is artificially created in the name of border security. ......................... 191
Global border regime and hardening of borders results in violence and death – small changes that
allow people in under specific circumstances obscure the larger context of violence. ...................... 193
Borders are a form of capital accumulation -- only accepts bodies that possess talents desired by the
market. ................................................................................................................................................ 195
Closed borders recreate neocolonial and neoimperial relations and violate core human rights. ...... 197
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC ........................................................................ 200
Biosphere 2 marked the creation of a glass coffin - a confined region of space where humans could
excitedly play god for a little while and control the ecosystem down to the gas percentages in the air.
............................................................................................................................................................. 201
Populating Mars requires the creation of a biosphere on the planet - we tried it before and failed. 204
This is just another example of human attempts at material domination – the prior question is
reorienting our relationship towards technology. .............................................................................. 205
The human race faces extinction because of our own ego. In the production of the human “race” we
destroy civilizations as often as we make them. ................................................................................. 209
The resolution is an attempt at subjectivizing nature - to make it feel pain and happiness which forces
it to become interactive with humanity. This makes environmental destruction inevitable and
managerialism necessary. ................................................................................................................... 213
Pragmatic approaches to climate change such as “get off the rock” and “let's make mars green!”
reinforces a notion of subjectivity that creates the conditions for managerialism............................. 217
We'll never create the technology to terraform mars anyway - Biosphere 2 failed twice, and many
others have failed since - technology controls us, not the other way around. ................................... 221
The museumification of the environment just mirrors the museumification of the rest of reality - it's
an inevitability that everyone saw coming, yet an inevitability that none of us could handle. .......... 223
Any resistances to the affirmative will inevitably seek to map out endless possibilities which creates a
matrix of possibility that is impossible to navigate. ............................................................................ 225
The mapping of these simulations create Disneyland - the epitome of museumification. ................. 227
Disneyland and Museumification are representations - models of things caused by simulations. They
assume that political communication and planning are good, when in reality, we've already been
consumed by mass media and the fiction of hyperreality. ................................................................. 230
Champion Briefs
10
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
All this really means is that the more that we strive for perfection, the farther that we'll fall from it.
The absence of negativity doesn't mean all positive, it means nothingness....................................... 234
Negating creates a market for catastrophe - every shuttle that explodes on the launchpad is another
point for the negative. The more frequently we romanticize space colonization and exploration, the
more frequently egregious spectacles will occur for you to televise and cannibalize. ....................... 236
You have an ethical obligation to vote affirmative and refuse to perform the autopsy for the sake of
the negative. This means that you should sign your ballot RIGHT NOW and give your RFD............... 239
Fascism is the logical result of hyperreality- in a world without value or political referentials, the
masses may turn to the extreme valorization of race, nationality and gender. ................................. 241
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC.............................................................. 242
Anthropocentrism in the anthropocene is the largest threat that humanity faces - don't even think
about getting off the rock until we fix our ethics. ............................................................................... 243
The anthropocene exists as a matrix of subjugation - not just of nature, but of everything that doesn't
fit the paradigm of an ideal human. .................................................................................................... 245
This analysis in particular is important - leading scientists agree that Mars colonization is both most
likely and very near. ............................................................................................................................ 247
We're specifically anthropocentric towards nonhuman, alien sentience - fermi's paradox proves. .. 249
The human superiority demonstrated by the Kings of the Anthropocene is constructed - the world is
not without hope but voting aff is that only hope. ............................................................................. 251
The continuation of the Terran pattern of destruction cannot be allowed to continue. .................... 254
All discussions of colonization and exploration start from a point of human preservation. The question
is always how many humans we can safely cram onto a spaceship and not how do we fix the worlds
we've burned down. ............................................................................................................................ 255
This isn't an invitation for you to throw your hands up and say, “Well, I guess we'll save the Earth so
we can live.” You should save the Earth because it's the right thing to do. ........................................ 257
Worsening climate conditions make us one big happy planet of climate refugees -- anthropocentrism
is the root cause. ................................................................................................................................. 259
Anthropocentrism results in the inevitability of oppression. Slavery, genocide and war all began with
the primordial hierarchy...................................................................................................................... 261
This species-contingent paradigm creates unending genocidal violence against forms of life deemed
politically unqualified. ......................................................................................................................... 263
Speciesism is the foundational logic of oppression – multiple independent examples prove that the
tools learned through animal exploitation were the foundation of history’s largest incidents of racism
– elevating speciesism is crucial to form any effective response to the enormity of animal suffering.
............................................................................................................................................................. 265
Our argument isn’t an attempt to weigh species oppression against racial oppression – instead, the
obvious corollaries inform the necessity of taking action against species apartheid. ........................ 271
You must affirm - voting aff is necessary to shift our paradigm away anthropocentrism towards a
more equal eco-criticism that demands the deconstruction of the anthropocene. ........................... 275
Unraveling anthropocentric epistemology is the only method we can use to begin solving for
ontological harms – ontological criticisms fail to make the disembodied approach necessary to
understanding violence on Otherized bodies...................................................................................... 276
The shift away from a nation-state perspective is already occurring with rapid globalization. .......... 278
Warming sparks new epidemics. ......................................................................................................... 280
Champion Briefs
11
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Affirmative Responses to Negative Cases........................................ 281
A/2: Locke NC ................................................................................. 282
Granting unlimited private property rights to the resources from asteroids violates the Lockean
Proviso that “enough and as good” be left for others......................................................................... 282
The original appropriation principle leads to a free-for-all on space that causes conflict---the Aff's
cooperative model based on space as a commons is preferable. ....................................................... 285
Rights of first possession in outer space will only disadvantage developing countries, and cannot be
adequately enforced. .......................................................................................................................... 287
Space will get over-exploited if left to private appropriation---that violates the Lockean Proviso that
enough be left for others. ................................................................................................................... 288
Locke's theory of property rights fails---property rights depend upon government, and states
reasonably do not extend property rights to all instances of “mixing” one's labor. ........................... 289
The costs of commercial space activity will increase once space property rights are established, which
lessens access for others. .................................................................................................................... 291
Land grabs in outer space will interfere with free access to celestial bodies...................................... 292
Profitable activities in space are still possible without property rights............................................... 293
A/2: Hegel NC ................................................................................. 294
Private property is not integral to self-realization---Hegel overstated his claim. ............................... 294
Because Hegel's view of rationality is dialectical, even pre-property conditions are rational---the Neg's
framework is ahistorical. ..................................................................................................................... 296
The Neg's framework begs the question of the content of private property rights, which should
depend upon other considerations of justice. .................................................................................... 298
The Neg's individualistic notion of property rights overlooks the public subsidies that made space
exploration possible---that public support justifies the cooperative ethic which guides the Aff........ 300
Appropriation alone is insufficient under Hegel's theory of property rights---the transfer of property
via contract is necessary. ..................................................................................................................... 302
Private property rights aren't necessary to space development. The Moon Agreement, for example,
facilitates space mineral development without private property rights. ............................................ 303
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA ....................................................... 304
No environment impact - tipping points are wrong and we don't need biodiversity to survive......... 304
No impact to warming - empirics, adaptation, and their science is flawed. ....................................... 306
Overpopulation is good, a decrease in fertility rates fuels populist sentiment................................... 309
Low fertility rates increase cultural anxiety. ....................................................................................... 313
The colonization of Mars is literally impossible - laundry list of reasons. ........................................... 315
A/2: Science Leadership DA ............................................................ 317
Unilateral US pursuit of space mining will cause counterbalancing by China and Russia---only an
international framework such as the Aff will prevent space from becoming a Wild West. ................ 317
Assertion of US hegemony in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty will produce a “first dibs”
mindset that threatens the safety and ecological sustainability of space........................................... 319
Champion Briefs
12
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Unilateral recognition of private property rights in space will backfire with reputational costs to the
US for violating international law. That undermines leadership in the long-term. ............................. 321
American unilateralism fails to produce effective norms because it leaves out China, Russia, and India
from the process. ................................................................................................................................ 322
Unilateral norm setting by the US in space decks US-Russia relations---lack of cooperation between
space-faring powers means that space mining will cause even more debris...................................... 323
The Artemis Accords will fail to secure US leadership over space norms---it's already caused backlash
because the US went outside traditional diplomatic channels. .......................................................... 325
The US's bilateral model of norm-setting in space will set a precedent for unregulated, chaotic space
mining---a patchwork of conflicting national regulations will increase the prevalence of space junk.
............................................................................................................................................................. 327
Assertions of US leadership on space mining are antithetical to compliance with international law. 329
A/2: Space Debris DA ...................................................................... 331
Private companies lack jurisdiction to clean space debris. ................................................................. 331
No risk of miscalc. Debris strikes occur regularly and NASA has a robust tracking system. ................ 333
No risk--orbital debris tracking and maneuvering procedures limit risk of miscalculation and debris
strikes. ................................................................................................................................................. 334
Low risk of miscalc or escalation, collisions happen regularly and don't result in conflict. ................ 336
Increased private space activity increases debris................................................................................ 338
Property rights would increase space debris. ..................................................................................... 339
Private actors can resolve disputes the same way they would if they took place on Earth—no reason
for governmental territorial claims. .................................................................................................... 340
A/2: Internet Access DA .................................................................. 341
“Mega-constellations” of satellites for the purpose of Internet access will increase space debris from
satellite collisions---there's currently a legal vacuum that allows private actors to pursue megaconstellations without regulation. ...................................................................................................... 341
Mega-constellations for satellite Internet will cause a significant increase in space debris---a recent
near-collision involving SpaceX proves the risk is real. ....................................................................... 345
If space debris grows too widespread, it'll trigger the Kessler Syndrome, a problem where debris will
preclude access to outer space -- that turns all Neg impacts. ............................................................. 346
Guidelines for mega-constellations are non-binding and lead to free riding---only the Aff solves the
harms of mega-constellations. ............................................................................................................ 348
Satellite collisions will have a cascading effect that makes all satellite tech and routine space launches
impossible for decades. ....................................................................................................................... 349
Mega-constellations will contaminate and undermine astronomical observations. .......................... 350
Voluntary self-regulation by companies fails for megaconstellations. ............................................... 352
A/2: Mining DA ............................................................................... 353
Space based mining is not likely to be cost effective due to costs involved in the process. ............... 353
Space based mining creates massive amounts of debris. ................................................................... 354
Space based mining risks a resource war between the US and China. ............................................... 355
The barrier for commercialization of space isn’t property rights it’s capital. ..................................... 357
The resources mined from asteroids would be worth less than dirt................................................... 359
Champion Briefs
13
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Massive technological barriers to lunar mining--current tech can't survive the harsh lunar conditions.
............................................................................................................................................................. 361
A/2: Overview Effect/Space Tourism .............................................. 362
Space tourism is a hobby for the uber wealthy with little foreseeable benefits................................. 362
No guarantee space tourism ever becomes affordable enough for average people, until then it will be
reserved for the rich and famous making the effects limited. ............................................................ 364
You’re not going on vacation to space anytime soon, and current tourism efforts don’t even qualify as
orbital meaning there’s no access to the overview effect. ................................................................. 365
Suborbital flight won’t trigger the overview effect. ............................................................................ 366
The overview effect disproven—multiple warrants. ........................................................................... 367
Overview effect lack scientific support. .............................................................................................. 369
The Overview Effect can be obtained virtually. ................................................................................... 370
Negative Cases ............................................................................... 372
NEG: Locke NC : 9 ........................................................................... 373
Asteroid mining satisfies two of Locke's criteria for the justice of original appropriation, that it involve
the mixing of one's labor and that the resources in question will not spoil under one's care............ 374
Taxes and regulation of asteroid mining solve Locke's provision that “enough and as good” resources
be left for others.................................................................................................................................. 376
Locke's theory of private property rights is applicable to space. ........................................................ 377
Private entities have a property right in space resources precisely because outer space is presently a
commons, the prerequisite for original acquisition. ........................................................................... 379
Legalized asteroid mining by private entities is compatible with the recognition that we all share the
commons, yet private entities have the right to mix their labor with natural resources to claim
property. .............................................................................................................................................. 381
The prior appropriation doctrine (a) requires productive use, which puts a natural limit on the
property right, and (b) does not constitute a sovereign claim over land in space. ............................. 383
Private property is a moral entitlement predicated on productive use. ............................................. 384
Private property is a moral entitlement predicated on productive use. ............................................. 386
Property rights are key to efficient social cooperation---that turns util. ............................................ 388
NEG: Hegel NC ................................................................................ 389
A system of “common property” over private property fails to respect individual rights. ................. 390
Property claims by corporations are consistent with mutual recognition and respect in society, which
outweighs the effect of material inequalities on freedom. ................................................................. 392
Property rights are also rights against the state in addition to being rights between people, which
means that the state should not limit private appropriation. ............................................................. 394
Private property rights enable individuals to pursue their interests and plans, and obligations to the
community do not take precedence. .................................................................................................. 395
Even though the state creates property rights, a strong state is necessary to protect the right of
individual appropriation, as established by the NC. ............................................................................ 397
Because property is an abstract right, contingent questions of its distribution do not weaken the
rights claim. ......................................................................................................................................... 398
Champion Briefs
14
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA ...................................................... 399
Now is key - the faster the better - survival depends on the future of exploration. ........................... 400
Counterplan is key - current technology is insufficient. ...................................................................... 402
Human survival requires going to Mars. ............................................................................................. 405
Mars is the best option for colonization.............................................................................................. 406
It's possible to feed a martian colony. ................................................................................................. 408
Warming causes extinction---no adaptation. ...................................................................................... 410
Climate change is reaching crisis levels. .............................................................................................. 415
Warming integrates previously separate zones of disease and cause rapid evolution in diseases. ... 418
Overpopulation makes warming inevitable - if we stay on this planet, then we will recreate the
conditions for warming. Get off the rock and spread our wings to solve warming. ........................... 420
US population increases collapse North American biodiversity. ......................................................... 421
Overpopulation causes species loss. ................................................................................................... 423
Species loss risks extinction. ................................................................................................................ 425
Collapse of north American water biodiversity leads to global species extinction. ............................ 426
Loss of BioD causes extinction -- evaluate each instance as an existential risk. ................................. 432
NEG: Science Leadership DA ........................................................... 434
Private sector space development is key to US leadership in space. .................................................. 435
Private property rights in asteroid resources are key to the leadership of the American space industry.
............................................................................................................................................................. 438
Private space exploration is key to US leadership in space. ................................................................ 440
US leadership on space mining norms can make it environmentally sustainable---global commonsbased approaches will fail to set standards. ....................................................................................... 441
US leadership through the recently-negotiated Artemis Accords is predicated upon a private
ownership model for space resources. ............................................................................................... 443
Even though the Artemis Accords permit space mining, they actually give the Outer Space Treaty
some teeth, so US norm-setting facilitates multilateral cooperation in the future. ........................... 446
The Space Act, which grants private property rights to US companies in outer space, will allow the US
to keep pace with other countries. ..................................................................................................... 448
NEG: Space Debris DA ..................................................................... 449
Privately owned satellite operators key for debris removal. .............................................................. 450
Lack of orbital property rights is a direct contributor space debris. ................................................... 451
Orbital property rights increase the likelihood for debris clean up. ................................................... 453
Property rights can minimize orbital clutter. ...................................................................................... 455
Space Debris risks miscalc and war. .................................................................................................... 456
Space Debris harms the ozone. ........................................................................................................... 458
Ozone depletion risks extinction--empirically proven. ........................................................................ 460
Debris risk satellite destruction--that kills heg and readiness. ............................................................ 461
NEG: Internet Access DA ................................................................. 463
Mega-constellations of satellites are key to expanding Internet access across the globe---international
codes of conduct and automated collision avoidance systems solve any risk of space debris. .......... 464
Champion Briefs
15
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations are key to a truly global Internet. ...................................................................... 467
The Aff's defense of the “non-appropriation” principle in the Outer Space Treaty logically rules out
mega-constellations. ........................................................................................................................... 470
Mega-constellation companies are converging on norms for responsible conduct that will prevent
collisions. ............................................................................................................................................. 471
Mega-constellations will bridge the global digital divide. ................................................................... 475
Ending the digital divide is key to reducing global poverty. ................................................................ 480
Astronomers and satellite companies can work together to adapt to the effects of megaconstellations
on astronomy. ..................................................................................................................................... 483
Benefits for global Internet access outweigh the harms to astronomy. Astronomers pushing satellite
companies to mitigate harms to the night sky will be sufficient to solve. .......................................... 485
Mega-constellations are key to fast, worldwide Internet communications at low cost. .................... 486
NEG: Mining DA .............................................................................. 489
Private capital necessary for space based mining. .............................................................................. 490
Space based mining can help limit the harms of terrestrial based rare earth metal mining. ............. 491
Rare earth elements key to combating climate change. ..................................................................... 492
Terrestrial mining causes significant environmental damage and increases risk of severe health
conditions in nearby populations. ....................................................................................................... 493
Property rights are the necessary incentive for private space innovation. ......................................... 494
Property rights key to developing lunar mining—the internal link to unlocking further space
exploration. ......................................................................................................................................... 495
Granting property rights to corporations in outer space avoids conflict over the Outer Space Treaty.
............................................................................................................................................................. 496
The private sector is best suited to perform asteroid mining. ............................................................ 498
Private industry key to fund space exploration and He-3 mining. ...................................................... 499
Privates should lead lunar mining efforts for He-3.............................................................................. 500
Private capital and the development of a free market economy in space is key to the development of
space resources. .................................................................................................................................. 501
Climate change causes extinction. ...................................................................................................... 502
NEG: Overview Effect/Space Tourism ............................................. 504
Humanity is like a fish that doesn’t know it’s trapped in the ocean, going to space is a transformative
event.................................................................................................................................................... 505
Space exploration prevents human extinction and decreases the risk of war—it’s a bigger impact than
anything we could imagine on Earth. .................................................................................................. 507
ROB is to endorese the debater that beest promotes space exploration --it outweighs mere human
survival. ............................................................................................................................................... 508
space exploration is key—only literally changing our physical perspective of earth solves. .............. 510
space exploration is not just technology and property but a state of mind—vote negative to endorse
human possibility. ............................................................................................................................... 511
Space travel leads to a new planetary consciousness and solves the root causes of conflict............. 513
Removing barriers to passenger space travel will allow access to the overview effect. ..................... 515
Champion Briefs
16
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
Negative Answers to Affirmative Cases ........................................... 518
A/2: International Law AC: 12 ......................................................... 519
Under customary international law, the “non-appropriation” principle of the Outer Space Treaty does
not prohibit mining natural resources in outer space. ........................................................................ 519
The Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit private sector appropriation of space. ............................. 523
Private property rights in space are not a backdoor to national appropriation.................................. 524
The Outer Space Treaty is non-binding, so it can't generate consistent obligations for states. ......... 526
Even though the OST calls for accountability and state responsibility, sovereign immunity means that
it's non-binding. ................................................................................................................................... 528
Customary international law outweighs treaties because it provides more effective moral norms for
states. .................................................................................................................................................. 529
The Space Act of 2015 in the US proves that countries can exploit a loophole in the OST by legalizing
commercial space development with the clause that the country of origin is not making any sovereign
claims. .................................................................................................................................................. 531
The most contextual analysis of treaty text proves that the Outer Space Treaty permits appropriation
of resources by states and private entities. ........................................................................................ 532
Even if corporations are covered by Article II of the Outer Space Treaty, the OST still does not support
a blanket ban on appropriation. .......................................................................................................... 535
The Moon Agreement has no influence in international law because countries capable of going to
space have not ratified it. .................................................................................................................... 536
The Neg interpretation of international law is most consistent with other agreements, such as the
Law of the Sea treaty and the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Act. .... 538
Amendment solves---the Aff depends upon a treaty in legal limbo---clarifying that the OST does
protect private appropriation of resources sets clearer standards for states..................................... 539
A/2: Public Appropriation AC .......................................................... 540
Legal limits on appropriation can solve the problems of a “finders keepers” mentality by space
corporations, while maintaining property rights................................................................................. 540
Private companies will actually be held more accountable than governments when accidents in space
occur. ................................................................................................................................................... 542
Private space development allows NASA to prioritize its limited resources on the most important
scientific projects that benefit society. ............................................................................................... 544
Private ownership rights are key to effective space development that sustains multinational
coalitions---the Artemis Accords are a step in the right direction. ..................................................... 546
An international leasing system for outer space solves the benefits of public coordination, but it
needs private property rights to ensure legal certainty. ..................................................................... 548
The private sector is uniquely positioned to sustain a space-for-space economy, where space mining
becomes a market intended to sustain in-space activities.................................................................. 552
Whether public or private, asteroid mining simply isn't feasible. ....................................................... 556
Public appropriation does not change the basic coordinates of capitalism---the logic of profit will limit
Aff solvency. ........................................................................................................................................ 559
Public property has the same limitations as private property in space. ............................................. 560
Creating an international body for space mining would take too long, and get outpaced by
technological change. .......................................................................................................................... 561
Champion Briefs
17
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
“Law lag,” or the problem where technology outpaces regulation, means the Aff has no solvency for
an international regulatory agreement. .............................................................................................. 563
Only the private sector has enough capital for successful asteroid mining. ....................................... 565
An international licensing system, and a sovereign wealth fund comparable to the one Alaska has for
oil revenue, would maintain private appropriation while benefitting the public good. ..................... 568
Leasing rights and a global “citizens' dividend” can redistribute some of the benefits of private
appropriation of outer space, while still allowing that appropriation to occur. ................................. 570
A/2: Neoliberalism AC .................................................................... 573
Regulated capitalism in outer space solves the Aff's offense without ending private appropriation. 573
Neoliberal techniques of governance can still be used for socially valuable ends, and are not
essentially tied to capitalism. .............................................................................................................. 574
A market-oriented framework for space property rights is key to greater innovation and reduced
geopolitical rivalries............................................................................................................................. 577
Taxing private asteroid mining solves inequality. ............................................................................... 580
The profit motive tied to asteroid mining is key to human flourishing from virtuous behavior. ........ 581
The Aff's impacts derive from the problems of excessive appropriation, not appropriation itself.
Regulating the externalities of asteroid mining solves........................................................................ 582
Top-down reforms to the Outer Space Treaty will inevitably prioritize the prerogatives of capitalism--only bottom-up class struggle can achieve a socialist society that retools space mining toward
progressive ends. ................................................................................................................................. 584
The “NewSpace” industry will not inevitably perpetuate neoliberalism if we engage with their vision
of the future on their own terms, in order to challenge the terms of capitalist exchange from within
the logic of appropriation in space. ..................................................................................................... 587
Private appropriation of outer space is not necessarily tied to capitalism's need for a “spatial fix”--private space development allows for utopian imaginations that exceed capitalism's limits and ensure
human survival. ................................................................................................................................... 589
Asteroid mining could end the mining of “conflict minerals” on Earth, one of the worst abuses of
capitalism. ........................................................................................................................................... 591
A/2: Global Security AC................................................................... 593
Government action in space should be limited to ensuring access for private corporations and
maintaining international cooperation on space protocols that govern private corporate action in
outer space. ......................................................................................................................................... 593
Governments can recognize private property rights without claiming national sovereignty over
territory in space. ................................................................................................................................ 594
International law standards that apply to fishing rights can easily be transferred to space while
maintaining profit incentives for exploration...................................................................................... 596
Russian anti-satellite tests that threaten access to space causes destabilize relations. Space is already
weaponized. ........................................................................................................................................ 597
Impact should have already occurred ASATS creating a risk of war now. ........................................... 598
Nuclear war doesn’t escalate globally. ................................................................................................ 600
Even if war does escalate, it won’t cause extinction. .......................................................................... 601
Champion Briefs
18
Table of Contents
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Colonialism AC ........................................................................ 602
Space exploration and development can be rethought outside the logic of settler futurity---developing
space is compatible with Indigenous cosmologies. ............................................................................. 602
Asteroid mining will actually help Global South countries resist neo-colonialism. ............................. 605
Indigenous people have diverse views about mining---the Aff's cosmology argument is essentialist.607
Carving out an exception in the OST for private appropriation of resources in space avoids
perpetuating a colonial model because the prohibition on claiming celestial bodies will still be
maintained. ......................................................................................................................................... 608
Consulting indigenous communities in the process of rolling out appropriative activities such as megaconstellations solves the Aff. ............................................................................................................... 610
There are a whole host of violent activities by colonialist powers in space that the Aff does not affect.
............................................................................................................................................................. 613
Space colonization is not the same as colonialism on Earth, and space col solves existential risks. .. 615
A/2: Borders AC .............................................................................. 617
Open Borders don’t consider social implications and institutional disadvantages. ............................ 617
It's just a band-aid solution to global and national issues. .................................................................. 619
Open Borders economically impact migrants, especially trans and immigrants of color. .................. 621
Open Borders are underlyingly exploitative and harmful and causes brain drain. ............................. 623
A/2: Biosphere 2 AC ........................................................................ 625
Communication and meaning are possible and desirable – framing speech as pure flux destroys any
benefits gained from intersubjective processes of meaning in specific political contexts.................. 625
Recognizing the finitude of biological death is good – it forms the basis of responsibility to Others
which solves their terminal impact claims. ......................................................................................... 628
Spreading capitalism creates global prosperity and environmental sustainability. Abandoning it is
disastrous. ........................................................................................................................................... 630
AFF impact is predicated on capitalism being bad because it advances tech. .................................... 633
Affs fundamental epistemological questioning undergirds climate denialism. .................................. 636
A/2: Anthropocentrism AC.............................................................. 638
The alt can’t generate coherent responses to global warming. .......................................................... 638
Anthropocentrism increases respect for the environment. ................................................................ 642
Centering human uniqueness is key to an ethic of responsibility that prevents extinction and enables
recognition of our entanglement with nature—it doesn’t cause anthropocentric hierarchies. ......... 644
The alt gets coopted by neoliberal forces that result in extinction and sap value to life. ................... 648
Alt fails to protect the environment. ................................................................................................... 651
Champion Briefs
19
Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Topic Analyses
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Happy JanFeb! January and February are generally the busiest debate months of the
season, with major national circuit tournaments such as Harvard and Berkeley, as well as
smaller regional tournaments that are staples in many team schedules. Additionally, the end of
the month of February contains many state and national qualifying tournaments. As such, most
teams require diversity in their JanFeb prep – it becomes much more difficult to only have one
affirmative and negative position when your tournament schedule includes Harvard, a state
qualifier, and a local tournament.
This topic will require students to have an understanding of a topic that many don’t
have an in-depth understanding of. Thus, students should ensure that they are putting time
into understanding important areas of the topic. One thing that is always important to
understand is topicality. Debaters should ensure that they have multiple definitions for each
word in the resolution. In general, cutting bidirectional definitions for each of the important
words in the topic is a good way to ensure that you always have prep to read, even if the
affirmative is new, unpredictable, or only defends a small portion of the topic. This is an
especially good strategy for students who intend to compete during the earlier portion of the
topic (Strake, Blake, and CPS all use the JanFeb topic but are hosted in December).
When cutting topicality cards, debaters should ensure that they are cutting cards that
will capture the essential elements of the resolution. In order to do this, debaters should ensure
Champion Briefs
21
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
that they are cutting evidence that is from the literature base that the topic is rooted in.
Authors that work in space exploration or research the subject are more likely to have a good
definition for “appropriation of outer space” than an author who writes listicles and creates
“what planet are you” quizzes for a well-known social media brand (whose name I’m not sure
I’m able to mention for liability reasons). Additionally, debaters should ensure that their
topicality cards are able to exclude substantial pieces of affirmative offense. It doesn’t make
sense to invest time into reading a topicality shell if every affirmative will just meet their shell.
This is another reason that it’s a good idea to cut cards that are based in the topic literature
(especially if the article you’re cutting from is a criticism of another popular article or body of
research that could feasibly be turned into an affirmative advocacy).
On the affirmative, there are a variety of arguments that could be read in nationalcircuit (progressive) rounds. I’ll first discuss critical affirmatives (K affs). The most obvious K aff
for this topic would be the capitalism K aff. The thesis of the affirmative is simple: capitalism is
bad, and the private appropriation of outer space is a form of capitalism. Jeff Bezos’ jaunt into
space earlier has garnered plenty of criticism, and much of the criticism moves beyond a mere
criticism of his space flight and criticizes the structures and financial inequities that allow
billionaires to be able to afford leisurely space travel while those who work to produce their
wealth are suffering in inhumane conditions. Debaters who are planning to read this affirmative
will have no trouble finding evidence that private space travel is capitalist and that it yields
negative impacts. The more difficult part will be proving solvency. When constructing the
capitalism AC, debaters should remember that they need to win a significant chunk of solvency,
which is to say, they need to win that a ban/significant reduction in private space travel will also
Champion Briefs
22
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
lead to a significant reduction or complete elimination of capitalism. If debaters don’t want to
go the route of reading a plan/advocacy text, they can also choose to defend the resolution as a
general principle, and merely defend that capitalist inequality is a form of injustice, and that the
private appropriation of outer space leads to this injustice. Regardless of readers of this
affirmative choose to defend the aff, having a strong framing page will be important. Debaters
should ensure that they have answers to common negative frameworks such as utilitarianism
and philosophical approaches, as well as answers to more K-oriented approaches on the
negative. While each framing card doesn’t have to be read in each round, being prepared for all
possible instances will increase the chances of winning with this affirmative.
For debaters who aren’t interested in reading a K aff, there are plenty of other positions
to read! Policy-oriented debaters will notice that there is a substantial discussion occurring
regarding the environmental impacts of space shuttle launches. This impact is set to grow
substantially as companies such as Blue Origin and SpaceX are developing space travel as a
commercial product for the super-rich, and NASA is granting contracts to private entities to
create a replacement for the International Space Station. As these space flights increase, so
does the protest against them due to environmental concerns. There are many different
authors discussing the negative environmental impacts of rocket launches. As the
environmental footprint of private space travel is only likely to grow in the status quo, there is a
lot of room for the affirmative to extrapolate on what this increase in emissions and
environmental degradation means. Policy affirmatives that seek to ban private space travel and
space exploration will likely be able to claim a very significant amount of solvency for the
emissions that are currently caused by the private space-travel industry. This affirmative could
Champion Briefs
23
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
be read with an extinction impact and a utilitarianism framing. This will likely feel the most
familiar and comfortable for debaters who are used to debating on the national circuit and
have likely read climate-extinction scenarios in the past. However, this isn’t the only option.
There can be policy-style affirmatives as well as traditional affirmative that discuss the impacts
of climate change in the context of poverty, racism, natural disaster, and violence. Debaters
who are reading a climate scenario should be prepared to read a variety of impacts. This will
ensure that the affirmative stays adaptable to a variety of judges, which will be especially
relevant at smaller tournaments where many judges will be more traditionally oriented or will
prefer not to hear extinction scenarios.
For debaters who intend to debate primarily in traditional areas, a more philosophical or
values-oriented approach might be strategic. Specifically, debaters should focus on the word
“unjust.” Due to the lack of a verb phrase in the resolution that prescribes an action (such as
resolutions that suggest that a certain entity ought to ban or eliminate something), debaters
don’t have the burden to prove solvency unless reading a plan text. As such, traditional
debaters will likely find success in setting parameters for what it means to be unjust, and then
proving that the private appropriation of outer space meets their definition of what it means to
be unjust. Some traditional debaters utilize more utilitarian framing mechanisms to establish
what is and isn’t just, while others utilize more rights-based or equality-based framing
mechanisms. There are many frameworks that could be popular and strategic on this
resolution. No matter what framework you choose to read, you should always prepare for the
other potential framing mechanisms because it is almost certain that someone else will read
them.
Champion Briefs
24
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
While there are many different types of affirmatives on this topic, one common theme
will likely be that debaters find ways to create advocacy or plan texts even when the resolution
doesn’t prescribe an action. Debaters might choose to defend a ban on all privately funded
rocket launches, an elimination of space contracts to private entities from government-funded
agencies, or any number of other actions that would reduce the injustice that is caused by the
private appropriation of outer space. As such, negative debaters should prepare to negate a
variety of affirmatives. The lack of a prescribed action in the resolution makes it much harder
for the negative to prepare arguments against specific affirmative plans. Thus, I would
recommend that debaters prepare negative strategies against the potential most common
affirmative approaches, as well as some generic negative strategies that will be usable against
any type of affirmative.
When thinking about the core negative ground on the topic, those who have been in
debate for a while are probably thinking about the ghosts of asteroids disads past. While the
asteroids disadvantage was a fun position (that could potentially be revived for this topic),
there is another interesting disadvantage to discuss: the rare earth minerals disadvantage. This
is a disadvantage that capitalizes on the fact that in the future, it is likely that many of the rare
minerals that are utilized for smartphones and computers will need to be found from non-earth
objects (so, things floating around in outer space). As such, there will be a future market for
harvesting materials from non-earth objects in order to continue the growth of technology and
essential economic sectors. This disadvantage would argue that the future of harvesting rare
earth metals from non-earth objects lies in the ability of for-profit private entities to be able to
gather those resources and then sell them to the companies that have a demand for the hard-
Champion Briefs
25
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
to-obtain resources that can only be gained through space travel. There are many different
ways that this disadvantage could be implicated. First is economic collapse. The disadvantage
could be implicated to state that without continued economic or technological growth, the
economy would take a drastic downward trend or would collapse entirely. There are a wide
variety of terminal impacts associate with this such as war, violence, poverty, and extinction.
Second, debaters who aren’t as comfortable with disadvantages that rest purely on economics
could make arguments about how a decrease in the technology sector could put millions out of
jobs, and thus impact those who are the most disadvantaged in society. Being able to adapt to
the affirmative and the judge and read a different impact scenario depending on the round will
allow debaters more flexibility and thus a better chance at winning the judge’s ballot.
When reading a disadvantage, it’s often a good idea to read a counterplan. This can
allow the negative to solve a substantial portion of the affirmative’s offense while using the
disadvantage to outweigh or turn any offense that they don’t solve. In my opinion, one of the
most underrated positions in debate is the advantage counterplan. For those of you unfamiliar
with this godsend, advantage counterplans are counterplans that resolve one or more of the
advantages of the affirmative. These counterplans differ from resolutional counterplans in that
they generally don’t take an action that is similar to the resolution/affirmative but with a minor
change (such as a change in actor or timeframe), but rather, they take an entirely different
action that resolves a portion of the aff. For example, if the affirmative were to read an
advantage about climate change, the negative could read a Green New Deal counterplan. This
wouldn’t have much to do with the question that the resolution asks, but it would be able to
resolve a substantial portion of the climate harms that the affirmative uses to garner offense
Champion Briefs
26
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
from. On this topic, advantage counterplans could be particularly strategic, as they only require
the negative to predict potential affirmative advantage areas, but not potential plan texts. This
will allow the negative to cope with the varied nature of the affirmative ground. Additionally,
cutting advantage counterplans is almost always a good time investment due to their evergreen
nature. I cannot think of a topic on which I didn’t need a climate advantage counterplan. As
such, cutting advantage counterplans is not only useful for broad and directionless topics such
as this one, but it can also be an investment in future debate success.
For debaters who aren’t as comfortable reading policy-style arguments, K debate is still
an option. While there might be fewer obvious links to the affirmative, there are still ways to be
a successful K debater. First, there is always the option of reading a reps K. These will criticize
certain representations or epistemological foundations of the affirmative but won’t necessarily
link to the action of the plan or advocacy. These can be a good option in a pinch, especially
when an affirmative is new or unpredictable. Almost all literature bases have some type of link
to governmental action, extinction representations, futurity, and utilitarianism. Having this set
of generic links prepped as well as some impact cards, framing cards, and an alternative will
ensure that you are prepared against the majority of policy affirmatives. Additionally, the
capitalism K will likely be a good generic on the negative. While this K might not seem intuitive
due to the anti-capitalist nature of almost all affirmatives on this resolution, there is a way in
which the cap K can be read on the negative. Specifically, the negative can make arguments
about how the affirmative doesn’t go far enough, or how the affirmative only addresses a
symptom of capitalism but doesn’t tackle the root cause. There can be link arguments made
about how the affirmative entrenches capitalism by taking cosmetic or performative actions
Champion Briefs
27
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
against it that don’t actually serve to restructure the way in which financial systems function. In
this manner, the capitalism K on this topic will be similar to the capitalism K on the previous
topic (unconditional right of workers to strike). While a reps K or a cap K aren’t the only options
for reading a K on the negative, it is good to familiarize yourself with a few basic options in
order to always be able to answer an affirmative without much prep time or pre-round
disclosure.
For more traditional or philosophically oriented debaters, the libertarianism NC might
be a good option. This is a philosophically oriented negative position that is rooted in the
libertarian ideals of personal freedom, self-ownership, and a minimal state. This position makes
arguments about how governmental control of the way in which private funds are spent is an
unjust form of control because it infringes on the property owner’s right to own themselves and
the products of their labor. Following this logic, the negative could make arguments about how
it is unjust for the government to curtail the ability of private entities to engage in space
exploration or space colonization as long as the missions are funded using their self-owned
funds and not public funding. This argument relies on the negative winning their theory of how
the state should function, as there are plenty of counterarguments that say that a minimal state
isn’t the best form of governance. If negative debaters win their framing, winning this NC will
be a much easier battle than if the negative were to lose their framing but then still try to win
the debate under the affirmative’s framing. Additionally, negatives who are planning to read
this position should prepare answers to the most common framing mechanisms on the
affirmative, as the framing debate will become important in rounds where the 2NR intends to
collapse to the libertarianism NC. This position can be read in both traditional and national-
Champion Briefs
28
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
circuit rounds. However, I would not recommend reading the exact same NC in both rounds.
For traditional rounds, I would recommend a two-contention NC with a strong framing page.
However, I would still recommend that one of the two contentions can be weighed under other
framing mechanisms in case you lose your framework. For national-circuit rounds, I would
recommend an NC with a longer framing page and a shorter contention, as that will allow you
to focus more on winning the framing debate while still adequately covering other flows.
Additionally, I would recommend that debaters on the national circuit read other offcase
positions with the libertarianism NC in order to not be stuck going for a position in a world
where the 1AR over-covers it. Some positions that I enjoyed reading with a philosophy NC
included topicality and theory.
On this topic, topicality and theory will likely be your best friends. I’ve already discussed
the vague nature of the topic and the way in which this will incentivize debaters to come up
with their own plan texts that they believe will best solve for a strategic advantage area while
still remaining somewhat in line with the intent of the resolution. As such, preparing topicality
shells against the outpouring of random plans that will occur will be an excellent investment of
time. It will allow the negative to beat back multiple types of affirmatives and uplayer against
different layers of affirmative offense without sacrificing a huge amount of 1NC time or preround preparation. Additionally, this will help when the affirmative is new or very fringe. I also
think that all debaters should ensure that they have prepared shells to beat back very small
affirmatives. The word “entities” in the resolution invites the topicality shells that have been
popular regarding grammar and generic bare plurals. I don’t need to rehash those arguments
here, as there have been many articles (longer than this entire topic analysis) written on the
Champion Briefs
29
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
matter, and they are available online for free, should you be interested in reading a pile of old
debate articles. Regardless of your knowledge about the history of this particular argument in
debate, you should ensure that you’re spending some time understanding how the argument
functions and how you can utilize it against different types of affirmatives, especially
affirmatives that are very small or that specify one or multiple different portions of the
resolution. While it’s not necessary to read this argument against affirmatives that only defend
a subset of the resolution, it can be helpful to give yourself the option. This topic in particular
will lend itself to many of these debates, due to the recent literature on the topic being very
focused on a few specific private entities. Having a bare plurals shell prepared against the
affirmative that is specific to Blue Origin or SpaceX is likely not going to be a detriment to any
debater’s strategy.
While this topic analysis hasn’t been an exhaustive list of arguments that could be read
on this topic, I hope that it has provided you a starting point for your research. The most
important part of creating a successful set of files for a topic is paying attention to the trends in
the topic and starting early enough to be able to recognize those trends in time to be able to
take actions accordingly. As such, I would recommend that all debaters and teams start their
preparation earlier than the day before their first tournament in January. Last-minute prep is
often how details are overlooked, and disadvantages about an infrastructure bill that’s already
passed end up being read. In order to avoid bringing dishonor on yourself, your family, and your
cow, start your prep early! Additionally, keeping up with the early trends on the tournament is
a good idea. Strake Jesuit (TX), Blake/John Edie (MN), and College Prep (CA) are all hosting
tournaments in December that utilize the JanFeb topic, and all three tournaments are on
Champion Briefs
30
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage
Jan/Feb 2022
Tabroom.com, where pairings and entry lists are made public. Paying attention to the
arguments that are being read at these tournaments (especially the arguments that are more
successful) will allow you to establish a breadth of knowledge on the argumentative trends in
the topic. This will help to guide your research as well as the prep that you do against other
teams.
As always, I want to end this topic analysis with my bi-monthly plea for kindness and
mutual understanding. Not every judge is the judge you will love and want to have in all
debates. However, all judges (except the sexist, racist, discriminatory ones) are deserving of
respect, adaptation, and general kindness. This means that debates in front of traditional
judges shouldn’t be the subject of endless complaints – just cut a trad aff – it’s not that hard!
Additionally, as we slowly make the transition back to in-person debate, it is important to
remember that kindness and basic human decency are still very much required of you in a postquarantine world. In summary, be good people, adapt to judges instead of berating them, cut
enough prep that you can adapt to judges enough to make them comfortable, and have fun!
Debate is meant to be fun, and a (slow, vaccinated, safe) return to in-person tournaments after
almost two years away is a great opportunity to change the culture of debate for the better! I
can’t wait to see what everyone does with this topic, and I can’t wait to see all of you debating
and being good people and having fun at tournaments!
Happy Holidays for those who celebrate, and happy snow season for those not in California! I’m
wishing everyone a restful and safe winter break. Happy debating!
Champion Briefs
31
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Introduction
Welcome to the second half of the 2021-2022 competitive season! The votes are in, and
our January/February topic is “Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is
unjust.” When I first saw this topic, I believed that it would be a policy-oriented one. However, I
think that its debates will turn out to be more in the direction of classic Lincoln-Douglas:
property rights, morality, and justice.
In the past year – and especially in the past six months or so – there has been plenty of
headlines about space exploration and development. Multiple launches – funded by powerful
and wealthy businessmen – have broken barriers in private spaceflight and the commercial
development of space. Given that these projects are not run by the government, there is a
noticeable lack of excitement, fascination, and pride about them. This is much different than,
say, the Apollo missions, which captivated millions of Americans and solidified the country as
the dominant power of the Space Age. For me, this is precisely why this topic is so interesting.
Throughout our lives and educations, we have been told of the technological importance and
prestige of the projects that have put men on the moon and allowed international teams to
conduct research in orbit. However, this new space race’s grounding in private companies
fundamentally changes this understanding of what and whom outer space is for. Luckily, we’ll
be able to explore these questions and more through this new topic.
Champion Briefs
32
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
While the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has been known to be
the leader of space exploration and related projects, the private sector has carved out a
significant place in the market with NASA’s greenlight. Sharma (2021)1 notes:
Recognizing the greatly reduced costs of space exploration in private companies, NASA’s budget
has shifted to significantly relying on private companies.[3] However, private space companies
are unique from government space agencies in the way they experience unique sets of market
pressures that influence their decision-making process. Hence, the expansion of private control
in the space sector turns into a multifaceted contestation of its ethicality.
While I do think that this topic will generally be pointed in the direction of classic
Lincoln-Douglas issues, there is room on both sides to explore critical and policymaking
positions. To that end, I would suggest checking out the 2019-2020 openCaselist for College
Policy Debate because it is filled with relevant files and arguments. (For context, that year’s
topic was “Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a national space
policy substantially increasing its international space cooperation with the People’s Republic of
China and/or the Russian Federation in one or more of the following areas: arms control of
space weapons; exchange and management of space situational awareness information; joint
human spaceflight for deep space exploration; planetary defense; space traffic management;
space-based solar power.”)2
"The Privatized Frontier: The Ethical Implications and Role of Private Companies in Space
Exploration". thespacereview.com, 2021, https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4238/1.
2
Each plank of this obscenely long resolution could serve as inspiration for your research; each
of them represent a major area of contention and dialogue about space exploration and
development in the modern day. However, not all of them link directly to private entities in
space.
1
Champion Briefs
33
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
Before continuing, I wanted to say a few words about the state of debate in January and
February. Since this topic is also the topic used by the Tournament of Champions in April, it is.
Unlikely that the progression and development of arguments will be complete by the end of
February. However, it does mean that there will be a huge amount of effort going into research
and argument generation for this topic. Many teams will be inspired and influenced by what
research has already been done for the college policy outer space topic. Keep up to date with
updates to the NDCA LD Wiki to be informed on what arguments teams are reading. This will be
a dynamic topic, so the more reading you do of articles and other teams’ arguments, the better
off you will be when it is time to debate.
In this topic analysis, I am going to go over a few arguments that could be strategic for
this topic. I have never been an expert in the veins of Lincoln-Douglas that have to do with
property rights, so the arguments that I will be writing about are more inspired by critical and
policymaking styles.
Affirmative: Capitalism 1AC
As with all property topics, it is important to think about the public/private dichotomy
and what implications it has on your research. There are a lot of ways that you can use anticapitalist theory on this topic. I shall first provide a broad overview to some important theory
that will be useful to you before diving into some specific examples of space development that
relates to critiques of capitalism.
As you likely know from any world history class, the age of colonialism saw mass
violence, cultural erasure, and exploitation around the world at the hands of Western powers.
Champion Briefs
34
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
If you have ever read or debated against a settler colonialism critique, you may be familiar with
some of the academic theory associated with this manifestation of violence. Marxian critique of
colonialism and imperialism has more to do with the economic and monetary aspects of
international domination. For Marx, colonialism would be a necessity for European markets to
ensure that surplus capital remained productive and that new markets would be created for the
smooth functioning of capital and trade. You may see the comparison that I am suggesting. The
expansion of capital into space operates, for capital, in the same way. Shammas & Holen
(2019)3 argues:
As Earth’s empty spaces are filled, as our planet comes to be shorn of blank places,
capitalistkind emerges to rescue capitalism from its terrestrial limitations, launching
space rockets, placing satellites into orbit, appropriating extraterrestrial resources, and,
perhaps one day, building colonies on distant planets like Mars.
These arguments could work very well to create a critical affirmative premised on the
expansion of capitalism into outer space being a bad thing for nature (in the broad, outer
space-inclusive sense of the word) and humankind.
In answering anti-capitalism affirmatives such as the one that I have proposed here, I
think that your best bet is to turn to more policymaking, advocacy-based positions. The Sharma
evidence that I cited in the introduction proposes a sort of regulated capitalism in space,
whereby private companies would only operate based on contracts with the United States
Shammas, V.L., Holen, T.B. One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer
space. Palgrave Commun 5, 10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0218-9
3
Champion Briefs
35
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
federal government. This would allow NASA to focus its efforts on projects that do not have
obvious profitability, while the corporations that the government contracts with focus on
projects that are profitable. Together, as Sharma proposes, these two paradigms of operating
could pave the way for human colonization of space as per the needs of humanity. This
proposition is incredibly compatible with the Outer Space Treaty, which is a binding treaty that
has been signed by 111 states. Saiful Islam (2018)4 notes, “According to the terms of the Treaty,
nations have international responsibility and liability of proper supervision for all public and
private space activities.”
Another argument that could be made against this affirmative is that capitalism is
precisely the reason why it is necessary for outer space to be developed and utilized. Given the
immense pressures on our ecological systems because of uncontrolled industrialization,
pollution, and resource extraction, it is very likely that many parts of planet Earth will not be
habitable within our lifetimes.5 Although it would be inconvenient, private corporations might
be the major solution to our dilemmas, and the appropriation of outer space (such as plots of
land on other planets, etc.) may be the answer for saving humanity.
Islam, M. S. (2018). The Sustainable Use of Outer Space: Complications and Legal Challenges
to the Peaceful Uses and Benefit of Humankind. Beijing Law Review, 9, 235-254.
https://doi.org/10.4236/blr.2018.92016
5
Conners, Deanna. "Will Large Parts of Earth Be Too Hot for People In 50 Years?". Earthsky,
2020, https://earthsky.org/earth/global-warming-areas-of-earth-too-hot-for-people/.
4
Champion Briefs
36
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
Negative: Resources Disadvantage
One major reason why outer space is an attractive area of exploration and development
for private entities is the immense wealth of resources that exist in it. With pressures already
existing on the supply of terrestrial rare earth metals (REMs), there is good reason for
companies to look to the skies for more supply of metals that are used in nearly every form of
technology in the modern economy. Indeed, Freeman and Bazilian (2018) note that: “Growth of
clean energy technologies may increase the risk of at least three types of conflict: outbreaks of
violence in states with weak institutions, competition over global resource commons, and
weaponization of minerals essential to these technologies in trade disputes.” With this, you
could prepare a disadvantage that would pair well with a utilitarianism framework. By
continuing to rely on metals and resources here on Earth, we risk instigating conflict and,
simply, running out of resources. Outer space appropriation by private entities could help
prevent this by giving corporations a different and novel source for important metals.
There is substantial debate on what the legal standing of resource mining in space is.
One could argue, however, that limiting – to any extent – the ability of private entities to make
claims in outer space would have negative legal ramifications on the future ability to mine
things like asteroids and other planets.
Environmental Considerations
I will not go into depth on any specific positions in this vein, but I would like to draw
your attention to the dynamics of environmental damage in the realm of outer space. For
example, there are major concerns about the impacts of space tourism on the atmosphere and
Champion Briefs
37
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
ozone layer. Pultarova (2021)6 explains: “Rosenlof added that in the long term, injecting
pollutants into the stratosphere could alter the polar jet stream, change winter storm patterns
or affect average rainfall.” Moreover, there is a lot of philosophical discussion about the status
of nature in outer space. While we don’t know of any life forms that exist beyond Earth, there
still must be consideration of how we treat the outer space environment, especially considering
that there is a risk that we find life forms along the way in our development and exploration of
space.
On that note, it might be worthwhile to explore the Anthropocentrism literature base.
As indicated in the name, this is a vein of critical theory that posits that the centralization of
politics and economics around the promotion and continuation of human life is a bad thing
because it positions all other species of animals as inferior to humans. Thus, the optimism of
exploring space for the continuation of the human race is a massive link into this criticism. It
may serve well for a critical affirmative.
Conclusion
In reflection, I have realized that this topic is even bigger than I initially thought it to be.
It combines a major global (intergalactic?) issue with a wording that is reminiscent of property
rights Lincoln-Douglas topics, making it a promising springboard for debaters of policymaking
and philosophical styles. We are fortunate to have this topic at this point in time because it is a
Pultarova, Tereza. "The Rise Of Space Tourism Could Affect Earth's Climate In Unforeseen
Ways, Scientists Worry". Space.Com, 2021, https://www.space.com/environmental-impactspace-tourism-flights.
6
Champion Briefs
38
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher
Jan/Feb 2022
rapidly unfolding point of discussion in political and academic communities. I suggest that you
keep up to date on the happenings of space exploration and research since there are many
projects that are ongoing. This will ensure that you do not get caught off guard by an opponent
who has checked the news more frequently than you have and presents you with a recent
example that you are not prepared to refute.
Ultimately, I hope that you have a good time researching this topic! I am excited about
the future of space exploration after having done this research and I hope that you are too.
Happy debating!
Champion Briefs
39
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Introduction
The Lincoln-Douglas topic for the January-February months is extremely diverse and is
one of the more exciting topic areas we have had the opportunity to debate in a while. Given
that this month’s topic tends to be the most utilized throughout the year, including as the
Tournament of Champions, there will also be a lot of time to explore all the very deep nooks
and crannies of the topic literature. From nearly every conceivable strategic standpoint,
whether it be debates about ethical frameworks, policy style counterplans and disadvantages,
theory and topicality, or critical theory, there is a vast array of extremely diverse ground. In
addition, the specificity of issues surrounding outer space will require tailored research that
morphs the function of some common arguments. For example, a common position defending
private property nearly always makes arguments based upon the resources and logic of the
Earth, but do not account for the possibilities present in terrains such as other plants and the
outer atmosphere. I will begin by discussing some of the questions relevant to the wording of
the topic before exploring some viable positions.
Champion Briefs
40
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
Wording
Appropriation
The term appropriation has a rich historical background in various academic disciplines.
In philosophy, it frequently refers to the act of a person through which they create private
property. In the classic example provided by John Locke in The Second Treatise of Government,
when someone mixes their labor with an object it becomes appropriated as their own given the
work they have undertaken to modify it. In the law, appropriation has a wider definition in
order to encompass not only the creation of private property, but the wide variety of different
forms of ownership, including buying, selling, and renting or other temporary or partial use of
an object or entity. In order to make the legal terrain of appropriation clear consider the
example of a tributary of water which runs between three adjacent farms which are owned by
different individuals. While certainly each of the three farmers will use the water for their crops
and even have a certain amount of the tributary geographically situated on their land, none of
them can be said to own the body of water itself. They instead merely have a lease or right to
use it, as a body of water is a natural entity which exceeds classification as a discrete object to
be owned, in the way one might merely purchase a can of soda. It will be essential for debaters
to understand in what context or through what concept they are understanding appropriation.
Outer Space
There will be numerous interpretations of the words outer space, especially if they are
considered as two separate rather than related terms. For example, a naïve interpretation of
the topic may present outer as simply meaning outside of oneself, and space may mean a
physical area, opening up vast and ambiguous ground which is certainly outside of the intention
Champion Briefs
41
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
of the topic question. The most correct interpretation of the topic almost certainly identifies
“outer space” as a term of art – two words which cannot be defined in isolation from one
another and must be read together - which refers to the area outside of the Earth’s
atmosphere. Anything less will likely open up a plethora of affirmatives which entirely sidestep
the controversy area of the topic, which is the movement of capitalism and neoliberalism from
Earth to outer space e.g., other planets and spaces.
It will also be important to note that as a result of the ambiguity of when Earth’s
atmosphere blends into outer space, the appropriations in question will almost certainly have
to be a certain distance from the Earth to constitute space. In general, definitions from
scientific authorities with the intent to discern the distinctions between Earth and outer space
are likely to produce the best interpretation of the topic. As a definition based upon some sort
of scientific consensus, whether it be the chemical composition of different layers as we ascend
the atmosphere towards space, or the life-sustaining features present on Earth and not
elsewhere.
Private Entities
Though seemingly straightforward, the topic literature will sometimes make it difficult
to clearly distinguish between a public or governmental entity and a private one in the area of
space. For example, a majority of the contracts issued in the United States are by NASA – a
government actor - but they are increasingly outsourcing the actual work being done or
development of products and sometimes even space launches to private companies such as
SpaceX. The most feasible interpretation of “private entities” is to equate them to corporations
and business interests, drawing the distinction between the private commercial sphere and the
Champion Briefs
42
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
public infrastructure sector. Whereas NASA engages in a project for the pursuit of scientific
progress and to bolster the United States resources as a government, companies such as Blue
Horizon and SpaceX do so only inadvertently and are primarily companies with private
interests, especially to their shareholders. However, these debates are certainly going to
develop throughout the topic.
Additional Comments
In addition to the words which are included in the resolution, there are also important
absences which shape the scope and context of the debate. What is likely to be the most
important characteristic of the topic, which will make its way into many in round debates, is the
noticeable absence of an actor. Rather than the usual “United States” or “just government,” we
are simply left with a moral question of the justness of the resolution, without any particular
means of implementation.
As a result of this, the means by which implementation or fiat can be applied to the
resolution in terms of defending an explicit policy or government action are up in the air. On
the one hand, these may be considered non-topical because they include the enforcement of
an action or policy – perhaps regulation or legal changes - which is not implied in the resolution.
They would likely also require a specification of an actor through which such an action could be
upheld and implemented, for example the United Nations, NATO, or even the United States,
which is not present in the resolution itself. On the other hand, these may be considered topical
because they prove the resolutions statement to be true – that we indeed ought to consider
appropriations by private companies in outer space to be unjust – but simply through a
particular means or in a particular instance. It may also be argued from this perspective that it
Champion Briefs
43
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
is unfeasible to discuss the topic without reference to some of the empirical structures that
govern space infrastructure and law.
Arguments on the Topic
Affirmative
In terms of arguments on the affirmative, a position which is primarily framework based
is a defense of the equal distribution of resources in society found in the philosophy of John
Rawls. Rawls’ A Theory of Justice argues for a democratic society which makes decisions behind
the veil of ignorance, where individuals do not know their own social location, class, or identity
in order to be unbiased. He maintains that behind the veil of ignorance, a democratic society
would choose to redistribute resources with an eye towards the least advantaged, as anyone
could conceivably find themselves in that position. In the context of the topic, the desire to
appropriate space for private purposes results in resources being hoarded and unequally
distributed rather than shared.
An argument which draws from both philosophical and empirical bases would be a
critique of capitalism, especially given the topics emphasis on private entities. Whether from
the perspective of Marxists interested in political economy or even virtue ethicists concerned
about capitals effect on our moral insight, there are widespread critiques of the emphasis on
accumulation of resources and the pursuit of profit under capitalism. The prospect of
expanding this misadventure to space presents an opportunity for even more exploitation. In
addition, there are poignant critiques of the emphasis on space and the space race - both in the
past during the Cold War and presently between companies such as Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin,
Champion Briefs
44
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
and SpaceX - when there is so much which can be improved on Earth and given the expensive
and inaccessible nature of space-based solutions.
A strong position from the utilitarian perspective on the affirmative would be based
upon the issue of space debris and the increasing amount of human created materials in the
outer atmosphere. Given the characteristics of space these pieces, ranging from miniscule
debris from broken satellites to larger pieces of spacecraft and rocket boosters, do not decay or
decompose as they would on Earth and create issues for potentially hundreds of years. A
theory exposited by scientists called Kessler syndrome is that eventually there will be so much
trash in the atmosphere that it will create a cloud orbiting the Earth that makes launching and
maintaining satellites, rockets, and spacecraft extraordinarily difficult if not impossible. There
are great arguments and fantastic evidence that there should be extensive regulation as a
result, which is frequently ignored by private companies and corporations who are primarily
looking out for their own bottom line. The consequences are massive and include impeding
future space exploration, the deterioration of satellite communication technologies, and much
more.
Negative
In terms of arguments on the negative, a position which is primarily framework based is
a defense of property rights following the arguments of John Locke and Robert Nozick. Locke
famously introduced an influential theory of property and appropriation in The Second Treatise
of Government as mentioned above. On this account, when someone mixes their labor with a
product it becomes appropriated and their own. However, they are at liberty to do so if and
Champion Briefs
45
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
only if once they have concluded such an effort there will be enough left over for the continued
use of the resource, an addendum taken up by Nozick and described as the Lockean proviso in
his defense of libertarianism. Given the infinite nature of outer space, there will presumably
always be resources left over, making any appropriation acceptable according to this theory.
There are vast and wide-ranging opportunities for arguments from the utilitarian
perspective on the negative and I will only briefly go over a small number of them here. The
projects currently in development by the private United States based organization SpaceX are
fantastic ground with a wide variety of scenario and impact stories. They are currently working
on Starlink, a constellation of satellites that provide high-speed internet to areas otherwise
unreachable by current technologies and infrastructure. From tribal lands in the United States,
rural areas in developing countries, and warzones and remote research sites, Starlin -, which is
currently still ramping up its service - aims to fill very important connectivity gaps. In addition,
their work on rocket deployment systems which are oftentimes contracted or taken up by
NASA is making space cheaper and potential colonization more feasible.
An argument in this vein which will be extremely helpful to have in the toolkit for this
topic is the counterplan. Given the vague means of implementation of the affirmative, in terms
of not only their actor but also the process and policy which is to be upheld, the negative can
claim to solve many of the problems through regulation. Rather than describing all
appropriation of outer space by private entities unjust, there may be instances where under
certain conditions it is permissible or even preferrable. Furthermore, a counterplan which
defended moving space development entirely to the free market and outside of the space of
governments would defend the near opposite of the affirmative, and while somewhat dubious,
Champion Briefs
46
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
there is defensible evidence that it is more effective and efficient than having governments
develop projects on their own.
Lastly, a viable argument from the kritikal perspective is a critique of the extent to which
the affirmative reaffirms already existing international law and standards surrounding space
and are unable to solve the real underlying problems with appropriation and colonization. The
Italian political theorist Giorgio Agamben describes how states and governments, even in
actions which seemingly limit their power, are always exercising control of our lives through the
law. Given that the government or state has the vested authority to create the law, they can
always change it and demarcate ex-post-facto changes for their own benefit, creating what
Agamben calls a state of exception where violence is permissible. In fact, by creating laws which
seemingly protect us by taking out private corporations’ ability to operate in space,
governments and states merely reaffirm their own authority and exclusive hegemonic power
over outer space; particularly in the case of countries such as the United States with dominant
authority in the international sphere.
Conclusion
I sincerely hope that this topic analysis will provide a fruitful starting point for
understanding the resolution and pursuing some of the positions mentioned here. It is
important – especially on a topic with wording and implementation questions such as this one –
to follow the trends and community norms as the develop throughout the topic. At the first few
tournaments there is likely to be a smattering of divergent ways of interpreting the topic, which
will become more homogenous as the topic progresses and certain arguments bubble to the
Champion Briefs
47
Topic Analysis by Grant Brown
Jan/Feb 2022
top as core to the controversy area. You ought to consider any topic not as a static project, but
as something which twists, winds, and develops throughout the tournaments debate it. Best of
luck on the upcoming topic and happy debating into 2022!
Champion Briefs
48
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Space, the final frontier…. these are the stories of intrepid Lincoln Douglas debaters,
their coaches, and their judges, as they attempt to make sense of the topic that lasts forever.
Some of my students will be debating this topic in just a few days and some of those same kids
will still be debating this topic nearly four months from now. While “outer space” is essentially
limitless, I am not convinced that good quality LD arguments are. Still, there are some
interesting words in this resolution, and when the words are combined, there are definitely
some quirky corners to explore, as well as some unexpectedly traditional ground, especially for
a January-February topic, in addition to room for counterplans, disadvantages and kritiks.
“Outer space” has been a source of speculation and wonder, for as long as there have been
species capable of speculation, or wonder, on our planet, but these days, human interactions
with “outer space” are becoming increasingly complex, and potentially intrusive and
controversial, because we now have the technological access most previous generations lacked.
Before we can get to the ideas suggested by the resolution, however, we need to look at
the words, starting at the beginning with the word “appropriation,” and appropriation is a
singularly interesting word choice. My favorite general use dictionary for these topic analyses,
Merriam-Webster, defines “appropriation” as “the act of taking or using something especially in
a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriation]
Now I have to admit that taking some part of “outer space” for your own use in an illegal or
Champion Briefs
49
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
unfair way matches up nicely with the word “unjust” at the end of the resolution, but I think we
need to dig further to see if there are definitions which suggest “appropriation” might also be
just. Dictionary.com appears to be a little less negative, but even so, the definition “the act of
appropriating or taking possession of something, often without permission or consent” does
not sound particularly positive [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/appropriation]. On the
other hand, Vocabulary.com offers the following interpretation:
“Appropriation is the act of taking something, usually without permission, like stealing
your brother's french [sic] fries when he is momentarily distracted.
Appropriation originally referred to the taking of private property, usually by the
government. Nowadays, appropriation can be positive or negative, but generally refers
to taking something and making it your own — like your appropriation of different
musical styles during your talent show performance or your company’s appropriation of
new technology to improve their product.”
[https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/appropriation]
Finally, I have discovered a definition which indicates that “appropriation” can be a
positive thing (although not necessarily a just thing). I am troubled, however, by the notion that
taking something (which does not belong to you) and making it your own still seems somewhat
suspect. This last definition also reminds me of cultural “appropriation” which has recently
become controversial in a number of contexts, and cultural “appropriation” is also generally not
Champion Briefs
50
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
considered a good thing, except perhaps by fashion designers who make large sums of money
by borrowing “indigenous” designs.
Perhaps, and I am grasping at straws a bit here, the justice in the process of
appropriating something comes from the thing being appropriated. In other words, perhaps it is
the act of appropriating a piece of “outer space” which gives the negative the ground to defend
“appropriation” as being just. I fear I am thinking like a capitalist here, but if there are resources
in “outer space” that are desperately needed on this planet, and if they’re going unused,
perhaps it is just to use them, both as means of bolstering economies and also because of the
value they offer as they’re used. Merriam-Webster defines “outer space” as “space
immediately outside the earth's atmosphere, broadly: interplanetary or interstellar space”
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outer%20space]. Space.com goes into
considerably more detail in defining “outer space” this way:
“From the perspective of an Earthling, outer space is a zone that occurs about 100
kilometers (60 miles) above the planet, where there is no appreciable air to breathe or
to scatter light. In that area, blue gives way to black because oxygen molecules are not
in enough abundance to make the sky blue.
Further, space is a vacuum, meaning that sound cannot carry because molecules are not
close enough together to transmit sound between them. That's not to say that space is
empty, however. Gas, dust and other bits of matter float around "emptier" areas of the
universe, while more crowded regions can host planets, stars and galaxies.
No one knows exactly how big space is.”
Champion Briefs
51
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
[https://www.space.com/24870-what-is-space.html]
Until the aliens come and stake their claims on our planet as a part of their own “outer
space” (unless you believe they’re already here), perhaps the people on our planet do have the
right to take possession of bits of “outer space” since there really isn’t anyone to object, except
that there’s a treaty for that, or more specifically, a treaty against doing that.
The Outer Space Treaty (officially the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of
States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial
Bodies) came into force all the way back in 1967, and that treaty specifies how “outer space” is
supposed to be used and also specifies what is NOT allowed. Article II is quite clear in its
rejection of the appropriation of “outer space,” as can be seen below:
Article I
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies,
shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of
their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all
mankind.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration
and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in
accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial
bodies.
Champion Briefs
52
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the moon and
other celestial bodies, and States shall facilitate and encourage international cooperation in such investigation.
Article II
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other
means.
[https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm]
Somehow, I have a hard time believing that anything which is forbidden by treaty, if a
government attempts it, could somehow become acceptable if done by a private entity, and in
fact, Article VI makes every government responsible for any non-governmental actions taken by
entities under their jurisdiction, which seems to include “private entities” to me. The Treaty
says: “States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in
outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried
on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national
activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty.” [Cite
Above] It would appear that most of the words in the resolution are actually in this treaty,
pretty much all of them actually, except “unjust.”
Champion Briefs
53
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
Before proceeding to the other words in the resolution, I’d like to pause to consider the
implications of the Outer Space Treaty from different LD perspectives. Traditional LDers could
argue on the affirmative that going against a treaty would be inherently “unjust” and could
discuss the importance of international cooperation. On the other hand, traditional negatives
could argue that national sovereignty and governments acting for the benefit of their own
citizens might justify abrogation of the treaty, since the first responsibility of government is
arguably to protect the interests of their citizens. After all, there wasn’t much we could do in
“outer space” back in 1967 and we could do a lot more now, which could benefit humankind,
and benefiting your own citizens, or humanity more broadly, would have to be just. I really
believe this topic was written to facilitate traditional LD, even though it also is the TOC topic,
since there are a number of NSDA qualifying tournaments which use the Jan-Feb resolution,
including in my own state, and we have quite a few traditional judges.
On the other hand, in parts of the country where plans and counterplans are more
common, I feel this resolution is sort of flipped, although several of my debaters definitely
disagree with me. My point was that it is the affirmative side that is effectively forced to defend
the status quo (this would normally be the negative) given that “appropriation” is not allowed
because “appropriation” is illegal, according to the Outer Space Treaty, and I’m pretty sure
engaging in illegal behavior is usually seen as “unjust.” My students argued that the status quo
was shifting against the requirements of the Outer Space Treaty, given the rise of space
tourism, discussions of asteroid mining and tentative plans to put permanent colonies on Mars
or the Moon. However, even if my students are correct that the status quo is shifting, and they
are almost certainly correct about that, given empirical evidence, I’d say affirmatives are still
Champion Briefs
54
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
required to argue that “appropriation” is “unjust” in light of the treaty. Whether the affirmative
is calling for the rolling back of “unjust” acts of “appropriation” or holding the line against
future attempts at “appropriation,” the affirmative is still never going to be allowed to expand
“appropriation.” That being true, negatives will have the ability to run counterplans supporting
the “appropriation of outer space” for material or other benefits, and disadvantages that
suggest it is actually the rejection of “appropriation” that is “unjust.” After all, “Getting Off the
Rock” or mining asteroids might be very good things, and who knows what other miracles we
might discover in “outer space.”
While it feels to me as that the more entertaining policy arguments belong to the
negative on this resolution, I think a lot of the best kritik ground is on the affirmative.
Environmentalists and folks who reject anthropocentrism would likely take a rather dim view of
humans damaging “outer space” in the same way that we are destroying our own planet,
especially with respect to the use of resources, and even the concept of a resource can be
kritiked. Additionally, a lot of the defenses for the “appropriation of outer space” feel pretty
capitalist to me, so I can see an affirmative running a Cap K as their AC, especially since the
alternative could be to reject the “appropriation of outer space” as “unjust” (neatly blending a
K and a traditional argument). Space colonization is also literally the next version of settler
colonialism, and while we might not be imposing our will on other species (we don’t know
whether that will always be true), space colonization still reinforces the mindset of settlerism,
which is bad, and “unjust,” and that injustice could bounce back to earth.
It appears I got so excited describing the ways various parts of the country, or types of
debaters, could approach this topic that I completely abandoned my examination of the
Champion Briefs
55
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
individual words in the resolution. There weren’t many words left, so let’s quickly return to
them now. Merriam-Webster defines “by,” in the most topic-relevant way, as “through the
agency or instrumentality of” [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by]. In other
words, the actor(s), that follows the word “by” are the ones whose actions should be judged
as just or unjust. The resolution gives us “private entities” as the actors and LawInsider.Com
provides inclusive and exclusive definitions of “private entities.” The inclusive definition is:
“Private entity means any natural person, corporation, general partnership, limited liability
company, limited partnership, joint venture, business trust, public benefit corporation,
nonprofit entity, or other business entity.” The exclusive definition is: “Private entity means
any entity other than a State, local government, Indian tribe, or foreign public entity, as
those terms are defined in 2 CFR 175.25.” [https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/privateentity] Back in the old, old days of topicality in policy debate, having inclusive/exclusive
definitions was quite popular because they were seen as unusually precise. In this context,
any individual or business would appear to qualify as a private entity, but no type of
governmental structure would. In fact, “private entities” seems to open the resolution way
up, as if “outer space” was not already quite broad. Please remember, however, that nations
are responsible for the private entities that dwell within their borders when it comes to
actions taken in “outer space.”
As clear as the definitions of “private entities” are, settling on good definitions of
“unjust” proved to be more of a challenge because of that old English teacher warning not to
use a word to define itself. I had to discard several possibilities because they were effectively
“unjust” means not being just, before I found this definition from the Collins Dictionary. “If you
Champion Briefs
56
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
describe an action, system, or law as unjust, you think that it treats a person or group badly in a
way that they do not deserve”
[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/unjust]. Synonyms of “unjust,” from
the same source are: “unfair, prejudiced, biased, wrong.” Because it offers a slightly different
slant, I also offer a definition of “unjust” from the Macmillan Dictionary: “an unjust decision,
judgment, or action is not fair or reasonable, or is not done according to accepted legal or
moral standards” [https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/unjust]. I
especially like the second definition because it brings us back to the Outer Space Treaty and
what might be considered acceptable before the law (very likely not “appropriation”). Beyond
that, moral implications are always useful in LD since they allow us to bring in Kant, Rawls,
Hegal and countless other philosophers.
All things considered, I believe I have convinced myself that there actually might be
enough argumentative possibilities to sustain this topic for the next four months and I definitely
encourage every student to have one set of cases which genuinely explores the resolutional
questions. The Outer Space Treaty came into force nearly 55 years ago, but at this point, many
things have changed, technologically, politically, socially and environmentally. Should we still
follow that treaty? Following treaties is generally considered to be just on face, and taking
control of geographical subdivisions of “outer spaces,” or stealing the substances found there,
could be considered “unjust,” since those acts are prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty, but is
there a new way to interpret justice, or has the Outer Space Treaty outlived its usefulness?
Given that some NSDA qualifying tournaments use this topic, and some state tournaments as
well, the more traditional judges in your world would likely enjoy learning something about the
Champion Briefs
57
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek
Jan/Feb 2022
resolution directly. On the other hand, there are still a number of tournaments left with judges
who might be willing to follow the disads and counterplans run by LDers at their most policylike, or they might enjoy deep philosophical or kritical dives into space adjacent literature. And
if you must debate theory, try debating theories related to treaties or international law and
shelve your disclosure arguments until the TOC.
Champion Briefs
58
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust.
Editor’s Note: This topic analysis is different than the others. Our goal here is to present the
basics of different philosophical frameworks that can be applied to the topic. Through this, we
hope that novice and experienced students alike will gain a deeper understanding of how to
frame their arguments through values to create a cohesive advocacy.
The January-February 2022 LD topic, “Resolved: The appropriation of outer space by
private entities is unjust,” has a similar wording to November-December 2021 (right to strike)
because the resolution is a statement of justice, not a statement of policy per se. Aff debaters
should not necessarily ignore questions of real-world implementation, especially when those
bear upon the consequences of outer space appropriation or the feasibility of stopping it, but
the topic gives the Aff an opportunity to make a statement of principle not predicated upon
solvency. The Aff burden is to prove that it would be wrong (unjust) for appropriation of outer
space by the private sector to occur, but they may not need to follow up with a proposal for
effectively banning said appropriation. Although we hear that “ought implies can” (having a
moral obligation implies that it’s feasible for you to act upon it), it is not true that “unstoppable
implies just.” There is no definitive evidence that private sector appropriation in space is
inexorable (given that asteroid mining, for example, is more of an idea at the moment), so it
could certainly get banned or regulated in a successful way. But the strategic point is that the
Champion Briefs
59
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
Aff does not need to be tethered to the details of any policy proposal, which leaves much
greater room for framework debates. Of course, the Aff still has to defend fiat, and this is
extremely important to clarify. Fiat is simply the hypothetical device that allows us to imagine a
world where private sector appropriation of outer space stops happening, however we get to
that point, so that we can effectively ask whether that world is more just than the status quo.
Otherwise, every LD debate about justice and morality would get written off as idealistic (“the
appropriation of outer space? You’ll never stop that from happening”). So, even frameworkheavy cases without plans depend upon fiat for any of their offense to make sense.
The best philosophical cases on this topic will have evidence that very explicitly connects
the value criterion to the contentions. For example, if you’re reading the Locke NC, it’s ideal to
have framework cards that defend John Locke’s theory of private property rights, and
contention cards that precisely state that Locke’s theory justifies private sector appropriation of
outer space. Cases that resolve around one philosopher (or a group of theorists from one
school of thought) are really strategic because they essentially write themselves; you don’t
have to do any guesswork about whether Locke would affirm or negate the resolution if
credible authors are connecting your framework to the topic. Apart from cases based upon one
theorist, any non-utilitarian case on this topic (and all topics) will need an airtight thesis with
very similar contentions. With a Util AC, you can read the same “util good” cards with
contentions about any impacts of your choosing; no one expects a card that says “utilitarians
would oppose private sector appropriation” because any cards connecting private sector
appropriation to space debris, economic growth, and other impacts are already doing utilitarian
analysis.
Champion Briefs
60
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
Utilitarian cases are strategic because of their impact diversity; pretty much any
consequence can link to util. But if you read the International Law AC, the framework and
contentions are very closely related; if the value criterion is “consistency with international
law,” every contention card must be about international law and nothing else. If you read that
criterion with one contention about the Outer Space Treaty and another contention about
space wars, there will be an obvious disconnect. But non-utilitarian cases are often exciting to
prepare because you can go in-depth on a single thesis (i.e., “private sector appropriation of
outer space is inconsistent with the Outer Space Treaty”) with multiple warrants and weighing
cards. Some debaters may shy away from cases like this because you have one route to the
ballot, whereas a Util AC with three different impact scenarios gives you flexibility in later
speeches. However, the International Law AC gives you the same flexibility in different areas of
the debate. With at least three different justifications for the framework (because a case like
this will spend at least two minutes on framework), you have multiple strategic options for
beating the util or property rights framework from the Neg. And whether you have one long
contention with many sub-points, or you turn those sub-points into three contentions, you
have so much flexibility with defending the thesis of the AC. There are always multiple warrants
for any good argument, and you’ll have an edge against case turns if you put all the warrants
into your case. This is less practical with Util ACs (because you can’t spend so much time on any
one claim in the link chain), but with the International Law AC you can prove the same thesis in
multiple unique ways. By extending the nuances of the framework and contention(s), you’ll
save time on the case in the 1AR and 2AR and can spend more time generating offense against
Neg positions.
Champion Briefs
61
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
Debaters on this topic are also encouraged to explore the literature about outer space
and justice for their framework justifications and contentions, in lieu of recycling the same
cards from previous topics. Many theorists have written about the applicability of common LD
frameworks to outer space, such as Seth Baum in “The Ethics of Outer Space: A
Consequentialist Perspective.” Baum argues that “Attention to outer space prompts us to
recognize the big picture. This holds for consequentialist ethics as much as it does for anything
else. Only by thinking through the possibilities of outer space can we understand how our lives
could matter in the grand scheme of things.”7 Private sector appropriation of outer space
widens our world and thus the range of consequences that our actions have, and we have to
weigh the consequences of appropriation for space itself (even potential intelligent life) against
the consequences for people on Earth. Most other LD frameworks are going to focus on the
ramifications of appropriation for people on Earth or companies lifting off from Earth, but
debaters should look more closely for articles that tie their framework of choice to outer space.
Think about the “overview effect”: the idea that when astronauts looked down at Earth from
their spaceships, their perceptions of life on our planet changed fundamentally because of how
the beauty of the Earth made all of our conflicts and struggles seem so small by comparison.8
There are many ethical overview effects that can shape our theories of justice just by expanding
the scope of our analysis from Earth to beyond.
7
Seth D. Baum, “The Ethics of Outer Space: A Consequentialist Perspective,” In The Ethics of Space Exploration,
ed. James S.J. Schwartz & Tony Milligan, Springer, 2016, pages 109-123. This version 29 July 2016,
https://sethbaum.com/ac/2016_SpaceEthics.pdf
8
Jeffrey Kluger, “The ‘Overview Effect’ Forever Changes Some Astronauts’ Attitudes Toward Earth—But You
Don’t Ned to Go to Space to Experience It,” TIME, July 30, 2021, https://time.com/6084094/overview-effect/
Champion Briefs
62
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
This topic also gives the Aff excellent opportunities to read structural violence cases
about capitalism and colonialism, and the extent that private appropriation of outer space is
connected to both systems. Because there is a lot of literature about the necessity for resisting
capitalism or colonialism in a space context, you would not want to just recycle your generic
evidence that says structural violence is a moral priority. For example, Frank Tavares argues
that “it is critical that ethics and anticolonial practices are a central consideration of planetary
protection. We must actively work to prevent capitalist extraction on other worlds, respect and
preserve their environmental systems, and acknowledge the sovereignty and interconnectivity
of all life.”9 The concepts of planetary protection and the “interconnectivity of all life” are
unique to an outer space topic, and afford you a wider range of arguments about justice than if
your framework cards didn’t gesture at the circumstances of outer space. There is even a
substantial literature about how space in general – not just outer space, but all of our physical
environs – is implicated in the social reproduction of unequal, oppressive systems. David Harvey
argues that capitalism today operates with a “spatial fix” in that the profit-seeking logic of the
system is “addicted to geographical expansion much as it is addicted to technological change
and endless expansion through economic growth.”10 Although Harvey was not writing about
outer space, evidence in this brief connects his concept of the spatial fix to private
appropriation of outer space, for it is the next, more disruptive step in capital’s geographic
expansion. Aside from the cards that establish structural violence as a whole is unjust, there are
9
Frank Tavares, “Ethical Exploration and the Role of Planetary Protection in Disrupting Colonial Practices,” Arxiv,
2009, https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.08344.pdf
10
David Harvey, “Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’,” Geographische Revue 2, 2001, https://publishup.unipotsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2251/file/gr2_01_Ess02.pdf
Champion Briefs
63
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
entire books written about the consequences of colonialism and capitalism for justice, which
can be the source base for a very specific value criterion. However, one risk of reading a narrow
criterion such as “resisting capitalism” is that the Neg can use theory to argue that standards
should be based in comprehensive ethical theories, such as utilitarianism or deontology. If the
only metric for deciding the round is resisting capitalism, it’s hard for the Neg to link offense,
whereas general theories like util or deontology allow both sides more opportunities to win.
The limitation of this theory argument is that all standards are narrow in some way; even
“maximizing utility” or “respecting property rights” limits the round to one type of impact, and
it’s hard to draw a consistent bright line at which “resisting capitalism” is an unfair value
criterion whereas “respecting property rights” is not.
The last set of cases that this topic analysis will cover is the property rights cases. There
are two property rights-based NCs in this brief, based upon John Locke and Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel’s theories of property. Whereas Locke’s theory puts an emphasis on labor
(“mixing” one’s labor with the land or resources they’re claiming), Hegel’s defense of property
rights focuses upon concepts such as autonomy, dignity, and mutual recognition of one
another’s social roles. The Neg’s objective with these cases is to prove that property rights
should not be curtailed at all, as the Aff can argue that while property rights should generally be
respected, there are circumstances in which the greater good (whether maximizing utility or
achieving equality) requires restricting those rights. Another consideration is whether property
rights derive from the natural rights of human beings (Locke’s view) or are purely a creation of
sovereign legal systems (Hegel and others hold this view). In other words, if someone claims
something as their property, does the validity of that claim come from the natural order of
Champion Briefs
64
Topic Analysis by Adam Tomasi
Jan/Feb 2022
things (they have it, so it’s theirs) or from a state deciding that the claim is legitimate (which the
state can always revise or revoke)? In favor of the latter view, Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel
argue that because private property is a legal convention, created in the first place by
governments, “we cannot start by taking as given, and neither in need of justification nor
subject to critical evaluation, some initial allocation of possessions—what people originally
own, what is theirs, prior to government interference.”11 Because governments could always
have arranged property protections differently, we cannot assume that the pre-existing
distribution of property is just, just as masters could only have claimed enslaved people as
human property because of legal permissions, not natural law.
The Jan-Feb 2022 LD topic has a ton of great arguments for both sides about the
philosophical ramifications of developing and appropriating outer space – whether the activities
themselves, or which actors should have the right to conduct them. The opportunities for both
Aff and Neg to write excellent framework-driven cases are not quite as vast as Outer Space
itself, but still pretty huge.
11
Liam Murphy (Professor of Law & Philosophy at NYU) and Thomas Nagel (Professor of Law & Philosophy at
NYU). “The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice.” Oxford University Press (2002).
Champion Briefs
65
Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Affirmative Cases
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: International Law AC
This AC argues that international law, whether Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (OST)
of 1967 or the Moon Treaty of 1979, prohibits private sector appropriation of outer space. The
OST will be more relevant than the Moon Treaty because the US, Russia, and China did not
ratify the Moon Treaty (which is why some authors call it irrelevant), whereas they did
ratify/accede to the OST. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty establishes that “Outer space,
including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim
of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” Aff authors argue that
the private sector is included under the phrase “national appropriation” based upon the text,
history, intent, and commonly held meanings of Article II. The best argument from this
perspective is that because private space companies are legally incorporated in certain nations,
those nations must regulate private sector appropriation, or else they are indirectly engaging in
national appropriation. There are great Aff cards that argue for the legally binding implications
of the OST, which answers one of the better Neg arguments that international law is often nonbinding and unenforceable.
The strength of this AC is that international law is still a niche framework in LD because
most debaters read util or deontology. Given that there is robust literature for the Aff about
international law, you could write an entire case about how the resolution is consistent with
the best interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty. There are great arguments for both sides
about the relative weight of treaties versus customary international law (the norms that states
regularly follow, from a variety of sources, which achieve the status of international law). This
AC’s weakness is that there is equally robust Neg literature about international law; supporters
of private appropriation actually argue that the OST permits appropriation more often than
they argue that international law should simply be ignored.
Champion Briefs
67
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits appropriation by private actors even
if it doesn't mention them by name---this is the best reading of the
treaty text.
Taylor, Kurt. “Fictions Of The Final Frontier: Why The United States SPACE Act Of 2015 Is
Illegal.” Emory International Law Review 33:4. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=
eilr>.
III. THE CASE FOR A BROAD INTERPRETATION OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY Even beyond formal
modes of treaty interpretation, an argument also exists for the use of canons of construction to
support this stance. A. Other Methods of Interpretation: Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius is a widely accepted international canon of
interpretation.127 It states that when interpreting international materials, one should presume
things not mentioned were excluded by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.128 Defined as “[a]
canon of construction holding that to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the
other, or of the alternative,”129 the canon can theoretically be applied to support the
conclusion that the Outer Space Treaty does indeed prohibit the appropriation of celestial
resources by both state and private actors. At the time of the Treaty’s drafting, in the 1960s,
only state actors were interested in outer space endeavors; it was far beyond the realm of
possibility for the drafters to even imagine the technological advancements and privatization of
space interests that have since occurred. Through the treaty, the drafters were speaking only to
the audience to whom it would apply: sovereigns. If the drafters intended for private actors to
be governed differently, expressio unius could be applied negatively to support that they would
have explicitly addressed this in the Treaty.130 Because Article II of the Treaty addresses a
specific issue (non-appropriation of celestial resources and bodies) within the context of every
actor to which it applied at the time of its drafting (state actors only), the canon should apply to
say if the drafters wanted any interested entity to be excluded from the Treaty’s non-
Champion Briefs
68
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
appropriation effect, they would have expressly stated so in the text, thus drastically altering its
literal interpretation. IV. A NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE TREATY CONFLICTS WITH THE
TEXT A. Silence as to Private Actors A narrow interpretation of Article II of the Outer Space
Treaty, concluding that it applies to state actors only, conflicts with the text. The argument for a
narrow interpretation rests on the conclusion that because the Treaty does not address
property rights per se, there is no prohibition against private appropriation of celestial
resources.131 Some scholars extend this argument to say that because the Treaty only
addresses appropriation by a sovereign, it is not binding on private appropriation of celestial
resources, therefore allowing legal ownership over any part of outer space by an individual or
private organization.132 While attractive, this argument fails to recognize the authority of the
Vienna Convention; treaty interpretation must start with the text of the treaty and not an
analysis of its drafters’ perceived intent.133 Only if such a textualist analysis yields a result that
conflicts with the spirit, purpose, or context of the text should one turn to secondary methods
of interpretation. This argument skips an important step in the analytical process by
overlooking the textualist interpretation of the Treaty. A textualist interpretation, as examined
in Part III,134 supports a broad application of the non-appropriation doctrine.
Champion Briefs
69
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The distinction between sovereignty and control over space objects,
while coherent, does not justify property rights in space.
Taylor, Kurt. “Fictions Of The Final Frontier: Why The United States SPACE Act Of 2015 Is
Illegal.” Emory International Law Review 33:4. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=
eilr>.
B. Jurisdictional Control Scholars also advance an argument that the Treaty bars states from
appropriating territorial sovereignty over celestial resources, but allows for a “functional”
property right—a jurisdictional control—over objects and persons, and by virtue of that, the
celestial land to which it is attached for the time it is attached.135 The argument here is
grounded in Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, which is said to confer the “functional”
property right. 136 The problem with this argument is that it conflates jurisdictional control
with true property rights. The treaty does allow jurisdictional control over objects (equipment
sent into space, for instance), but it does not “prescribe a system in which jurisdictional control
can be used to establish real property rights.”137 Therefore, this “functional” property right
argument fails to establish a framework for valid appropriation of celestial resources under the
Outer Space Treaty, and cannot, by extension, protect the SPACE Act of 2015.
Champion Briefs
70
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Outer Space Treaty prohibits private property in space---Article II
bars “national appropriation,” and states are responsible for the
private companies incorporated in their jurisdictions.
Beauvois, Erwan. “Partial Ownership For Outer Space Resources.” Advances in Astronautics
Science and Technology volume 3. February 19, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42423-019-00042-0>.
The Outer Space Treaty [2], established in 1967, has been ratified by 108 countries and signed
by 23 more. It is an agreement between the major space-faring nations to establish a baseline
legal framework regulating space exploration. It actively promotes international partnerships,
peaceful use of space, and introduces several concepts that are important to note before
thinking about a governance structure for outer space resources: “There shall be free access to
all areas of celestial bodies” Art. I. “Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies,
is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty” Art. II. “State Parties to the
Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the
Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental
agencies or by non-governmental entities” Art. VI. A nation shall not have “potentially harmful
interference with activities [of other nations] in the peaceful exploration and use of outer
space” Art. IX. In other words, there should be no private property in space, because it would
introduce a right to exclude others, and to prevent them from using a property. It would not
comply with the principles of the OST, as every land shall remain “the province of all mankind”
and there shall be “free use”, if it does not interfere with activities of other nations. Also,
nations are responsible for their private companies and citizens actions in space. This
prohibition of private property is subject to interpretation and several national laws, like in the
U.S.A. and Luxembourg, are materializing a different interpretation and are essentially granting
their companies a right to claim private property in space. In 2015, the US Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act (HR 2262) of the Obama Administration states in Title IV—”Space
Champion Briefs
71
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Resource Exploration and Utilization” that the USA must facilitate the recovery of resources
coming from space for all its citizens. This resources appropriation, even if facilitated and even
sometimes funded by the American government, does not impose American sovereignty on the
celestial bodies according to the Act. In 2017, Luxembourg took inspiration from the USA and
passed a space law stating in its first article that space resources are allowed for appropriation
if the operator is settled in the country and has an approval of the Ministry in charge of
economy and space exploration. National legislations are a good strategy to offer guarantees
for private investments, but do not offer a satisfactory conflict resolving mechanism, and will
probably cause problems in the future when multiple nations will be interested by the same
resources (certain orbits, asteroids, or areas of the Moon and Mars certainly have special
value).
Champion Briefs
72
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Because private property rights derive from the authority of a
national sovereign, the Outer Space Treaty's prohibition on “national
appropriation” of space includes the private sector.
Taylor, Kurt. “Fictions Of The Final Frontier: Why The United States SPACE Act Of 2015 Is
Illegal.” Emory International Law Review 33:4. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=
eilr>.
The broad text in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty provides an ordinary and unambiguous
meaning free from absurdity.90 The language of Article II is short: “[o]uter space, including the
Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of
sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”91 At first glance, the
language clearly intends to bar ownership over all aspects of outer space, with the only wrinkle
of confusion being the meaning of “national appropriation.” Stephen Gorove, a space law
expert, has suggested it is better to first define appropriation before determining how
“national” modifies the term.92 Broadly, appropriation is “the taking of property for one’s own
or exclusive use with a sense of permanence.”93 In this regard, appropriation is of a “national”
character when it is by an entity under the sovereignty of the state from which they come or
represent.94 Even though Article II uses the “national” language, its ordinary meaning is most
closely linked to all sovereignties and the individuals and entities that attain property rights
under the authority of a sovereign. A separate insight of classic legal realism logically lends itself
to the same conclusion. For an individual to hold property rights in something, the government
must legally recognize the property rights.95 The language of Article II bars governments from
recognizing property interests in outer space for themselves. Because individuals and private
entities cannot hold property rights in something without recognition from a sovereign that it
will protect their rights, a correct interpretation of the language of Article II should bar the
ability of private entities and individuals to appropriate rights over celestial resources as well. If
Champion Briefs
73
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
a state recognizes a property right held by an individual over a celestial body or resource, such
recognition would constitute a form of national appropriation because it is essentially “a de
facto exclusion of other states and their nationals” to that body or resource.96 The text of
Article II naturally leads to the conclusion that its non-appropriation language is binding on all
actors— state and private.
Champion Briefs
74
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
International law is key to norms of care and respect between states,
and it's most consistent with other frameworks such as util or
Kantiansm.
Held, Virginia. “Morality, Care, And International Law.” Ethics & Global Politics 4:3. 2011. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://philpapers.org/rec/HELMCA>.
To express our commitment to treating all persons with care and respect, we ought to adhere
to the requirements of norms concerning human rights. And to put into effect our caring
concern that we deal with conflicts between states and groups without resorting to violence,
we ought to adhere to the norms of international law. As we accept these norms we can
demand that others do so also, but we ought to promote this demand as non-violently as
possible. Strengthening international law as so far developed would decrease the violence—on
whatever side it is used—so antithetical to care. The ideal theorists influenced by Kant are
content to say that illegitimate regimes have no claim to the protections of international law:
they remain in the Hobbesian wilderness and may morally and legally be subject to
intervention. International law as so far developed, on the other hand, would accord states and
all those who would be harmed by such intervention, some protection, within limits. To the
ethics of care and within its guidelines this would be approved. A reduction of probable
violence, however, would not be the only gain to be realized with a strengthening of
international law as so far developed. One of the primary values of an ethics of care is trust. A
greater reliance on international law for the handling of conflicts and disputes would do much
to foster trust among potentially contentious states. It would help in the tasks of mutually
enlightening states about the points of view of their competitors and of enabling them to
empathize with the fears and goals of those whose interests conflict with their own. It would
promote cooperation between those who might otherwise only compete for advantage. These
are all important values for the ethics of care. For both Kantian and utilitarian moral theory,
there are individuals on the one hand and ‘all persons’ or ‘everyone’ on the other. Groups
Champion Briefs
75
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
between these are relatively invisible. Such views ignore the national boundaries and group
loyalties that affect so strongly the realities of international affairs. The world is rife with local
loyalties. The ethics of care, far better than such other moral theories, understands the ties of
groups from families to nations. From the outset, the ethics of care understands persons as
relational, interdependent, and located in actual contexts of interdependence. This is true also
for the groups of which individual persons are members. These are far more realistic positions
from which to consider the case for international law than is the ideal of independent free and
equal individuals, or states, entering into hypothetical contracts. Inherent to the ethics of care
is that it enlists the emotions. Where rationalistic moral theories fearing such dangerous
emotions as hatred, revenge, and aggression ban all emotion as the basis of right action, the
ethics of care appreciates the moral and not only instrumental value of such emotions as
empathy and what Hume called ‘fellow-feeling’. Such emotions will support respect for
international law giving it more strength in gaining acceptance and in prevailing against
conflicting inclinations. It seems clear from almost every perspective that in a world dominated
by states striving to promote their own interests and threatened periodically by terrorism and
war, the rule of law and thus international law ought to be promoted. This can be
recommended on many moral grounds, such as Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, but it can be
even more strongly demanded by the ethics of care.
Champion Briefs
76
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Outer Space Treaty is binding for countries that ratified it, and it's
succeeded for over 50 years despite lacking an enforcement
mechanism.
Stuart, Jill. “The Outer Space Treaty Has Been Remarkably Successful – But Is It Fit For The
Modern Age?.” The Conversation. January 27, 2017. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://theconversation.com/the-outer-space-treaty-has-been-remarkably-successfulbut-is-it-fit-for-the-modern-age-71381>.
The Outer Space Treaty, like all international law, is technically binding to those countries who
sign up to it. But the obvious lack of “space police” means that it cannot be practically enforced.
So a country, individual or company could simply ignore it if they so wished. Implications for not
complying could include sanctions, but mainly a lack of legitimacy and respect which is of
importance in the international arena. However it is interesting that, over the 50 years of it’s
existence, the treaty has never actually been violated. Although many practical challenges have
been made – these have always been made with pars of the treaty in mind, rather than seeking
to undermine it entirely.
Champion Briefs
77
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Treaties are far more relevant in the international sphere than
customary international law---the best data proves.
Alford, Roger. “Customary International Law Is Obsolete.” Opinio Juris. November 29, 2014.
Web. December 11, 2021. <http://opiniojuris.org/2014/11/29/customary-internationallaw-obsolete/>.
29.11.14 | 15 Comments That’s the provocative conclusion of the latest research by Joel
Trachtman. Trachtman’s articles are typically succinct and seductive, so you owe it to yourself
to read the short article (and skim the long appendix). Trachtman examined 300 different CIL
rules and found that only 13 (4.33%) have not been either incorporated in treaties or codified.
Trachtman argues that the move toward treaties is because CIL cannot respond effectively to
the great modern challenges of international society: global environmental protection,
international public health, cybersecurity, financial cataclysm, and liberalization of movement
of goods, services, and people. Trachtman also argues that CIL is incapable of addressing
enduring challenges of regulating war, protecting human rights, and reducing poverty.
According to Trachtman, the reasons for CIL’s obsolescence are manifold. CIL (1) cannot be
made in a coordinated manner; (2) cannot be made with sufficient detail; (3) cannot be made
with sufficiently heterogeneous reciprocity; (4) cannot be made with specifically-designed
organization support; (5) is not subject to national parliamentary control; (6) purports to bind
states that did not consent but failed to object to its formation, and (7) provides excessive
space for auto-interpretation by states or undisciplined judges. For Trachtman, the
obsolescence of CIL should lead states to stop arguing about CIL and start legislating mutually
beneficial transactions. It should also lead NGOs and advocates to stop trying to “bootstrap a
desired CIL past a target state” and instead engage with those states in treatymaking.
Academics should “focus our analysis on the politically immanent, interdisciplinary, work of
developing proposed rules that are administratively workable and effective, and that achieve
actual social goals.” He suggests that the international legal system could survive just fine
without CIL. So stop worrying about custom and learn to love treaties. This is powerful stuff.
Champion Briefs
78
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
With this piece Trachtman has done a great service to the academic debate on the relevance of
CIL. Perhaps unwittingly, he also has done great service to customary international law by
offering a comprehensive appendix that lists 300 of the most important CIL rules. If you want
students to quickly grasp the scope and contours of CIL, just peruse the appendix. Applying
Trachtman’s thesis to my world of international economic law, I must concur with much of
Trachtman’s argument. International trade law, in particular, is all about negotiating,
interpretation, and enforcing treaties. We rarely if ever discuss CIL in a trade class. The very
nature of an FTA is that it confers rights and obligations exclusively its Members. The defects of
CIL are significant enough that trade law is almost exclusively treaty law. International
arbitration is more complicated. Trachtman only identifies two CIL rules for international
economic law (Rule 207 and 208), both codified in the investment chapter of NAFTA Chapter
11. But the norm for investment arbitration is to articulate a general standard of protection in
bilateral investment treaties (or FTA investment chapters), and then leave it to arbitral tribunals
the task of devising detailed obligations from those general standards. Indeed, most BITs
require States to afford investors protection consistent with international law, leaving to
tribunals the task of discerning precisely what international law requires. BITs are not codifying
CIL, but in a sense they instruct tribunals to create it. Trachtman would not disagree that CIL is
still relevant in limited contexts. He specifically recognizes that occasionally CIL is more precise
than a codified rule. International humanitarian law and investment arbitration may be such
categories. Likewise, Trachtman would concede that CIL is relevant where the treaty is binding
on only a few states, as is the case with rules of state succession. One can easily find selective
instances where Trachtman is wrong. But what I doubt critics will be able to do is refute his
general thesis that the codification of international rules through treaties has made CIL
increasingly obsolete.
Champion Briefs
79
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The “common heritage of mankind” doctrine in international law
rules out profit-driven appropriation of outer space resources.
Exploitation of space resources must be managed by an international
authority, not private actors, for the benefit of all people.
Paliouras, Zachos. “The Non-Appropriation Principle: The Grundnorm Of International Space
Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law 27:1. January 24, 2014. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/core/journals/leiden-journal-ofinternational-law/article/nonappropriation-principle-the-grundnorm-of-internationalspace-law/8AD09DA3D3B31AA7E9D87C8829C96464>.
This article, however, submits that it is rather unlikely that, if applied to outer space, the
‘freedom of the seas’ paradigm will serve the interests of the majority of Earth's population.
Indeed, a res communis omnium regime is inherently favourable towards a laissez-faire
approach to space exploitation since it allows states to individually harvest the ‘high
frontier’.Footnote75 As a result, only a few societies will eventually benefit from the universe's
wealth, through the means that are soon to be at the disposal of a handful of technologically
advanced space-faring nations. The rest will have to settle with a freedom too expensive to
exercise.Footnote76 By contrast, the res communis humanitatis doctrine reflects an entirely
different perception.Footnote77 Instead of creating a free-market economy framework for
resource exploitation, it focuses on the establishment of an international legal structure
whereby the appropriation of natural resources of any kind cannot be conceived,Footnote78
while an international authority is competent for the management of any exploitative activity.
The benefits of such activities are equally distributed to all states.Footnote79 Apparently, the
CHM doctrine is ‘inconsistent with the concept of profit’.Footnote80 It is, in other words,
obvious that ‘the essence of the CHM theory is to assist those States that have inadequate
means to enjoy the benefits acquired by the commons’.Footnote81
Champion Briefs
80
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Article II of the OST precludes private sector appropriation.
Paliouras, Zachos. “The Non-Appropriation Principle: The Grundnorm Of International Space
Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law 27:1. January 24, 2014. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/core/journals/leiden-journal-ofinternational-law/article/nonappropriation-principle-the-grundnorm-of-internationalspace-law/8AD09DA3D3B31AA7E9D87C8829C96464>.
It is a doctrinal principle of any legal theory that the term ‘right’ acquires a legal substance only
because of its conferment on its beneficiary by a certain legal order.Footnote87 Accordingly,
the conferment of private property rights over any portion of a given territory presupposes that
the state which confers the proprietary title is entitled to exclude other sovereigns from doing
so. In other words, it presupposes supreme authority over that portion of territory, i.e.
territorial sovereignty.Footnote88 Therefore, as a matter of international law, the
appropriation of any part of outer space lato sensu by private individuals is precluded by Article
II of the Outer Space Treaty. Hence, any state that confers proprietary rights in outer space
would commit an internationally wrongful act, since nemo plus juris transfere potest, quam
ipse habet.
Champion Briefs
81
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
States authorizing appropriation are functionally delegating
corporations as sovereigns, which violates the prohibition on
“national appropriation.”
Paliouras, Zachos. “The Non-Appropriation Principle: The Grundnorm Of International Space
Law.” Leiden Journal of International Law 27:1. January 24, 2014. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://www-cambridge-org.ezproxy.neu.edu/core/journals/leiden-journal-ofinternational-law/article/nonappropriation-principle-the-grundnorm-of-internationalspace-law/8AD09DA3D3B31AA7E9D87C8829C96464>.
Another argument that has also been submitted is based on the interpretation of Article II of
the OST in conjunction with Article VI thereof, which stipulates, inter alia, that ‘[t]he activities
of non-governmental entities in outer space … shall require authorization … by the appropriate
State Party to the Treaty’. Therefore, a private entity may not engage in any activity in outer
space, including activities that involve the establishment or the exercise of proprietary rights,
without having been authorized by the appropriate state for that purpose. Moreover, as has
already been demonstrated in this article,Footnote89 activities of private entities can be seen
as effectivités, i.e. as sovereign activities of a state towards the acquisition of territorial
sovereignty by means of occupation, provided that they take place under the regulations
and/or the authority of that state. This would essentially mean that the state that authorizes
the appropriation of any part of outer space by a private individual would legally claim that part
by means of occupation and thus would fail to observe its obligation under Article II of the
OST.Footnote90
Champion Briefs
82
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Moon Treaty of 1979 prohibits private sector appropriation.
Listner, Michael. “The Moon Treaty: Failed International Law Or Waiting In The Shadows?.” The
Space Review. October 24, 2011. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1>.
The Moon Treaty of 1979 The Moon Treaty is the fourth child of the Outer Space Treaty. It was
deliberated and developed by the Legal Subcommittee for the Committee on the Peaceful Uses
of Outer Space (COPUOS) from 1972 to 1979. It was adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly in Resolution 34/68 and opened for signature in 1979, but was not placed in force
until June 1984 when the fifth country, Austria, ratified it. Presently, the Moon Treaty has been
ratified by six countries. Four countries, including France and India, are signatories, and seven
countries have acceded to the Moon Treaty, including Australia. The United States, the Russian
Federation (former Soviet Union), and the People’s Republic of China have neither signed,
acceded, nor ratified the Moon Treaty, which has led to the conclusion that it is a failure from
the standpoint of international law.2 Like the three other children of the Outer Space Treaty,
the Moon Treaty upholds and elaborates on many of the provisions of its parent. Specifically,
the Moon Treaty applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies in the solar system excluding
the Earth. It provides that these bodies should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, that
their environments should not be disrupted, and that the United Nations should be informed of
the location and purpose of any station established on those bodies. The Moon Treaty also
closes a loophole in the Outer Space Treaty by banning any ownership of any extraterrestrial
property by any organization or private person, unless that organization is international and
governmental. The most controversial section of the Moon Treaty deals with natural resources
on the Moon. The Moon Treaty provides that the Moon and its natural resources are the
common heritage of mankind and the harvesting of those resources is forbidden except
through an international regime established to govern the exploitation of such resources when
it becomes feasible to do so. The exact nature of this regime is not detailed, nor is the term
“resources” defined. It is reasonable to presume that the term “resources” would include
Champion Briefs
83
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
recently discovered mineral deposits including titanium, the substantial water ice discovered at
the Moon’s south pole, and the helium-3 within the lunar regolith that entrepreneurs such as
Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmidt have proposed to extract to power future fusion reactors.
The form of the form of the international regime introduced in the Moon Treaty has yet to
fleshed out, but it is probable that it would be similar in form to the international regime called
“The Enterprise”, which was proposed in Part XI of the 1994 Agreement of the Law of the Sea
Convention to oversee the mining of mineral resources in the world’s oceans, including polymetallic nodules. The nature of the Enterprise was envisioned to oversee developed nations
and private companies operating under their jurisdiction and would have required a portion of
the mineral wealth mined from the ocean floor to be allocated to the Enterprise for distribution
among the developing countries. More worrisome for countries such as the United States was
that the Enterprise as envisioned also required that developed nations transfer technology to
the Enterprise so the non-developed could also participate in the extraction of resources from
the ocean floor. If the international regime envisioned by the Moon Treaty takes a form similar
to that of the Enterprise, developed nations would be required to relinquish a portion of the
resources extracted from the Moon and other celestial bodies. They would also be required to
surrender technology developed by private industries under their jurisdiction for extracting
extraterrestrial resources so that developing nations could participate in the activity of
acquiring those resources as well. This implies that the Moon Treaty’s common heritage view
applies not only to extraterrestrial real property and resources but to intellectual property
rights as well.3
Champion Briefs
84
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Even though the US, Russia, and China have not ratified the Moon
Treaty, it still has binding force and significance as customary
international law.
Listner, Michael. “The Moon Treaty: Failed International Law Or Waiting In The Shadows?.” The
Space Review. October 24, 2011. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1954/1>.
The Moon Treaty and International Law As discussed earlier, the three major spacefaring
nations (“the Big Three”) are non-parties to the Moon Treaty, which has led to the opinion that
the Moon Treaty is a failure as a treaty and international law. However, even though the Moon
Treaty is technically not binding on the Big Three, it is technically valid international law. Even
with only six nations ratifying the Moon Treaty, the fact that eleven other nations, including
Australia, France, and India, have acceded to or become signatories to the Moon Treaty creates
a shadow of customary law that could grow such that non-parties could find themselves
overshadowed by the penumbra of the Moon Treaty, especially if those non-parties take no
action to refute its legitimacy. For example, the Moon Treaty was initially favored for
ratification by the United States during the Carter Administration, but efforts by industry and
groups such as the L-5 Society generated concern among members of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, who ultimately decide whether to present the Moon Treaty for
ratification. This concern led the Carter Administration to put the issue of ratification on hold
until it was politically feasible. The succession of the Reagan Administration derailed any future
ratification of the Moon Treaty. The administration gave notice that it was against moving
forward with ratification the Moon Treaty, which effectively made the Moon Treaty dead as far
as the United States was concerned. Despite this, no official position was ever taken by the
United States on the validity of the Moon Treaty, and in essence it was put on the political
backburner.4 Conversely, while the United States has not taken an official position on the
Moon Treaty, it has officially recognized in diplomatic circles the binding nature of the other
Champion Briefs
85
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
four space law treaties, while notably not mentioning the Moon Treaty. While this does not
have the force of openly renouncing the Moon Treaty, the question remains whether it helps to
stave off the shadow of customary international law and its foreseeable creep to bind nonparties to the Moon Treaty. Ironically, the strongest defense mounted by the United States
against the shadows of the Moon Treaty does not come from the State Department but from a
declaration of claim granted made by Dennis Hope.5 In 1980, Dennis Hope filed a declaration of
claim with the United States government asserting a claim over the Moon. Ever since Hope’s
declaration was filed he has been selling parcels of lunar property to individuals as well as
franchising his real estate business across the globe. Purchasers for Hope’s lunar real estate
sales include former presidents, celebrities, and private individuals who either retain their title
for their persons or to establish off-world financial havens. Many legal scholars (including the
author) have questioned the legitimacy of Hope’s title to the Moon as well as conveyances
passed to his customers. Despite this, the fact remains that his claim, which has not been
formally rejected by the United States government, flies in the face of the Moon Treaty and its
validity as binding international law. So while the United States’ apparent endorsement of
Hope’s activities is not an official denunciation of the Moon Treaty, it does have the effect of
impeding the shadow of the Moon Treaty. A potential game-changer that could give strength to
the shadow of the Moon Treaty is the possibility that either Russia or China could decide to
throw its diplomatic weight behind the Moon Treaty. The status of both countries as nonparties to the Moon Treaty contributes to its repute as a failed treaty; however, the opposite
would true if either or both nations at the very least signed or acceded to the Moon Treaty.
Such an action would not only revive the Moon Treaty’s reputation, but it would also expand
the shadows of customary law engulfing parties and non-parties alike. Both the PRC and the
Russian Federation would stand to gain in terms of soft power with such a move. Moreover,
with both the nations already seeking to expand the treaty base of international space law in
terms of space security through efforts to impose a formal ban on weapons in space, formally
recognizing the Moon Treaty could pressure United States’ space policy from two fronts. For its
part, the United States would be faced with a two-prong diplomatic attack with the PPWT and a
resurgent Moon Treaty compelling the United States from two directions. While current US
Champion Briefs
86
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
space policy allows for the consideration of new space law treaties if they are equitable and can
be verified, the current and foreseeable political environment is not conducive to adopting
either of the treaties. However, even if the United States fends off such a diplomatic attack, the
effect on the shadow of the Moon Treaty by such a move by the Russian Federation and the
PRC would be significant. If the United States finds itself backed into a corner diplomatically
from such a scenario, it could a take a tack similar to the one it took with the Law of the Sea
Convention by becoming a signatory. As previously mentioned, the act of signing the Moon
Treaty would not obligate the United States to ratify it nor to abide by its precepts. Becoming a
signatory would give the United States the opportunity to seek modifications to the Moon
Treaty that could nullify some of the more concerning parts. However, becoming a signatory to
the Moon Treaty would also increase the reach of the shadow of the Moon Treaty, and if the
United States decided to withdraw without acceding or ratifying the Moon Treaty, it could find
that shadow to be much stronger and difficult to turn back. Conclusion Assuming that the
Moon Treaty has no legal effect because of the non-participation of the Big Three is folly. The
shadow of customary law and its ability to creep into the vacuum left vacant by treaty law
should not be underestimated. To that end, the most effective way of dealing with the question
of the Moon Treaty’s validity is to officially denounce it. However, the realities of international
politics and diplomacy will likely preclude such an action. The alternative is to act in a manner
contrary to the Moon Treaty, and more importantly not to act in conformity with its precepts
and hope that is sufficient to turn back the shadows of the Moon Treaty.
Champion Briefs
87
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Non-appropriation is customary international law.
Fitzmaurice, Joshua. “On The Legality Of Mars Colonisation.” Adelaide Law Review 40:3. 2019.
Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://law.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/1407/ALR_40%283%29_10_Fitzmaurice_Hende
rson_Web.pdf>.
The principle of non-appropriation contained in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty provides
that ‘[o]uter space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other
means’.40 It is arguably a principle of customary international law, having received widespread
acceptance and representing state practice for more than 50 years. This means that outer space
is a global commons, and no state can exercise legal control over any of part of outer space,
including celestial bodies, as if it were that state’s legal territory.41 While the term ‘celestial
bodies’ is not defined in any of the space law treaties, the International Astronomical Union
adopted definitions in 2006 which recognise the following as ‘celestial bodies’: the Sun; the
planets; the Moon of Earth and the moons of other planets; near-Earth objects; dwarf planets;
trans-Neptunian objects; asteroids, comets; and Kuiper belt objects.42
Champion Briefs
88
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The non-appropriation principle in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty
prevents conflicts between states in space---that turns util.
Tronchetti, Fabio. “THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE UNDER ATTACK: USING ARTICLE II OF
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY IN ITS DEFE.” International Institute of Space Law. 2007.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2007.pdf>.
The non-appropriation principle represents the cardinal rule of the space law system. Since this
principle was incorporated in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty (OST)1 in 1967, first declared
in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions 17212 and 19623, it has provided
guidance and basis for space activities and has contributed to 40 years of peaceful exploration
and use of outer space. The importance of the non-appropriation principle stems from the fact
that it has prevented outer space from becoming an area of international conflict among States.
By prohibiting States from obtaining territorial sovereignty rights over outer space or any of its
parts, it has avoided the risk that rivalries and tensions could arise in relation to the
management of outer space and its resources. Moreover, its presence has represented the best
guarantee for the realization of one of the fundamental principles of space law, namely the
exploration and use of outer space to be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all
States, irrespective of their stage of development. When in the end of the 1950’s and in the
beginning of the 1960’s States renounced any potential claims of sovereignty over outer space,
indeed, they agreed to consider it as a res belonging to all mankind, whose utilization and
development was to be aimed to encounter not only the needs of the few States involved in
space activities but also of all countries irrespective of their degree of development. If we
analyse the status of outer space 40 years after the entry into force of the Outer Space Treaty,
it is possible to affirm that the non-appropriation principle has been successful in allowing the
safe and orderly development of space activities.
Champion Briefs
89
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The text, history, and intent of the Outer Space Treaty confirm that it
prohibits private property in space as much as state-owned property.
Tronchetti, Fabio. “THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE UNDER ATTACK: USING ARTICLE II OF
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY IN ITS DEFE.” International Institute of Space Law. 2007.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2007.pdf>.
However, it must be said, that nowadays there is a general consensus on the fact that both
national appropriation and private property rights are denied under the Outer Space Treaty.
Several way of reasoning have been advanced to support this view. Sters and Tennen affirm
that the argument that Article II does not apply to private entities since they are not expressly
mentioned fails for the reason that they do not need to be explicitly listed in Article II to be fully
subject to the non-appropriation principle8. Private entities are allowed to carry out space
activities but, according to Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, they must be authorized to
conduct such activities by the appropriate State of nationality. But if the State is prohibited
from engaging in certain conduct, then it lacks the authority to license its nationals or other
entities subject to its jurisdiction to engage in that prohibited activity. Jenks argues that “States
bear international responsibility for national activities in space; it follows that what is forbidden
to a State is not permitted to a chartered company created by a State or to one of its nationals
acting as a private adventurer”9. It has been also suggested that the prohibition of national
appropriation implies prohibition of private appropriation because the latter cannot exist
independently from the former10. In order to exist, indeed, private property requires a superior
authority to enforce it, be in the form of a State or some other recognised entity. In outer
space, however, this practice of State endorsement is forbidden. Should a State recognise or
protect the territorial acquisitions of any of its subjects, this would constitute a form of national
appropriation in violation of Article II. Moreover, it is possible to use some historical elements
to support the argument that both the acquisition of State sovereignty and the creation of
private property rights are forbidden by the words of Article II. During the negotiations of the
Outer Space Treaty, the Delegate of Belgium affirmed that his delegation “had taken note of
Champion Briefs
90
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the interpretation of the non-appropriation advanced by several delegations-apparently
without contradiction-as covering both the establishment of sovereignty and the creation of
titles to property in private law”11. The French Delegate stated that: “…there was reason to be
satisfied that three basic principles were affirmed, namely: the prohibition of any claim of
sovereignty or property rights in space…”12. The fact that the accessions to the Outer Space
Treaty were not accompanied by reservations or interpretations of the meaning of Article II, it
is an evidence of the fact that this issue was considered to be settled during the negotiation
phase. Thus, summing up, we may say that prohibition of appropriation of outer space and its
parts is a rule which is valid for both private and public entity. The theory that private operators
are not subject to this rule represents a myth that is not supported by any valid legal argument.
Moreover, it can be also added that if any subject was allowed to appropriate parts of outer
space, the basic aim of the drafters of the Treaty, namely to prevent a colonial competition in
outer space and to create the conditions and premises for an exploration and use of outer
space carried out for the benefit of all States, would be betrayed. Therefore, the need to
protect the non-appropriative nature of outer space emerges in all its relevance.
Champion Briefs
91
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Article II is legally binding---it has more legal force than a mere
resolution by the UN General Assembly.
Tronchetti, Fabio. “THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE UNDER ATTACK: USING ARTICLE II OF
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY IN ITS DEFE.” International Institute of Space Law. 2007.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2007.pdf>.
The analysis of the practice before the conclusion of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty shows that
the prohibition of the extension of State sovereignty to outer space was one of the first
principles on which States agreed upon. Since the beginning of the space era, indeed, the US
and the Soviet Union, the only two superpowers able to carry out space activities at that time,
decided to consider outer space as non-appropriable and their behaviours confirmed such
interpretation. Indeed, when space activities began, no territorial claims were put forward. The
first incorporation of the nonappropriation principle into a legal document was made by means
of UNGA Resolution 1721 (XVI) of 20 December 1961 which declared “Outer space and celestial
bodies…are not subject to national appropriation”. Two years later Resolution 1962 (XVIII) of 13
December 1963 stated that “Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to national
appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means”.
The formulation and content of these two Resolution was largely influenced by the willing of
the two superpowers. Nonetheless, both Resolutions encountered the full support of the rest
of the members of the United Nations and were adopted unanimously. This fact was the
evidence of the existence of an opinio juris among the UN members confirming that the
principles contained in the Resolution, and in particular the non-appropriation one, were
accepted by the community of States. As affirmed by the Canadian Delegate in 1963, “the legal
principles contained in the draft resolution…reflected international law as it was currently
accepted by Member States”16. The US Delegate supported this view by declaring: “We believe
these legal principles reflect international law as it is accepted by the Member of the United
Nations”17. The above mentioned text of Resolution 1962 was restated and spelled out in
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. From a legal point of view, the Treaty transformed the
Champion Briefs
92
AFF: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
nonappropriation principle into a binding legal obligation. Indeed, the legal effect of a principle
set out in a treaty or convention ratified by Governments is not comparable to that of a
principle laid down in a Resolution by the General Assembly. However, in my opinion, Article II
simply reaffirmed a principle that was already part of general law and, as a consequence,
already valid erga omnes and binding upon all States, being or not active in space operations.
Article II, indeed, was declaratory of a formerly set out rule of customary law.
Champion Briefs
93
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
The Public Appropriation AC argues that private sector appropriation of outer space is
unjust because that same appropriation should be done by the public sector instead. The case
proposes the creation of an international body that would redistribute the economic and
scientific benefits of appropriation to all of humanity, whether through aid to developing
countries that do not have space programs, or through a global dividend check comparable to
the basic income that residents of Alaska receive from the state’s oil revenues. Public
appropriation is not predicated upon the profit motive, so the gains of appropriation could be
reinvested in public goods instead of just being pocketed by a space company. You could read
contentions about the moral obligation to prioritize the welfare of the Global South, as well as
the extent that private appropriation of space, unlike public initiatives, will increase the
unequal concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the “one-percent.” There is also
overlap with international law; an international body for appropriating space resources would
not violate the prohibition on making claims to celestial bodies based upon national sovereignty
(Article II of the Outer Space Treaty).
The strength of this AC is that it makes an end-run against “appropriation good” DAs
from the Neg that speak to the overall benefits of asteroid mining, mega-constellations of
satellites for global Internet access, etc. without a strong defense of private sector involvement.
Affs that largely claim there should be no appropriation of outer space (which so happens to be
private) will have to answer those DAs more directly, whereas this Aff can say “I agree with
asteroid mining, just not with corporations doing it for their own financial benefit.” The
weakness of this AC is that it allows the Neg to impact turn appropriation by reading their
typical Aff cards on the Neg; anyone reading the Public Appropriation AC should similarly be
ready to do some Neg debating on the Aff if they’re supporting any of the aforementioned
appropriative activities.
Champion Briefs
94
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Appropriation of outer space should be public, not private. A Galactic
Wealth Fund should democratize the benefits of resource extraction
in space, like the sovereign wealth fund for oil revenue in Alaska.
Levine, Nick. “Democratize The Universe.” Jacobin. March 21, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://jacobinmag.com/2015/03/space-industry-extraction-levine>.
The history of the Moon Treaty serves as a reminder that outer space is not just a screen onto
which we project techno-utopian fantasies or existential anxieties about the infinite void. It has
been, and will continue to be, a site of concrete struggle over economic power. The politics of
the present are undoubtedly different from those of the 1970s. The egalitarian project of the
Group of 77 has given way to BRICS-style market liberalism. Global capital has gained power
where international labor efforts have stagnated. Domestic inequalities have skyrocketed. The
rapid proliferation of information technologies has temporarily masked the reality that the
future, to paraphrase William Gibson, is not being very evenly distributed. Without
international political organization to challenge galactic market fundamentalism, a twenty-first
century space odyssey could mean the concentration of even more wealth and income in the
hands of a few powerful corporations and the most technologically advanced countries. At the
same time, and for the same reasons, the prospect of preserving the final frontier as a celestial
commons presents an opportunity to fight for a more democratic political economy. Sharing
the benefits of the celestial commons is key to expanding democracy to a galactic scale. One
time-tested means of distributing the benefits of natural-resource extraction universally is the
sovereign wealth fund, which Alaska uses to deliver oil revenue to its residents. As an
international commons, outer space offers an opportunity to experiment with such
redistributive mechanisms beyond the traditional confines of the nation-state. Organizing
around an issue of such scale may seem utopian, but it’s also necessary. From regulating capital
to mitigating climate change, the problems that confront us are inherently global in scope and
require commensurate strategies. At the very least, the global left ought to demand the
Champion Briefs
95
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
creation of an independent Galactic Wealth Fund to manage the proceeds of outer space
resources on behalf of all human beings. At first, it would amount to little, divided up among all
of us. But as the space economy grows relative to the terrestrial one, social dividends from the
Galactic Wealth Fund could provide the basis for a truly universal basic income. This is just one
component of a broader platform for galactic democracy that must be developed collectively.
Extraterrestrial economic justice — not just shiny technological advances — will be central to
any truly egalitarian politics in the twenty-first century. It’s time to start building a democratic
futurism.
Champion Briefs
96
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private appropriation of asteroid resources will create artificial
scarcity to guarantee profits, when asteroid mining could ensure that
the world has an unlimited energy supply. An international body
should take asteroid mining out of private hands to fairly distribute
the wealth and other gains of asteroid mining.
Bastani, Aaron. “Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto.” Verso. 2019. Web.
December 11, 2021.
<https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3445353/2.-aaron-bastanifully-automated-luxury-communism-a-manifesto-2.pdf>.
In August 2017 Peter Diamandis, co-founder of Planetary Resources, asked Blue Origin’s Erika
Wagner who would win in a fight between her boss, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk. ‘So, Peter, let
me tell you about what we’re doing at Blue Origin,’ Wagner diplomatically replied. ‘We’re really
looking towards a future of millions of people living and working in space. The thing I think is
really fantastic … is that the universe is infinitely large, and so, we don’t need any fisticuffs …
we’re all going to go out there and create this future together.’ While Wagner is correct in
identifying that our solar system has more mineral wealth than we can possibly imagine, the
likes of Musk and Bezos aren’t risking their personal fortunes – the former stood on the brink of
bankruptcy multiple times while refusing to take SpaceX public – so that others can get rich.
What is more, once the shareholder model is applied to companies like DSI and Planetary
Resources, and their inevitable competitors, the emphasis will be on the rate of return rather
than social progress. As we ’ve already seen with information in the early twenty-first century,
under conditions of abundance capitalism pursues a form of rationing in order to ensure
profits. Given the potentially limitless wealth made possible by asteroid mining, that same logic
would be applied by private enterprise in the sector and their allies in politics. As with
information, and soon renewable energy too, that will necessitate the formation of temporary
monopolies of some kind. How might this look? One answer is that private companies will
Champion Briefs
97
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
prospect and claim the most valuable asteroids decades before even attempting to exploit
them – something we are already beginning to see. Another might be intellectual property
rights applied to certain technologies used for mining, perhaps in the process of converting ice
to fuel, creating scarcity there instead. Finally, and perhaps most sensibly, one could foresee
the adoption of predatory pricing for commodities mined off-world, with the price of each fixed
marginally below the cost of operating the cheapest terrestrial mines. This would serve to keep
drills turned off on Earth while maintaining price stability and guaranteeing huge profits for
mining companies. It isn’t hard to imagine how this might be justified by big business and the
political establishment, with off-world mining companies presenting themselves as custodians
of the future. ‘We have learned our lesson as a species,’ they might say, internalising seemingly
progressive arguments from the green movement. ‘We have ruined one planet, we will never
ruin others.’ In the meantime, as Peter Diamandis has publicly predicted, those engaged in
mining would join the ranks of the wealthiest people on Earth. That isn’t to say such abundant
resources should not be managed responsibly, nor that we should exploit off-world mines as
recklessly as we have treated the Earth. Rather, the Outer Space Treaty should be made clearer,
in particular the rules concerning the exploitation of off-world minerals for profit. A template
here might be the Madrid Protocol within the Antarctic Treaty System,* Article Three of which
states the ‘protection of the Antarctic environment as a wilderness with aesthetic and scientific
value’ shall be a fundamental consideration, while Article Seven adds, ‘any activity relating to
mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited’. Similarly, the Outer Space
Treaty states that the exploration and use of outer space is ‘the province of all mankind’. But
lacking the clear language of the Madrid Protocol, the Treaty would appear to necessitate an
international body to ensure the fair distribution of wealth before private entities, like DSI and
Planetary Resources, can take a thing. Indeed, President Eisenhower alluded to precisely that
when, addressing the United Nations in September 1960, he proposed the world ‘press forward
with a program of international cooperation for constructive, peaceful uses of outer space
under the United Nations’.
Champion Briefs
98
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Because public funding is responsible for innovations in space
exploration, it's only right that the gains of appropriation should be
socialized as well.
Bastani, Aaron. “Fully Automated Luxury Communism: A Manifesto.” Verso. 2019. Web.
December 11, 2021.
<https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/3445353/2.-aaron-bastanifully-automated-luxury-communism-a-manifesto-2.pdf>.
Space is indeed the province of us all, if for no other reason than the technologies which bring
its abundance ever closer were impossible without public funding. The money spent on the
International Space Station alone totals some $150 billion, a similar figure to that of NASA’s
Apollo missions.* From the V2 to Sputnik, and even today’s SpaceX, the costs of space
exploration have been socialised. It is only right, therefore, that the gains be as well. Private
business was incapable of even launching a liquid-propellant rocket into orbit until 2008, sixtyfour years after a V2 left the Earth’s atmosphere. So much for private sector innovation.
Capitalism has a number of useful features. Yet none of its shortcomings match its inability to
accept natural abundance. Facing such conditions for resources – as with information, energy
and labour – production for profit begins to malfunction. All of this can be explained by the fact
capitalism emerged in a world fundamentally different to the one now coming into view. That
meant it accepted a different set of presumptions – ones it took as permanent, but which were,
in fact, contingent. Faced with a limitless, virtually free supply of anything, its internal logic
starts to break down. That is because its central presumption is that scarcity will always exist.
Except now we know it won’t.
Champion Briefs
99
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The ASTEROIDS Act proves that proponents of private appropriation
of asteroids would create a legal regime that simultaneously bans
public appropriation.
Brehm, Andrew. “Private Property In Outer Space: Establishing A Foundation For Future
Exploration.” Wisconsin International Law Journal. 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://uwlaw-omeka.s3.us-east2.amazonaws.com/original/85c099453455f8163454cd946f8762427c1a910f.pdf>.
In July 2014, Congressmen Bill Posey and Derek Kilmer introduced the American Space
Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities In Deep Space Act (Asteroids Act).53 The
Asteroids Act, if enacted, would permit private entities to establish property rights in asteroids.
The act states, “any resources obtained in outer space from an asteroid are the property of the
entity that obtained such resources, which shall be entitled to all property rights thereto,
consistent with applicable provisions of Federal law.”54 Moreover, any “United States
commercial asteroid resource utilization entity” could acquire property rights in asteroids under
the Asteroids Act.55 The proposed domestic legislation, similar to The Space Settlement
Institute's proposal, seeks to eliminate the national appropriation issue by including a “foreign
entity that has voluntarily submitted to the subject matter and personal jurisdiction of the
courts of the United States” in its definition of a “United States commercial asteroid resource
utilization entity.”'56 Additionally, the act prohibits entities that are controlled by a federal,
state, local, or foreign government from acquiring property rights in asteroids.57 Thus, a valid
claim of property rights under the Asteroids Act would not constitute a national appropriation
in violation of the Outer Space Treaty.
Champion Briefs
100
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The private sector doesn't usually have the incentive to innovate
without generous public support---in exchange for supporting outer
space appropriation, the US government should receive equity in
private space companies.
Aronoff, Kate. “The Case For Nationalizing Elon Musk.” In These Times. February 08, 2018. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://inthesetimes.com/article/elon-musk-spacex-tesla-falconheavy-launch>.
On Tuesday, Elon Musk launched some stuff into space. The SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket was
shot into the Solar System, tailed by a Tesla Roadster blasting David Bowie songs, reportedly
the fastest car ever to be released into orbit. Each Falcon launch is only expected to cost around
$90 million?—?a bargain in the world of extraterrestrial exploration. Scientific American
gawked, “Elon Musk Does It Again,” praising the “bold technological innovations and newfound
operational efficiencies that allow SpaceX to not only build its rockets for less money, but also
reuse them.” That view?—?shared by several other outlets?—?fits comfortably with the Tony
Stark-like image Musk has crafted for himself over the years: a quirky and slightly off-kilter
playboy genius inventor capable of conquering everything from outer space to the climate crisis
with the sheer force of his imagination. One of Musk’s long-term goals is to create a selfsustaining colony on Mars, and make humanity an interplanetary species. He hopes to shoot
two very wealthy people around the moon at some point this year. Musk has invested an awful
lot of public money into making those dreams a reality. But why should Americans keep footing
the bill for projects where only Musk and his wealthy friends can reap the rewards? Enter: the
case for nationalizing Elon Musk, and making the U.S. government a major stakeholder in his
companies. The common logic now holds that the private sector?—?and prodigies like Musk, in
particular?—?are better at coming up with world-changing ideas than the public sector, which
is allegedly bloated and allergic to new, outside-the-box thinking. Corporations’ hunt for profits
and lack of bureaucratic constraints, it’s said, compel cutting-edge research and development in
Champion Briefs
101
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
a way that the government is simply incapable of. With any hope, more of these billionaires’
breakthroughs than not will be in the public interest. The reality, as economist Mariana
Mazzucato argues in her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private
Sector Myths, is very different. Many of the companies that are today considered to be headed
by brilliant savants?—?people like Steve Jobs and, yes, Elon Musk?—?owe much of their
success to decades of public sector innovation, through repackaging technologies developed
over the course of several decades into new products. Take the iPhone, essentially a collection
of Defense Department research and National Science Foundation-grant projects packed into
one shiny machine. “The prospect of the State owning a stake in a private corporation may be
anathema to many parts of the capitalist world,” Mazzucato writes, “but given that
governments are already investing in the private sector, they may as well earn a return on
those investments.” As she notes, Musk’s future-oriented empire?—?Tesla Motors, SolarCity
and SpaceX?—?has benefitted from around $5 billion in local, state and federal government
support, not to mention many years of foundational public research into programs like rocket
technology. SpaceX itself exists largely for the sake of competing for government contracts, like
its $5.5 billion partnership with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Department of Energy
invested directly in that company, as well as in Tesla’s work on battery technology and solar
panels. The latter is perhaps the biggest success story of the Department of Energy stimulus
grant that also supported Solyndra, a solar energy company reliably held up by the Right as an
example of the government’s failure to make wise investment decisions. “Taxpayers footed the
bill for Solyndra’s losses?—?yet got hardly any of Tesla’s profits,” Mazzucato notes. As
Mazzucato finds, the private sector hasn’t done much to earn its reputation as a risk-taker.
Corporations and venture capitalists often adopt conservative thinking and fall into “path
dependency,” and are generally reluctant to invest in important early-stage research that won’t
necessarily turn a profit in the short-run. This kind of research is inherently risky, and the vast
majority of this kind of protean R&D (research and development) fails. For every internet?—
?birthed in the Defense Department?—?there are a well over a dozen Solyndras, but it’s
virtually impossible to have one without the other. The problem runs deeper still. Whereas in
the past public sector research has been able to attract top-tier talent, the myth that the
Champion Briefs
102
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
private sector can do what the State can’t has created a negative feedback loop whereby bright
young scientists and engineers flock toward a private sector that goes on to further its
reputation for being the place where the real innovation is happening. The alternative
Mazzucato suggests is to socialize risk and reward alike, rather than simply allowing companies
that enjoy the benefits of public innovation to funnel their profits into things like stock
buybacks and tax havens?—?or, for that matter, flamethrowers. When companies like SpaceX
make it big, they’d be obligated to return some portion of their gains to the public
infrastructure that helped them succeed, expanding the government’s capacity to facilitate
more innovative development. All this is not to say that there isn’t a critical role to play for
people like Jobs and Musk in bringing new technology to the market. In all likelihood, Tesla’s
Powerwall and SolarCity panels will play a key role in our transition off of fossil fuels. But
lionizing Musk as the sole creator of the Powerwall and this week’s space launch stands to
perpetuate a dangerous series of myths about who’s responsible for such cutting-edge
development. Through smart supply-and-demand-side policy, states can play a crucial role in
shaping and creating markets for the technologies we’ll need to navigate the 21st century. This
can happen not just through R&D but also through developments like fuel efficiency standards,
which encourage carmakers to prioritize vehicles that run off of renewable energy. Given the
mounting reality of climate change and the necessity to rapidly switch over to a clean energy
economy, there’s also a bigger question about how actively the state should be encouraging
certain kinds of research and manufacturing. During World War II, the United States essentially
had a planned economy: By 1945, around a quarter of manufacturing in the country was under
state control. The reason for that was simple?—?the U.S. government saw an existential threat,
and directed some of its biggest corporations to pitch in to stop it or else risk getting taken over
by the state. There’s some Cold War nostalgia to hoisting shiny objects into orbit?—?a telegenic
show of America’s technological supremacy. But it may not be much solace to coastal residents
forced to flee in the coming decades, whose homes are rendered unlivable by a mixture of
extreme weather and crumbling, antiquated infrastructure. And if you’ve watched any number
of big-budget sci-fi productions over the last several years, it’s not hard to imagine Musk’s
Martian colony spinning off into some Elysium-style eco-apartheid, where the rich?—?for the
Champion Briefs
103
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
right price?—?can escape to new worlds while the rest of us make do on a planet of dystopian
slums, swamps and deserts. Today, the risk posed by climate change is greater still than that
posed by fascism on the eve of World War II, threatening to bring about a planet that’s
uninhabitable for humans, and plenty hostile to them in the meantime. In such a context, do
we need to launch cars into space? Maybe not. If the public sector is going to continue footing
the bill for Elon Musk’s fantasies, though, he should at least have to give back some credit, and
a cut of the profits.
Champion Briefs
104
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Through a partial ownership system, the international community can
run a market in space resources without any company engaging in
appropriation.
Beauvois, Erwan. “Partial Ownership For Outer Space Resources.” Advances in Astronautics
Science and Technology volume 3. February 19, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42423-019-00042-0>.
Economic Structure How to design an efficient economy for a life-threatening environment in
which nothing can be owned? In this section are addressed the following main questions: How
to design an economy compliant with the existing regulations? How to benefit from efficient
market mechanics without private property? How to bootstrap a space economy from scratch,
leveraging the funding capacities of the private sector? How to incentivize space work and
settlement for the middle-class, and why is it desirable? Partial Ownership After an
internationally recognized authority regulating space exploration is in place (see Governance
Sect. 1). An economy whose rules of good conduct are enforced by this authority can be set up.
An idea suggested by R. Zubrin in 1995 [7] is to allow Martian land to be sold, leveraging the
funds available in the private sector by allowing speculation. However, that could result in
inefficient use of land since someone might just buy a land without making use of it, and as
discussed previously, according to international agreements [2], nothing can be privately
owned, so how could we make those lands available for purchase, and commercial use? No
private property does not mean no market. While outer space resources cannot be owned, a
common interpretation of the OST is that they can be used. The Moon Treaty [8] of 1979
attempts to clarify this point and states that “States Parties to this Agreement hereby
undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the
exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become
feasible”. Indeed, rules for governing the use of outer space resources are required, but this
treaty does not define them, it only contains an engagement to establish a legal framework as
Champion Briefs
105
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
soon as outer space resources exploitation becomes possible. Think about the thin band of land
almost permanently illuminated on some mountains or crater rims of the lunar south pole,
where the highest concentrations of water have been observed. These lands have special value,
and this situation can be transposed to Mars, where geothermal sources and metal deposits
will be located. Asteroids are in the same boat. There will be commercial incentives to use
outer space resources: an allocation mechanism must be enforced, and a market to dispute the
use of those resources could be desirable, as markets come with an efficient allocation of
resources. Harberger licensing [5] is a partial ownership system that allows exposing public
goods and government-owned natural resources to the efficiency of allocation provided by
market dynamics while preserving the incentives for investment to the current owners, and
preventing monopoly (resources locking, or location squatting). Under such a system, owners
self-assess the value of their properties and pay a tax proportional to this value. If a buyer is
willing to purchase something at the owner's self-assessed price, the owner must cede this
good to the buyer. No owner would be ceding a property without being paid what she
considers a good price for it, and a counter-claim allowing the owner to raise his self-assessed
value to conserve ownership could be put in place. In his Radical Markets book [5], E. Glen Weyl
names this tax common ownership self-assessed tax (COST). Such a permanent auctioning
system ensures that the person who values the most a property can always benefit from it. This
mechanism is already in use for online advertisement space allocation and is particularly
adapted to the private exploitation of public goods, such as radiofrequency bands, outer space
special locations like geostationary orbits, and celestial bodies surface areas. This system is
comparable to licensing but overcome some drawbacks like having to trade-off between
allocative efficiency and incentives to invest (you'd want to provide long-term licenses so that
owners have an incentive to invest to improve this public good, however, the longer the
license, the fewer competitors can challenge the efficient use of the licensed good). Such a
system would be compatible with the Outer Space Treaty [2]. First, there is no appropriation or
claim of sovereignty from any nation or company: everything still belongs to the international
community (through the OSA). It is only a structure to allocate the use of space resources, that
relies on a small tax to introduce market dynamics. That tax benefits everyone who accepts to
Champion Briefs
106
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
pay it, as they are also shareholders of the OSA, the entity collecting those taxes. There is no
private property, so no right of exclusion, so everyone remains free to access all areas of outer
space, if it does not have potential harmful interference with activities of others, as depicted in
the OST. The current owner could prevent others from using a property on behalf of harmful
interference, but everyone remains free to acquire the use rights of the property, so there is no
real exclusion. The collected taxes could also be used to redistribute wealth, if desired, enabling
developing countries to catch up in space activities and increasing the number of people
working in the space industry, which will result in more innovations for everyone.
Champion Briefs
107
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The UN Law of the Sea Treaty sets a precedent for public ownership
and redistribution of space resources.
Mallick, Senjuti. “If Space Is ‘the Province Of Mankind’, Who Owns Its Resources? An
Examination Of The Potential Of Sp.” Observer Research Foundation. January 24, 2019.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://www.orfonline.org/research/if-space-is-theprovince-of-mankind-who-owns-its-resources-47561/>.
When comparing it to the law of the seas, resource appropriation in the high seas and deep
seabed is governed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982,
and that in Antarctica, as per the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty,
1991. While the former is strictly regulated under Part XI of UNCLOS, the latter is completely
forbidden but for scientific purposes. The law of the sea argument—”owning the fish, not the
sea”—cannot be applied to outer space primarily because fish are living resources that can
reproduce and therefore are renewable. Outer space resources, on the other hand, are
depletable: once harvested, they cannot be replenished. The analogy with fish and seas,
therefore, is not a fair one and its transposition to outer space and celestial bodies would be
inaccurate. Perhaps a more comparable regime is the deep seabed, which contemplates
property rights over mineral extraction. The utilisation and ownership of the deep seabed’s
resources are exclusively structured around the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is
responsible for organising, carrying out and controlling all activities in the seabed.[lix] Not only
must State parties seek sanction from the ISA before beginning resource exploitation, but the
fiscal benefits from seabed mining must also be shared among all.[lx] Evidently, even the
UNCLOS upholds State ownership and fair distribution over individual ownership and selfcentred gains.[lxi] By allowing private ownership, the US and Luxembourg are once again in
contravention of the very same law they are relying on. The touchstone principle, “province of
all mankind” is also being defeated. Therefore, to even reap the limited benefits as under
UNCLOS, at least the derivation must be made alike. This argument too falls flat.
Champion Briefs
108
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Moral concern for the common good, as opposed to purely private
pursuits, is a prerequisite to any political community.
Hussain, Waheed. “The Common Good.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April, 2018.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/commongood/#SecoContPublGood>.
3. Why Does Political Philosophy Need This Concept? Defects in a “Private Society” Why does
political philosophy need the concept of the common good? What’s the rationale for having
this concept in addition to other concepts, such as welfare, justice, or human rights? To
understand the importance of the common good, it is helpful to think about the moral defects
in a private society. A private society is a society whose members care only about their lives as
private individuals (Tocqueville 1835–1840; Hegel 1821; Rawls 1971; see also Dewey 1927).
Members are not necessarily rational egoists—they may care about their family and friends.
What is central is that their motivational horizons do not extend beyond the people and
projects that are the focus of their personal lives.[6] As an individual in a private society, I might
be interested in acquiring a better home for my family or improving the local school for my
children and the other children in my neighborhood. I might even vote in national elections
insofar as the results could affect my home or my local school. But I take no interest in national
elections insofar as the results affect citizens I don’t know, those in other states or provinces.
And I take no interest in national elections insofar as the results affect the basic fairness of my
society’s laws and institutions. Having withdrawn into private life, I care about the common
affairs of the community only insofar as these touch my private world. Many philosophers
believe that there is something morally defective about a private society. One type of defect
bears especially on the case of a private society that consists of rational egoists. As I noted in
the last section, a community of rational egoists will not perform the actions necessary to
generate public goods. Since these goods are desirable, the absence of public goods may be
suboptimal, both from the standpoint of aggregate welfare and from the standpoint of each
member’s egoistic rationality.[7] So there are good instrumental reasons for people to create a
Champion Briefs
109
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
public agency—i.e., a state—that can use taxes, subsidies and coercive threats to draw people
into mutually beneficial patterns of cooperation.[8] The common good, however, points to a
different kind of defect in a private society. The defect in this case extends to all forms of
private society, not just to a society of rational egoists, and the defect is noninstrumental. The
defect in this case is that the members of a political community have a relational obligation to
care about their common affairs, so the fact that they are exclusively concerned with their
private lives is itself a moral defect in the community, whether or not this pattern of concern
leads to a suboptimal outcome. To appreciate the point, think about the various public roles
that people may occupy in a liberal democracy (see Hegel 1821; Dewey 1927; J. Cohen 2010:
54–58). Most obviously, citizens act in a public capacity when they occupy positions as
legislators, civil servants, judges, prosecutors, jurors, police officers, soldiers, school teachers,
and so on. They also act in a public capacity when they participate in the political process,
voting in elections and taking part in policy discussions in the public sphere (Habermas 1992;
Mill 1862; Rawls 1993 [2005]). And many philosophers argue that citizens act in a public
capacity—or at least in a partly public capacity—when they act as executives in large business
enterprises (McMahon 2013; Christiano 2010); as high-ranking officials in colleges and
universities (Scanlon 2003); as journalists, lawyers, and academics (Habermas 1992, e.g., [1996:
373–9]); as protesters engaged in civil disobedience (Rawls 1971); and as socially conscious
consumers (Hussain 2012). When citizens occupy public roles, political morality requires them
to think and act differently than they would if they were acting as private individuals. If you are
a judge in a criminal trial, you might stand to benefit personally if the defendant were found
guilty. But political morality does not allow you to decide cases as if you were a private
individual, looking to advance your own private objectives. As a judge, you are required to
make decisions based on the evidence presented at trial and the standards set out in the law.
These legal standards themselves are supposed to answer to common interests. So, in effect,
political morality directs you to think and act from the standpoint of a shared concern for
common interests. Citizens who occupy public roles may also be required to make personal
sacrifices. Consider an historical example. During the Watergate scandal, President Richard
Nixon ordered the Attorney General of the United States, Elliot Richardson, to fire the
Champion Briefs
110
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Watergate special prosecutor in order to stop an investigation into Nixon’s abuses of power.
Rather than carry out Nixon’s order, Richardson resigned his position. Many would argue that
Richardson did the right thing, and that, in fact, he had an obligation to refuse Nixon’s order,
even if this resulted in a significant setback to his career. As Attorney General, Richardson had
an obligation to uphold the rule of law in the United States, a practice that serves common
interests, even if this meant significant sacrifices in terms of his career aspirations. Now
consider the following possibility. Imagine that we are living in a liberal democracy with a full
array of social roles in which people act in a public capacity. But imagine that our society is a
private society: citizens care only about their own private affairs. In order to ensure that various
public roles are filled, our institutions create private incentives for people to take on these
responsibilities. High salaries draw people into positions as judges and legislators, and mutual
surveillance gives these people private incentives to carry out their duties. Suppose that our
institutions are well structured and private incentives are adequate to fill all of the important
public positions. Is there anything missing in our society? Does our society suffer from a moral
defect of some kind? Philosophers in the common good tradition believe that the answer is yes:
there is something morally significant that is missing from our society. What is missing is a
genuine concern for the common good. No one in our society actually cares about shared
facilities, such as the rule of law, or the common interests that these facilities serve. Citizens fill
various public roles simply for the sake of the private benefits that they get from doing so.
According to a common good conception of political morality, this lack of concern for the
common good is itself a moral defect in a political community, even if private incentives lead
people to fill all of the relevant positions. A central challenge for theorists in the common good
tradition is to explain why a genuine commitment to the common good matters. Why should it
matter whether citizens actually care about the common good? Some philosophers in the
tradition cite a practical problem. Even in a well-designed arrangement, circumstances are likely
to arise where social institutions do not provide people with an adequate private incentive to
act in a publicly oriented way. For example, political morality may require public officials to
stand up for the rule of law, even in situations where this will damage their careers. Or political
morality may require citizens to protest against an unjust law, even if this means a private risk
Champion Briefs
111
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
of being jailed or blacklisted. Political morality may even require citizens to run the risk of losing
their lives in order to defend the constitutional order against a foreign threat (see Walzer 1970;
Rousseau 1762b [1997: 63–4]). In each of these cases, no matter how well designed institutions
are, citizens may not have an adequate private incentive to do what political morality requires,
so a genuine concern for the common good may be essential. A different explanation—perhaps
the most important one in the common good tradition—stresses the idea of a social
relationship. Think of the relationship between parents and their children. This relationship
requires not only that the people involved act in certain ways towards one another, but also
that they care about one another in certain ways. For instance, parents are required not only to
feed and clothe their children, perhaps to avoid getting fined by the Department of Child and
Family Services. Parents are also required to care about their children: they must give their
children’s interests a certain status in their practical reasoning. Many philosophers argue that
our relation to our fellow citizens has similar features. The political bond requires not only that
we act in certain ways, but also that we give the interests of our fellow citizens a certain status
in our practical reasoning. It would be unacceptable, on this view, for citizens to fulfill certain
public roles purely for the sake of private incentives. A Supreme Court justice, for example,
must care about the rule of law and the common interests that this practice serves. If she were
making consistent rulings just to cash her paycheck every two weeks, she would not be
responding in the right way to her fellow citizens, who act for the sake of common interests in
doing things such as voting, following the law, and standing ready to defend the constitutional
order.[9] Many philosophers believe that there is something morally defective about a private
society, even one in which private incentives move people to fill all of the important public
roles. A conception of the common good provides us with an account of what is missing from
the practical reasoning of citizens in a private society, and it connects this with a wider view
about the relational obligations that require citizens to reason in these ways.
Champion Briefs
112
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
If states collectively amend the non-appropriation principle of the
Outer Space Treaty to permit public appropriation of asteroids, that
prevents the wars and chaos that would result from conflicting
private developments.
Tronchetti, Fabio. “THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE UNDER ATTACK: USING ARTICLE II OF
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY IN ITS DEFE.” International Institute of Space Law. 2007.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2007.pdf>.
CONCLUSION The non-appropriation principle represents the basic principle of space law.
Considering its importance and its role in providing the conditions for the peaceful and orderly
management and development of space activities, this paper has put forward the hypothesis of
considering that principle a structural rule of international law. As it has been shown, there
exist several historical and modern examples which confirm the peculiar status of the principle
contained in Article II of the Outer Space Treaty. Having in mind the special characteristics of
the non-appropriation principle, the theories proposing its abrogation or suggesting unilateral
State actions against it are unacceptable. If these theories were put into practice, the use of
outer space would evolve into a situation of chaos and, moreover, its commercial development
would be hindered instead of favoured. Any hypothetical amendment of the nonappropriation
principle should be carried out by all States acting collectively. This would be the only option to
prevent the risk of war in outer space and to allow the harmonized management of space
activities in the era of space commercialisation.
Champion Briefs
113
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
An international body that redistributes the benefits of appropriation
to non space-faring nations will mitigate conflicts between nations.
Foster, Craig. “EXCUSE ME, YOU’RE MINING MY ASTEROID: SPACE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE
U.S. SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION.” Journal of Law, Technology & Policy. 2016. Web.
December 12, 2021. <http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Foster.pdf>.
Specifically, it will be vital for countries to enter into some sort of international agreement. One
option is to create an agreement similar to UNCLOS, which would regulate how individual
states and their citizens interact with resources mined from space.217 Such an agreement
should recognize not only the property rights of the extracting commercial entities but also the
rights of non-spacefaring countries to benefit from the minerals as well. This might include the
creation of an international body, much like the ISA, that will ensure that the interests of all
nations are maintained by distributing funds and technology to less wealthy or non-spacefaring
nations. The U.S. would do well to help create and ratify such an agreement— something they
have failed to do with UNCLOS. If the U.S. and other countries are uneasy about entering into
such a restrictive agreement, they might also consider an international regulatory body and
scheme much like the one used for satellites. The International Telecommunications Union
(ITU) is a United Nations agency that, among other services, provides the international
community with uniform satellite orbit oversight and regulatory guidance.218 Currently, 193
countries follow the ITU regulations and utilize their services, which have been likened to
domain name registration.219 In the same way, spacefaring countries could form an
international body that helps create and maintain a uniform space-mining legal framework.220
Without some sort of international framework as described above, the U.S. and other spacemining countries leave themselves open to great conflict and will be required to patch together
a multitude of treaties between themselves as problems inevitably arise.221
Champion Briefs
114
AFF: Public Appropriation AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Redistributing the benefits of space mining to developing countries is
key to achieving the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. A global
payment system is technically feasible.
Sterling Saletta, Morgan. “Can Space Mining Benefit All Of Humanity?: The Resource Fund And
Citizen's Dividend Model Of Alaska.” Space Policy. 2018. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964616300704>.
While the technological challenges in creating a payment system for all eligible members of the
Earth's population are significant, they are probably less than the technological challenges in
successfully mining asteroids or other celestial bodies. Technological innovations such as
mobile banking are rapidly penetrating the developing world [55,56] and represent one way
that challenges to creating and distributing a ‘space dividend’ to all eligible members of the
Earth's population could be overcome. Alternatively, as previously mentioned, the international
community might implement a system in which royalties on production from outer space
resource exploitation were apportioned to national governments rather than to individual
citizens. That such an approach might be pragmatically more acceptable in the current
international environment neither means that this will necessarily be the case in the future, nor
should it preclude the serious discussion of alternatives such as we have outlined here from
informing the discussion concerning the elaboration of future international regimes for
managing the exploitation of resources in outer space. Furthermore, because even moderate
dividends by developed countries standards would be proportionally much more significant in
developing nations, such dividends, whether payed to nation states or to individual citizens,
could be instrumental in achieving some of the most urgent goals of sustainable global
development, goals embodied in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals [57].
Champion Briefs
115
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
The Neolib AC argues that appropriation of outer space by the private sector is a
continuation of the capitalist tendency to expand into new markets. Historically, this was the
connection between modern capitalism and imperialism, and the perception of space as the
“final frontier” to be exploited for profit is about making outer space the next terrain of
capitalism. Aff authors do a solid job explaining the relationship of capitalism to space in
general, and outer space in particular, with Marxist geographer David Harvey’s idea of the
“spatial fix.” For Harvey, this concept captures how “capitalism…is addicted to geographical
expansion much as it is addicted to technological change and endless expansion through
economic growth.”12 Outer space is just the next step in this process. The “spatial fix” can be a
strategic centerpiece of the AC because evidence in this brief applies the concept to the topic.
Neoliberalism is just the latest historical stage of deregulated capitalism since the 1970s, and
this AC is essentially resisting capitalism even though it’s thematically about neoliberalism.
Some debaters will try to say “I don’t disagree with capitalism, just neoliberalism” when they
read these cases, but that undercuts your best offense.
The strength of this AC is that there’s excellent Aff literature critiquing the extension of
neoliberal practices into outer space, because of all the public attention that SpaceX and Blue
Origin have received in recent years. You can also argue that neoliberalism is wrong under any
ethical framework, which helps you use the AC to turn NCs. The weakness of this AC is that
some Neg literature argues that private sector appropriation can be reimagined without
accepting neoliberalism (for instance, by heavily taxing asteroid mining or creating a socialist
society in a space colony), and the Aff will have to be prepared for kritikal counterplans of this
kind.
12
David Harvey, “Globalization and the ‘Spatial Fix’,” Geographische Revue 2, 2001, https://publishup.unipotsdam.de/opus4-ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2251/file/gr2_01_Ess02.pdf
Champion Briefs
116
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Left needs to engage with outer space policy---inaction cedes the
political to corporations developing space, which increases inequality.
Levine, Nick. “Democratize The Universe.” Jacobin. March 21, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://jacobinmag.com/2015/03/space-industry-extraction-levine>.
Left critics of space proposals make the same mistakes as the most techno-utopian starry-eyed
industrialists. From the point of view of the latter, celestial development will provide ultimate
salvation to the human race by making us a multi-planetary species; the former see outer space
as an infinite void essentially antagonistic to human life, interest in which is only orchestrated
for cynical political ends. Each side misconceives extraterrestrial pursuits as qualitatively
different from economic activities on Earth. Venturing into space may be a greater technical
challenge; it may cost more, be more dangerous, or be a mistaken use of resources. But to
understand these prospects in existential terms rather than as a new episode in the familiar
history of industrial development and resource extraction — with all the political-strategic
dangers and organizing opportunities that come with them — is to be blinded by the space
romanticism that is a peculiar vestige of Cold War geopolitics. Whether and how we should go
to space are not profound philosophical questions, at least not primarily. What’s at stake is not
just the “stature of man,” as Hannah Arendt put it, but a political-economic struggle over the
future of the celestial commons, which could result in a dramatic intensification of inequality —
or a small step for humankind toward a more egalitarian state of affairs on our current planet.
Undoubtedly, there are good reasons to be skeptical about going to space. Some have argued
that it shifts attention away from solving the difficult problems of economic and environmental
justice on Earth — think of Gil Scott-Heron’s spoken-word poem “Whitey on the Moon,” which
juxtaposes the deprivation of the American underclass with the vast resources diverted to
space. Scott-Heron’s critique is powerful, but it’s important to remember that he was
denouncing an unjust economic system. He wasn’t issuing a timeless condemnation of space
pursuits as such. Whether the aims of providing for all and developing outer space are mutually
exclusive depends on the political forces on the ground. We might also question whether
Champion Briefs
117
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
mining asteroids would be detrimental to our current planet’s environment in the medium
term. If we don’t find a renewable way to blast off into outer space, the exploitation of these
resources could lead to an intensification of, not a move away from, the fossil-fuel economy. If
the environmental impact of space mining turns out to be large, it would be analogous to
fracking — a technological development that gives us access to new resources, but with
devastating ecological side effects — and ought to be opposed on similar grounds. On the other
hand, some speculate that mining the Moon’s Helium-3 reserves, for example, could provide an
abundant source of clean energy. The terrestrial environmental impact of space activity
remains an open question that must be explored before we stake our hopes on the economic
development of outer space. Philosophers have suggested that we might have ethical duties to
preserve the “natural” states of celestial bodies. Others fear that our activities might
unknowingly wipe out alien microbial life. We should remain sensitive to the aesthetic and
cultural value of outer space, as well as the potential for extinction and the exhaustion of
resources misleadingly proclaimed to be limitless. But if the Left rejects space on these grounds
we abandon its fate to the will of private interests. These concerns shouldn’t cause us to write
off space altogether — rather, they should motivate us even more to fight for the careful,
democratic use of celestial resources for the benefit of all. There is also reason to be cautiously
optimistic about extending economic activity to outer space. For one, the resources there —
whether platinum-group metals useful in electronics, or fuels that could be central to the semiindependent functioning of an outer space economy — have the potential to raise our
standards of living. Imagine, a superabundance of asteroid metals that are scarce on Earth, like
platinum, driving the sort of automation that could expand output and reduce the need to
work. Of course, there’s nothing inevitable about the benefits of productivity gains being
distributed widely, as we’ve seen in the United States over the past forty years. This is a
problem not limited to space, and the myth of the “final frontier” must not distract us from the
already existing problems of wealth and income distribution on Earth. While the
industrialization of the solar system isn’t a panacea for all economic ills, it does offer a
significant organizing opportunity, since it will force a confrontation over the future of the vast
celestial commons. The democratic possibilities of such a struggle have been recognized before:
Champion Briefs
118
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
one conservative American citizens’ group in the 1970s called a progressive UN space treaty a
“vital component of Third World demands for massive redistribution of wealth so as ultimately
to equate the economic positions of the two hemispheres.” Many in the 1970s identified the
egalitarian potential in the development of outer space, and the Left must not overlook it
today.
Champion Briefs
119
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Capitalist development of outer space is integral to the expansionary
logic of capital, which depends upon “spatial fixes.” The extent to
which the private space sector exalts the entrepreneurial self while
depending upon state support is the hypocrisy central to
neoliberalism.
Shammas, Victor L. “One Giant Leap For Capitalistkind: Private Enterprise In Outer Space.”
Palgrave Communications 5:10. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9>.
The spatial fix of outer space No longer terra nullius, space is now the new terra firma of
capitalistkind: its naturalized terroir, its next necessary terrain. The logic of capitalism dictates
that capital should seek to expand outwards into the vastness of space, a point recognized by a
recent ethnography of NewSpace actors (Valentine, 2016, p. 1050). The operations of
capitalistkind serve to resolve a series of (potential) crises of capitalism, revolving around the
slow, steady decline of spatial fixes (see e.g., Harvey, 1985, p. 51–66) as they come crashing up
against the quickly vanishing blank spaces remaining on earthly maps and declining (terrestrial)
opportunities for profitable investment of surplus capital (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a, p. 49–
78). A ‘spatial fix' involves the geographic modulation of capital accumulation, consisting in the
outward expansion of capital onto new geographic terrains, or into new spaces, with the aim of
filling a gap in the home terrains of capital. Jessop (2006, p. 149) notes that spatial fixes may
involve a number of strategies, including the creation of new markets within the capitalist
world, engaging in trade with non-capitalist economies, and exporting surplus capital to
undeveloped or underdeveloped regions. The first two address the problem of insufficient
demand and the latter option creates a productive (or valorizing) outlet for excess capital.
Capitalism must regularly discover, develop, and appropriate such new spaces because of its
inherent tendency to generate surplus capital, i.e., capital bereft of profitable purpose. In
Harvey’s (2006, p. xviii) terms, a spatial fix revolves around ‘geographical expansions and
Champion Briefs
120
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
restructuring…as a temporary solution to crises understood…in terms of the overaccumulation
of capital'. It is a temporary solution because these newly appropriated spaces will in turn
become exhausted of profitable potential and are likely to produce their own stocks of surplus
capital; while ‘capital surpluses that otherwise stood to be devalued, could be absorbed
through geographical expansions and spatio-temporal displacements' (Harvey, 2006, p. xviii),
this outwards drive of capitalism is inherently limitless: there is no end point or final destination
for capitalism. Instead, capitalism must continuously propel itself onwards in search of pristine
sites of renewed capital accumulation. In this way, Harvey writes, society constantly ‘creates
fresh productive powers elsewhere to absorb its overaccumulated capital' (Harvey, 1981, p. 8).
Historically, spatial fixes have played an important role in conserving the capitalist system. As
Jessop (2006, p. 149) points out, ‘The export of surplus money capital, surplus commodities,
and/or surplus labour-power outside the space(s) where they originate enabled capital to
avoid, at least for a period, the threat of devaluation'. But these new spaces for capital are not
necessarily limited to physical terrains, as with colonial expansion in the nineteenth century; as
Greene and Joseph (2015) note, various digital spaces, such as the Internet, can also be
considered as spatial fixes: the Web absorbs overaccumulated capital, heightens consumption
of virtual and physical goods, and makes inexpensive, flexible sources of labor available to
employers. Greene and Joseph offer the example of online high-speed frequency trading as a
digital spatial fix that furthers the ‘annihilation of space by time' first noted by Marx in his
Grundrisse (see Marx, 1973, p. 524). Outer space serves at least two purposes in this regard. In
the short-to medium-term, it allows for the export of surplus capital into emerging industries,
such as satellite imaging and communication. These are significant sites of capital
accumulation: global revenues in the worldwide satellite market in 2016 amounted to $260
billion (SIA, 2017, p. 4). Clearly, much of this activity is taking place ‘on the ground'; it is
occurring in the ‘terrestrial economy'. But all that capital would have to find some other
meaningful or productive outlet were it not for the expansion of capital into space. Second,
outer space serves as an arena of technological innovation, which feeds back into the terrestrial
economy, helping to avert crisis by pushing capital out of technological stagnation and
innovation shortfalls. In short, outer space serves as a spatial fix. It swallows up surplus capital,
Champion Briefs
121
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
promising to deliver valuable resources, technological innovations, and communication services
to capitalists back on Earth. This places outer space on the same level as traditional
colonization, analyzed in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, which Hegel thought of as a product of
the ‘inner dialectic of civil society', which drives the market to ‘push beyond its own limits and
seek markets, and so its necessary means of subsistence, in other lands which are either
deficient in the goods it has overproduced, or else generally backward in creative industry, etc.'
(Hegel, 2008, p. 222). In this regard, SpaceX and related ventures are not so very different from
maritime colonialists and the trader-exploiters of the British East India Company. But there is
something new at stake. As the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Peter Diamandis has gleefully
noted: ‘There are twenty-trillion-dollar checks up there, waiting to be cashed!' (Seaney and
Glendenning, 2016). Capitalistkind consists in the naturalization of capitalist consciousness and
practice, the (false) universalization of a particular mode of political economy as inherent to the
human condition, followed by the projection of this naturalized universality into space—
capitalist humanity as a Fukuyamite ‘end of history', the end-point of (earthly) historical
unfolding, but the starting point of humanity’s first serious advances in space. What role, then,
for the state? The frontiersmen of NewSpace tend to think of themselves as libertarians,
pioneers beyond the domain of state bureaucracy (see Nelson and Block, 2018). ‘The
government should leave the design work and ownership of the product to the private sector',
the author of a 2017 report, Capitalism in Space, advocates. ‘The private companies know best
how to build their own products to maximize performance while lowering cost' (Zimmerman,
2017, p. 27). One ethnographer notes that ‘politically, right-libertarianism prevails' amongst
NewSpace entrepreneurs (Valentine, 2016, p. 1047–1048). Just as Donald Rumsfeld dismissed
the opponents to the Iraq War as ‘Old Europe', so too are state entities’ interests in space
exploration shrugged off as symptoms of ‘Old Space'. Elon Musk, we are told in a recent
biography, unlike the sluggish Big State actors of yore, ‘would apply some of the start-up
techniques he’d learned in Silicon Valley to run SpaceX lean and fast…As a private company,
SpaceX would also avoid the waste and cost overruns associated with government contractors'
(Vance, 2015, p. 114). This libertarianism-in-space has found a willing chorus of academic
supporters. The legal scholar Virgiliu Pop introduces the notion of the frontier paradigm
Champion Briefs
122
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
(combining laissez-faire economics, market competition, and an individualist ethic) into the
domain of space law, claiming that this paradigm has ‘proven its worth on our planet' and will
‘most likely…do so in the extraterrestrial realms' as well (Pop, 2009, p. vi). This frontier
paradigm is not entirely new: a ‘Columbus mythology', centering on the ‘noble explorer', was
continuously evoked in the United States during the Cold War space race (Dickens and Ormrod,
2016, pp. 79, 162–164). But the entrepreneurial libertarianism of capitalistkind is undermined
by the reliance of the entire NewSpace complex on extensive support from the state, ‘a publicprivate financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups' that in the case of Musk’s three main
companies (SpaceX, SolarCity Corp., and Tesla) has been underpinned by $4.9 billion dollars in
government subsidies (Hirsch, 2015). In the nascent field of space tourism, Cohen (2017) argues
that what began as an almost entirely private venture quickly ground to a halt in the face of
insurmountable technical and financial obstacles, only solved by piggybacking on large staterun projects, such as selling trips to the International Space Station, against the objections of
NASA scientists. The business model of NewSpace depends on the taxpayer’s dollar while
making pretensions to individual self-reliance. The vast majority of present-day clients of
private aerospace corporations are government clients, usually military in origin. Furthermore,
the bulk of rocket launches in the United States take place on government property, usually
operated by the US Air Force or NASA.Footnote13 This inward tension between state
dependency and capitalist autonomy is itself a product of neoliberalism’s contradictory demand
for a minimal, “slim” state, while simultaneously (and in fact) relying on a state reengineered
and retooled for the purposes of capital accumulation (Wacquant, 2012). As Lazzarato writes,
‘To be able to be “laissez-faire”, it is necessary to intervene a great deal' (2017, p. 7). Space
libertarianism is libertarian in name only: behind every NewSpace venture looms a thick web of
government spending programs, regulatory agencies, public infrastructure, and universities
bolstered by research grants from the state. SpaceX would not exist were it not for statesponsored contracts of satellite launches. Similarly, in 2018, the US Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA)—the famed origin of the World Wide Web—announced that it would
launch a ‘responsive launch competition', meaning essentially the reuse of launch vehicles,
representing an attempt by the state to ‘harness growing commercial capabilities' and place
Champion Briefs
123
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
them in the service of the state’s interest in ensuring ‘national security' (Foust, 2018b). This
libertarianism has been steadily growing in the nexus between Silicon Valley, Stanford
University, Wall Street, and the Washington political establishment, which tend to place a high
value on Randian ‘objectivism' and participate in a long American intellectual heritage of
individualistic ‘bootstrapping' and (allegedly) gritty self-reliance. But as Nelson and Block (2018,
p. 189–197) recognize, one of the central symbolic operations of capitalistkind resides in
concealing its reliance on the state by mobilizing the charm of its entrepreneurial constituents
and the spectacle of space. There is a case to be made for the idea that SpaceX and its ilk
resemble semi-private corporations like the British East India Company. The latter,
“incorporated by royal charter from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I in 1600 to trade in silk and
spices, and other profitable Indian commodities,” recruited soldiers and built a ‘commercial
business [that] quickly became a business of conquest' (Tharoor, 2017). SpaceX, too, is
increasingly imbricated with an attempt on the part of a particular state, the United States, to
colonize and appropriate resources derived from a particular area, that of outer space; it, too,
depends on the infrastructure, contracts, and regulatory environment that thus far only a state
seems able to provide. Its private character, like that of the East India Company, is troubled by
being deeply embedded in the state. As one commentator has observed of SpaceX, ‘If there’s a
consistent charge against Elon Musk and his high-flying companies…it’s that they’re not really
examples of independent, innovative market capitalism. Rather, they’re government
contractors, dependent on taxpayer money to stay afloat' (cit. Nelson and Block, 2018, p. 189).
Perhaps this should not come as a surprise. As Bourdieu (2005, p. 12) observed, ‘The economic
field is, more than any other, inhabited by the state, which contributes at every moment to its
existence and persistence, and also to the structure of the relations of force that characterize
it'. The state lays out the preconditions for market exchanges. Under neoliberalism, the state is
the preeminent facilitator of markets. The neoliberal state is not so much a Minimalstaat, night
watchman state, or slim state as it is the prima causa of market society (see, e.g., Wacquant,
2012). Similarly, in the political theory of Deleuze and Guattari, any economic development
presupposes the political differentiation caused by the state (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004a, p.
237–238). Even in the global environment of contemporary capitalism, the market cannot
Champion Briefs
124
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
operate without the state becoming integrated with capitalism itself, as ‘it is the modern state
that gives capitalism its models of realization' (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004b, p. 480). For
capitalism to survive in outer space, the state must create a regulatory environment, subsidize
infrastructure, and hand down contracts – in short, assemble outer space as a domain made
accessible in legal, technical, and economic ways.
Champion Briefs
125
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private sector appropriation of space is fundamentally about ensuring
that capitalism can outlive the Earth.
Shammas, Victor L. “One Giant Leap For Capitalistkind: Private Enterprise In Outer Space.”
Palgrave Communications 5:10. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0218-9>.
Universalizing capital As Earth’s empty spaces are filled, as our planet comes to be shorn of
blank places, capitalistkind emerges to rescue capitalism from its terrestrial limitations,
launching space rockets, placing satellites into orbit, appropriating extraterrestrial resources,
and, perhaps one day, building colonies on distant planets like Mars. But why limit ourselves to
Mars? As of mid-2017, NASA’s Kepler observatory had discovered more than 5000 exoplanets—
planets that seem like promising alternatives to Earth, located at an appropriate distance from
their respective suns in the famed ‘Goldilocks zone'. These ‘planetary candidates', as they are
known—that is, candidates for the replacement of Earth, capable of supporting human life with
only minimal technological augmentation or cybernetic re-engineering—are above all viable
candidates for selection by specific capitalists seeking to discover new profitable ventures
beyond the limits of an Earth-bound capitalism. Space reveals the impotence of the neoliberal,
post-Fordist state, its incapacity and unwillingness to embark on gigantic infrastructural
projects, to project itself outwards, and to fire the imagination of (actual) humankind.
Capitalistkind steps in to fill the vacuum left behind by a state that lacks what Mann (2012, p.
170) calls ‘infrastructural power'. The old question, the question of Old Space, was quite simply:
is this planet a viable site for humankind, a suitable homeland for the reproduction of human
life away from Earth? But the new question, the question for NewSpace, will be: can this
celestial body support capitalistkind? Will it support the interests of capitalist entrepreneurs,
answering to the capitalist desire for continued accumulation? While some elements of the
astrosociological community, such as the Astrosociology Research Institute (ARI),Footnote14
insist on elucidating the “human dimension” in outer space, Dickens and Ormrod recognize that
this humanization-through-capitalism really involves the ‘commodification of the universe'
Champion Briefs
126
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
(2007b, p. 2). While Dickens and Ormrod develop similar arguments to those sketched here—
from their concept of an ‘outer spatial fix' to their argument about outer space becoming
woven into circuits of capital accumulation—they were writing at a time when their remarks
necessarily remained speculative: the commercialization of space was still in its infancy. In an
inversion of Hegel’s owl of Minerva, reality has since largely confirmed their ideas and caught
up with theory. Above all, when considering the various ventures ongoing in space today, it is
not so much the universalizing human dimension as the specifically capitalist dimension that is
striking. With the advent of NewSpace, outer space is becoming not the domain of a common
humanity but of private capital. The arguments laid out above mirror an ongoing turn in critical
scholarship away from the notion of the Anthropocene towards a more rigorously politicaleconomic concept of Capitalocene, premised on the ‘claim that capitalism is the pivot of
today’s biospheric crisis' (Moore, 2016, p. xi). Just as the exponents of the concept of
Capitalocene emphasize that it is capitalism, and not humanity as such, that is the driving force
behind environmental transformation, so too does the notion of capitalistkind emphasize that it
is not humankind tout court but rather a set of specific capitalist entrepreneurs who are acting
as the central transformative agents of and in outer space, with the ‘ever-increasing infiltration
of capital' into what was formerly the domain of the state (Dickens and Ormrod, 2007a, p. 6).
We can also think about these issues in terms of what Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (2015)
terms ‘spatial justice'. This concept captures the fact that struggles over justice are often
struggles to occupy space, as the term is more conventionally understood, as with urban battles
over the ‘right to the city' (Harvey, 2008), to provide just one example. But the same also holds
true for outer space: there is an ongoing struggle over the right to take up space in outer space.
So far, the capitalist side appears to be winning. As the proto-communism of the Cold War-era
Outer Space Treaty is abandoned—in tandem with the increased technological feasibility of
exploiting resources and accumulating profits in outer space—spatial justice in outer space
increasingly comes to mean the ‘justice' of capital, capitalistkind taking the place of humankind.
It is comparatively easy to declare that outer space is a commons, as the Outer Space Treaty did
in the late 1960s, when that domain is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible to capital; with
the heightened accessibility of outer space, however, it is unsurprising that central political
Champion Briefs
127
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
agents, such as President Trump’s administration, should seek to dismantle this regulatory
framework and ensure the smooth functioning of capital accumulation beyond the terrains of
Earth. What kind of capitalism is being projected into space? The complexity of state-market
relations is sufficient to force us to hedge against a simplified reading of space
commercialization: it is not a matter of states against markets, as if the two were mutually
exclusive. Instead, as Bratton (2015) suggests, we are witnessing the emergence of a ‘stack', a
complex intertwining of commercial, geopolitical, and technological concerns, which challenges
previous notions of state sovereignty. This can be seen as a hybridized state-market form, with
technology playing a central role in reciprocal processes of political and economic
transformation. On the one hand, outer space was in some sense always already the domain of
marketization, albeit to a limited extent, even during the Cold War, from the first commercial
satellite launch in the early 1960s to President Ronald Reagan’s implementation of the
Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, which aimed to encourage private enterprise to take an
interest in an emerging launch market. As Hermann Bondi, the head of the European Space
Organization, wrote in the early 1970s, ‘It is clear…that there must be three partners in space,
universities and research institutions on the one hand, the government on the second and
industry on the third' (Bondi, 1971, p. 9). On the other hand, outer space still remains firmly
within the domain of the state and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future, with the likely
continued importance of military uses of satellite technology and the weaponization of Earth’s
orbit—crucially, the Outer Space Treaty only prohibits nuclear arms and other ‘weapons of
mass destruction' in space, not conventional weapons, such as ballistic missiles. One novel
element in this phase of capitalism-in-space is the interrelationship between Silicon Valley,
NewSpace, and the state (see, e.g., Vance, 2015). Silicon Valley’s capitalist class, including
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, play an outsize role in NewSpace. Behind and around these figures,
however, remains the state—through its weighty fiscal, regulatory, military, and symbolic
investments.Footnote15 To take but one example: In June 2018, SpaceX won a $130 million
contract with the U.S. Air Force to launch an ‘Air Force Space Command' satellite onboard a
Falcon Heavy rocket (Erwin, 2018). Fredric Jameson’s (2003, p. 76) oft-quoted observation that
it is easier to imagine the end of humankind than the end of capitalism, is realized in the ideals
Champion Briefs
128
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
and operations of capitalistkind. Elon Musk has observed that the goal of SpaceX is to establish
humankind as a ‘multiplanetary species with a self-sustaining civilization on another planet'
whose purpose is to counteract the possibility of a ‘worst-case scenario happening and
extinguishing human consciousness' (Vance, 2015, p. 5). But couldn’t we view this idealistic
assertion on behalf of humanity in another way? It is not human consciousness, over and
against what the writer Kim Stanley Robinson (2017, p. 2) calls ‘mineral unconsciousness' (i.e.,
the mute, geological reality of the natural universe), so much as a specifically capitalist
consciousness that is at stake. While the actions of capitalistkind may primarily be aimed at
ensuring the future survival of the human species, an additional result is to ensure that the very
idea of capitalism itself will outlive a (distantly) possible extinction event. Capitalism is a selfreplicating system, pushing to expand ever outwards, using a territorializing strategy of survival.
As David Harvey notes, ‘a steady rate of growth is essential for the health of a capitalist
economic system, since it is only through growth that profits can be assured and the
accumulation of capital be sustained' (1990, p. 180). In this respect, outer space is ideal: it is
boundless and infinite. As Earth comes to be blanketed by capital, it is only to be expected that
capital should set its sights on the stars above. The actions of capitalistkind serve to bolster the
capitalist mode of production and accumulation: it is not only life but capital itself that must
outlive Earth—even into the darkness of space.
Champion Briefs
129
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private sector appropriation of space is antithetical to the idea of
space as a global commons---consequently, appropriation will only
benefit a tiny elite of rich space capitalists.
Pearson, Jordan. “American Capitalism Is Suffocating The Endless Possibilities Of Space.” Vice.
May 10, 2018. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.vice.com/en/article/59qmva/jeff-bezos-space-capitalism-outer-spacetreaty>.
The possibilities of world-building in space are what the Outer Space Treaty of 1967
represented when it was signed by over 90 countries during the first international space race.
The international agreement, which is still in force today, states that space exploration “shall be
carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of
economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” It also states
that signatories including the US shall be guided by the “principle of cooperation and mutual
assistance.” This treaty, clearly open to interpretation, was a springboard for efforts by
developing nations to forge a new society free of Earth’s gravitational pull, and potentially free
of American-led capitalism—as it turns out, both are hard to escape. A 1970s push to clarify the
treaty's terms and make outer space and its resources “the common heritage of mankind” was
seen in the US as an attempt to bring socialist principles into space (it was) and it was crushed.
The lesson: world-building outside of the realm of science fiction is corralled—often
terminally—by powerful interests. Now, whatever possibility the Outer Space Treaty once
represented for new ways of life to emerge on other planets is fading away. In late April, as The
Outline noted, the US House of Representatives passed the American Space Commerce Free
Enterprise Act. The Act states that its purpose is to “ensure that the United States remains the
world leader in commercial space activities” and says that the US government will interpret its
international obligations “in a manner that minimizes regulations and limitations” on private
space companies. Moreover, it states that the government “shall not presume” that the Outer
Champion Briefs
130
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Space Treaty applies to private companies, allowing even more wiggle room. And if there were
any lingering doubt about the Act’s intent, it further states: “Outer space shall not be
considered a global commons.” This declaration is a powerful form of world-building—the same
kind of world-building that Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist who founded Rhodesia and one
of history’s most twisted grotesques, was doing when he sighed, “I would annex the planets if I
could.” Rhodes sought to remake a whole people in the image of the white industrialist, and so
it was only natural that he do the same with the heavens—if he could. Star Trek’s collectivist
Federation, sparkling and joyous Afrofuturist visions, the anarchism of Ursula K. Le Guin’s The
Dispossessed—all of these possibilities seem to buckle under the weight of unshackled industry
forging a society for itself and its class interests with the help of the government. If you listen to
the people who stand to benefit most from the American Space Commerce Free Enterprise Act,
like Amazon and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos, American capitalism in space will have its own
benefits. In a recent interview with Business Insider, Bezos imagined a “trillion humans” living in
the solar system with “a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts.” In short, a new kind of
intellectual and cultural renaissance will ring across the solar system, led by the US greenback.
It sounds utopian in its own way—a thousand Mozarts?—but it belies a cruel calculus. As
Buzzfeed recently pointed out, Bezos’s world-building doesn’t say that everyone will have the
opportunity and ability in space to decide their own destiny, but seems to imply instead that a
trillion people can prop up a cultural, intellectual, and undoubtedly economic upper class.
Bezos also said that humanity will have “unlimited, for all practical purposes, resources and
solar power and so on.” This doesn't mean that everyone will have equal access to these
resources, like those gleaned from asteroid mining, or that they are really unlimited. Oil is also
often said by those with vested interests to be a practically unlimited resource—last month
President Donald Trump tweeted that there are “record amounts of oil all over the place.” And
yet untold human suffering and deprivation stems from the extraction, production, and
consumption of oil and oil products, and the distribution of profits from these activities. And
there is no equal access; everybody knows only those at the top can afford to use as much gas
as they please on their boats, planes, and so on. And what will life look like for the trillion
humans living in the solar system, many (if not most) under the yoke of American capitalism? It
Champion Briefs
131
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
will look a lot like it does now, which is to say it will be a life of work while wealth flows up to an
interstellar elite. And if this vision expands beyond our solar system? Trillions of humans; one
thousand gray planets, one thousand petty plutocracies, a universe of misery.
Champion Briefs
132
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private sector appropriation of space depends upon a form of
extractive capitalism that increases wealth inequality.
Tavares, Frank. “Ethical Exploration And The Role Of Planetary Protection In Disrupting Colonial
Practices.” Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032. October 25,
2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.08344.pdf>.
Resource Extraction: Many people consider it inevitable that resource extraction will be a
fundamental part of space exploration, if not the reason for doing it at all. However, it is worth
questioning whether our current mode of extractive capitalism is something we should take
with us when interacting with other worlds. As we are finding on our own Earth, resources are
not infinite, and if resource extraction is a cornerstone of the structures we build on the Moon
and other worlds, we are setting ourselves up for the same challenges in the long-term.
Enabling those with the wealth to privately engage in space exploration efforts could
exacerbate already extreme wealth inequality in the immediate future. There are possibilities
for engaging in a truly sustainable way with other worlds, and even redistributing resources in
an equitable way that doesn’t exacerbate wealth inequality. To explore these alternatives and
enact them will require conscious consideration when designing policy and robust enforcement
mechanisms for their implementation.
Champion Briefs
133
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Neoliberalism precludes ethics by reducing decision-making to
economic self-interest.
Sachikonye, Tawanda. “A Foucauldian Critique Of Neo-liberalism.”. January, 2010. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://philpapers.org/rec/SACAFC>.
In terms of individual citizens neo-liberal government promotes the notion of the responsible
citizen. Thus, the ideal individual in neo-liberal society practises personal responsibility by
making informed rational decisions. Neo-liberal democracy therefore aspires to construct
prudent subjects whose moral quality is based on the fact that they rationally assess the costs
and benefits of a certain act as opposed to other alternative acts? (Lemke, 2001: 201). Neoliberal governments together with corporations create conditions in which the responsible
rational individual can become a successful entrepreneur or consumer. The success or failure of
the individual depends on his or her skill and work ethic. Hence, life for an individual in neoliberal society becomes one of personal responsibility to a greater extent. Giroux 53 argues that
under neo-liberalism the state no longer assumes responsibility for social needs and rather
focuses on initiating various deregulations and privatizations‘, whilst relinquishing all social
responsibility to the ?market and private philanthropy‘ (2004). The neo-liberal state has no real
obligation towards its citizens except to provide the necessary conditions for entrepreneurship
and consumerism. As a result, a kind of Darwinist ‘survival of the fittest’ ethic becomes
apparent; Giroux argues that: [s]ocial Darwinism has been resurrected from the ashes of the
19th century sweatshops and can now be seen in full bloom in most reality TV programs and in
the unfettered self-interests that now drives popular culture. As narcissism is replaced by
unadulterated materialism, public concerns collapse into utterly private considerations and
where public space does exist it is mainly used as a confessional for private woes, a cut throat
game of winner take all, or an advertisement for consumerism? (2004) 54. This is a sentiment
that is echoed by Bourdieu 55, who states that this form of moral Darwinism establishes what
he terms the ‘cult of the winner’ and ultimately institutes a survival of the fittest mentality that
is underpinned by cynicism and self interest (1998). The neo-liberal state utilises knowledge like
market research as a technique of power. This is similar to how the government in the 17 th
Champion Briefs
134
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
century viewed statistics as the science of the state‘ and a component of the technology of
government (Smart, 2002: 129). The neoliberal government can now use market research to
indirectly control its citizens as well as gather information about their personal lives. Market
research with its use of modern technology and accurate data supersedes census studies and
statistics. Dufour writes: ?[v]ast numbers of market researchers are therefore always taking the
pulse of consumers and surveying their sexual and emotional lives, so as to anticipate their
needs and to give their desires possible names and credible destinations? (2008: 58). The
collecting of such information and the use of it to control citizens fits the Foucauldian critique.
The field of marketing is a highly efficient technology of neo-liberal governance; it becomes a
mechanism through which neo-liberal government can regulate a consumer society and
provide specific products to cater for the varied needs of different individuals. Dufour notes:
[t]here is no such thing as a small profit. A profit can be made from babies who want‘ their
favourite shampoo, senior citizens who want‘ to occupy their spare time and invest their
savings, poor adolescents who ?want‘ cheap brand names and rich adolescents who want‘ their
own cars. They must all be satisfied. i‘ is now central to every advert? (2008: 58). Neo-liberalism
dominates society through subtle means. Thus, neo-liberalism does not seek to assert itself by
placing disciplinary controls on life‘ (Dufour, 2008: 157). Neo-liberalism has permeated society
by using subtle political technologies‘. These mechanisms of power transcend the old overt
technologies‘: religion, the police and family, and are more flexible in that they are less reliant
on coercion and are less costly, as noted by Dufour (2008: 157). The new political technologies
of neo-liberal governance include: the internet, multimedia software, the fields of marketing
and management, as well as telecommunications technology governance have yielded more
control, management and surveillance than any traditional government could have hoped for.
Neo-liberal governance has also managed to dehumanise human society by forcing the
complexity of human difference into the narrow confines of entrepreneurialism, consumerism
and the logic of self interest. Fine and Leopold write: [a]re we the manipulated mannequins of
the advertising industry, the sovereignless victims of profit-hungry corporate capital, rational
economic man and women trading off one commodity against another according to their
relative prices and utilities?? (1993: 3). This is indeed a grim question to fathom but one which
neo-liberal governance has made pertinent.
Champion Briefs
135
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private appropriation of outer space is fundamentally about making
outer space safe for capitalism and perpetuating the logic of profit on
Earth.
Temmen, Jens. “Why Billionaires In Space Are Not Going To Make The World A Better Place.”
De Gruyter Conversations. July 14, 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://blog.degruyter.com/today-space-is-virgin-territory-why-billionaires-in-spaceare-not-going-to-make-the-world-a-better-place/>.
The question ignores the fact that contrary to what the private space industry (and national
space agencies, for that matter) wants us to believe, the exploration and colonization of outer
space is a very terrestrial undertaking. Steeped in capitalism – a system that Branson, Musk and
Bezos have mastered and thrived in – and the geopolitical stratagems of Earth’s nation-states,
space exploration today is not so much driven by changing humanity as it goes into space, but
rather by changing outer space to make it fit into the logics of profit and territorial control on
Earth. And we are in the thick of it: Branson’s latest attempt to establish space travel as a new
branch of the tourism industry is just one of many recent steps – including the establishment of
US Space Force, the ratification of the Artemis Accords, and the signing on of Musk’s SpaceX as
a contractor for NASA – to make outer space safe for capitalism. The point of the performative
character of the billionaires’ space race, the images of grandeur and individualism, the bells and
whistles, its alleged subscription to a more just future for humanity, is to distract, then. It is a
shiny packaging that wraps-up and obscures the mundane fact that if colonizing outer space is
allegedly about fundamentally changing societally structures that govern Earth and humanity,
the New Space Entrepreneurs are certainly not the ones to bring about that change – it would
simply be against their self-interest. In Earth’s past and present, the colonial language of virgin
land and terra nullius served to obscure the human cost of colonization by dehumanizing
colonized peoples. Space exploration, as imagined by Branson, Musk and Bezos, also has a cost.
The wealth that all three of them have acquired through their business ventures, which puts
Champion Briefs
136
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
them into the position to reach for the stars (and greater profits), builds on unleashed
neoliberalism, capitalist exploitation, and, overall, less-than altruistic business models. Their
vision of humanity in space is likewise designed for the few and wealthy, and built on the back
of the many. And the cost could increase even further. While all of humanity is facing the
unprecedented threat of climate change, which urges us to find sustainable solutions fast, Elon
Musk and others offer us the seemingly quick fix of abandoning Earth altogether and to
weather out the storm on Mars. In spite of being completely unfeasible from a scientific
standpoint, the idea has still gained traction among technoliberalists, and is thus withdrawing
attention and resources from communities mostly in the Global South for whom climate change
is not a threat in the distant future. In addition, the noise and smoke created by the hypermasculine performances of Branson, Musk and Bezos block our view of the tangible benefits
that space exploration has to offer and that we should readily invest in. Current Mars
exploration projects, for example, offer insights into how atmospheric changes impact
planetary climates – information that could prove invaluable in our battle against climate
change on Earth. All of this is a reminder that we should not abandon the idea altogether that
space exploration can offer us new and vital insights. Space exploration is, however, not going
to magically change humanity or how we live. If we want to continue to hope that space
exploration will fulfill the promise of a better future for humanity, changing our perspectives on
life on Earth must come first.
Champion Briefs
137
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private appropriation of outer space by billionaires is part of
capitalism's drive toward expansion.
Penny, Eleanor. “Billionaires Want To Be The Gatekeepers Of The Solar System.” In These
Times. December 17, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://inthesetimes.com/article/space-privatization-future-technology-silicon-valleyelon-musk-jeff-bezos>.
Just One More Frontier The eye-watering upfront costs of these exploratory, high-risk, highreward endeavors can be absorbed by Silicon Valley venture capitalists and the personal
fortunes of its aristocracy. A concentration of capital stands ready to risk big money to secure a
stake in future markets (which will double down on its power in existing ones). The point is to
ensure a slice of the territory everyone else will be clamoring for. This form of “creative
destruction”—an idea developed by economist Joseph Schumpeter, understood in
neoliberalism to describe the boom-bust cycle of innovation?—?is often packaged in the
mythology of moonshot genius that drives human progress. But Schumpeter’s theory has a less
discussed underbelly: Such creative destruction is usually twinned with market capture. As
competitors are tossed onto the scrap heap of history by their own sudden irrelevance,
oligarchies and monopolies flourish. The riches of the asteroid belt make earthly mining look
positively parochial. The problem is that a sudden, vast supply of (formerly) precious metals
would make market prices plummet. Journalist Aaron Bastani, author of Fully Automated
Luxury Communism, notes that satellite-delivered digital information has the potential to
replace our earthbound Internet networks with “space-based global Internet”?—?the way
music streaming has replaced CDs and CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl?—?or to at least render
them much cheaper (through, for example, open-access 3D printing). SpaceX and Blue Origin
surely share a goal to make space transport cheaper. The question is, for whom? These
ventures train their sights on infinite excess, with dwindling marginal costs as the supply of key
materials and digital resources expands. This paradigm is great for those interested in the
advancement of human civilization, but not so much for a grinning billionaire’s fixation on the
Champion Briefs
138
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
bottom line. At first glance, expanding industry beyond Earth sounds like a pragmatic fix to the
earth-shatteringly simple dilemma faced by capitalism: that it must grow to survive, but the
planet it grows upon is finite. But to maintain profit margins in conditions of plenty (a demand
of industry), legal and political fixes are required. If you exclusively own mining rights to
asteroids rich in platinum—and precious little platinum is left on Earth—you can charge
whatever you like for platinum. The diamond industry perfected this technique decades ago.
(Elon Musk’s family fortune comes partially from a Zambian emerald mine.) Hence, the focus of
the new space race is not on the production of goods or their most efficient sourcing, but on
ownership of land and transport networks. In this latest phase of capitalism, as national growth
slows, productive industries dwindle and wealth concentrates in fewer hands. As economist
Thomas Piketty has observed, this phase is accompanied by a pivot toward rent-seeking as a
profit mechanism. In other words, the scramble for space is the scramble to own satellites and
“starways,” gatekeep the riches of the solar system and charge rent on the moon. Against this
backdrop, Space Force might seem retrograde, a warped nostalgia for a time when the space
race was about petty terrestrial wars rather than Musk’s supposedly enlightened vision to
colonize Mars. In reality, the two visions go hand in hand. Military might physically captures and
secures territory, enforces the American political and legal apparatus and ensures business can
function (even on the moon). The darlings of this new space age paint their vision as daring
futurism, a wild-eyed libertarian dream of human elevation. But history repeats and the story is
old. Like Bezos and Musk, Cecil Rhodes—mining magnate and premier villain of the British
Empire—also succumbed to dreams of wealth in the night sky. “Expansion is everything,”
Rhodes said. “I would annex the planets if I could.” Where technology opens up the yawning
unknown of new territory glittering with potential profit, private enterprises hustle for
dominance—backed by the military and legal capacities of earthbound nations.
Champion Briefs
139
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Capitalism depends upon an insatiable desire to geographically
expand the market---this is the “spatial fix.”
Harvey, David. “Globalization And The “Spatial Fix”.” Geographische Revue 2. 2001. Web.
December 12, 2021. <https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2251/file/gr2_01_Ess02.pdf>.
It was primarily in this last sense that I first deployed the term “spatial fix” to describe
capitalism’s insatiable drive to resolve its inner crisis tendencies by geographical expansion and
geographical restructuring. The parallel with the idea of a “technological fix” was deliberate.
Capitalism, we might say, is addicted to geographical expansion much as it is addicted to
technological change and endless expansion through economic growth. Globalization is the
contemporary version of capitalism’s long-standing and never-ending search for a spatial fix to
its crisis tendencies. Since there is a long history to these spatial fixes, there is a deep continuity
(as I and many others have insisted) in the production of space under capitalist social relations
and imperatives. There is, from this perspective, nothing particularly new or surprising about
globalization since it has been going on since at least 1492 if not before. While these disparate
meanings of “to fix” appear contradictory, they are all internally related by the idea that
something (a thing, a problem, a craving) can be pinned down and secured. In my own use of
the term, the contradictory meanings can be played out to reveal something important about
the geographical dynamics of capitalism and the crisis tendencies that attach thereto. In
particular, I use it to focus on the particular problem of “fixity” (in the first sense of being
secured in place) versus motion and mobility of capital. I note, for example, that capitalism has
to fix space (in immoveable structures of transport and communication nets, as well as in built
environments of factories, roads, houses, water supplies, and other physical infrastructures) in
order to overcome space (achieve a liberty of movement through low transport and
communication costs). This leads to one of the central contradictions of capital: that it has to
build a fixed space (or “landscape”) necessary for its own functioning at a certain point in its
history only to have to destroy that space (and devalue much of the capital invested therein) at
Champion Briefs
140
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
a later point in order to make way for a new “spatial fix” (openings for fresh accumulation in
new spaces and territories) at a later point in its history. The idea of “the spatial fix” initially
came out of attempts to reconstruct Marx’s theory of the geography of capitalist accumulation.
In the first essay on this topic, published in Antipode in 1975, I showed that Marx’s fragmentary
writings on the geography of capitalist accumulation could be consolidated into a reasonably
consistent account that depicted the spatial as well as the temporal dynamics of capitalism. I
later sought to deepen the argument through an examination of the relation between Hegel’s
views on imperialism, von Thünen’s arguments concerning the frontier wage (a precursor to
key formulations on marginal pricing in neoclassical economics) and Marx’s arguments on
colonialism (most particularly the peculiarity of closing the first volume of Capital with a
chapter on colonial land policies). It was in this article, entitled “The Spatial Fix: Hegel, von
Thunen and Marx” that I first used the term “spatial fix” directly. It was later deployed as a
fundamental concept in The Limits to Capital (1982) and in a summary essay on “The
Geopolitics of Capitalism” (1985). (These earlier essays will all appear shortly in a volume
entitled Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography to be published by Edinburgh
University Press and Routledge (USA)). The primary result of these enquiries was to show that
(a) capitalism could not survive without being geographically expansionary (and perpetually
seeking out “spatial fixes” for its problems), (b) that major innovations in transport and
communication technologies were necessary conditions for that expansion to occur (hence the
emphasis in capitalism’s evolution on technologies that facilitated speed up and the progressive
diminution of spatial barriers to movement of commodities, people, information and ideas over
space) and (c) its modes of geographical expansion depended crucially upon whether it was the
search for markets, fresh labor powers, resources (raw materials) or fresh opportunities to
invest in new production facilities that was chiefly at stake. On this latter point there is a strong
connection between how the overaccumulation of capital (the central indicator of crisis in
Marx’s theory) is manifest and how the spatial fix gets pursued. Overaccumulation, in its most
virulent form (as occurred in the 1930s, for example) is registered as surpluses of labor and
capital side by side with seemingly no way to put them together in productive, i.e. “profitable”
as opposed to socially useful ways. If the crisis cannot be resolved, then the result is massive
Champion Briefs
141
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
devaluation of both capital and labor (bankruptcies, idle factories and machines, unsold
commodities, and unemployed laborers). Devaluation can sometimes lead to physical
destruction (surplus commodities get burned and laborers die of starvation) and even war (the
whole sequence of events that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s came close to such a scenario).
But there are ways to stave off such an outcome. In practice, most crisis phases combine
selective devaluations with strategies to alleviate the difficulties. One such strategy is to seek
out some “spatial fix” to the problem. If, for example, a crisis of localized overaccumulation
occurs within a particular region or territory then the export of capital and labor surpluses to
some new territory to start up new production would make most sense (as, for example, in the
migration of both labor and capital across the Atlantic from Britain to North America in the
crisis years of the nineteenth century). If, on the other hand, overaccumulation is chiefly
registered as lack of effective demand for commodities then opening up new markets in noncapitalist territories appears the best strategy (the China market has been a favorite “imagined”
goal for North American capital whenever it has run into difficulties for a century or more,
hence the current commercial interest in the USA for integrating China into the WTO).
Surpluses of capital and shortages of labor (or rigidity in labor markets because of political and
institutional barriers) can be “fixed” either by the movement of capital to areas of labor
surpluses and/or weak labor organization (hence North American capital moving into the
maquillas along the Mexican border) or importation of cheap labor (as with guest worker
programs in Europe) into centers of capitalist development. Surpluses of wage labor and
shortages of capital often generate strong migratory currents (legal and illegal, as with the
movement of Mexicans into the USA). The impulse of expansion in any or all of these modes
can be interpreted in Hegelian terms as each being a specific manifestation of a general relation
between an “inner dialectic” of crisis formation manifest as overaccumulation within a space
(most virulently as surpluses of capital and labor side by side) and an “outer dialectic” of
geographical (spatial) release of these surpluses. This was roughly how Hegel envisioned it in
The Philosophy of Right. The effect is to allow capital accumulation on a world scale to continue
its problematic temporal trajectory through continuous and sometimes disruptive geographical
adjustments and reconfigurations. But the effect is also to project and replicate the
Champion Briefs
142
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
contradictions of capital onto an ever-broadening geographical terrain. Closer analysis also
show how a whole series of contradictions arise within the production of space. These need to
be unravelled. Not only are the contradictions of capitalism worked through and embedded in
the production of the geographical landscape, but these contradictions can and manifestly have
at certain historical points been the locus of political-economic earthquakes that have shaken
the prospects for further capital accumulation to their very core. We now turn to consider how
this typically happens.
Champion Briefs
143
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The social contradictions of capital's geographic expansion lead to an
extreme concentration of income and wealth in the hands of the
richest people, and ongoing conflicts between territorial regimes.
Harvey, David. “Globalization And The “Spatial Fix”.” Geographische Revue 2. 2001. Web.
December 12, 2021. <https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/opus4ubp/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/2251/file/gr2_01_Ess02.pdf>.
In much of my own work, I have focussed upon the production of space through urbanization as
a key site where the contradictions of capital are always at work. Many of these studies focus
upon the tension between the two kinds of “fixes” – that which is perpetually seeking to
resolve the crisis tendencies of capitalism (overaccumulation) through the production of space
(consider, as an example, the key role of suburbanization in the United States after 1945 in
absorbing surpluses of capital and labor); and that version of the fix which is about the tying up
and the pinning down of large amounts of capital in place through the production of fixed and
immobile capital in the built environment (e.g. the highways systems needed to facilitate
suburbanization). Here, the two kinds of fixes both feed off each other to stimulate symbiotic
forms of accumulation (suburbs need cars and vice versa) and collide to form a potentially
serious contradiction. Globalization in its present guise has entailed, among other things, the
pursuit of a whole series of spatial fixes to the crisis that erupted around 1973. Capital, most
would agree, has since become much more global in all of its forms of production, commerce,
merchanting, and finance. It has shifted rapidly (and often with considerable volatility) from
one location to another. At the same time massive amounts of capital and labor have been
invested in the sorts of immobile fixed capital we see in airports, commercial centers, office
complexes, highways, suburbs, container terminals, and the like. Global flows have been in part
guided by such investments but at the same time these investments are speculative
developments that depend for their profitability upon a certain expansionary pattern of global
flows of commodities, capital, and people. If the flows fail to materialize, then the fixed capital
Champion Briefs
144
AFF: Neoliberalism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
stands to be devalued and lost (the bankruptcy of Canary Wharf in London in the 1990s is a
case in point, though, as often happens, the devaluation worked through in such a way as to
provide profitable opportunities for the banks that ended up holding the physical asset). The
production of space under capitalism proceeds under the shadow of this contradiction. But
there are also some more general arguments concerning the production of uneven
geographical development that need to be integrated into this account. Capital is always in
motion and much of that motion is spatial: commodity exchange (as opposed to the buying and
selling of assets) always entails change of location and spatial movement. The market is
spatialized (as Krugman now recognizes) and how that spatiality works has consequences for
uneven geographical development. One of the laws of the market, for example, is that “there is
nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals”. The equality presupposed in
market exchange produces spiraling inequalities between regions and spaces insofar as these
regions and spaces possess differential endowments. The outcome is that rich regions grow
richer and poor regions grow relatively poorer. The relaxation of state regulatory controls
throughout the capitalist world (unevenly according to political circumstances) has produced a
“neo-liberal” phase of capitalist development in which the inequalities of wealth and power
have grown markedly. But the end result of fierce competition, as Marx long ago observed, is
monopoly or oligopoly as the strong drive out the weak in a Darwinian struggle for survival.
While, therefore, the virtues of market competition are perpetually being extolled by the ruling
classes, an astonishing trend towards monopoly and oligopoly has been taking place in all sorts
of arenas, varying from mass media to airlines and even into traditional sectors such as autos. It
is also said that the power of the state has been undermined when in fact the state has
increasingly been restructured politically and economically as “an executive committee for the
ruling class” as Marx long ago suggested. Here, too, the neoliberal phase of globalization has
been characterized by a reconfiguration of state powers and the geographical concentration
and centralization of political-economic powers within regional alliances of immense strength
(with, of course, the USA very much leading the way). The geopolitical consequences are
marked by a certain spatial fluidity but also by competitive fights between evolving territorial
complexes.
Champion Briefs
145
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Global Security AC
This affirmative is very similar to International Law AC also present in the brief. Like the I
Law Aff the global security AC relies on the language of the Outer Space Treaty, While the I Law
aff looks at why private acquisition of space should be banned on a legal level, the global
security aff looks at the harms associated with violating the OST. The scenario here is war
arising over property disputes in space. The aff can be run as an advantage to a general util case
or as a plan aff if you want. If you read the case as a plan aff the place would read something
along the line of: Countries of the world ought to adopt enterprise rights for outer space.
Enterprise rights differ from property rights in that they don’t grant ownership of property but
rather allows for a free extraction of resources and more avenues for diplomatic solutions.
Negating this case, you have several options. First the case neg itself contains evidence
for alternate cause for diplomatic breakdowns between great powers in space, specifically antisatellite testing. There are also several defensive justifications for why private corporations may
be able to claim property rights without triggering national sovereignty. Pairing these
arguments with strong util justifications for negating will be a competitive strategy against the
aff. Affirmatives running an enterprise rights affirmative may attempt so winning the link will be
critical for negatives.
Champion Briefs
146
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
National appropriation of territory by any means in space violates the
article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
Article II of the Outer Space Treaty is at the epicenter of any discussion concerning the use and
exploitation of the resources of outer space. It provides: “Outer space, including the Moon and
other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by
means of use or occupation, or by any other means. This non-appropriation doctrine was
among earliest declarations of the community of nations at the beginning of the space age—
the General Assembly unanimously adopted it in 1961. Article II of the Outer Space Treaty was
reaffirmed and restated in Article 2 of the Moon Agreement. The prohibition on national
appropriation in space has received widespread acceptance and has represented state practice
for more than fifty years. As such, it has become customary international law that is binding on
all states, whether or not they are a party to the Outer Space Treaty or the Moon Agreement.
Champion Briefs
147
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Enterprise rights allow for extraction and commercialization while not
extending ownership over territory in outer space.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
The criticism of the non-appropriation doctrine fails to recognize that this central principle of
space law is essential to the creation of an environment in which the commercialization of
extraterrestrial resources can be conducted ab initio. 22 The corpus juris spatialis protects the
exercise of commercial rights in space consistent with the prohibition against national
appropriation.23 The rights of entrepreneurs to conduct business in space relate to the legal
ability to use and exploit extraterrestrial areas and materials for commercial gain. These are
“enterprise rights,”24 not ownership rights. Professor Sprankling correctly described the
protected interest to be in the nature of a usufruct.25 There are numerous instances where
commercial ventures utilize natural resources without a concomitant claim of ownership of the
physical area or location. Examples include offshore oil platforms, grazing rights, logging rights,
and, as Professor Sprankling discussed, satellite orbits.26 The formulation of specific
parameters for enterprise rights in extraterrestrial resources will be based, in part, on the
particular circumstances of the resources. That is, no one set of regulations will be appropriate
for all resources in all circumstances. The intended use, relative abundance or scarcity, location
of the resources in situ, and whether the celestial body itself is movable are all factors that may
influence the course of regulation. A broad array of uses will emerge, but in accordance with
Article II, there is no right to exclusive occupation of an area of space or celestial bodies in
perpetuity.27 Thus, the non-appropriation doctrine directly promotes space commerce, as it
prevents any entity from claiming a monopoly on an area or resource.
Champion Briefs
148
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Ownership claims in space risk conflict—empirically sovereignty is
enforced via the military.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
Far from being an impediment to space commerce, the non-appropriation doctrine makes the
commercialization of space possible. Throughout history, the discovery of a new territory was
immediately followed by a claim of national sovereignty over the area. This claim could take the
form of a physical presence, planting a flag, or other rituals. While the manner of asserting
claims by states may have differed, the one attribute they shared was that claims of sovereignty
ultimately were recognized and enforced on the basis of military power. The launch of Sputnik I
presented the global community with new and profound national security implications. As the
first nation to launch a satellite into Earth’s orbit, the Soviet Union was in a position to follow
historical precedent and assert claims of sovereignty resulting from the flight of Sputnik. The
U.S.S.R. was also the first nation to reach near-Earth orbits, cislunar space, and the surface of
the Moon, and could have claimed vast areas of the cosmos as sovereign Soviet territory.
Inevitably, these claims would have been met with resistance, and other states would have
made conflicting and competing sovereignty claims. The threat to international peace and
security would be significant, and ultimately, disputes over claims could result in military
confrontation. The world chose a different approach: a mere four years after Sputnik, the UN
General Assembly recognized the res communis nature of space and declared that outer space
and celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation.
Champion Briefs
149
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The non-appropriation doctrine helps ensure peaceful activities in
space.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
The non-appropriation doctrine was elevated to treaty status with the entry into force of the
Outer Space Treaty in 1967. In these early years of the space age, the international community
also declared that outer space was to be explored and used for peaceful purposes only, in
conformity with international law, and prohibited military facilities, installations, and
maneuvers in space.29 The primary attribute of these provisions, taken together, is the
maintenance of outer space for peaceful purposes.30 Thus, the corpus juris spatialis established
an environment where both the public and private sectors can conduct activities without the
necessity for military defenses or fortifications.31 This is a tangible benefit of space law.32 The
alternative would have been an atmosphere of insecurity where the cost of conducting
missions would increase in direct proportion to the defensive planning, armaments, and
weaponry deemed necessary for the protection of personnel and spacecraft.
Champion Briefs
150
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Recognizing private ownership of is functionally national
appropriation. It’s a distinction without a difference.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
It has been suggested that states could unilaterally establish a domestic registry to document
their nationals’ claims to space resources. Purportedly, this would be consistent with the nonappropriation principle if the state issued a proclamation that this registration scheme is “not to
be appropriation.” In making this proclamation, “the nation could make it clear that it was not
claiming sovereignty over such resources, but simply recognizing the claims of its citizens.”41
This is a distinction without a difference. State recognition of claims to extraterrestrial property
by its nationals is national appropriation “by any other means” prohibited by Article II, no
matter what euphemistic label is employed to mask the obvious.42 Moreover, the recognition
of claims is only one side of the equation—the other side is the exclusion or rejection of any
competing or conflicting claims. The de facto exclusion, by its very nature, would constitute a
form of national appropriation. Since Article II does not permit private appropriation of space
and celestial bodies, it can be contended that the non-appropriation doctrine should be
abrogated. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether such action would, in fact, benefit the
space commercialization cause. Abrogation of the non-appropriation principle would result in
assertions of competing and overlapping claims to various orbits, the Moon, and other areas of
space and celestial bodies, including retroactive claims. As noted above, the Russians would
have historic justification for claiming vast reaches of near-Earth space. Other technologically
advanced nations—including the United States, China, France, Great Britain, India, and others—
could assert claims to any area or location where the claimant had any basis for asserting that it
was first to “discover” the subject of the claim, whether by means of exploration, use, landing,
imaging, mapping, surveying, telepresence, or otherwise.
Champion Briefs
151
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Enterprise rights would encourage diplomacy between states to
resolve disputes before conflict occurs.
Tennen, Leslie I. “Enterprise Rights And The Legal Regime For Exploitation Of Outer Space
Resources.” Pacific Scholarly Commons. 2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol47/iss2/14/>.
States are able to regulate their national’s exercise of enterprise through domestic processes
and procedures pursuant to the obligation to authorize and continuously supervise the
activities of non-governmental entities in space. In the performance of this duty, states can be
expected to coordinate the authorized activities of entities to prevent harmful interference
with each other, and with the activities of the state itself. Where more than one state is
concerned or involved, the consultation procedures under the Outer Space Treaty and the
Moon Agreement provide international recognition of authorized non-governmental entities’
right to occupy a location on a celestial body and utilize the resources thereof.60 The
authorizing state will represent the interests and enterprise rights of non-governmental entities
during the consultations. The non-appropriation doctrine prohibits reservations of areas and
claims of a right to future occupancy. However, potential conflicts between different states’
missions that are in the planning stage are nonetheless subject to consultations that should
seek to coordinate both parties’ activities and thereby avoid harmful interference between
them.61 There is no guarantee, of course, that the consultations will successfully resolve the
dispute. However, they are an appropriate mechanism to be utilized in the first instance.
Moreover, while states are engaging in consultations to resolve a dispute, they are less likely to
engage in belligerent and provocative activities in situ. Thus, the domestic authorization
procedure and the international consultations framework provide significant protection for the
right of authorized entities to occupy and utilize a celestial location. If a state was determined
to interfere with another states’ public or private entities in space and all available diplomatic
and international procedures failed to resolve or diffuse the situation, it would signify a
breakdown in international relations extending far beyond the specific space activity at issue.
Champion Briefs
152
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights will lead to the weaponization of space.
Sterns, P.M. “Privateering And Profiteering On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies:
Debunking The Myth Of Property.” Advances in Research. June 03, 2003. Web.
December 13, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0273117703005672>.
If a state could license its nationals to “privately appropriate” areas of the moon and other
celestial bodies, notwithstanding the prohibition against national appropriation in article II
ofthe Outer Space Treaty, then why could a state not also authorize its nationals to conduct
other activities, in their capacity as private entities, in contravention of other articles of the
Treaty? What is to prevent a state, under that scenario, from licensing its nationals to place
nuclear weapons or other kinds of weapons of mass destruction in Earth orbit or on celestial
bodies, notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in article IV of the Guter Space Treaty?
After all, private entities are not mentioned in that article. Why stop there? Why could a state
not “privatize” its nuclear testing procedures, and license a private entity to conduct nuclear
weapons tests above ground, in the atmosphere, or in outer space, contrary to the provisions
of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests on the Surface of the
Earth, in the Atmosphere, or in Outer Space, 14 U.S.T. 13 13, T.I.A.S. No. 5433,480 U.N.T.S. 43
(1963)), which also does not mention private entities? Carried to its logical conclusion, this
argument would negate every bilateral or multilateral agreement ever made, since the states
party thereto could engage in every activity they agreed to restrict or limit by the convenient
subterfuge of conducting the activity through the guise of the private rather than the public
sector.
Champion Briefs
153
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Interpretations of the Outer Space Treaty prevents private property
rights.
, International Institute Of Space Law. “Statement By The Board Of Directors. Of The
International Institute Of Space Law (IISL) On Claims T.”. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.iislweb.org/docs/IISL_Outer_Space_Treaty_Statement.pdf>.
Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty states that “Outer space, including the Moon and
other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by
means of use or occupation, or by any other means.” The object and purpose of this provision
was to exclude all territorial claims to outer space, including the Moon and other celestial
bodies. As of March 2004, the Outer Space Treaty has been ratified by 98 nations, and signed
by an additional 27 countries. Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty provides that “States bear
international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by nongovernmental entities”, that is, private parties, and “for assuring that national activities are
carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty”. Article VI further
provides that “the activities of nongovernmental entities in outer space, including the Moon
and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the
appropriate State Party to the Treaty.” Therefore, according to international law, and pursuant
to Article VI, the activities of non-governmental entities (private parties) are national activities.
The prohibition of national appropriation by Article II thus includes appropriation by nongovernmental entities (i.e. private entities whether individuals or corporations) since that
would be a national activity. The prohibition of national appropriation also precludes the
application of any national legislation on a territorial basis to validate a ‘private claim’. Hence, it
is not sufficient for sellers of lunar deeds to point to national law, or the silence of national
authorities, to justify their ostensible claims. The sellers of such deeds are unable to acquire
legal title to their claims. Accordingly, the deeds they sell have no legal value or significance,
and convey no recognized rights whatsoever. According to international law, States party to a
Champion Briefs
154
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
treaty are under a duty to implement the terms of that treaty within their national legal
systems. Therefore, to comply with their obligations under Articles II and VI of the Outer Space
Treaty, States Parties are under a duty to ensure that, in their legal systems, transactions
regarding claims to property rights to the Moon and other celestial bodies or parts thereof,
have no legal significance or recognised legal effect.
Champion Briefs
155
AFF: Global Security AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Weaponization risks nuclear war it.
Krepon, Michael. “Weapons In The Heaven’s: A Radical And Reckless Option.” Arms Control
Today. 2004. Web. December 13, 2021. <
http://www.stimson.org/images/uploads/researchpdfs/Avoiding_the_Weaopnization_of_Space.pdf>.
To prevent adversaries from shooting back, the United States would need to know exactly
where all threatening space objects are located, to neutralize them without producing debris
that can damage US or allied space objects, and to target and defeat all ground-based military
activities that could join the fight in space. In other words, successful space warfare mandates
pre-emptive strikes and a preventive war in space as well as on the ground. War plans and
execution often go awry here on Earth. It takes enormous hubris to believe that space warfare
would be any different. If ASAT and space-based, ground-attack weapons are flight-tested and
deployed, space warriors will have succeeded in the dubious achievement of replicating the
hair-trigger nuclear postures that plagued humankind during the Cold War. Armageddon
nuclear postures continue to this day, with thousands of US and Russian nuclear weapons ready
to be launched in minutes to incinerate opposing forces, command and control nodes, and
other targets, some of which happen to be located within large metropolitan areas. If the
heavens were weaponized, these nuclear postures would be reinforced and elevated into
space. US space warriors now have a doctrine and plans for counterspace operations, but they
do not have a credible plan to stop inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation once the shooting
starts. Like US war-fighting scenarios, there is a huge chasm between plans and consequences,
in which requirements for escalation dominance make uncontrolled escalation far more likely.
A pre-emptive strike in space on a nation that possesses nuclear weapons would invite the
gravest possible consequences. Attacks on satellites that provide early warning and other
critical military support functions would most likely be viewed either as a surrogate or as a
prelude to attacks on nuclear forces.
Champion Briefs
156
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Colonialism AC
The Colonialism AC argues that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is
connected to the historical legacy of colonialism (and settler colonialism) on Earth. Space
mining treats Outer Space as ‘terra nullius,’ or “empty territory,” for financial gain; this was the
same logic that erased Indigenous presence and rationalized the profit-seeking activities of
colonial domination. Although space mining and Earthbound colonialism are not technically the
same (the AC is not saying “appropriation will colonize aliens”), some Aff literature speaks to
the effects of private sector appropriation in space on Indigenous people on Earth. For
example, the light pollution brought about by mega-constellations, or clusters of satellites
developed by companies such as Starlink, interferes with our ability to see the stars. For many
Indigenous communities, the stars are crucial to their spiritual connection with the universe.
Another example is the ramifications of asteroid mining, given how lucrative it could be for the
host nations of space companies, for exacerbating economic inequalities between rich nations
(former colonial powers) and the Global South.
The strength of the Colonialism AC is that a lot of Aff authors draw the connections
between private sector appropriation of outer space and the history of colonialism, so the
thesis of the case is well-supported. Many of the Aff authors argue that because corporations
had a central role in colonialism on Earth, their outsized influence in the appropriation of outer
space is unsurprising. The Colonialism AC is particularly effective against property rights NCs
because you can prove that the idea of private property was integral to colonial violence, and
that the Neg is complicit in a long legacy of exploitation. The weakness of the Colonialism AC is
that some authors only draw a parallel between space appropriation and historic appropriation
of Indigenous lands, but that argument is less effective than proving direct links to
contemporary harms to Indigenous people (which evidence in the brief supports).
Champion Briefs
157
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The appropriation of outer space by private entities perpetuates a
colonial model of property rights tied to national sovereignty. The
“first come, first serve” model of appropriation will lead to unequal
outcomes that disadvantage the Global South.
Bakshi, Kushagr. “Always Left Looking Up.” The Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 43.
November 06, 2021. Web. December 10, 2021. <http://www.mjilonline.org/always-leftlooking-up/>.
On October 13, Blue Origin, an aerospace company founded by Jeff Bezos, sent its second
crewed mission to space,[1] which included sending actor William Shatner to boldly go[2]
where no ninety-year old man had gone before (and perhaps never needed to).[3] This flight
and the publicity surrounding it[4] reflect the increasing investment in commercial space
enterprises, with the U.S. government investing around seven billion dollars in private space
companies alone,[5] and the shift in focus from scientific research to commercial activities,
including space tourism. This renewed interest in space activities has not escaped the law, with
eight nations signing the Artemis Accords on October 13, 2020 (now the number stands at
eleven).[6] Legal analysis of the Artemis Accords has tended to divide the Accords into three
roughly formed categories, namely, restatements of the Outer Space Treaty; further
enumeration and operationalization of the Outer Space Treaty; and introduction of new
concepts.[7] Within these new concepts rests what has been called the most important
development in the commercialization of space – the right of private entities to extract space
resources.[8] The aim of this blog post is to, first, discuss Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Artemis
Accords to better understand the new concepts being introduced. Second, consider whether
the operative acts as explained in these sections cumulatively constitute claims of sovereignty.
Finally, by analyzing the effect of the Accords on international law, the blog highlights situations
where some countries are, by design, left behind. But before we dive into the Artemis Accords,
it is important to contextualize the law surrounding outer space within which these
Champion Briefs
158
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
developments have occurred. The bedrock of international space law is the Outer Space
Treaty,[9] which enshrines two principles, equality and equity, by asking for the use and
exploration of space to be free of any discrimination and for it be carried out for the benefit
and in the interest of all countries. By rejecting claims of national appropriation, and treating
outer space as the “province of all mankind,” the treaty reflects a post-colonial vision of space
as a global commons.[10] The Moon Agreement[11] went a step further, declaring the moon
and its resources to be the common heritage of mankind. As van Eijk notes, space law rose as
colonialism fell, and as such it reflects the initial views of the third world to a branch of
international law, which they saw as an extension of the colonial model of exclusion.[12] I.
Privatization and Outer Space Many people see the Artemis Accords as the first major
breakthrough in international space law since the Moon Agreement.[13] However, as Stephan
Hobe has previously stated,[14] it is accurate to contextualize the Accords as furthering the
U.S.’s interpretation of property rights in outer space. Articles VI and VII of the Outer Space
Treaty make states responsible and liable for private space activities. The U.S. has long argued
that this language allows the private sector to act in space, so long as it is compliant with
international law. To this end, the U.S. passed a law in 2015,[15] which recognized rights of the
private sector to “possess, own, transport, sell and use” space resources.[16] The Artemis
Accords are an extension of this policy of commercialization. Section 9 of the Accords calls for
the preservation of outer space heritage, which is directed towards the preservation of the
Apollo landing sites.[17] Section 10 asks for the extraction of space resources to be done in a
manner compliant with the Outer Space Treaty while stating that the extraction of resources
itself does not constitute a claim of national appropriation. Finally, Section 11 calls for the
creation of “safety zones” to prevent interference with another nation’s space activities, in
furtherance of Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty. Facially, these regulations represent a
continuation of U.S. space policy without any direct infringement of the Outer Space Treaty.
However, many scholars have already made preliminary objections. Scholars argue that the
bilaterally imposed exclusionary nature of safety zones[18] and any imposition of Section 9
would restrict the freedom of exploration to other nations and thereby equality, as guaranteed
under article I of the Outer Space Treaty.[19] With regards to mining and commercialization of
Champion Briefs
159
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
space resources, the Outer Space Treaty is inchoate as it was developed at a time when such
technical advancements and situations were never considered but it is easy to see how a first
come first serve policy would lead to a tragedy of the commons. II. Property and Sovereignty
One of the most hotly contested debates within legal theory for a while was whether a right to
property is created by the state or whether it arises from natural law.[20] The treaty of
Westphalia signaled the victory of the positivist approach.[21] Under this model, property
rights were understood only within the framework of national law, which was an exercise of a
state’s sovereignty.[22] Lauterpacht analogized the concepts of sovereignty and property by
highlighting the shared construct of the “exclusiveness of enjoyment and disposition.”[23] It is
from this perspective of exclusion that we shall attempt to analyze the provisions of the
Accords. The Accords do not specify particular operational models. However, if we attempt to
construct a vision of what space activities would look like under the Accords, the picture we get
is as follows: the landing sites of the Apollo 11 missions will be closed off with respect to access
by other countries, national activities conducted on the moon and other celestial bodies will
have limited access, only by nations which declare such zones, and private companies shall be
promised exclusive rights to the resources they mine along with the locations where they
conduct their operations for providing assurance and security to the investment made by these
companies. As per article VI of the Outer Space Treaty, countries are liable and responsible for
the activities of these private entities, which paints a picture of continuous supervision. Any
resources extracted under these conditions will be regulated under domestic law of the
relevant nation. Viewed through the lens of exclusion,[24] these provisions enable an
exclusionary claim to space, its resources and particular areas which are regulated by domestic
property law of a state. In other words, they are tantamount to a claim of sovereignty.[25] III.
Leaving States Behind: Colonialism and Exclusion Alan Wasser has argued that the “right to
claim newly settled property has always provided the economic incentive for human
expansion.”[26] Various other sources describe resource mining as “extraction,” “exploitation,”
or the new “Gold Rush.”[27] Does this language evoke thoughts of some historical acts? NASA
has an entire page dedicated to “Space Colonization.”[28] The use of such language evokes
strong anti-imperialist sentiment amongst the Global South.[29] And not without reason. The
Champion Briefs
160
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
story sounds all too familiar. A private company, authorized by a special charter of authority by
a state sets off to explore “unchartered territory.” They occupy and use the lands and resources
of the previously unchartered space. Eventually, ownership of this land, guaranteed by a
sovereign act, transfers to the sovereign state itself. Add in the violent cleansing of ethnic
populations, and this is the story of the colonization of India.[30] This is not to claim that the
U.S. is intent on the ethnic genocide of a Martian people (assuming they exist). The purpose of
the rhetoric is to highlight the narrative of exclusion that continues. Viewed from the
perspective of the Global South, the Artemis Accords reflect a model of property rights leading
to national dominance,[31] with two particular concerns discussed below. First, predictably, the
Artemis Accords make no reference to any benefit sharing principles, save for a cursory
mention of the sharing of scientific data.[32] While the U.S. has explicitly rejected the validity of
the Moon Agreement,[33] which specifically calls for the equitable distribution of benefits
derived from space resources between all State Parties, the principle of benefit sharing does
find mention in other documents. Article I of the Outer Space Treaty calls for the use and
exploration to be for the benefit and in the interest of all countries. Further, the General
Assembly has also adopted a resolution reaffirming benefit sharing of space resources with a
particular focus on the needs of developing countries.[34] In the absence of any such language
in the Accords, it is hard to see how the Accords do anything other than promote an inequitable
distribution of resources based on the first come first served principle, which, given the gaps in
space technology between the First and the Third World, serve to ensure maximum capture of
benefits by the Global North to the exclusion of the South. The second concern arises from the
nature of the development of the Artemis Accords, done unilaterally by the U.S. and made a
pre-requisite by the U.S. for any country wishing to join the Artemis Program.[35] Unlike
previous treaties, this has not been discussed in the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space (COPUOS) and thereby has denied the Global South any chances to voice their opposition
or influence the Accords in anyway.[36] Admittedly, these Accords are in the nature of a
bilateral agreement between states and hence ought not be discussed in the COPUOS.
However, given that major space faring nations have begun to sign on the Accords and develop
national frameworks which allow for resource mining,[37] we could potentially be witnessing
Champion Briefs
161
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the creation of a regime which the Global South may be obligated to follow without having any
role to play in its development. International law developed as part of the colonial model with a
particular focus on sovereignty.[38] Space law is one of the clearest examples of the colonial
impact on international law.[39] Our discussion above set out to highlight how international law
still interacts with the aims of colonialism through concepts of property and sovereignty and
how the “final frontier” has become another avenue for the same models to be repeated. The
question we’re forced to ask is, does the Global North have the right to treat the Universe as if
it belongs to them—like some colony?[40]
Champion Briefs
162
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The outsourcing of outer space exploration to private corporations is
connected to the legacy of corporations' participation in colonialism.
Utrata, Alina. “Lost In Space.” Boston Review. July 14, 2021. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://bostonreview.net/articles/lost-in-space/>.
But this outsourcing of colonization efforts to private corporations is not just a feature of the
neoliberal state; corporations have long been embedded in the history of colonization. In the
early days of colonization, though companies’ home states often provided them money and
legitimacy for their ventures overseas, governments did not always tightly control these
endeavors. For instance, the British East India Company—a “company-state,” as coined by
Philip Stern—maintained armed forces, waged and declared war, collected taxes, minted coin,
and at one point “ruled” over more subjects than the British state itself. As J. C. Sharman and
Andrew Phillips noted in Outsourcing Empire: How Company-States Made the Modern World
(2020), “in some cases, company-states came to wield more military and political power than
many monarchs of the day.” Today states, not corporations, are perceived to be the truly
dangerous actors in space exploration. But corporations have long been embedded in the
history of colonization. Company-states were predicated on an understanding of sovereignty as
divisible and delegatory, defying what we today consider “public” and “private” power.
Compared to company-states at their zenith, even the largest modern-day multinational
corporation—and certainly SpaceX and Blue Origin—has significantly less authority, with
absolutely no military might to speak of. The monarchies that first granted monopoly charters
to these voyaging companies, having evolved into modern states, have also consolidated
sovereign authority and gained far more power than their antecedents in previous centuries.
Today states, not corporations, are perceived to be the truly dangerous actors in space
exploration. Particularly in the context of worsening U.S.-China relations, the militarization of
space by states is often posited as the most likely way that celestial encounters may become
violent. On this view, if private U.S. companies were to extract commercial resources from
asteroids, it would be a much more peaceful prospect than the U.S. Space Force establishing a
Champion Briefs
163
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
military base on the moon. However, this framing ignores corporations’ violent histories and
the deep connection between private commercial pursuits and systems of capitalism and
colonialism. Moreover, though states may help create and participate in these systems, they do
not always control the forces they unleash. For example, there was nothing inevitable about
the fact that the East India Company came under the control of the British state. Even when it
did, it caused devastating impacts on both the places it claimed to “rule” as well as the state
that had chartered and owned it, ushering in the age of the British Empire. As historian William
Dalrymple, author of The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company (2019), noted,
“It was not the British government that seized India at the end of the 18th century, but a
dangerously unregulated private company…[that] executed a corporate coup unparalleled in
history: the military conquest, subjugation and plunder of vast tracts of southern Asia. It almost
certainly remains the supreme act of corporate violence in world history.” As contemporary
companies set out to colonize space, we should ask whether modern states have a better grasp
on how to control corporations and the violence that may result from battles over who ought
to rule these settlers and resources.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
164
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Resisting colonial mindsets and policies should be the first ethical
priority in debates about outer space.
Tavares, Frank. “Ethical Exploration And The Role Of Planetary Protection In Disrupting Colonial
Practices.” Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032. October 25,
2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.08344.pdf>.
All of humanity is a stakeholder in how we, the planetary science and astrobiology community,
engage with other worlds. Violent colonial practices and structures--genocide, land
appropriation, resource extraction, environmental devastation, and more--have governed
exploration of Earth, and if not actively dismantled, will define the methodologies and mindset
we carry forward into space exploration. With sample return missions from Mars underway,
resource maps of the Moon being produced, and private industry progressing toward human
exploration of Mars, the timeline is urgent to develop a modern, inclusive, robust, and
enforceable policy framework to govern humanity’s engagement with other worlds. This paper
does not recommend specific policies or implementation strategies, and instead focuses on
“the identification of planetary protection considerations,” in accordance with the scope of this
decadal survey. 1 Ethical considerations must be prioritized in the formation of planetary
protection policy. The choices we make in the next decade of space exploration will dictate the
future of humanity’s presence on other worlds, with the potential to impact the environments
we interact with on timescales longer than the human species has existed. We should make
these choices consciously and carefully, as many will be irreversible, especially those pertaining
to how we interact with potential extraterrestrial life. It is critical that ethics and anticolonial
practices are a central consideration of planetary protection. We must actively work to prevent
capitalist extraction on other worlds, respect and preserve their environmental systems, and
acknowledge the sovereignty and interconnectivity of all life. The urgency of finding a second
home on Mars in the shadow of looming environmental catastrophe on Earth is not only a
questionable endeavor 2 but scientifically impossible with present technology, 3 and is often
Champion Briefs
165
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
used as a justification for human exploration and to suggest that these ethical questions may be
antiquated in the face of that reality. Here we argue the opposite: that the future of our own
species and our ability to explore space depends on pursuing anticolonial practices on Earth
and beyond. An anticolonial perspective can push us towards an ethic that acknowledges our
interconnected and entangled lives. Rather than an escape, or a continuation of manifest
destiny, the Moon and Mars may provide the key to practicing other ways of exploring and of
being. Our primary recommendation is that the planetary science decadal survey call on all
bodies involved in developing planetary protection policies to engage in a process of
community input to establish a robust reevaluation of the ethics of future crewed and
uncrewed missions to the Moon, Mars, and other planetary bodies with the intention of
developing anticolonial practices, centered around the considerations we present. Current
policy does not adequately address questions related to in-situ resource utilization,
environmental preservation, and interactions with potential extraterrestrial life. Documents
such as the Outer Space Treaty in theory address some of these concerns, but lack effectiveness
without enforcement mechanisms. A reformed planetary policy that addresses today’s
challenges and is inclusive, robust, and enforceable must be established. Special emphasis
should be placed on resisting colonial structures in these policies.
Champion Briefs
166
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private appropriation and commodification of space is connected to
the historical legacy and present-day practices of colonialism.
Tavares, Frank. “Ethical Exploration And The Role Of Planetary Protection In Disrupting Colonial
Practices.” Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey 2023-2032. October 25,
2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.08344.pdf>.
Commodification and Appropriation of Land and Resource Extraction: The commodification of
land through extractive practices has led to significant disruption of the ecosystems that
Indigenous communities rely upon for their livelihoods. Examples of extractive exploitation and
colonialism abound; while many people in the US think only of the gold rush, mining of rare
minerals in Central and South America and Africa incentivize and continue to accelerate colonial
expansion even today. Agricultural practices throughout the colonial world have been and
continue to be damaging, transforming environments and destroying human lives and cultures.
19 From cotton fields in the American south to sugar plantations and rubber tappers in Brazil,
the combination of land and people as property was key to the generation of wealth that built
up the Western world. 20 The field of planetary science and space exploration in the present
day is not divorced from these practices, and both existing and planned space infrastructure
continue to encroach upon Indigenous land. This is often justified by falsely framing opposition
to such encroachments as “obstructions” to “the future.” 21 For example, construction of the
Thirty Meter Telescope atop Mauna Kea has begun despite opposition from many Kanaka ??iwi
(Native Hawaiians), who note that previous astronomy development atop Mauna Kea has
already had substantial adverse effects. 22 Current structures for in-situ resource utilization on
other worlds are analogous to some of these past and current practices on Earth. Most
immediately, lunar resource maps seek to enable public and private sector mining actors to
plan for extraction of water ice and other resources. Similar proposals exist for asteroid mining.
This is presented under a guise of “sustainability,” but in actuality replicates the practices of
extractive capitalism that have contributed to the environmental degradation of Earth. In the
Champion Briefs
167
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
long-term, this exploitative approach to extraterrestrial exploration will be similarly
detrimental, and recommendations provided in the white paper “Asteroid Resource Utilization:
Ethical Concerns and Progress” address these issues in more depth. 23 Public-Private
Partnerships as a Colonial Structure: Private individuals and institutions, in collaboration with
governments, are a key aspect of the colonial structure. For example, the East India Company
was fundamental to British expansion across the Eastern hemisphere and took a central role in
colonial domination and political control as well as trade. 24 More recent examples include the
influence of American fruit companies in the United States’ interventions into Latin American
politics during the Cold War. 25 In the United States, treaties signed with Native American
nations have repeatedly been broken, often by settler colonialist individuals working in tandem
with the US government and military. The Dakota Access Pipeline, a modern reframing of the
ongoing Indigenous demand to honor the Black Hills Treaty, 26 illustrates how capitalist interest
intersects with colonialism today. These examples are mirrored in the active role private
industry is currently taking in space exploration. Presently, there is little to no oversight by
national governments or international structures. Private partnerships are encouraged to plan
missions to the Moon and Mars, often supported by state funding. However, there is a lack of
concrete and effective policy to guide their actions, and no consequences are levied when
existing policies are violated. 27 For example, the privately-funded and state-operated
Beresheet lunar lander crashed on the Moon and accidentally released thousands of
tardigrades. 28 At present, bodies like the Moon and Mars are in practice free reign for private
entities. An unfortunately accurate euphemism is that we are in a “wild west” of space policy in
this regard. When faced with complex and nuanced ethical questions like the ones we will face
in space exploration, private actors, by their very structure, will prioritize economic
considerations above moral ones. History, through the examples above and others, shows us
that they will.
Champion Briefs
168
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Attempts to colonize space have material harms for Indigenous
people on Earth, in the form of violent dispossession.
Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logic Of (Outer) Space.” Society + Space. October 26, 2020. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-ofouter-space>.
But we cannot forget the concept of terra nullius and how our exploration of the stars has real
effects on Indigenous landscapes here on Earth. We also cannot forget about forms of space
exploration that may not be explicitly tied to military means. Doing so deprives us of another
lens through which to view the tensions between settler and Indigenous views of space and to
which end is useful. Indeed, even reinscribing of Indigenous space towards ‘peaceful’ settler
space exploration have very real consequences for Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous
spaces. Perhaps the most prominent example of the fractures between settler space
exploration and Indigenous peoples is the on-going controversy surrounding the construction of
the Thirty Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii. While an extremely detailed
description of the processes of construction on the TMT and the opposition presented to it by
Native Hawai’ians and their allies is beyond the scope of this essay, and in fact is already
expertly done by a number of scholars[ii], the controversy surrounding TMT is a prime example
of the logics presented towards ‘space’ in both Earth-bound and beyond-Earth contexts by the
settler colonial state as well as the violence that these logics place upon Indigenous spaces,
such as Mauna Kea, which in particular already plays host to a number of telescopes and
observatories (Witze, 2020). In particular, astronomers such as Chanda Prescod-Weinstein,
Lucianne Walkowicz, and others have taken decisive action to push back against the idea that
settler scientific advancement via space exploration should take precedence over Indigenous
sovereignty in Earth-space. Prescod-Weinstein and Walkowicz, alongside Sarah Tuttle, Brian
Nord and Hilding Neilson (2020) make clear that settler scientific pursuits such as building the
TMT are simply new footnotes in a long history of colonial disrespect of Indigenous people and
Indigenous spaces in the name of science, and that astronomy is not innocent of this disrespect.
Champion Briefs
169
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
In fact, Native Hawai’ian scholars such as Iokepa Casumbal-Salazar strike at the heart of the
professed neutrality of sciences like astronomy: One scientist told me that astronomy is a
“benign science” because it is based on observation, and that it is universally beneficial because
it offers “basic human knowledge” that everyone should know “like human anatomy.” Such a
statement underscores the cultural bias within conventional notions of what constitutes the
“human” and “knowledge.” In the absence of a critical self-reflection on this inherent
ethnocentrism, the tacit claim to universal truth reproduces the cultural supremacy of Western
science as self-evident. Here, the needs of astronomers for tall peaks in remote locations
supplant the needs of Indigenous communities on whose ancestral territories these
observatories are built (2017: 8). As Casumbal-Salazar and other scholars who have written
about the TMT and the violence that has been done to Native Hawai’ians (such as police actions
designed to dislodge blockades that prevented construction) as well as the potential violence to
come such as the construction of the telescope have skillfully said, when it comes to the
infringement upon Indigenous space by settler scientific endeavors tied to space exploration,
there is no neutrality to be had—dispossession and violence are dispossession and violence, no
matter the potential ‘good for humanity’ that might come about through these things.
Champion Briefs
170
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Megaconstellations of satellites, such as Starlink by SpaceX, cause
light pollution---this is another form of colonization because of the
devastating effects it has on indigenous people.
Nielson, Hilding. “Indigenous Rights, Peoples, And Space Exploration: A Response To The
Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Con.” Arxiv (open-access archive). 2021. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.07118.pdf>.
Megaconstellations of Satellites is Colonization The launch of Starlink by SpaceX has had a
dramatic and damaging impact on research in astronomy and astrophysics (Clery 2020, Kocifaj
2021). These satellites have added to the amount of light pollution and future satellite
constellations could have far greater impact depending on the legal requirements and the
purpose of those satellites. Hamacher et al (2020) presented a compelling argument that light
pollution is a form of cultural genocide (please note that in the context of the Final Report of
the Truth & Reconciliation Commission we will use the term Indigenous erasure instead). In
their article, the authors noted that a significant amount of Indigenous knowledge is based on
star lore and observations of the sky. Those observations are connected to Indigenous stories
about the land and nature - for some peoples the sky is a reflection of the land (Cajete 2000).
Those observations, however, are based on a dark night sky without substantive light pollution.
As such, light pollution acts to disconnect Indigenous peoples from the land they live, and as
such, is a form of erasure. In the same vein, we argue that constellations of satellites are also a
form of colonization, especially those that are bright enough to be visible from the ground. If
light pollution results in an erasure of knowledges, then megaconstellations of satellites would
also constitute an attempt to rewrite that knowledge. There is a second issue that the CSA
should consider with respect to space exploration and the impact of new satellites. That issue is
at what height do treaties and agreements with Indigenous peoples, end? It is understood that
treaties have impact on Indigenous rights and responsibilities with respect to mining, water
resources, hunting, etc. but Indigenous communities should be consulted with the impacts on
Champion Briefs
171
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the skies above. This is especially true for satellites that contribute to light pollution, but also
satellites that are designed to offer services to communities (such as wireless internet),
satellites designed for groundbased or remote imaging such as mapping satellites and LIDAR
imaging. The CSA has an obligation to consult with Indigenous communities and Indigenous-led
organizations with respect to the legalities of how satellites that impact communities operate.
Champion Briefs
172
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Mining of asteroids and the Moon is antithetical to Indigenous
cosmologies.
Nielson, Hilding. “Indigenous Rights, Peoples, And Space Exploration: A Response To The
Canadian Space Agency (CSA) Con.” Arxiv (open-access archive). 2021. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.07118.pdf>.
Preserving the Moon and Mars One of the key elements of the Artemis Accords is the
commitment to preserve Outer Space Heritage (Section 9). On the other hand, Sections 3 and
10 of the Accords are designed to allow countries to peacefully exploit the Moon and Mars.
However, these accords presuppose that Space Heritage refers to only landing sites and rovers.
This definition ignores Indigenous people’s perspectives and elements of space heritage for
Indigenous cultures. It is also notable that the accords allow for exploitation by humanity for
industry such as mining. This idea implies that nation-states on Earth have the right to exploit
the Moon and Mars for their own purposes and those rights supersede the principle that the
Moon and Mars might have its own rights as viewed from Indigenous perspectives. In Aotearoa
(New Zealand), the settler government recognized that the Whanganui River is a living entity
that belonged to no one, hence has its own rights as a living entity. This means that the river
cannot be exploited by humans. Because the river cannot express its own interests in ways that
humans can interpret a committee was appointed to act as guardian for the river. That
committee includes local Maori representatives. The importance of the Moon and Mars as part
of the cultures and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples from around the world and that
part for many peoples is one of relation (Cajete, 2000). In the situation of relationality, the
Moon and Mars and other Solar Systems objects have their own rights to exist and be. Those
rights are not necessarily incongruent with exploration and mining. However, they do require a
significant reconsideration of what constitutes a human right to interact with the Moon and
Mars. For instance, the environmental impact on the Earth is significant but the Earth could
heal from most mining events given enough time. It is not likely the Moon would recover over
the age of the Universe because of the lack dynamic mechanisms found on the Earth. We have
Champion Briefs
173
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
an ethical duty to consider the rights of the Moon and Mars from environmental and
Indigenous perspectives to better share the benefits and sustainability of space exploration.
Those rights should be represented by Indigenous peoples as well as traditional nation-state
governance.
Champion Briefs
174
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Indigenous people are still silenced during consultation processes, so
prior consultation fails to be an alternative to the Aff.
Townsend, Leo. “Consultation, Consent, And The Silencing Of Indigenous Communities.”
Journal of Applied Philosophy. May 25, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/japp.12438>.
Conclusion Historically, Indigenous peoples have been denied a say in decisions about their
lands and livelihoods. The growing recognition of Indigenous rights to consultation and consent
in international and domestic law has sought to recognise the sovereignty of Indigenous
peoples and to ensure their participation in those decisions. However, we have argued that the
interpretation and implementation of these rights has meant that communities are still
routinely silenced within these decision-making processes. To illustrate this, we have examined
three cases in which, we argue, Indigenous communities have been silenced despite the
appearance of a fair participatory process. Using the theoretical framework of feminist speech
act theory, and in particular the Austinian approach to silencing developed by Hornsby and
Langton, we have illuminated three ways in which Indigenous communities can be silenced as
group speakers in participation processes. Locutionary group silencing occurs when the
platform for group speech is occupied by someone who lacks the proper authority to speak for
the group, and so the opportunity for group speech elapses. Illocutionary group silencing occurs
when a group’s attempts to perform certain speech acts are not given appropriate uptake, and
so fail. And perlocutionary group silencing occurs when the perlocutionary aims of a group’s
speech are systematically blocked. This investigation of practices of group silencing in
community consultation has both philosophical and legal value. From a philosophical
perspective, while questions about the possibility and nature of group speech have been
gaining increased attention in recent years, questions about the politics of group speech have
been roundly neglected. In light of the substantial role played by collective bodies—
governments, institutions, communities, etc—in public discourse, this is a serious lacuna in the
literature. Highlighting practices in which the speech of certain groups is disempowered helps
Champion Briefs
175
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
to bring these neglected questions into view, while the framework of feminist speech act
theory helps to identify certain distinctive ways in which group speech can be disempowered.
From a legal perspective, the value of applying this framework for thinking about speech acts
and silencing is that it reveals how Indigenous communities can be denied a proper say even
when they have been ‘included’ in deliberations and decision-making. In this way, it tells us
something about the requirements of truly meaningful consultation and consent. While rights
to consultation and consent are meant to ensure Indigenous communities get a say in decisions
that affect them, if these rights are not appropriately implemented and interpreted, they can
fail to give Indigenous communities a proper say, and succeed only in silencing and
marginalising them further.59
Champion Briefs
176
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The effort to colonize space is a form of colonial world-building linked
to the racist legacy of colonialism on Earth. Even though there aren't
people living on the moon, space is built for people, and that
colonialist legacy will influence who is included in the space
appropriation project.
Haskins, Caroline. “The Racist Language Of Space Exploration.” The Outline. August 14, 2018.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://theoutline.com/post/5809/the-racist-language-ofspace-exploration>.
“You could argue that the effort to colonize space is likely to involve new forms of inequality:
shifts in tax revenues and administrative priorities devoted to that,” said Michael Ralph, a
professor of anthropology at NYU. “As opposed to [supporting] other social institutions that
benefit people like health care, education, infrastructure.” Earning money in space is an exciting
prospect for a far-right, pro-business, anti-regulation politician like Cruz, and he explicitly
associated it with European countries having colonized the Americas. Starting in the late 1400s,
Great Britain, Spain, and Portugal funded missions to the Americas in order to gather natural
resources that would power up their economies. By stealing the land that made this resource
extraction possible, colonizers used genocide, enslavement, biological weaponry, and warfare
and that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of indigenous people living in the “New
World.” The concept of race, and therefore racism, was invented as a way of justifying their
violence and legitimizing a hierarchy of race-divided labor. Based off of what we know right
now, the Moon and Mars are devoid of life, so this colonizing language is not actually putting
other beings at risk. But, there is the risk that the same racist mythology used to justify violence
and inequality on earth — such as the use of frontier, “cowboy” mythology to condone and
promote the murder and displacement of indigenous people in the American West — will be
used to justify missions to space. In a future where humans potentially do live on non-earth
planets, that same racist mythology would carry through to who is allowed to exist on, and
Champion Briefs
177
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
benefit from, extraterrestrial spaces. On Earth, and in the United States specifically, the ideal of
a merit-based society has been used to justify race-blind hiring policies that fail to account for,
say, the implicit bias against black or Asian-sounding names, or the legacy of segregation, which
continues to make children of color more vulnerable to attending underfunded schools.
Narratives of “law and order” have also been used to justify racial profiling and harsher prison
sentences for people of color than for white people who commit the same crimes. Not nearly
enough work has been done here on Earth to ensure that these structural inequalities wouldn’t
carry through. “Those narratives do carry specific implications about how people living on other
worlds might be structured,” Lucianne Walkowicz, the current Chair of Astrobiology at the
Library of Congress, told The Outline. Walkowicz organized the Decolonizing Mars Conference
that took place on June 27 as well as a public follow-up event planned for September, to discuss
how colonial language is shaping our potential future in space. “Space is not just built for
nothing, it’s built for people.” When we think about humanity’s potential to exist on other
planets, it’s important to consider who won’t have access to space, in part due to a total lack of
concern over these issues by people who are able to access it. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos intends
to make space a place for the rich to use for adventure leisure, and SpaceX/Tesla founder Elon
Musk has proposed that a Martian “colony” can save a selection of humanity from the collapse
of civilization in some World War III scenario. Granted, right now, these are just words from
billionaires who want to excite the public about their business ventures. But they suggest that if
the economically and socially vulnerable are priced out of a life-saving journey from Earth, it is a
justifiable loss. “All of these things that are said off the cuff [by billionaires] have some
implications that are concrete and count some people in, and some people out,” Walkowicz
said. Part of that concern is fueled by the fact that Cruz and Pence have presented the path to
settling space as one that will be privately funded, but lead by the U.S. government. In the
Destination Mars subcommittee meeting, Cruz said, “At the end of the day, the commercial
sector is going to be able to invest billions more in dollars in getting this job [of getting to Mars]
done.” In his Thursday remarks regarding the Space Force, Pence also implied that celestial
territories would be treated as private property (even though owning private property in space
is explicitly illegal per the Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. and dozens of other nations
Champion Briefs
178
AFF: Colonialism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
signed in 1967). “While other nations increasingly possess the capability to operate in space,
not all of them share our commitment to freedom, to private property, and the rule of law,”
Pence said. “So as we continue to carry American leadership in space, so also will we carry
America’s commitment to freedom into this new frontier.” This approach to public-private
partnerships directly mirrors colonist practices. For instance, the British East India Company
violently colonized parts of India on behalf of the company, but over time, ownership of the
stolen land shifted to Great Britain. While these risks feel a part of a far away future, in the
present, idealizing colonization as a positive, replicable aspect of American history speaks to an
unsettling indifference from leaders about the violent history of colonization. And by
referencing historical events that victimized people of color, leaders paint a vision of the future
in which people of color continue to be excluded, Walkowicz said that the social and economic
legacy of colonization is ignored.
Champion Briefs
179
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Borders AC
Borders is a very simple argument that basically describes the way that property rights
create the conditions necessary for borders, and that would create borders in space. The way
that this happens is because when private corporations expand into space, they must find some
way to retain property and declare that it is theirs. Thus, property rights must be extended off
the planet that we live in. Once these property rights are extended into space, there is only one
way to guarantee that those property rights are recognized – the expansion of borders.
Property rights necessitate the drawing of borders and that’s bad. There are a number of
reasons why in the literature, but the affirmative argues that borders enforce a kind of
biopolitical control that enables the death of all who exist within them.
Answers to borders are pretty simple. Debaters can again read capitalism good, a
methods fail argument, or even turn the entire aff and instead say that borders are good. Some
of these answers are included, but debaters are encouraged to research and read about this
argument to find more detailed answers.
Champion Briefs
180
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights are inextricably tied to border creation and
maintenance.
Long, Ryan. “Immigration And Property Rights.” openborders. July 26, 2013. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://openborders.info/blog/immigration-and-property-rights/>.
Property transactions involve property’s being either bought-and-sold or rented. Unless an
immigrant intends to sleep on the streets, someone within the country has voluntarily elected
to either sell or rent property to the newcomer. And while it’s always true that one might run
away from his or her debts, the fact remains that any immigrant is always a party to some kind
of business transaction in being here. Unless those business transactions occur exclusively
among fellow-immigrants (a totally unreasonable assumption), immigrants are trading with
domestic natives who wish to trade with them, too. Thus, this is exactly the opposite of “a
roommate who doesn’t pay his rent.” Almost paradoxically, the anarcho-capitalist
counterfactual utilizes just this rationale in its argument against open borders. The argument is
that, because every free market transaction is a de facto “restriction” on absolutely uninhibited
use of another person’s property rights, the open borders concept is logically impossible. Clever
logic like this is classic Hans-Hermann Hoppe, but it nonetheless misses the mark. Giving things
away for free is hardly what we have in mind when we argue for free markets. Similarly,
opening borders to free human migration means allowing people to travel so that they can
solicit the kind of free trade to which Hoppe refers. Knocking on doors, renting apartments, and
answering wanted ads are not the kinds of activities we typically call property rights violations,
and this is all we really have in mind when we talk about open borders. The anarcho-capitalist
counterfactual is neither an argument against this kind of activity nor a particularly strong
justification for the restriction of it. Suppose I live in a private, gated community with Steve
Sailer, Joe Arpaio, and Mike Huckabee. Further suppose that John Lee wishes to live in our
community. If John wants to purchase or rent land from Sailer, Arpaio, Huckabee, or the
homeowners’ association in which theirs is the majority opinion, they would be within their
rights to decide that they don’t want John in their community, and refuse to sell or rent to him.
Champion Briefs
181
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
But what if I choose to rent my property to John? Aren’t I within my own property rights to
enter into a leasing agreement with John? Opponents of immigration may counter that my
participation in the homeowners’ association bars me from doing so. If true, what’s to stop me
from ending my contract with the homeowners’ association and renting to John, anyway? Only
by asserting that the homeowners’ association’s collective control over my personal property –
i.e. by asserting that collective property rights trump individual property rights – can we
conclude that I cannot rent to John. Of course, opponents of immigration can always invoke the
principle of collective property rights to argue against open borders, but such claims run
contrary to the spirit in which property rights were invoked in the first place. After all, I doubt
that what conservative opponents of immigration have in mind is the supremacy of collective
use of property over individual property rights. If they did, a significant shift in public opinion
would invalidate their argument. Indeed, a significant shift in public opinion might even
invalidate their individual claim to property.
Champion Briefs
182
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
That means that property rights, when extended to space, inevitably
lead to the creation of borders.
Simberg, Rand. “Property Rights In Space.” The New Atlantis. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/property-rights-in-space>.
By permitting non-governmental activities in space, albeit under government supervision, this
section of the treaty allowed for the creation of the commercial telecommunications, remotesensing, and spacecraft launching industries, which were then in their infancy and today are
thriving. However, as Kopal notes, the treaty “does not contain any principles that would
regulate economic activities for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of
outer space, the Moon and other celestial bodies.” At the time the treaty was negotiated, the
issues of economic development in space seemed remote, and so diplomats set them aside as
potential obstacles to finding agreement on what they saw as more pressing issues. A dozen
years after the signing of the Outer Space Treaty, a handful of countries proposed a new treaty
aimed at governing economic activities in space: the Agreement Governing the Activities of
States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. (Its informal name, the Moon Treaty, is
somewhat misleading, since the treaty applies to all celestial bodies in the solar system, not just
the Moon.) The principle behind this treaty is that resources falling outside the territories of
nation-states — in this case, off-Earth resources — are “the common heritage of mankind.” This
principle is modeled on the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, one of the aims of which is to regulate
seabed mining. But as a 2009 Economist article argued, the Law of the Sea Treaty would deny
most of the rewards of prospecting to those who actually undertake it, making it a barrier to
seabed mining happening at all: “Commercial miners want both a clear title to their holding and
exclusive rights to exploit it. They also have to answer to shareholders.” This is one of the
principal reasons that the U.S. Senate has never approved the Law of the Sea Treaty despite
repeated efforts to muster the necessary two-thirds vote, most recently in summer 2012.
Fortunately, the Moon Treaty is essentially a failed piece of international law. Only fourteen
states are signatories to the agreement, and none of these is a spacefaring nation. Nonetheless,
Champion Briefs
183
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the provisions of the Moon Treaty remain a potential disincentive to the economic
development of space, and underscore the case for the United States to repudiate it by
providing an alternative, more market-friendly legal approach to space settlement. Unlike the
Moon Treaty, all spacefaring nations are signatories of the Outer Space Treaty. But there
remains a question of how property rights stand under the OST — whether they are permitted,
outlawed, or neither. This issue has not been put to the test in any significant legal proceedings,
but some analysts have argued that recognizing property claims would be explicitly prohibited
under Article II of the treaty, which reads in part, “Outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of
use or occupation, or by any other means.” It is certainly clear that this part of the treaty
prohibits nations from making claims of sovereignty off-planet; but whether private property
claims are national appropriations depends on whether the recognition of these claims can be
considered one of the “any other means” of national appropriation. A later section of the OST
can be interpreted to suggest that private property might count as national appropriation. As
noted earlier, under Article VI, signatory states bear “responsibility for national activities in
outer space” no matter whether those activities are conducted by government personnel or
private citizens. But it is still not clear that the “national activities” referred to here would
include private activities and property claims not made on behalf of a national government. As
early as 1969, the distinguished space-law scholar Stephen Gorove argued in the Fordham Law
Review that the Treaty in its present form appears to contain no prohibition regarding
individual appropriation or acquisition by a private association or an international organization,
even if other than the United Nations. Thus, at present, an individual acting on his own behalf
or on behalf of another individual or a private association or an international organization could
lawfully appropriate any part of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. In a
way, the very existence of the Moon Treaty (notwithstanding its paucity of ratifying states)
undermines the notion that the Outer Space Treaty outlaws private property in space — for if it
did, there would then have been no need for the Moon Treaty to outlaw it explicitly. At best, as
Gorove argued, this is one among several issues that the OST leaves unclear.
Champion Briefs
184
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Conceptual neoliberal geopolitics such as borders exploit the entire
world - voting negative blows that up even further.
Grove, Jairus. “Jairus Grove Response To Jedediah Purdy.” Boston Review. January 11, 2016.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://bostonreview.net/forum_response/jairus-groveresponse-nature-anthropocene/>.
Unlike many who appeal to the Anthropocene simply to advance the cause of geoengineering,
Jedediah Purdy begins with an assessment of our political condition. Still, he fails to appreciate
the nature of the geopolitics responsible for the crisis we face. If we are to take up his noble call
for an ecological democracy, we must acknowledge that the violence done to our planet has
largely been perpetrated not by all humans but by a select group of Europeans. The
Anthropos—the human species as such—is not to blame. Properly named, our era is not the
Anthropocene but the Eurocene. It was a European elite that developed a distinctively
mechanistic view of matter, an oppositional relationship to nature, and an economic system
indebted to geographical expansion. The resulting political orders measured success by how
much wealth could be generated in the exploitation of peoples and resources. The geological
record bears the mark of this European assemblage of hierarchies. Understanding the forces of
Europeanization—the forces of racial superiority, economic hegemony, and global
resettlement—is essential to understanding how the planet got to this point, and how “we”
could possibly become democratic. Purdy and others claim there are two reasons for renaming
the last few centuries to mark a new geological era. The first is a matter of accuracy: there is
significant evidence that humans have contributed to climate change. The second is a matter of
consciousness raising: renaming the Holocene is essential to raising awareness that humans are
responsible. Yet on both counts, we should reconsider what we mean by “human.” It would be
more accurate, and go further in raising awareness, to acknowledge the grossly
disproportionate impact Europeans have had on our planet. This is not just another hyperbolic
jeremiad against European peoples: Purdy’s invitation for global democratic thinking requires a
geological history and name that foregrounds what really stands in the way of such a future. As
Champion Briefs
185
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Purdy points out (unlike Paul Crutzen and others), the “human” footprint involves much more
than just carbon dioxide. On a geological time scale, the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide
are dwarfed by those of radioactivity and are comparable to those of plastic, the modern waste
product par excellence. If the Anthropocene is meant to name the scale of human impacts on
the planet, it should refer not only to warming but also to cooling the earth, and
Europeanization has done both at levels that even China’s current growth cannot match.
Beginning in 1610, a small-scale ice age took hold of the planet when a wilder arboreal nature
took back what had been inhabited land: some 20 million people killed by the European
invasion of the Americas resulted in vast reforestation of the North and South American
continents. The providence spoken of by those who arrived was not God but syphilis, influenza,
and the number of other species that went along for the ride. Waves of well-armed European
explorers and settlers leveraged the devastation for their own gain. There is no way to know
how many languages, cities, ideas, cosmologies, and ways of inhabiting the world were lost in
this genocide and terraforming of the Americas. The history of nuclear weapons is also
predominantly European. The bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, is only the beginning of
this story. In the years that have followed, more than 2,000 nuclear weapons have been tested,
about 97 percent of which were detonated by European powers. Those detonations do not
appear as tests from the perspectives of the Marshallese or Western Shoshone. A seventy-year
nuclear war has spread cancer, incinerated sacred lands, and made other spaces uninhabitable
on a temporal scale several orders of magnitude more condensed than the lifespan of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. The nuclear powers of the Eurocene—the United States, Russia,
the United Kingdom, France, and Israel—possess 97 percent of the 15,800 nuclear weapons
around the planet. The beleaguered state of the arms control agenda means self-annihilation is
still a very real possibility. As for plastic, the Texas-sized trash gyres that swirl in the world’s
oceans are another reminder of what a cosmology of disposability and synthetic chemistry has
wrought. Plastic may lack the longevity of carbon dioxide and irradiated earth, but for
hundreds, maybe thousands of years it will continue to circulate, wreaking havoc throughout
the food chain. We have post–World War II European development to thank for single-serve
plastic shampoo pouches and bottled water—the latter needed only because nearby streams
Champion Briefs
186
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
have been sold to Coca-Cola. Acknowledging the distinctively European history of our geological
era serves a practical as well as a polemical end. Any democratic project must confront the
geopolitics of the Eurocene because it challenges the very paradigm of equality. “In the
Anthropocene,” Purdy writes, “environmental justice might also mean an equal role in shaping
the future of the planet.” In fact, environmental justice will require unequal roles: significantly
constraining, even repressing, the powers of the Eurocene. On the eve of the creation of the
United Nations at the Dumbarton Oaks conference, W. E. B. Du Bois saw the failure of a dream
before it had even been fully formed: the vast new international body was little more than the
institutionalization of the global “color line.” The great powers had insisted upon a Security
Council, and the General Assembly would be subordinated to its nuclear authority. Purdy’s
suggestion that the planet could be governed equally ignores the vast systems of injustice—
settler-colonialism, primitive accumulation, and violent power politics—that stand in the way,
upheld by great powers that use nuclear weapons to deter change and deploy swarms of
drones to hunt down those too small for the nuclear option. I would like to be part of Purdy’s
ecological democracy, but he is wrong to say “There is no political agent, community, or even
movement on the scale of humanity’s world-making decisions.” We share a world governed by
a few states with the capability of ending all life on the planet. At the international scale, these
states are essentially authoritarian; they rule by economic violence and warfare. That some of
those states are not authoritarian at the domestic level is of little consequence to the rest of
the world. It should come as no surprise that the leaders of the food sovereignty and anti–fossil
fuel movements Purdy describes belong to marginalized groups that see no future in our
current geopolitical order. Indigenous, black, and brown people are at the vanguard of political
struggle not because they are more natural but because they have had front row seats in the
making of this crisis. The Eurocene is not perpetrated by all people of European heritage, many
of whom oppose the existing geopolitical order—myself included. This distinction—between
being European and being an agent of the Eurocene—only intensifies the need to rethink
democratization as demanding a politics of inequality rather than a politics of incorporation.
Such a remaking of justice is as complex and difficult as the climate crisis itself, and just as
worthy a struggle, irrespective of whether we can succeed. As Sylvia Wynter has said, “we must
Champion Briefs
187
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
now collectively undertake a rewriting of knowledge as we know it…. because the West did
change the world, totally.” To do so means exiting the Anthropocene as an idea, and
collectively—even if not equally—exiting the Eurocene as a failed epoch. As Wynter says, we
need to consider other “genres of the human.” Wynter explains she will not miss the Anthropos
because she, among so many others, was never considered human to begin with. To invent a
new species is the task that must be undertaken before there can be a “we,” an “our,” or a
“cene” that is more than a requiem for the end.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
188
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Borders create a global apartheid and entrench inequality - in space,
this scope increases. Drawing borders upon the inky black of space
creates the first interplanetary resource apartheid.
Dodwell, Aisha. “7 Reasons Why We Should Have Open Borders.” New Internationalist.
November 29, 2017. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://newint.org/blog/2017/11/29/why-open-borders>.
Brexit has left three million EU citizens in Britain in a state of limbo, fearful that their lives could
be torn apart by the end of free movement within the European Union. But while the EU has
stood firm on free movement within the single market, for those outside the union it has
become ‘Fortress Europe’. Europe’s external borders have become the most violent in the
world – more people die at Europe’s borders than any other border worldwide. If we care
about poverty and justice overseas, we need to start working towards a world of globally open
borders for all. Here’s why: 1. Borders are a form of global apartheid Borders preserve the
privilege of the wealthy at the expense of the poor. They do this by preventing the movement
of the world’s poorest people, restricting their access to the resources and opportunities
available in wealthy countries. Modern immigration rules exist to enable those in power to
keep out anyone deemed ‘unwanted’. The first such law in Britain, the 1905 Aliens Act, gave
Britain the power to ‘prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants,’ widely acknowledged to
have been aimed at curbing Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, the ‘unwanted migrants’
of that era. Likewise, Britain’s border regime today is focused on keeping out undesired people.
Punitive immigration policies mean that families are routinely torn apart for not having enough
money, and people are criminalized simply for seeking safety, or a better life. Borders don’t
prevent people migrating. They simply make their journeys harder and often force them into
the hands of smugglers Many of these people left their homes because of reasons outside their
control, whether that was conflict, poverty, economic injustice or climate change. The UN’s
Refugee Agency estimates that 20 people are forced to flee their homes every second. With
global inequality at unprecedented levels, modern borders have become a form of global
apartheid: segregating who can and can’t access resources and opportunity.
Champion Briefs
189
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Border securitization and enforcement structures slaughter innocents.
Jones, Reece. “Violent Borders: Refugees And The Right To Move.”. 2017. Web. December 11,
2021. <https://www.versobooks.com/books/2516-violent-borders>.
Unfortunately, direct violence, including killings by the Border Patrol, does not even scratch the
surface of the structural violence that surrounds the US–Mexico border. The Border Patrol has
recovered more than 6,000 bodies along the US–Mexico border since the 199os, deaths
attributable to the construction of the border wall and the massive Border Patrol presence.
Migrants are funneled to more dangerous and remote locations, just like migrants at the edges
of the EU. Instead of crossing in a city, migrants are making the arduous journey through the
deserts of Arizona, which requires hiking for fifty or more kilometers through arid and desolate
terrain.46 According to the first National Border Patrol Strategy document, released in 1994,
that was the goal: “The prediction is that with traditional entry and smuggling routes disrupted,
illegal traffic will be deterred, or forced over more hostile terrain, less suited for crossing and
more suited for enforcement.” 47 Put another way, the official Border Patrol strategy was to
create conditions that would cause more migrants to die in hostile terrain, in order to deter
other migrants from making the trip. The data demonstrate that this new Border Patrol strategy
worked very quickly. With the increased enforcement, crossings and migrant deaths in
California declined, while those in Arizona surged. The Tucson, Arizona, coroner's office has
seen a twentyfold increase in the number of migrant bodies found per year since the 19905.48
Migrants do not bring enough food and water, often because smugglers, who do not want to be
slowed down by the extra weight, tell them the trip is not very far. The harrowing result is
documented in books such as The Devil's Highway by Luis Alberto Urrea, which tells the story of
twenty-six migrants who attempted to enter the United States through the Arizona desert in
May zoo'.49 Only twelve survived. Leanne Weber and Sharon Pickering of the Monash
University criminal justice program estimate that there are two additional deaths for every
recovered body, citing the harsh conditions in the vast and remote deserts, where remains are
quickly obscured by shifting sands.5°
Champion Briefs
190
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The border regime is inherently violent and creates systematic
conditions for violence to people and to the environment - violence is
artificially created in the name of border security.
Jones, Reece. “Violent Borders: Refugees And The Right To Move.”. 2017. Web. December 11,
2021. <https://www.versobooks.com/books/2516-violent-borders>.
The violence of borders The title of this book refers to multiple levels of violence at borders.' In
addition to the visible violence borders do to the bodies of migrants, there are also other, more
subtle—but also systematic—forms of violence at borders, 9 The World Health Organization's
World Report on Violence and Health defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force
or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or
community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death,
psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”i° The sociologist Johan Galtung
categorized these different forms as direct and structural violence: “Whereas in the first case
[direct violence] these consequences can be traced to concrete persons or actors, in the second
case [structural violence] this is no longer meaningful. There may not be any person who
directly harms another person in the structure. The violence is built into the structure and
shows up as unequal power and consequently unequal life chances.” More recently,
geographers James Tyner and Joshua Inwood suggest that although there are different forms of
violence, the distinction between direct and structural violence elides responsibility for the
action.” Instead they recommend that all of these forms of violence should be highlighted and
considered within their geographic and temporal contexts in order to bring to light who carries
out the violence, how it is perpetrated, and why. The case for understanding borders and
resource enclosures as fundamentally violent draws on these broader and more nuanced
definitions of violence. The overt violence of border guards and border security infrastructure is
only one aspect of the violence borders inflict on people and on the environment. The second
form is the use of force or power—threatened or actual—that increases the chances of injury,
Champion Briefs
191
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
death, or deprivation. For example, the construction of walls and the deployment of thousands
of additional Border Patrol agents at the US–Mexico border has prevented easy crossings in
urban areas like El Paso and San Diego and funneled migrants to harsh and dangerous deserts,
where thousands have died. The third form is the threat of violence necessary to limit access to
land or to a resource through an enclosure—for instance, the threat of punishment for
trespassing on private land or of arrest for not possessing the proper identity papers. The
fourth form is the violence borders do to the economic well-being of people around the world.
This is a collective, structural violence that deprives the poor of access to wealth and
opportunities through the enclosure of resources and the bordering of states. The fifth form of
violence is the direct harm borders do to the environment, including through the construction
of walls, the deployment of security personnel, and the use of surveillance technologies.
Moreover, borders create separate jurisdictions that allow the ideology of resource extraction
to become pervasive by preventing uniform environmental regulations. By allowing each
country to put the well-being of thepeople inside its borders before the well-being of the world
as a whole, borders fracture the regulation of the environment and prevent meaningful action
to combat climate change. These other forms of violence at borders are not as obvious as
migrant deaths, but they are a direct outcome of a political system that seeks to control access
to resources and limit movement around the world. Taken together, borders should be seen as
inherently violent, engendering systematic violence to people and the environment.
Champion Briefs
192
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Global border regime and hardening of borders results in violence and
death – small changes that allow people in under specific
circumstances obscure the larger context of violence.
Jones, Reece. “Violent Borders: Refugees And The Right To Move.”. 2017. Web. December 11,
2021. <https://www.versobooks.com/books/2516-violent-borders>.
The European migration crisis demonstrates the structural violence of the global border regime,
as the hardening of borders and the closing down of migration routes makes movement
extremely dangerous for the majority of the people in the world. However, as the crisis
unfolded in the summer of 20 5, policy makers worked to limit the geographic and temporal
scope of the discussion by focusing on the war in Syria and the migrants fleeing that conflict.
The result was a constrained policy response that legitimized refugees from Syria while other
migrants, classified as economic or voluntary migrants, were represented as taking advantage
of the Syrian refugee situation to sneak into Europe. Non-Syrian migrants were not welcome
and were the primary targets of refugee status checks at the external boundaries of the
European Union and through the imposition of internal border checks by Austria, France,
Germany, and several other EU states. British prime minister David Cameron flew to a refugee
camp in the Beqaa Valley of Lebanon in September zo 5 to announce a program -trough which
the United Kingdom will accept Syrian refugees, but only those who go to camps in neighboring
countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, or Turkey, not those who make the trip to Europe on their
own. Viktor Orban, the Hungarian prime minister, went further, arguing that Syrian refugees
who make it to the EU on their own are not legitimate refugees because they pass through a
number of safe countries on the way. The focus on a limited set of Syrian refugees was
politically prudent. It demonstrated that EU leaders were taking the situation seriously and
were acting to help refugees in need while simultaneously denying any obligation to migrants
from any other place. Moreover, framing the movement of people through the Mediterranean
and Aegean as a human trafficking issue—and by extension blaming their deaths on malevolent
Champion Briefs
193
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
traffickers—hides the role played by EU immigration policies. The hardening of the European
Union's borders, the militarization of enforcement, and the lack of safe routes for migrants is
obscured; the blame is shifted squarely onto smugglers, who operate without consideration for
the lives of their cargo, and onto migrants, who still decide to make the dangerous trip.z8 For
many migrants, there is no real choice. For some, staying means enduring the violence of the
Islamic State or risking their lives in a civil war. For others, it means living in a slum without
access to water, electricity, or any job opportunities that would allow them to carve out a
better life. During the great nineteenth-century migration, millions of European migrants faced
similar economic hardships and made their way to new homes in search of better opportunities
for their families in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. The
Ghanaian migrants Isaac, Gifty, Prince, and Samuel, and millions more people like them, have
no such opportunity. These broader questions should not be lost in the specific details of how
European borders are enforced or whether the refugee quotas of individual countries are
sufficient. There is a larger systemic issue at stake. The true source of the crisis is that
movement restrictions at borders continue to allow states to contain the poor and protect the
wealth and privilege of their populations. Until free and safe movement is available to all, the
European Union and wealthy countries will live with the uncomfortable reality that, because of
their exclusionary border policies, dead babies will occasionally wash up on their beaches.
Champion Briefs
194
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Borders are a form of capital accumulation -- only accepts bodies that
possess talents desired by the market.
Bauder, Harald. “Perspectives Of Open Borders And No Border.”. July 14, 2015. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gec3.12224>.
In contrast to the proponents of the market-economy perspective, advocates of the politicaleconomy perspective tend to be critical of market capitalism and believe that borders are ‘a
pre- requisite’ of the contemporary capitalist system (Du?vell 2003, p. 205). Historically, the
practice of controlling human migration at international borders has been an important factor
in orga- nizing national economies and has thus been constitutive of capital accumulation
(Fahrmeir et al. 2003). More recently, border controls have facilitated the reproduction of class
structure and the perpetuation of neoliberal of capitalism. Stephen Castles (2003, no page) has
remarked that ‘effectively, there are already open borders for highly-skilled workers’. While
international borders tend to be permeable to privileged business persons and professionals,
border restrictions target disadvantaged workers and facilitate their exploitation. In this way,
restrictions to mobility and access to citizenship create a ‘labor reserve army’ to be exploited by
global capital (Brown 1992, 132; Sassen 1988, 36). If workers are prevented from crossing
borders, they can be exploited in low-wage countries where labour standards are low, workers’
rights are compro- mised, and workers and their families have only poor access to health care
and welfare support. If these disadvantaged workers manage to cross the international border,
a series of mechanisms exists that render them vulnerable and thus more exploitable than nonmigrants. For example, temporary foreign worker programmes often deny migrants the right to
choose an occupation and/or employer. Similarly, undocumented migrants lack access to
protection by the state, and employers can threaten to report them to state authorities after
which they may be deported. The result is an ‘international segmentation of labor’ (Bauder
2006, 19–34; Samers 2010, 142–144) that exploits workers’ vulnerabilities created by border
practices. Such practices create these results whether border restrictions prevent workers from
migrating or migrants cross the border only to be denied economic, social, and political rights.
Champion Briefs
195
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Open borders would elim- inate this mechanism of dividing the global labour force and
rendering disadvantaged workers vulnerable and exploitable (Bauder 2003; Hayter 2000). In
this way, the political-economy per- spective of open borders challenges the enforcement of
global class divisions and, thus, the foun- dation of global capital accumulation. The politicaleconomy perspective also draws attention to other aspects of global capitalism – in particular,
the manner in which capitalism has uprooted and displaced people. In the words of Antonia
Darder (2007, 377–378), ‘Today’s so-called “immigration problems” constitute only the tip of
the iceberg of the enormous global chaos being created by ruthless forces of capital excess.’
The liberalization of trade and the global advancement of capitalism that was instigated by aff
luent countries such as the United States have dispossessed and displaced significant por- tions
of the population in less-industrialized countries and, thus, created the migration of people
who would prefer to stay (Harvey 2005). Open borders would alleviate some of the pressures
on the economies and labour markets of the global south caused by the advancement of
capitalism (Hayter 2000).
Champion Briefs
196
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Closed borders recreate neocolonial and neoimperial relations and
violate core human rights.
Bauder, Harald. “Perspectives Of Open Borders And No Border.”. July 14, 2015. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/gec3.12224>.
The tragic recent deaths of thousands of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea
illustrate the catastrophic human consequences of preventing people from crossing
international borders. International borders are inherently geographical instruments of
population and labour control. By dividing geographical space into national territories, they
separate humanity into distinct national communities, enforce the global segmentation of
labour, and reproduce neo-colonial and neo-imperial relations (Bauder 2006; Wastl-Walter
2011). In particular, contemporary borders and the laws and policies that keep people from
moving freely across these borders maintain many of the political relations reminiscent of a
colonial and imperial global past (Anderson et al. 2009; Sharma 2006; Walia 2013). For
example, they disproportionately constrain the mobility of citizens from African and Muslim
countries and from countries that were formerly colonized by European powers (Mau et al.
2012, 2015; van Houtum 2010). Some scholars suggest that current border practices re-enforce
a system of ‘global apartheid’ (e.g. Sharma 2005, 2006; van Houtum 2010). Migrants who
refuse to be deterred by this instrument of control and cross the border without state
authorization – such as the migrants from Africa and the ‘Middle East’ trying to cross the
Mediterranean – risk their lives, and if they manage to cross the border, they often experience
illegalization, criminaliza- tion, and, subsequently, exploitation and oppression. If borders were
open to all people, this instrument of controlling populations and labour would lose much of its
force. Scholars and activists have therefore devoted considerable attention to the topic of open
borders (Barry and Goodin 1992; Pecoud and de Guchteneire 2007b). Nick Megoran (2005, p.
641) has called, in particular, on fellow geographers to weigh in on the debate of open borders
and mobilize ‘their sensitivity to complex histories of space, f lows, exclusion, and the politics of
identity’. Other scholars and activists have called for no border, envisioning a world without
Champion Briefs
197
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
territorial borders, in which people are not identified based on which side of a border they
were born (Alldred 2003; Anderson et al. 2009; Burridge 2014). The topics of open borders and
no border have been approached from remarkably diverse theoretical and political
perspectives. In this article, I review and juxtapose these diverse perspec- tives. By offering a
comprehensive overview of the state of the literature on open borders and no border, I expand
beyond existing reviews that have developed particular but limited philo- sophical or practical
arguments (e.g. Bauder 2003; Cole 2000; Wilcox 2009). In the following sections, I first
summarize arguments in support of open borders from various perspectives, including liberal
political-theory, market-economy, political-economy, and other perspectives. Then, I examine
the more radical notion of no border. Thereafter, I discuss the relationship between the various
open-borders perspectives and the no-border notion, the contribution of open-borders and noborder literatures to critical border scholar- ship, and the importance of open borders and no
border as critiques rather than utopian visions. Perspectives of Open Borders The diverse
perspectives of why international borders should be open to all migrants represent different
philosophical positions and practical points of departure (e.g. Bauder 2003; Duvell 2003; Georgi
and Schatral 2012; Gill 2009; Johnson 2003; Pecoud and de Guchteneire 2007a; Smith 2004). In
this section, I present a comprehensive and up-to-date review of these perspectives and their
theoretical and empirical underpinnings. LIBERAL POLITICAL-THEORY PERSPECTIVE Liberal
political theorists suggest that mobility constraints violate core principles of liberalism and
therefore cannot be justified by nation states that claim to embrace these liberal principles. An
early proponent of this viewpoint is Joseph Carens (1987) who pursued an egalitarian argument
to critique the bestowal of citizenship by nation states based on where or to whom people are
born. He suggests that citizens do not possess a birthright to the property of the na- tional
territory in which they are a citizen; in fact, such a birthright would be akin to Feudal privilege
and must therefore be rejected. It follows that the selective right to cross international state
boundaries based on citizenship and the right of citizens to remain in their state of citizen- ship
are equally f lawed birth privileges. Building on John Rawl’s (1971) work on a free and ra- tional
society, but relaxing Rawl’s assumption of a closed political system, Carens concludes that in a
global community of humanity, entry into a state’s territory and the right to remain in this
Champion Briefs
198
AFF: Borders AC
Jan/Feb 2022
territory is an undeniable liberty. Other liberal theorists, such as Phillip Cole (2000), have expanded on these liberal demands for open borders and privileged the principle of human equality – and thus the right to free mobility among equal persons – over other liberal principles,
including the right for communities to define their membership, the right of the Hobbesian
state to defend itself, and the right to ownership of national territory. In his initial article on the
case of open borders, Carens (1987) added a utilitarian argument. Ac- cording to this argument,
the citizens of a nation state may receive considerable benefits from denying migrants entry at
their borders. However, the disadvantages experienced by potential migrants who are denied
crossing the border typically outweigh these benefits. Therefore, open borders would increase
the collective utility of persons involved in and affected by the migration process. Thus, Carens
concludes, borders should be open.
Champion Briefs
199
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Biosphere 2 is wonderfully explained by Baudrillard’s explanations of the environment
and the effects on the environment by capitalism. Biosphere 2 was initially an experiment done
in order to recreate the literal biosphere of earth in an enclosed environment, just to see if
humans could. There were two independent experiments done at the facility, and they both
failed for some reason or another. However, Baudrillard harshly criticizes the experiment in the
first place. He explains that this is simulation in a nutshell, creating a mockery of the earth that
fails to deliver on the real thing. Additionally, this is just another place where humans are
allowed to play god and expand their ego into another level. The affirmative makes the claim
that the creation of an artificial atmosphere on mars would just be another attempt at the
creation of a Biosphere 2.
There are a variety of different answers to Baudrillard, whether they be indicts or actual
answers to his theory. Debaters can use the arguments provided in the file, or they can read
arguments like capitalism good, or critiques of Baudrillard.
Champion Briefs
200
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Biosphere 2 marked the creation of a glass coffin - a confined region
of space where humans could excitedly play god for a little while and
control the ecosystem down to the gas percentages in the air.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Illusion Of The End.”. 1994. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://pdfcoffee.com/the-illusion-of-the-end-jean-baudrillardpdf-pdf-free.html>.
Such a very American hallucination this ocean, this savannah, this desert, this virgin forest
reconstituted in miniature, vitrified beneath their experimental bubble. In the true spirit of
Disneyland's attractions, Biosphere 2 is not an experiment, but an experimental attraction. The
most amazing thing is that they have reconstituted a fragment of artificial desert right in the
middle of the natural desert (a bit like reconstituting Hollywood in Disneyworld). Only in this
artificial desert there are neither scorpions nor Indians to be exterminated; there are only
extraterrestrials trained to survive in the very place where they destroyed another, far better
adapted race, leaving it no chance. The whole humanist ideology - ecological, climatic, microcosmic and biogenetic - is summed up here, but this is of no importance. Only the sidereal,
transparent form of the edifice means anything - but what? Difficult to say. As ever, absolute
space inspires engineers, gives meaning to a project which has none, except the mad desire for
a miniaturization of the human species, with a view perhaps to a future race and its emergence,
of which we still dream… artificial promiscuity of climates has its counterpart in the artificial
immunity of the space: the elimination of all spontaneous generation (of germs, viruses,
microbes), the automatic purification of the water, the air, the physical atmosphere (and the
mental atmosphere too, purified by science). The elimination of all sexual reproduction: it is
forbidden to reproduce in Biosphere 2; even contamination from life [Ie vivant] is dangerous;
sexuality may spoil the experiment. Sexual difference functions only as a formal, statistical
variable (the same number of women as men; if anyone drops out, a person of the same sex is
substituted). Everything here is designed with a brain-like abstraction. Biosphere 2 is to
Biosphere 1 (the whole of our planet and the cosmos) what the brain is to the human being in
Champion Briefs
201
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
general: the synthesis in miniature of all its possible functions and operations: the desert lobe,
the virgin forest lobe, the nourishing agriculture lobe, the residential lobe, all carefully distinct
and placed side by side, according to the analytical imperative. All of this in reality entirely
outdated with respect to what we now know about the brain - its plasticity, its elasticity, the
reversible sequencing of all its operations. There is, then, behind this archaic model, beneath its
futuristic exterior, a gigantic hypothetical error, a fierce idealization doomed to failure. In fact,
the 'truth' of the operation lies elsewhere, and you sense this when you return from Biosphere
2 to 'real' America, as you do when you emerge from Disneyland into real life: the fact is that
the imaginary, or experimental, model is in no way different from the real functioning of this
society. Just as the whole of America is built in the image of Disneyland, so the whole of
American society is carrying on - in real time and out in the open - the same experiment as
Biosphere 2 which is therefore only falsely experimental, just as Disneyland is only falsely
imaginary. The recycling of all substances, the integration of flows and circuits, non-pollution,
artificial immunity, ecological balancing, controlled abstinence, restrained jouissance but, also,
the right of all species to survival and conservation - and not just plant and animal species, but
also social ones. All categories formally brought under the one umbrella of the law - this latter
setting its seal on the ending of natural selection. It is generally thought that the obsession with
survival is a logical consequence of life and the right to life. But, most of the time, the two
things are contradictory. Life is not a question of rights, and what follows on from life is not
survival, which is artificial, but death. It is only by paying the price of a failure to live, a failure to
take pleasure, a failure to die that man is assured of survival. At least in present conditions,
which the Biosphere principle perpetuates. This micro-universe seeks to exorcize catastrophe
by making an artificial synthesis of all the elements of catastrophe. From the perspective of
survival, of recycling and feedback, of stabilization and metastabilization, the elements of life
are sacrificed to those of survival (elimination of germs, of evil, of sex). Real life, which surely,
after all, has the right to disappear (or might there be a paradoxical limit to human rights?), is
sacrificed to artificial survival. The real planet, presumed condemned, is sacrificed in advance to
its miniaturized, air-conditioned clone (have no fear, all the earth's climates are air-conditioned
here) which is designed to vanquish death by total simulation. In days gone by it was the dead
Champion Briefs
202
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
who were embalmed for eternity; today, it is the living we embalm alive in a state of survival.
Must this be our hope? Having lost our metaphysical utopias, do we have to build this
prophylactic one? What, then, is this species endowed with the insane pretension to survive not to transcend itself by virtue of its natural intelligence, but to survive physically, biologically,
by virtue of its artificial intelligence? Is there a species destined to escape natural selection,
natural disappearance - in a word, death? What cosmic cussedness might give rise to such a
turnabout? What vital reaction might produce the idea of survival at any cost? What
metaphysical anomaly might grant the right not to disappear - logical counterpart of the
remarkable good fortune of having appeared? There is a kind of aberration in the attempt to
eternalize the species - not to immortalize it in its actions, but to eternalize it in this face-lifted
coma, in the glass coffin of Biosphere 2.We may, nonetheless, take the view that this
experiment, like any attempt to achieve artificial survival or artificial paradise, is illusory, not
from any technical shortcomings, but in its very principle. In spite of itself, it is threatened by
the same accidents as real life. Fortunately. Let us hope that the random universe outside
smashes this glass coffin. Any accident will do if it rescues us from a scientific euphoria
sustained by drip-feed.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
203
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Populating Mars requires the creation of a biosphere on the planet we tried it before and failed.
Stone, Maddie. “The Challenge Of Recreating Earth.” Vice. May 07, 2015. Web. December 10,
2021. <https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypw47m/the-challenge-of-recreating-earth>.
This thin film of life did not just spontaneously appear. It's been growing and evolving for nearly
four billion years, in a manner that's deeply integrated with that of Earth's non-living systems.
Our biosphere is dependent on everything from the molten core that drives tectonic activity to
the invisible veneer of atmospheric ozone that shields us from harmful radiation. Just looking at
what makes our biosphere tick, it starts to become clear why this system is so hard to replicate.
Still, some intrepid humans have striven to do just that. The most famous attempt is Biosphere
2, a 3.14 acre Earth-system research complex located just outside of Tucson, Arizona.
Constructed in the early 1990s as a materially closed ecological system that could simulate
future space habitats, this Earth-in-a-bottle includes replica biomes from across the planet,
including a rainforest, a savannah, a fog desert, an ocean, and a mangrove swamp. The original
design also included an agricultural system and a human habitat. Heated and powered by the
sun's radiation, with water recycled through internal plumbing, Biosphere 2 remains to this day
an outstanding engineering feat and one of the most ambitious ecological experiments ever
conceived.
Champion Briefs
204
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
This is just another example of human attempts at material
domination – the prior question is reorienting our relationship
towards technology.
Loy, David. “Technology And Cultural Values: On The Edge Of The Third Millennium.”. October,
2003. Web. December 10, 2021. <https://uhpress.hawaii.edu/title/technology-andcultural-values-on-the-edge-of-the-third-millennium/>.
According to Buddhism, this ego-self is illusory because it corresponds to nothing substantial: it
is sunya, “empty”. Instead of being separate from the world, my sense-of-self is one
manifestation of it. In contemporary terms, the sense-of-self is an impermanent, because
interdependent, construct. Furthermore, I think we are all at least dimly aware of this, for our
lack of a more substantial, Cartesian-like self means that our ungrounded sense-of-self is
haunted by a profound insecurity which we can never quite manage to resolve. We usually
experience this insecurity as the feeling that “something is wrong with me”, a feeling which we
understand in different ways according to our particular character and situation. Contemporary
culture conditions many of us into thinking that what is wrong with us is that we do not have
enough money, or enough sex; academics, like aspiring Hollywood actors, are more likely to
understand the problem as not being famous enough (not published enough, not read enough,
etc.). But all these different ways of understanding our lack encourage the same trap: I try to
ground myself and make myself feel more real by modifying the world “outside” myself. I try to
subjectify myself by objectifying myself. Unfortunately, nothing in our notoriouslyimpermanent world can fill up the bottomless pit at the core of my being -- bottomless,
because there is really no-thing to fill up. To put it another way, no amount of money or fame in
the world can ever be enough if that is not what I really want. According to Buddhism, such
personal “reality projects” -- these ways we try to make ourselves feel more real -- cannot be
successful, for a very different approach is needed to overcome our sense of lack. Instead of
trying to ground ourselves somewhere on the “outside”, we need to look “inside”. Instead of
Champion Briefs
205
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
running away from this sense of emptiness at our core, we need to become more comfortable
with it and more aware of it, in which case it can transform from a sense of lack into the source
of our creativity and spontaneity [Loy (1996)]. The above describes our individual problem. Now
the big question: is the same thing true collectively? Can this shed any light on our
contemporary attitude toward technology? Individually, we usually address the problem of our
lack of self-grounding by trying to ground ourselves somewhere in the world -- e.g., in the size
of our bank account or in the number of people who know our name. Are we collectively
attempting to solve the problem of our collective lack of self-grounding in a similar fashion, by
trying to ground ourselves in the world? In this case, by objectifying and transforming the world
technologically? Technology is not applied science. It is the expression of a deep longing, an
original longing that is present in modern science from its beginning. This is the desire of the
self to seek its own truth through the mastery of the object… The power of technique is not to
connect thought effectively to nature; it alters nature to its own purpose. Its aim is to master its
being; to own it. [Verene: 107] What is that deep longing? Remember the problem of lifemeaning that, I have suggested, motivates (or contributes to) our dualism between nature and
culture/technology. Despite their material insecurity, most premodern societies are quite
secure in another way: for such people, the meaning of their lives is determined for them, for
better and worse. From our perspective they may be “stuck,” but insofar as they do not know
of any alternative they are able to enjoy themselves as much as their situation allows. In
contrast, our freedom to determine the meaning of our lives, and the direction of our own
societies, means we have lost such security due to the lack of any such “natural” ground for us.
In compensation, has technological development become our collective security project? Today
we have become so familiar with rapid scientific and technological development that we have
come to think of it as natural, which in this case means: something that does not need to be
explained. But in what sense is it natural to “progress” from the Wright brothers' biplane to a
moon-landing within one lifetime? (Bertrand Russell was already an adult when the Wright
Brothers first flew; he lived long enough to watch the first moon-landing on television.) In
response to the anxiety produced by our alienation from a more original type of “natural”
condition, we try to make ourselves feel more real by reorganizing the whole world until we can
Champion Briefs
206
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
see our own image reflected in it everywhere, in the “resources” with which we try to secure
and manipulate the material conditions of our existence. This is why so many of us have been
able to dispense with the consolations of traditional religion: now we have other ways to
control our fate, or at least try to. But we must also understand how that impels us: because
the traditional security provided by religious meaning -- grounding us in God, etc. -- has been
taken away from us, we have not been able to escape the task of trying to construct our own
self-ground. According to Mahayana Buddhism, however, such projects are doomed from the
start, for nothing can have self-existence: that everything interpenetrates everything else
means that all things are composed of “non-self” elements -- an important truth for a species
so wholly dependent on its deteriorating physical environment. The result is that no amount of
material security (“resources”) can provide the kind of grounding we crave, the sense of reality
we most need -- a need which is best understood as spiritual, for that helps us to see the
fundamental contradiction that defeats us. Unfortunately, we cannot manipulate the natural
world in a collective attempt to self-ground ourselves, and then also hope to find in that world
a ground greater than ourselves. Our incredible technological power means we can do almost
anything we want, yet the ironic consequence is that we no longer know what we want to do.
Our reaction to this has been to grow and “develop” ever more quickly, but to what end? … To
keep evading these deepest questions about the meaning of our lives, one suspects. Our
preoccupation with the means (the whole earth as “resources”) means we perpetually
postpone thinking about ends: where are we all going so fast? Or are we running so fast
because we are trying to get away from something? Another way to put it is that our
technology has become our attempt to own the universe, an attempt that is always frustrated
because, for reasons we do not quite understand, we never possess it fully enough to feel
secure in our ownership. For many people dubious of this project, Nature has taken over the
role of a more transcendental God, because like God it can fulfill our need to be grounded in
something greater than we are; our technology cannot fill that role, because it is motivated by
the opposite response, attempting to banish all such sacrality by extending our control. Our
success in “improving” nature means we can no longer rest peacefully in its bosom. Yet there
seems to be a problem with this “lack” approach: doesn't it smear all technological
Champion Briefs
207
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
development with the same Buddhist brush? Instead of deconstructing the nature vs.
technology duality, doesn't such a perspective risk falling into the same pro-nature, antiprogress attitude that was questioned earlier? In response, it is necessary to emphasize that
this approach does not imply any wholesale rejection of modern technology. Remember that
the Buddhist emphasis is on our motivations. This does not necessarily mean that any particular
technology is bad in itself, insofar as it is our problematic and confused negative motivations
that tend to lead to negative consequences. This allows us to evaluate specific situations by
applying a Buddhist rule-of-thumb: is our interest in developing this new technology due to our
greed or ill-will; and -- applying the third criterion of ignorance or delusion -- can we become
clear about why we are doing this? Among other things, this means: do we clearly understand
how this will reduce dukkha, and what its other effects will be? Such questions encourage us, in
effect, to transform our motivations, in a way that would enable us to evaluate technologies in
a more conscious and thoughtful fashion. One crucial issue in this process, of course, is who the
“we” is. Transformative technologies have often been initiated without much thought of their
long-range consequences (e.g., automobiles), but sometimes they have been imposed by elites
with a firm belief in their superior understanding (e.g., nuclear power). The evaluation process I
am suggesting would involve engaging in a much more thorough and wide-ranging democratic
discussion of what we collectively want from a technology. This will not stop us from making
mistakes, but at least they will be our collective mistakes, rather than those of elites that may
have more to gain and less to lose than the rest of us. Also, this will inevitably slow down the
development of new technologies, something I see as usually being not a disadvantage but an
advantage because it will allow for a more painstaking scientific and sociological evaluation less
subverted by desire for profit or competitive advantage.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
208
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The human race faces extinction because of our own ego. In the
production of the human “race” we destroy civilizations as often as
we make them.
Coldbrook, Claire. “Face Race.” Deleuze and Race. 2013. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b6b4>.
The human race is facing extinction. One might even say that there is a race towards extinction,
precisely because humanity has constituted itself as a race. The idea of a single species,
seemingly different but ulti¬mately grounded on a humanity of right and reason, has enabled
human exceptionalism, and this (in turn) has precluded any questioning of humanity's right to
life. In actuality, humanity is not a race; it becomes a racial unity only via the virtual, or what
Deleuze and Guattari describe as a process of territorialisation, deferritorialisarion and
reterritori- alisation. In the beginning is what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as the 'intense
germinal influx', through which individuated bodies (both organic and social) emerge. Race or
racism is not the result of discrimination; on the contrary, it is only by repressing the highly
complex differentials that compose any being that something like the notion of 'a' race can
occur. This is why Deleuze and Guattari argue for a highly intimate relation between sex and
race: all life is sexual, for living bodies are composed of relations among differential powers that
produce new events: encoun¬ters of potentialities that intertwine to form stabilities. Race and
racism occur through such intersections of desire, whereby bodies assemble to form territories.
All bodies and identities are the result of territorialisa- rion, so that race (or kinds) unfolds from
sex, at the same rime that sexes (male or female) unfold from encounters of generic
differences. All couplings are of mixed race. It is through the formation of a relatively stable set
of relations that bodies are affected in common. A body becomes an individual through
gathering or assembling (enabling the formation of a territory). A social body, tribe or collective
begins with the formation of a common space or territory but is deterrirorialised when the
group is individuated by an external body - when a chieftain appears as the law or eminent
Champion Briefs
209
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
indi¬vidual whose divine power comes from Lon high'. This marks the socius as this or that
specified group. Race occurs through reterritorialisation, when the social body is not organised
from without (or via some transcendent, external term) but appears to be the expression of the
ground; the people are an expression of a common ground or Volk. The most racially
determined group of all is that of 'man', for no other body affirms its unity with such shrill
insistence. 'Humanity' presents itself as a natural unified species, with man as biological ground
from which racism might then be seen as a differentiation. The problem with racism is not that
it discriminates, nor that it takes one natural humanity and then perverts it into separate
groups. On the contrary, racism does not discriminate enough; it does not recognise that
'humanity,' 'Caucasian' and 'Asian’ are insufficiently distinguished. Humanity is a virtuality or
majority of a monstrous and racial sort. One body - the white man of reason - is taken as the
figure for life in general. A production of desire - the image of 'man' that was the effect of
history and social groupings - is now seen as the ground of desire. Ultimately, a metalepsis
takes place: despite seeming differences, it is imagined that, deep down, we are all the same.
And because of this monstrous production of 'man in general', who is then placed before
difference as the unified human ground from which different races appear, a trajectory of
extinction appears to be relentless. Man's self-evident unity, along with the belief in a historical
unfolding that occurs as a greater and greater recognition of identity (the supposed overcoming
of tribalism towards the recognition of one giant body of human reason), precludes any
question of humanity's composition, its emergence from difference and distinction and the
further possibility of its un-becoming. Humanity has been fabricated as the proper ground of all
life - so much so that threats to all life on earth are being dealt with today by focusing on how
man may adapt, mitigate and survive. Humanity has become so enamoured of the image it has
painted of its illusory beautiful life that it has not only come close to vanquishing all other life
forms, and has not only imagined itself as a single and self-evidently valuable being with a right
to life, it can also only a imagine a future of living on rather than face the threat of living
otherwise. Part of the problem of humanity as a race lies in the ambivalent status of art, for art
is the figure that separates white man par excellence; humanity has no essence other than that
of free self-creation, and so all seemingly different peoples or others must come to recognise
Champion Briefs
210
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
their differences as merely cultural, as the effect of one great history of self-distinction. On the
other hand, if art were to be placed outside the human, as the persistence of sensations and
matters that cannot be reduced to human intentionality, then 'we' might begin to discern the
pulsation of differences in a time other than that of self-defining humanity. Far from extinction
or human annihilation being solely a twenty-first- century event (although it is that too), art is
tied essentially to the non¬existence of man. Art has often quite explicitly considered the
relation between humanity and extinction. For it is the nature of the art object to exist beyond
its animating intention, both intimating a people not yet present (Deleuze and Guattari 1994:
180), and yet also often pre¬supposing a unified humanity or common 'lived'. Wordsworth yes, Wordsworth! - was at once aware that the sense of a poem or work could not be reduced
to its material support, for humanity is always more than any of the signs it uses to preserve its
existence: Oh! why hath not the Mind Some element to stamp her image oil In nature
somewhat nearer to her own? Why, gifted with such powers to send abroad Her spirit, must it
lodge in shrines so frail? (1850, The Prelude V 45-9: 109) If the archive were to be destroyed,
would anything of 'man' remain? Art gives man the ability to imagine himself as eternally
present, beyond any particular epoch or text, and yet also places this eternity in the fragile
tomb of a material object: 'Even if the material lasts only for a few seconds it will give sensation
the power to exist and be preserved in itself in the eternity that coexists with this short
duration' (Deleuze and Guattari 1994: 166). 'Man' as a race (as a unified body imagining himself
as a natural kind) is essentially tied to extinction: for man is at once an ex post facto or
metaleptic positing of that which must have been there all along, awaiting eternal expression,
at the same time that 'man' is also that being who hastens extinction in general by imagining
himself as a single tradition solely worthy of eternal life. This unified humanity that has become
intoxicated with its sense of self-positing privilege can only exist through the delirium of Race,
through the imagination of itself as a unified and eternal natural body: All delirium is racial,
which does not necessarily mean racist. It is not a matter of the regions of the body without
organs 'representing' races and cultures. The full body does not represent anything at all. On
the contrary, the races and cultures designate regions on this body - that is, zones of intensities,
fields of potentials. Phenomena of individualization and sexualization are produced within
Champion Briefs
211
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
these fields. We pass from one field to another by crossing thresholds: we never stop migrating,
we become other individuals as well as other sexes, and departing becomes as easy as being
born or dying. Along the way we struggle against other races, we destroy civilizations, in the
manner of the great migrants in whose wake nothing is left standing once they have passed
through. (Deleuze and Guattari 2004a: 94) Racial delirium is not only a passage through
differential flux from which identity emerges; it also entails that 'we destroy civilizations affirming the potentiality of leaving any produced culture or tradition in ruins. If racial delirium
occurs as an affirmation of the possibility of anything becoming extinct, racism is a neurotic grip
on survival. Racism - including, and especially, the affirmation of 'man' - is a repression of racial
delirium; humanity is always a virtual production or fabrication that posits itself as ultimate
actuality, occluding the differentials from which it emerges.
Champion Briefs
212
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The resolution is an attempt at subjectivizing nature - to make it feel
pain and happiness which forces it to become interactive with
humanity. This makes environmental destruction inevitable and
managerialism necessary.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Illusion Of The End.”. 1994. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://pdfcoffee.com/the-illusion-of-the-end-jean-baudrillardpdf-pdf-free.html>.
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. 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. 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
Champion Briefs
213
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
of a maximum transparency between subjects. 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. 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
Champion Briefs
214
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
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. 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. 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. 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
Champion Briefs
215
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
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.
Champion Briefs
216
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Pragmatic approaches to climate change such as “get off the rock”
and “let's make mars green!” reinforces a notion of subjectivity that
creates the conditions for managerialism.
Clark, Timothy. “Telemorphosis: Theory In The Era Of Climate Change.”. 2012. Web. December
10, 2021. <http://www.openhumanitiespress.org/books/titles/telemorphosis/>.
You are lost in a small town, late for a vital appointment somewhere in its streets. You stop a
friendly-looking stranger and ask the way. Generously, he offers to give you a small map which
he happens to have in his briefcase. The whole town is there, he says. You thank him and walk
on, opening the map to pinpoint a route. It turns out to be a map of the whole earth. The
wrong scale. A scale (from the Latin scala for ladder, step or stairs) usually enables a calibrated
and useful extrapolation between dimensions of space or time. Thus a “cartographic scale”
describes the ratio of distance on a map to real distances on the earth’s surface. To move from
a large to small scale or vice versa implies a calculable shift of resolution on the same area or
features, a smooth zooming out or in. With climate change, however, we have a map, its scale
includes the whole earth but when it comes to relating the threat to daily questions of politics,
ethics or specific interpretations of history, culture, literature, etc., the map is often almost
mockingly useless. Policies and concepts relating to climate change invariably seem
undermined or even derided by considerations of scale: a campaign for environmental reform
in one country may be already effectively negated by the lack of such measures on the other
side of the world. A long fought-for nature reserve, designed to protect a rare ecosystem,
becomes, zooming out, a different place. Even the climatology works on a less than helpful
scale: “Paradoxically, it is simpler to predict what will happen to the planet, a closed system,
than to make forecasts for specific regions” (Litfin 137). Cartographic scale is itself an
inadequate concept here. Non-cartographic concepts of scale are not a smooth zooming in and
out but involve jumps and discontinuities with sometimes incalculable “scale effects.” For
instance: In the engineering sciences, scale effects are those that result from size differences
Champion Briefs
217
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
between a model and the real system. Even though a miniature model of a building made of
wood is structurally sound, it is not necessarily appropriate to infer that the same process
maintaining structural stability could hold for a full-size building made of wood. (Jenerette and
Wu 104) To give another instance, a map of the whole earth, at a “small” scale in cartographic
terms, is at an enormous scale ecologically, one at which other non-linear scale effects become
decisive and sometimes incalculable. Garrett Hardin writes: Many stupid actions taken by
society could be avoided if more people were acutely aware of scale effects. Whenever the
scale is shifted upward, one should always be alert for possible contradictions of the
conventional wisdom that served so well when the unit was smaller…. Failure of the electorate
to appreciate scale effects can put the survival of a democratic nation in jeopardy. (52) Some
thinkers less controversial than Hardin draw on complexity theory to suggest the necessary
emergence of scale effects with merely the increasing complexity of globalizing civilization:
“once a society develops beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile.
Eventually it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor disturbance can bring everything
crashing down” (MacKenzie 33). For others, the environmental crisis is in part caused by the
effects of conflicting scales in the government of human affairs. Jim Dator writes:
Environmental, economic, technological and health factors are global, but our governance
systems are still based on the nation state, while our economic system (‘free market’
capitalism) and many national political systems (interest group ‘democracy’) remain profoundly
individualistic in input, albeit tragically collective in output (215–6). Scale effects in relation to
climate change are confusing because they take the easy, daily equations of moral and political
accounting and drop into them both a zero and an infinity: the greater the number of people
engaged in modern forms of consumption then the less the relative influence or responsibility
of each but the worse the cumulative impact of their insignificance. As a result of scale effects
what is self-evident or rational at one scale may well be destructive or unjust at another.
Hence, progressive social and economic policies designed to disseminate Western levels of
prosperity may even resemble, on another scale, an insane plan to destroy the biosphere. Yet,
for any individual household, motorist, etc., a scale effect in their actions is invisible. It is not
present in any phenomenon in itself (no eidetic reduction will flush it out), but only in the
Champion Briefs
218
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
contingency of how many other such phenomena there are, have been and will be, at even vast
distances in space or time. Human agency becomes, as it were, displaced from within by its own
act, a kind of demonic iterability. The argument of this paper is that dominant modes of literary
and cultural criticism are blind to scale effects in ways that now need to be addressed. One
symptom of a now widespread crisis of scale is a derangement of linguistic and intellectual
proportion in the way people often talk about the environment, a breakdown of “decorum” in
the strict sense. Thus a sentence about the possible collapse of civilization can end, no less
solemnly, with the injunction never to fill the kettle more than necessary when making tea. A
poster in many workplaces depicts the whole earth as giant thermostat dial, with the absurd
but intelligible caption “You control climate change.” A motorist buying a slightly less
destructive make of car is now “saving the planet.” These deranged jumps in scale and fantasies
of agency may recall rhetoric associated with the atomic bomb in the 1950s and after. Maurice
Blanchot argued then that talk of humanity having power over the whole earth, or being able to
“destroy itself,” was deeply misleading. “Humanity” is not some grand mega-subject or unitary
agent in the sense this trope implies. In practice such destruction would certainly not be some
sort of consciously performed act of self-harm, “humanity destroying itself.” It would be as
arbitrary as was “the turtle that fell from the sky” and crushed the head of Aeschylus (Blanchot
106). The almost nonsensical rhetoric of environmental slogans makes Blanchot’s point even
more forcefully. Received concepts of agency, rationality and responsibility are being strained
or even begin to fall apart in a bewildering generalizing of the political that can make even
filling a kettle as public an act as voting. The very notion of a “carbon footprint” alters the
distinctions of public and private built into the foundations of the modern liberal state.
Normally, demands in a political context to face the future take the form of some rousing call to
regained authenticity, whether personal, cultural or national, and they reinforce given norms of
morality or responsibility, with an enhanced sense of determination and purpose. With climate
change this is not the case. Here a barely calculable nonhuman agency brings about a general
but unfocused sense of delegitimation and uncertainty, a confusion of previously clear arenas
of action or concepts of equity; boundaries between the scientific and the political become
newly uncertain, the distinction between the state and civil society less clear, and once normal
Champion Briefs
219
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
procedures and modes of understanding begin to resemble dubious modes of political, ethical
and intellectual containment. Even a great deal of environmental criticism, modeling itself on
kinds of progressive oppositional politics and trying (like Murray Bookchin’s “social ecology”) to
explain environmental degradation by reference solely to human-to-human hierarchies and
oppressions can look like an evasion of the need to accord to the nonhuman a disconcerting
agency of its own. The environmental crisis also questions given boundaries between
intellectual disciplines. The daily news confirms repeatedly the impossibility of reducing many
environmental issues to any one coherent problem, dysfunction, or injustice. Overpopulation
and atmospheric pollution, for instance, form social, moral, political, medical, technical, ethical
and “animal rights” issues, all at once. If that tired term “the environment” has often seemed
too vague—for it means, ultimately, “everything”—yet the difficulty of conceptualizing a
politics of climate change may be precisely that of having to think “everything at once”. The
overall force is of an implosion of scales, implicating seemingly trivial or small actions with
enormous stakes while intellectual boundaries and lines of demarcation fold in upon each
other. The inundation of received intellectual boundaries and the horror of many probable
future scenarios has the deranging effect, for instance, of making deeply unsure which of the
following two statements is finally the more responsible—(1) “climate change is now
acknowledged as a legitimate and serious concern and the government will continue to support
measures to improve the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles” or (2) “the only defensible
relationship to have with a car is with a well aimed brick”?
Champion Briefs
220
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
We'll never create the technology to terraform mars anyway Biosphere 2 failed twice, and many others have failed since technology controls us, not the other way around.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Perfect Crime.”. 1996. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Perfect_Crime.html?id=ygVpD2h29LwC>.
At the peak of our technological performance, the irresistible impression remains that
something eludes us — not because we seem to have lost it (the real?), but because we are no
longer in a position to see it: that, in effect, it is not we who are winning out over the world, but
the world which is winning out over us. It is no longer we who think the object, but the object
which thinks us. Once we lived in the age of the lost object; now it is the object which is ‘losing’
us, bringing about our ruin. We very much labour under the illusion that the aim of technology
is to be an extension of man and his power; we labour under the subjective illusion of
technology. But today, this operating principle is thwarted by its very extension, by the
unbridled virtuality we see outrunning the laws of physics and metaphysics. It is the logic of the
system which, carrying it beyond itself, is altering its determinations. At the same time as
reaching a paroxystic stage, things have also reached a parodic one. All our technologies might,
therefore, be said to be the instrument of a world which we believe we rule, whereas in fact the
world is using this machinery to impose itself, and we are merely the operators. An objective
illusion, then, similar to the one that prevails in the media sphere. The naive illusion about the
media is that the political authorities use them to manipulate or mystify the masses. The
opposite hypothesis is more subtle. Through the media, it is the masses who definitively modify
the exercise of power (or what sees itself as such). It is at the point where the political
authorities think they are manipulating them that the masses impose their clandestine strategy
of neutralization and destabilization. Even if the two hypotheses are simultaneously valid, this is
still the end of media Reason, the end of political Reason. Everything which will be done or said
in the media sphere is, from this point on, ironically undecidable. The same hypothesis holds for
Champion Briefs
221
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the object of science. Through the most refined procedures we deploy to pin it down, is it not
the object which dupes us and mocks our objective pretensions to analyse it? Scientists
themselves are not, it seems, far from admitting this. Can one advance the hypothesis that
beyond the objective and critical phase there is an ironic phase of science, an ironic phase of
technology? A proposition which would deliver us from the Heideggerian vision of technology
as the final phase of metaphysics, from the retrospective nostalgia for being and from all
unhappy critique in terms of alienation and disenchantment. And would put in its place a
conception of the gigantic objective irony of this whole process, which would not be far from
radical snobbery, from the post-historical snobbery Kojeve spoke of. It seems, in fact, that
though the illusion of the world has been lost, the irony of the world, for its part, has passed
into things. It seems that technology has taken into itself all the illusion it has caused us to lose,
and that what we have in return for the loss of illusion is the emergence of an objective irony of
this world. Irony as universal form of disillusionment, but also as the universal form of the
stratagem by which the world hides behind the radical illusion of technology, and by which the
mystery (of the continuation of the Nothing) conceals itself beneath the universal banality of
information. Heidegger: ‘When we look into the ambiguous essence of technology, we behold
the constellation, the stellar course of the mystery. The Japanese sense the presence of a
divinity in every industrial object. For us, that sacred presence has been reduced to a tiny ironic
glimmer, a nuance of play and distantiation. Though this is, none the less, a spiritual form,
behind which lurks the evil genius of technology which sees to it itself that the mystery of the
world is well—guarded. The Evil Spirit keeps watch beneath artefacts and, of all our artificial
productions, one might say what Canetti says of animals: that behind each of them there is a
hidden someone thumbing his nose at us.
Champion Briefs
222
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The museumification of the environment just mirrors the
museumification of the rest of reality - it's an inevitability that
everyone saw coming, yet an inevitability that none of us could
handle.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Illusion Of The End.”. 1994. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://pdfcoffee.com/the-illusion-of-the-end-jean-baudrillardpdf-pdf-free.html>.
There is, moreover, a paradox of Western societies opposite and equivalent to that of
communism: though they present all the signs of more developed and open societies, at the
same time they have one eye on the past as though it were a void they have created behind
them, while absorbing the future. It is like the story of the lorry and the hole: some workers dig
a hole and load it on to a lorry, but when they hit a bump in the road the hole falls off and,
reversing, the lorry falls into the hole. We are the lorry and the hole: we are weighed down by a
hole in our memories, weighed down by the retrospective emptiness of our history, to the
point that our societies do not even know whether they are heading towards the future. They
are riding the surf of their present, problematic wealth. Beneath their apparent mobility and
acceleration, they have come to a stop in their hearts and their aims. That is, indeed, why they
are accelerating, but they are doing so out of inertia. The encounter between this type of
society with maximum mobility but immobility in its heart and the Eastern bloc societies which
are petrified on the outside but in no way inert in their inward core should be highly dramatic
or. totally ambiguous. Like blood transfusions today, the transfusion of Good and Evil presents
many dangers. There is a risk we shall pass all our germs on to them, and they might give us all
of theirs (this is how contacts between dissimilar cultures or races go). First of all, there will be
seventy years of 'backwardness' to make up, but are we so sure things are going to happen that
way? Instead of the Eastern bloc countries accelerating towards modern democracy, perhaps
we are going to drift in the other direction, moving back beyond democracy and falling into the
hole of the past. It would be the opposite of Orwell's prediction (strangely, he has not been
Champion Briefs
223
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
mentioned of late, though the collapse of Big Brother ought to have been celebrated for the
record, if only for the irony of the date Orwell set for the onset of totalitarianism which turned
out to be roughly that of its collapse). Even more ironic is the fact that we are not at all
threatened by the totalitarian (Stalinist) rewriting of the past, but the democratic rewriting of
history: the very images of Stalin and Lenin swept away, streets and cities renamed, statues
scattered, soon none of all that will have existed. Yet another ruse of history - not the last but,
as ever, the best. Democratic rewriting. The scenario is off to a good start. Everyone is having a
clear-out. All the dictatorships are being wound up and sold off cheap, before the end of the
century if possible (before Christmas for Eastern Europe so that everything can shine bright in a
new Nativity). Splendid emulation, as stupendous as the tolerance which has reigned over it all
so far. Everyone equally committed to the liquidation! Eliminating the planet's black spots as
one might eliminate traffic accident blackspots, as we might eliminate spots from a face:
cosmetic surgery elevated to the level of the political, and to Olympic performance levels.Of
course, this great democratic rally is not believable for an instant. Not that there is any
Machiavellian strategy going on, but it's too good to be true. There is something suspect about
the sudden consensus. The disappearance, as if by magic, of all contradiction is more than
suspect (China has temporarily relapsed, and what remains of world communism is merely a
theme park. With a little imagination, Cuba could be joined up with Disneyworld, which is not
far away, as part of a world heritage centre). Something tells us that what we have here is not a
historical evolution, but an epidemic of consensus, an epidemic of democratic values - in other
words, this is a viral effect, a triumphant effect of fashion. If democratic values spread so easily,
by a capillary or communicating-vessels effect, then they must have liquefied, they must now
be worthless. Throughout the modern age they were held dear and dearly bought. Today, they
are being sold off at a discount and we are watching a Dutch auction of democratic values
which looks very much like uncontrolled speculation. Which makes it highly probable that, as
might be the case with financial speculation, these same values may crash.
Champion Briefs
224
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Any resistances to the affirmative will inevitably seek to map out
endless possibilities which creates a matrix of possibility that is
impossible to navigate.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulations.”. 1995. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://epk.home.xs4all.nl/theory/Simulation/Baudrillard_Simulacra%20and%20Simul
ations.pdf>.
If once we were able to view the Borges fable in which the cartographers of the Empire draw up
a map so detailed that it ends up covering the territory exactly (the decline of the Empire
witnesses the fraying of this map, little by little, and its fall into ruins, though some shreds are
still discernible in the deserts - the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction testifying to a
pride equal to the Empire and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, a bit
as the double ends by being confused with the real through aging) - as the most beautiful
allegory of simulation, this fable has now come full circle for us, and possesses nothing but the
discrete charm of second-order simulacra.*1 Today abstraction is no longer that of the map,
the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential
being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a
hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the
map that precedes the territory - precession of simulacra - that engenders the territory, and if
one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent
of the map. It is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts
that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself. In fact, even
inverted, Borges's fable is unusable. Only the allegory of the Empire, perhaps, remains. Because
it is with this same imperialism that present-day simulators attempt to make the real, all of the
real, coincide with their models of simulation. But it is no longer a question of either maps or
territories. Something has disappeared: the sovereign difference, between one and the other,
that constituted the charm of abstraction. Because it is difference that constitutes the poetry of
Champion Briefs
225
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the map and the charm of the territory, the magic of the concept and the charm of the real.
This imaginary of representation, which simultaneously culminates in and is engulfed by the
cartographers mad project of the ideal coextensivity of map and territory, disappears in the
simulation whose operation is nuclear and genetic, no longer at all specular or discursive. It is
all of metaphysics that is lost. No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its
concept. No more imaginary coextensivity: it is genetic miniaturization that is the dimension of
simulation. The real is produced from miniaturized cells, matrices, and memory banks, models
of control - and it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times from these. It no longer
needs to be rational, because it no longer measures itself against either an ideal or negative
instance. It is no longer anything but operational. In fact, it is no longer really the real, because
no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is a hyperreal, produced from a radiating synthesis of
combinatory models in a hyperspace without atmosphere. By crossing into a space whose
curvature is no longer that of the real, nor that of truth, the era of simulation is inaugurated by
a liquidation of all referentials - worse: with their artificial resurrection in the systems of signs, a
material more malleable than meaning, in that it lends itself to all systems of equivalences, to
all binary oppositions, to all combinatory algebra. It is no longer a question of imitation, nor
duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real,
that is to say of an operation of deterring every real process via its operational double, a
programmatic, metastable, perfectly descriptive machine that offers all the signs of the real and
shortcircuits all its vicissitudes. Never again will the real have the chance to produce itself - such
is the vital function of the model in a system of death, or rather of anticipated resurrection,
that no longer even gives the event of death a chance. A hyperreal henceforth sheltered from
the imaginary, and from any distinction between the real and the imaginary, leaving room only
for the orbital recurrence of models and for the simulated generation of differences
Champion Briefs
226
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The mapping of these simulations create Disneyland - the epitome of
museumification.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulations.”. 1995. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://epk.home.xs4all.nl/theory/Simulation/Baudrillard_Simulacra%20and%20Simul
ations.pdf>.
Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra. It is first of all a play of
illusions and phantasms: the Pirates, the Frontier, the Future World, etc. This imaginary world is
supposed to ensure the success of the operation. But what attracts the crowds the most is
without a doubt the social microcosm, the religious, miniaturized pleasure of real America, of
its constraints and joys. One parks outside and stands in line inside, one is altogether
abandoned at the exit. The only phantasmagoria in this imaginary world lies in the tenderness
and warmth of the crowd, and in the sufficient and excessive number of gadgets necessary to
create the multitudinous effect. The contrast with the absolute solitude of the parking lot - a
veritable concentration camp - is total. Or, rather: inside, a whole panoply of gadgets
magnetizes the crowd in directed flows - outside, solitude is directed at a single gadget: the
automobile. By an extraordinary coincidence (but this derives without a doubt from the
enchantment inherent to this universe), this frozen, childlike world is found to have been
conceived and realized by a man who is himself now cryogenized: Walt Disney, who awaits his
resurrection through an increase of 180 degrees centigrade. Thus, everywhere in Disneyland
the objective profile of America, down to the morphology of individuals and of the crowd, is
drawn. All its values are exalted by the miniature and the comic strip. Embalmed and pacified.
Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of Disneyland (L. Marin did it very well in
Utopiques, jeux d'espace [Utopias, play of space]): digest of the American way of life, panegyric
of American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality. Certainly. But this masks
something else and this “ideological” blanket functions as a cover for a simulation of the third
order: Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America that is
Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal
Champion Briefs
227
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us
believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no
longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a
question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is
no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. The imaginary of Disneyland is neither
true nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate the fiction of the real in
the opposite camp. Whence the debility of this imaginary, its infantile degeneration. This world
wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the “real”
world, and to conceal the fact that true childishness is everywhere - that it is that of the adults
themselves who come here to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real
childishness. Disneyland is not the only one, however. Enchanted Village, Magic Mountain,
Marine World: Los Angeles is surrounded by these imaginary stations that feed reality, the
energy of the real to a city whose mystery is precisely that of no longer being anything but a
network of incessant, unreal circulation - a city of incredible proportions but without space,
without dimension. As much as electrical and atomic power stations, as much as cinema
studios, this city, which is no longer anything but an immense scenario and a perpetual pan
shot, needs this old imaginary like a sympathetic nervous system made up of childhood signals
and faked phantasms. Disneyland: a space of the regeneration of the imaginary as wastetreatment plants are elsewhere, and even here. Everywhere today one must recycle waste, and
the dreams, the phantasms, the historical, fairylike, legendary imaginary of children and adults
is a waste product, the first great toxic excrement of a hyperreal civilization. On a mental level,
Disneyland is the prototype of this new function. But all the sexual, psychic, somatic recycling
institutes, which proliferate in California, belong to the same order. People no longer look at
each other, but there are institutes for that. They no longer touch each other, but there is
contactotherapy. They no longer walk, but they go jogging, etc. Everywhere one recycles lost
faculties, or lost bodies, or lost sociality, or the lost taste for food. One reinvents penury,
asceticism, vanished savage naturalness: natural food, health food, yoga. Marshall Sahlins's
idea that it is the economy of the market, and not of nature at all, that secretes penury, is
verified, but at a secondary level: here, in the sophisticated confines of a triumphal market
Champion Briefs
228
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
economy is reinvented a penury/sign, a penury/simulacrum, a simulated behavior of the
underdeveloped (including the adoption of Marxist tenets) that, in the guise of ecology, of
energy crises and the critique of capital, adds a final esoteric aureole to the triumph of an
esoteric culture. Nevertheless, maybe a mental catastrophe, a mental implosion and involution
without precedent lies in wait for a system of this kind, whose visible signs would be those of
this strange obesity, or the incredible coexistence of the most bizarre theories and practices,
which correspond to the improbable coalition of luxury, heaven, and money, to the improbable
luxurious materialization of life and to undiscoverable contradictions.
Champion Briefs
229
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Disneyland and Museumification are representations - models of
things caused by simulations. They assume that political
communication and planning are good, when in reality, we've already
been consumed by mass media and the fiction of hyperreality.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Dust Breeding.”. October 08, 2001. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14593/5444>.
Our reality has become experimental. Without destiny, modern man is left with an endless
experimentation of himself. Let's take two recent examples. The first one, the Loft Story show,
is a media illusion of live reality. The second one, the case of Catherine Millet’s book, is a
phantasmatic illusion of live sex. The Loft show has become a universal concept: a human
amusement park combined with a ghetto, solitary confinement (huisclos), and an Angel of
Death. The idea is to use voluntary seclusion as a laboratory for synthetic conviviality, for a
telegenetically modified society. In this space, where everything is meant to be seen (as in “Big
Brother”, other reality-TV shows, etc.), we realize that there is nothing left to see. It becomes a
mirror of dullness, of nothingness, on which the disappearance of the other is blatantly
reflected (even though the show alleges different objectives). It also reveals the possibility that
human beings are fundamentally not social. This space becomes the equivalent of a “readymade” just-as-is (telle quelle) transposition of an “everyday life” that has already been trumped
by all dominant models. It is a synthetic banality, fabricated in closed circuits and supervised by
a monitoring screen. In this sense, the artificial microcosm of the Loft Story is similar to
Disneyland which gives the illusion of a real world, a world out-there, whereas both Disney's
world and the world outside of it are mirror images of one another. All of the United States is
(in) Disneyland. And we, in France, are all inside the Loft. No need to enter reality’s virtual
reproduction. We are already in it. The televisual universe is merely a holographic detail of the
global reality. Even in our most mundane activities we are deep into experimental reality. And
this explains our fascination with immersion and spontaneous interactivity. Does it mean that it
Champion Briefs
230
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
is all pornographic voyeurism? Not at all. Sex is everywhere else to be found, but that's not
what people want. What people deeply desire is a spectacle of banality. This spectacle of
banality is today's true pornography and obscenity. It is the obscene spectacle of nullity
(nullité), insignificance, and platitude. This stands as the complete opposite of the theater of
cruelty. But perhaps there is still a form of cruelty, at least a virtual one, attached to such a
banality. At a time when television and the media in general are less and less capable of
accounting for (rendre compte) the world's (unbearable) events, they rediscover daily life. They
discover existential banality as the deadliest event, as the most violent piece of information:
the very location of the perfect crime. Existential banality is the perfect crime. And people are
fascinated (but terrified at the same time) by this indifferent “nothing-to-say” or “nothing-todo,” by the indifference of their own lives. Contemplating the Perfect Crime --banality as the
latest form of fatality-- has become a genuine Olympic contest, the latest version of extreme
sports. What makes it worse is the fact that the public is mobilized as the judge of all this. The
public has become Big Brother. We are well beyond panopticism, beyond visibility as a source
of power and control. It is no longer a matter of making things visible to the external eye. It is
rather a question of making things transparent to themselves, through the diffusion of control
into the masses, a mode of control which by the same token erases the marks of the system.
Thus, the audience is involved in a gigantic exercise of negative counter-transference (contretransfert), and this is once again where the dizzying attraction of this kind of spectacle comes
from. In fact, all this corresponds to the inalienable right or desire to be nothing and to be
regarded as such. There are two ways to disappear. Either you demand not to be seen (the
current issue with image rights); or you turn to the maddening exhibitionist display of your
insignificance. You make yourself insignificant in order to be seen as such. This is the ultimate
protection against the need to exist and the duty to be oneself. But this situation also creates
the contradictory demand to simultaneously not be seen and to be perpetually visible.
Everyone must have it both ways. No ethic or law can solve this dilemma. There is no possibility
to adjudicate between the unconditional right to see and the unconditional right not to be
seen. Complete information is a basic human rights requirement. And this necessity brings with
it the idea of forced visibility, including the right to be over-exposed by the media. Foucault
Champion Briefs
231
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
used to refer to self-expression as the ultimate form of confession. Keeping no secret. Speaking,
talking, endlessly communicating. This is a form of violence which targets the singular being and
his secrecy. It is also a form of violence against language. In this mode of communicability,
language loses its originality. Language simply becomes a medium, an operator of visibility. It
has lost its symbolic and ironic qualities, those which make language more important than what
it conveys. The worst part of this obscene and indecent visibility is the forced enrollment, the
automatic complicity of the spectator who has been blackmailed into participating. The obvious
goal of this kind of operation is to enslave the victims. But the victims are quite willing. They are
rejoicing at the pain and the shame they suffer. Everybody must abide by society's fundamental
logic: interactive exclusion. Interactive exclusion, what could be better! Let’s all agree on it and
practice it with enthusiasm! If everything ends with visibility (which, similar to the concept of
heat in the theory of energy, is the most degraded form of existence), the point is still to make
such a loss of symbolic space and such an extreme disenchantment with life an object of
contemplation, of sidereal observation (sidération), and of perverse desire. “While humanity
was once according to Homer an object of contemplation for the Gods, it has now become a
contemplation of itself. Its own alienation has reached such a degree that humanity’s own
destruction becomes a first rate aesthetic sensation” (Walter Benjamin). Everywhere the
experimental takes over the real and the imaginary. Everywhere, principles of scientific
evidence and verification are introduced. Under the scalpel of the camera, and without
recourse to any symbolic language or context, we are vivisecting and dissecting social relations.
The case of Catherine Millet is another example of experimental reality, another type of vivisexion. In her book, the sexual imaginary is blown away. All that’s left is a principle of unlimited
verification of sexual operations. It is a mechanism which is no longer sexual. A double
misinterpretation is taking place. The idea of sexuality is turned into the ultimate reference.
Whether it is repressed or it is displayed, sexuality is at best nothing more than a hypothesis. It
is incorrect to take a hypothesis for a truth or a solid reference. It may well be that the sexual
hypothesis is nothing more than a fantasy. In any case, it is through its repression that sexuality
has gained such a strange power of attraction. Once it is played out, sexuality loses its
postulated quality. Hence, it is absurd and misplaced to act it out and to systematically call for
Champion Briefs
232
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
sexual “liberation.” One never liberates a hypothesis. And how sad is the idea of demonstrating
sexuality through the sexual act! As if displacements, deviations, transfers, and metaphors had
nothing to do with sex. Everything is in the filter of seduction, in détournement. Not the
seduction in sex and desire, but the seduction of playing with sex and desire (le jeu avec the
sexe et le désir). This is exactly what makes impossible the idea of “live sex.” The concepts of
live death or live news are just as naively naturalist. They are all linked to the pretentious claim
that everything can happen in the real world, that everything craves to find its place inside an
all encompassing reality. After all, this is the essence of power too: “The corruption of power is
to inscribe into reality what was only found in dreams.”
Champion Briefs
233
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
All this really means is that the more that we strive for perfection, the
farther that we'll fall from it. The absence of negativity doesn't mean
all positive, it means nothingness.
Baudrilalrd, Jean. “The Transparency Of Evil.”. 2009. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://books.google.com.ni/books?id=gnJnZqQCtxEC&printsec=copyright#v=onepage
&q&f=false>.
The uncertainty to which we are subject results, paradoxically, from an excess of positivity,
from an ineluctable drop in the level of negativity. A kind of leukaemia has taken hold of our
societies - a kind of dissolution of negativity in a perfused euphoria. Neither the French
Revolution, nor the philosophy of the Enlightenment, nor critical utopianism has found its
fulfilment through the supersession of contradictions, and if the problems they addressed have
been solved, this has been achieved by casting off the negative, by disseminating the energies
of everything condemned by society within a simulation entirely given over to positivity and
factitiousness, by instituting a definitively transparent state of affairs. Ours is rather like the
situation of the man who has lost his shadow: either he has become transparent, and the light
passes right through him or, alternatively, he is lit from all angles, overexposed and defenceless
against all sources of light. We are similarly exposed on all sides to the glare of technology,
images and information, without any way of refracting their rays; and we are doomed in
consequence to a whitewashing of all activity - whitewashed social relations, whitewashed
bodies, whitewashed memory 44 in short, to a complete aseptic whiteness. Violence is
whitewashed, history is whitewashed, all as part of a vast enterprise of cosmetic surgery at
whose completion nothing will be left but a society for which, and individuals for whom, all
violence, all negativity, are strictly forbidden. In these circumstances everything which is unable
to relinquish its own identity is inevitably plunged into a realm of radical uncertainty and
endless simulation. We are under the sway of a surgical compulsion that seeks to excise
negative characteristics and remodel things synthetically into ideal forms. Cosmetic surgery: a
Champion Briefs
234
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
face's chance configuration, its beauty or ugliness, its distinctive traits, its negative traits - all
these have to be corrected, so as to produce something more beautiful than beautiful: an ideal
face, a surgical face. Even one' s astrological sign, one' s birth sign, can now be revised so as to
harmonize star and lifestyle : once a utopian notion, the idea of an Institute of Zodiacal Surgery
where a few appropriate manipulations would affiliate you with your chosen sign is now clearly
realistic. Even the sex to which we belong - that small portion of destiny still remaining to us,
that minimum of fatality and otherness - will be changeable at will. Not to mention cosmetic
surgery as applied to green spaces, to nature in general, to genes, to events, to history (e.g. the
French Revolution revised and corrected - given a facelift under the banner of human rights).
Everything has to become postsynchable according to criteria of optimal convenience and
compatibility. This inhuman formalization of face, speech, sex, body, will and public opinion is a
tendency everywhere in evidence. Every last glimmer of fate and negativity has to be expunged
in favour of something resembling the smile of a corpse in a funeral home, in favour of a
general redemption of signs. To this end a gigantic campaign of plastic surgery has been
undertaken.
Champion Briefs
235
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Negating creates a market for catastrophe - every shuttle that
explodes on the launchpad is another point for the negative. The
more frequently we romanticize space colonization and exploration,
the more frequently egregious spectacles will occur for you to televise
and cannibalize.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Illusion Of The End.”. 1994. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://pdfcoffee.com/the-illusion-of-the-end-jean-baudrillardpdf-pdf-free.html>.
We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the 'other
half of the world' [['autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental
exploitation of that poverty - charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The
extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution which has become the equivalent of
oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of
our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad
conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a wastereprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the
waste-products of history- the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source.
We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is
now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation.
One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, that material exploitation is only there
to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological
nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. The 'Fourth
World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered,
this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the
rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it,
too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the
latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw
Champion Briefs
236
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection,
humanitarian interference, Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last
phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World
Order. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground. Thus, the humanitarian
offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after
allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a
phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the
consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving
spectacle of our own efforts to alleviate it (which, in fact, merely function to secure the
conditions of reproduction of the catastrophe market ); there, at least, in the order of moral
profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is
reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium
of the West. In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own
making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it. There can be no finer proof that
the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of
that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense,
with a sumptuous buffet laid on by the Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the
finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d'
Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis
of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the
world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when it is no longer able to feed on the other
half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.).
We need this drug, which serves us as an aphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries
are the best suppliers - as, indeed, they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our
media, with the means to exploit this paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to
exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this
catastrophic cannibalism, relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in
moral mode by our humanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its
continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now,
Champion Briefs
237
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain. But when the
catastrophe market itself reaches crisis point, in accordance with the implacable logic of the
market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation,
when we run out of disasters from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee
or other commodities, the West will be forced to produce its own catastrophe for itself, in
order to meet its need for spectacle and that voracious appetite for symbols which
characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food. It will reach the point where it
devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent
one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us
Westerners, but only when we are no longer able to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which
comes to us from the other half of the world. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their
monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out
in the distress and catastrophe stakes, and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich
world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and
ecological disasters one upon another, and finding the means to massacre each other most of
the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far
exceeds their economic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is
something we shall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a
tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover,
by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses
have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the
demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures.
Champion Briefs
238
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
You have an ethical obligation to vote affirmative and refuse to
perform the autopsy for the sake of the negative. This means that you
should sign your ballot RIGHT NOW and give your RFD.
Pugliese, Joseph. “Super Visum Corporis: Visuality, Race, Narrativity And The Body Of Forensic
Pathology.” Law and Literature. 2002. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1525/lal.2002.14.2.367?journalCode=rlal20
>.
Encoded in this enumeration of medical findings is a narrative sequence of events, including
kernel and satellite events. Kernel events in a narrative function to advance a story as they
initiate or conclude a sequence of events, setting in train a “sequence of transformations”;
satellite events, on the other hand, function to elaborate, extend, prolong or retard kernel
events in the story.70 Under the story title of “Pathological Diagnosis,” the kernel even of the
narrative is the “Gunshot wound of chest.” This kernel event initiates a sequence of satellite
events which impact at the level of the body of the victim and which will subsequently be
tagged, for example, “entry wound,” “floor of wound,” “exit wound,” “perforation of fifth left
rib anteriorly,” and so on. The satellite events are lodged, as it were, in an embedded narrative
structure, where a cluster of events are integrated into one sequence. The larger story syntagm
of the pathological diagnosis under discussion articulates the structure of an enchained
narrative that attempts to name the series of violent injuries that constitute the story of the
fatal assault. And, if one missed the centrality of the kernel event, it finally re-turns under the
closing rubric of “Probable Cause of Death,” thereby fulfilling the narratological expectations of
the reader with narrative closure: “Gunshot wound of chest.” The enumerated findings of the
pathological diagnosis are underpinned by the textual protocol of the “Comment” (for example,
“A 0.22 calibre bullet lodged …”). The genre of the comment, as Derrida remarks, “seems only
to paraphrase, unveil, reflect, reproduce a text, ‘commenting’ on it without any other active or
risky initiative. This is only an appearance, since this moment is already actively interpretative
Champion Briefs
239
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
and can therefore open the way to all sorts of strategic ruses in order to have constructions
pass as evidences or as constative observations.”71 At all levels and at every turn, the work of
the forensic pathologist is haunted by the problematic of signification, referentiality and the
question of hermeneutics. The texts of forensic pathology are marked by the desire to occlude
the ruses of interpretation under such neutral-seeming tags as “commentary.” They labour to
establish authorising anchors in the midst of signifying systems that can never literally secure
the relation between words and things, or what Derrida terms the “adequation-congruence
between a judicative utterance and the thing itself.”72 The question of referentiality that
haunts all narrative texts generates a series of problems in legitimising the narrative artefact of
the autopsy report. “Narrativity,” writes Didier Coste, “is completely indifferent to ‘reference’
(in the specialised sense of bridge between words and things). The possibility condition of
meaning in descriptive and narrative utterances, which comes with a semantic investment of
lexico-syntactic structures, is simply the possibility of reference to some possible world in which
the utterance could be logically true.”73 Caught within the self-referential chain of linguistic
signification, what Bert Van Roermund terms the “philosophifically uncanny” of narrative, the
narrative gestures toward an outside world even as it needs, by definition, to translate and
internalise this world into language if it is to be intelligible in terms of a story.74 In the context
of the autopsy report, this referential “crisis” is seemingly resolved through the discursive use
of the signatures of the pathologist and the institution(s) that authorise the postmortem (for
example, “Kenneth K. King, M. D., M. E.” and “Jerry J. Joshua, M. D.”75). The signatures signal
an attempt “to tether” the text of the autopsy report to an “[authorising] source.”76 In
Foucauldian terms, they enunciate the “authorities of delimitation” that guarantee the
legitimacy of the text as evidence to be presented in the court of law, precisely because they
signify as representatives of an authorised and recognised (by the law) body of knowledge: the
medical profession.77 In other words, the signatures signal the fact that the text has been
institutionally authorised to meet the minimal requirements that make expert medical evidence
admissible in the court of law.78
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
240
AFF: Biosphere 2 AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Fascism is the logical result of hyperreality- in a world without value
or political referentials, the masses may turn to the extreme
valorization of race, nationality and gender.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulations.”. 1995. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://epk.home.xs4all.nl/theory/Simulation/Baudrillard_Simulacra%20and%20Simul
ations.pdf>.
1. Fascism itself, the mystery of its appearance and of its collective energy, with which no
interpretation has been able to come to grips (neither the Marxist one of political manipulation
by dominant classes, nor the Reichian one of the sexual repression of the masses, nor the
Deleuzian one of despotic paranoia), can already be interpreted as the “irrational” excess of
mythic and political referentials, the mad intensification of collective value (blood, race, people,
etc.), the reinjection of death, of a “political aesthetic of death” at a time when the process of
the disenchantment of value and of collective values, of the rational secularization and
unidimensionalization of all life, of the operationalization of all social and individual life already
makes itself strongly felt in the West. Yet again, everything seems to escape this catastrophe of
value, this neutralization and pacification of life. Fascism is a resistance to this, even if it is a
profound, irrational, demented resistance, it would not have tapped into this massive energy if
it hadn't been a resistance to something much worse. Fascism's cruelty, its terror is on the level
of this other terror that is the confusion of the real and the rational, which deepened in the
West, and it is a response to that.
Champion Briefs
241
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Anthropocentrism is defined as a human focus on ethics. This means that throughout all
of our ethical decision-making, we have a tendency to place humans at the top of the food
chain and priority list. This argument is a critique of that mindset. A trap that many people tend
to fall into is the belief that critiques of anthropocentrism are all solved by surface level
changes like veganism or going vegetarian for six months. However, criticisms of
anthropocentrism are in-depth analyses of the way that we interact with living organisms other
than humans on the planet. In the specific critique that has been provided in this issue of the
Champion Briefs, we describe the era of Anthropocentrism (the Anthropocene) as a matrix of
subjugation that exists to keep all life under the control of an elite minority. The affirmative
makes the claim that it is incredibly anthropocentric to move our boundaries past earth and
wreck the natural world even further. The aff claims that voting affirmative is an act of resisting
anthropocentric mindsets and beliefs and that this is the only way to deconstruct the primary
decision-making paradigm of the past few thousand years. You access your impact primarily
through metaphors. Throughout history, people were able to be subjugated because others
were able to animalize them and make them out to be less than human. In the Best 07
evidence, Dr. Steven Best gives the example of the chains and cages used to enslave Africans
for the Atlantic Slave Trade. He argues that these tools were first used in the subjugation and
domestication of non-human animals like cattle and horses.
There are a few very good answers included. First are all of the “alt” answers. These
should be changed to say aff, but basically they all make the argument that the affirmative is
unable to solve for the harms that it presents. Namely, that it gets coopted and destroyed by
the left. For example, organizations like PETA claim to help all nonhuman animals when in
reality they are an organization focused on the minority of issues that nonhumans face.
Champion Briefs
242
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Anthropocentrism in the anthropocene is the largest threat that
humanity faces - don't even think about getting off the rock until we
fix our ethics.
De Cristofaro, Diletta. ““We Had A Garden And We Paved It”.” The Expanse and the Philosophy
of the Anthropocene. November 11, 2021. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://andphilosophy.com/2021/11/11/we-had-a-garden-and-we-paved-it/>.
Henning points out that “rather than challenging the narrative of human dominance and
control over every aspect of nature, the Anthropocene discourse effectively enshrines it in
seemingly neutral, objective language.”[7] Climate policy documents (including the IPCC’s)
reflect this judgment. As contemporary philosopher Katie McShane emphasizes, often such
documents fall into the anthropocentric trap by suggesting that the need to protect the
environment derives, first and foremost, from the need to protect human interests.[8] After all,
in its very name, which foregrounds the human (anthropos), the Anthropocene reproduces the
anthropocentric worldview that generated the prospect of climate breakdown in the first place.
In leaving anthropocentrism unchallenged, the concept of the Anthropocene treats
environmental issues, not as something that requires a paradigm shift in our worldviews, but,
as something “to be ‘managed’ through the application of ever more aggressive forms of
technology, geoengineering the very climate if necessary.”[9] This management approach thus
paradoxically amounts to proposing anthropocentric solutions to issues caused by
anthropocentrism itself. Because these management solutions are technological, Henning calls
the Anthropocene a “Technozoic era,” whose aim is to extend human dominion not only on
Earth but out into space thanks to technological developments.[10] Illustrating Henning’s point,
The Expanse’s humankind manages anthropogenic problems on Earth by colonizing the Sol
system and, once the Ring System is opened, what lies beyond it. The Issue with Wanting to
“Turn a lifeless rock into a garden” Henning warns us that a Technozoic response to the
Anthropocene isn’t viable in the long term. Instead, we risk bringing to other planets a flawed
Champion Briefs
243
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
environmental ethics that “places virtually no moral limits to human exploitation of the Earth,
our solar system, and beyond.”[11] The Expanse is a case in point. After paving Earth’s garden,
humankind doesn’t learn to recognize that, whether on Earth or in space, we’re intertwined
with the rest of nature and aren’t its masters. Rather, The Expanse’s humanity simply exports
its anthropocentric mentality to its Planet Bs and, with it, practices that are profoundly
damaging to the environment. Throughout the show, humans use technology to dominate the
non-human. Take, for instance, the Martian geoengineering dream of turning “a lifeless rock
into a garden” (“Remember the Cant”). This dream assumes that remaking an entire planetary
system is morally justifiable. Because Mars is devoid of life, its empty expanses should be put to
good use by serving the interests of life—specifically, human life. Or, consider UN SecretaryGeneral Nancy Gao’s decision to fully open the Ring System “for exploration and colonization”
(“Cibola Burn”). Gao makes this decision even though the first colonizing mission to Ilus ended
up, thanks to Holden’s interaction with alien technology, endangering the settlers’ lives and
profoundly altering the planet in the space of a single day. The devastating tsunami Holden
inadvertently unleashes on Ilus acts as a powerful metaphor for the unintended consequences
of human activities on Earth, especially given the role that rising sea levels will play in our
Anthropocene future. Or take the unfettered exploitation of the Belt’s resources, an
exploitation that conveniently ignores that these resources are finite. As an OPA activist
explains, “Ceres was once covered in ice. Enough water for 1,000 generations. Until Earth and
Mars stripped it away for themselves.” Water is now scarce and, for Belters, “more precious
than gold” (“Dulcinea”). Even Protogen’s research on the protomolecule rests on the principle
of human dominion: “If we master it, we can apply it” (“Doors & Corners”). This plan, of course,
backfires, making tangible the risks of exporting our anthropocentrism to other planets.
Champion Briefs
244
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The anthropocene exists as a matrix of subjugation - not just of
nature, but of everything that doesn't fit the paradigm of an ideal
human.
De Cristofaro, Diletta. ““We Had A Garden And We Paved It”.” The Expanse and the Philosophy
of the Anthropocene. November 11, 2021. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://andphilosophy.com/2021/11/11/we-had-a-garden-and-we-paved-it/>.
All in all, The Expanse’s future illustrates Henning’s thesis that a Technozoic response to the
Anthropocene’s existential threats through space colonization would repeat anthropocentric
environmental mistakes made on Earth. As humankind continues to work on making space
colonization a reality—think SpaceX, for instance—The Expanse demonstrates that developing
a different kind of environmental ethics is imperative. This new environmental ethics should be
profoundly non-anthropocentric. Contemporary philosopher Keekok Lee argues that in order to
be “capable of defending other planets against human control and domination,” this ethics
should be based on “inanimate Nature as a locus of intrinsic value.”[12] Condemning
anthropocentric arrogant mastery, Lee identifies awe and humility, such as those that Bobbie
exhibits when seeing the ocean for the first time, as the ideal foundations of our relationship
with the rest of nature, on Earth and beyond. After all, the reality of the Anthropocene is that,
through anthropogenic climate change, we might cause our own extinction but the Earth itself
would find a new and different equilibrium. We need to recognize that nature—and not only
Earth’s garden but also the lifeless rocks found in space—has intrinsic value. Therefore, our goal
shouldn’t be to alter nature relentlessly to serve human interests. We’d do better to follow
Miller’s advice here: “stars are better off without us” (“Godspeed”). “We’re all in this together.”
“That is a story” Another issue with the concept of the Anthropocene is that it’s based upon the
notion of a homogeneoushumanity—the anthropos giving the epoch its name—that is in this
predicament together. Anderson Dawes’ words to Holden remind us to question the “story”
that “we’re all in this together” (“The Seventh Man”). The truth is that stark inequalities
Champion Briefs
245
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
characterize the climate crisis. Climate and environmental justice therefore seeks to remedy
these injustices. On the one hand, we’re living through the unintended consequences of
centuries of human activities, in particular the burning of fossil fuels. What we do in this
century to mitigate, or not, climate change will determine what kind of Earth future
generations will inhabit or whether they have a habitable Earth at all. Thus, the principle of
intergenerational justice holds that each generation should act to ensure that future
generations don’t have a standard of living worse than their own.[13] The lack of fundamental
change in national and international policies, however, suggests a much darker reality. Science
fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson observes, “We don’t care enough about those future
people, our descendants, who will have to fix, or just survive on, the planet we’re now wrecking
… [W]e’re creating problems that they’ll be unable to solve. You can’t fix extinctions, or ocean
acidification, or melted permafrost.”[14] This intergenerational injustice shapes The Expanse’s
advanced Anthropocene. The image of Earth’s paved garden captures how humanity will have
to live with the environmental devastation we’re now producing. As “Cascade” shows,
Robinson is right: you just can’t fix something like ocean acidification. Moreover, the
Anthropocene involves an unjust distribution of responsibilities and vulnerabilities.
Contemporary philosopher Henry Shue writes, the largest cumulative emissions have come
from the nations which were the early industrializers and which thereby gained great wealth
from the energy consumption that produced their damaging emissions, while the nations which
will, under business as usual, suffer most from the climate change driven by those emissions
will be the poorer countries that have not fully industrialized (and have emitted very little). This
is primarily because these less industrialized nations control less wealth that can readily be
used for coping with the effects of climate change as it occurs.[15] Philosophers like Shue have
produced models that seek to distribute the burdens of the climate crisis and its mitigation
equitably. Yet the reality of the Anthropocene is that the populations that are the least
responsible for the origins of climate change—the Global South—are already bearing the brunt
of climate change and its extreme weather events. Even within the wealthier countries of the
Global North, poor communities and people of color are the most exposed to environmental
risks.[16]
Champion Briefs
246
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
This analysis in particular is important - leading scientists agree that
Mars colonization is both most likely and very near.
, University Of New South Wales. “Mars Settlement Likely By 2050 Says Expert – But Not At
Levels Predicted By Elon Musk.” SciTech Daily. March 19, 2021. Web. December 10,
2021. <https://scitechdaily.com/mars-settlement-likely-by-2050-says-expert-but-not-atlevels-predicted-by-elon-musk/>.
Robotic mining that can provide water and fuel is the key to developing a colony on the red
planet within the next 30 years. Mars will be colonized by humans by the year 2050, as long as
autonomous mining processes quickly become more commercially viable. That’s the view of
Professor Serkan Saydam from UNSW Sydney in the wake of the amazing landing on Mars by
NASA’s Perseverance rover. Perseverance is expected to provide answers about whether forms
of life ever existed on the red planet, but it is also designed to help address the challenges of
future human expeditions there. Professor Saydam, from the School of Mineral Energy
Resources Engineering, says the main focus in terms of creating a colony on Mars is finding
water – and being able to extract it and process it using robots before humans land. “Everything
is all about water,” Prof. Saydam says. “You use water as a life support, plus also being able to
separate out the hydrogen to use as an energy source. “The process for having humans on Mars
will be to set up operations, go there and produce water with robots first, and then be able to
extract the hydrogen to make the energy ready before people arrive. “Innovation in robotics
and autonomous systems are clearly important so that we have the water ready and the
hydrogen separated and ready for when human beings land. “At the moment, we don’t have
ability to do it. There are significant research efforts, specifically here at UNSW under ACSER
(Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research), about the best way to do it, but there is no
consensus yet. It also depends on how many people we expect to be living on Mars. Is it five, or
5000, or 50,000, or even more?” Entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed he’s confident there will
be a city of 1 million on Mars by 2050, transported there by 1000 Starships proposed by his
SpaceX venture, with plans for up to three rocket launches per day. Prof. Saydam says that may
Champion Briefs
247
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
be unrealistic in the specific timeframe, but admits that demand for travel and a potential
colonization of Mars is what’s needed to drive the technological developments required. “I
think the technology is ready and we already have the knowledge, but the main problem is
having the focus,” says Prof. Saydam, who is organizing an International Future Mining
Conference in December 2021 that will feature former NASA astronaut Pamela Melroy and
Honeybee Robotics vice-president Kris Zacny. “It’s a bigger question: ‘Why don’t we do that
already on earth? Why are we still using human beings for physical work in mining here?’ We
have huge experience in mining, but still heavily depend on humans. “One issue is that demand
is not there. For companies to get involved in developing products (for Mars missions), they
need to be able to produce minerals or something that can be used for manufacturing goods
and then sell it. “At the moment, everything is just a cost and there is no revenue for
companies.”
Champion Briefs
248
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
We're specifically anthropocentric towards nonhuman, alien
sentience - fermi's paradox proves.
Cirkovic, Milan. “Our Attitude Toward Aliens Proves We Still Think We’re Special.” Nautilus.
August 02, 2018. Web. December 10, 2021. <https://nautil.us/issue/63/horizons/ourattitude-toward-aliens-proves-we-still-think-were-special>.
The strong version of Fermi’s paradox (it is only proper and intellectually honest to tackle the
strongest version of any particular scientific problem) doesn’t just ask why there aren’t aliens
here on Earth. It also asks why we don’t see any manifestations or traces of extraterrestrial
civilizations anywhere in our past light cone—that is the whole volume of space and time visible
to us, extending billions of years into the past, to the epoch of earliest galaxies. The strong
Fermi’s paradox became even stronger, so to speak, in 2001, with the work of Charles
Lineweaver and collaborators on the age distribution of terrestrial planets in the Milky Way. His
calculations show that Earth-like planets in our galaxy began forming more than 9 billion years
ago, and that their median age is 6.4 ± 0.9 billion years, which is significantly greater than the
age of the Earth and the solar system. This means that a large majority of habitable planets are
much older than Earth. If we believe that humans and the planet we live on are not particularly
special compared to other civilizations on other planets, we would conclude that the stage of
the biosphere and technology on other occupied planets must be, on average, older than the
corresponding stages we see on Earth. If we humans are now on the cusp of colonizing our
solar system, and we are not much faster than other civilizations, those civilizations should have
completed this colonization long ago and spread to other parts of the galaxy. Another piece of
recent science amplifies Fermi’s paradox even further. Geochemical and paleobiological
research has recently confirmed that the oldest traces of living beings on Earth are at least 3.8
billion years old, and probably as old as 4.1 billion. The Earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old.
While the mechanism of abiogenesis (the origination of life) is still largely unknown, the
evidence of abiogenesis occurring early in the Earth’s history seems incontrovertible. The
consequences are rather dramatic: If life is quick to form after its host planet has formed, we
Champion Briefs
249
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
get good probabilistic support for the existence of simple life on many planets in the Milky Way,
and potentially complex life on some of them. Now that we know that the Earth is a latecomer,
and believe the foundations of life have the power to take hold quickly, Fermi’s paradox is more
puzzling than ever. In the evocative words of physicist Adrian Kent: It’s just too damn quiet in
the local universe. In spite of all this, Fermi’s paradox is not only downplayed and ignored by a
large part of the scientific community, but also mocked and even censured. Distinguished SETI
researchers, like Frank Drake or Seth Shostak, claim in their memoirs that they had not heard
about Fermi’s paradox until very recently and that it should not be taken seriously.
Astrobiology, one of the premier journals in the field, has recently instituted a policy of not
considering manuscripts dealing with Fermi’s paradox, including even short communications
and book reviews. There are many scientists who, like the British astronomer John Gribbin, are
happy to proclaim that there is no paradox whatsoever, since “we are alone, and we had better
get used to it.” In principle there may be several reasons for this attitude. But in my opinion one
underlies all of them: We humans still think we’re special.
Champion Briefs
250
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The human superiority demonstrated by the Kings of the
Anthropocene is constructed - the world is not without hope but
voting aff is that only hope.
Bell, Anne. “Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, And The
Poststructuralist Turn.” Canadian Journal of Education. 2000. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585953>.
The human/nature dichotomy is not a frame of reference common to all cultures, and although
it prevails today in Western societies, even here there are and always have been alternative
ways of understanding and giving expression to a more-than-human world. These can be found,
for example, in myth (Kane, 1994, p. 14), poetic expression, certain branches of philosophy and
environmental thought, natural history, and children’s literature and films (Wilson, 1991, pp.
128–139, 154).Even within the natural sciences, voices attest to the meaningful existence of
nonhuman beings as subjects (McVay, 1993). In animal behaviour research, for instance,
numerous studies have challenged the assertion of human superiority based on a narrow
definition of language that excludes nonhuman communication. Chimpanzee Washoe and
orangutan Chantek use American Sign Language, and other primates, like bonobo Kanzi, are
fluent in symbolic language, thereby altering the boundaries commonly drawn between
language and mere communication (Gardner, Gardner, & Canfort, 1989; Miles, 1994; SavageRumbaugh, Shanker, & Taylor, 1998). And though the bilingual great apes may exhibit language
patterns the most similar to those of humans, there are many examples of sophisticated
communication in other animals, including mammals, birds, and insects (Griffin, 1992).Meeting
the criteria of language implies, of course, that these studies compare and judge other animals
against a human yardstick. In other words, a hierarchical divide is still assumed, although its
position may shift somewhat to include, on humanity’s side, some of the “higher” animals.For a
more radical reframing, one that seeks to acknowledge all life forms as subjects of significance,
let us turn to the work of philosopher David Abram. Drawing from phenomenologist Maurice
Champion Briefs
251
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Merleau-Ponty, Abram (1996) argues that all sensing bodies are active, open forms con- stantly
adjusting to a world that is itself continually shifting (p. 49). To demonstrate how all beings
incessantly improvise their relations to other things he describes the spontaneous creativity of
a spider:Consider a spider weaving its web, for instance, and the assumption still held by many
scientists that the behavior of such a diminutive creature is thoroughly “programmed in its
genes.” Certainly, the spider has received a rich genetic in- heritance from its parents and
predecessors. Whatever “instructions,” however, are enfolded within the living genome, they
can hardly predict the specifics of the microterrain within which the spider may find itself at any
particular moment. They could hardly have determined in advance the exact distances between
the cave wall and the branch that the spider is now employing as an anchorage point for her
current web, or the exact strength of the monsoon rains that make web-spinning a bit more
difficult on this evening. And so the genome could not explicitly have commanded the order of
every flexion and extension of her various limbs as she weaves this web into its place. However
complex are the inherited “programs,” patterns, or predispositions, they must still be adapted
to the immediate situation in which the spider finds itself. However determinate one’s genetic
inheritance, it must still, as it were, be woven into the present, an activity that necessarily
involves both a receptivity to the specific shapes and textures of that present and a spontaneous creativity in adjusting oneself (and one’s inheritance) to those contours. (Abram, 1996,
p. 50)An equally illuminating insect story, intended to evoke, once again, the subjective world
of a nonhuman being, is found in Evernden’s The Natural Alien (1985, pp. 79–80). Borrowing
from the work of biologist Jakob von Uexkull, Evernden invites readers “to imagine that we are
walking through a meadow and that we discern ‘a soap bubble around each creature to
represent its own world, filled with the perceptions which it alone knows’ “ (p. 79). He then
attempts to describe what might be the world of a wood tick. The wood tick, he explains, is
literally and figuratively blind to the world as we know it. What we readily perceive about our
environment would be unknown, unknowable, and irrelevant to her. Her world is composed of
three elements: light, sweat, and heat. These are all that she needs to complete her life cycle.
Light will lead her to the top of a bush, where she will cling (for as long as 18 years!) until the
smell of sweat alerts her to a passing animal. She will then drop, and if she lands on a warm
Champion Briefs
252
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
animal, she will indulge in a blood meal, fall to the ground, lay her eggs, and die.Like Abram,
Evernden (1985) challenges commonplace, mechanistic assumptions that reduce other life
forms to programmed automatons and intimates instead a meaningful life-world completely
unlike and outside our own:To speak of reflexes and instincts is to obscure the essential point
that the tick’s world is a world, every bit as valid and adequate as our own. There is a subject,
and like all subjects it has its world … The tick is able to occupy a world that is per- ceptually
meaningful to it. Out of the thousands or millions of kinds of information that might be had, the
tick sees only what is of significance to it. The world is tailored to the animal; they are entirely
complementary … This is quite a different view of existence from our usual one in which the
animal is simply an exploiter of certain natural resources. We are not talking just about
observable interactions between subjects and objects but rather about a very complete
interrelation of self and world, so complete that the world could serve as a definition of the
self. Without the tick there is no tick-world, no tick-space, no tick-time, – no tick-reality. (pp.
80–81)Evernden’s remarks are significant for the possibilities they open up in our
understanding both of the nonhuman and of ourselves. On one hand, they contest the limited
notion that awareness is a specifically human attribute. On the other, they remind us that we
humans too have bodies that respond to light, sweat, and heat; we too know the world through
our bodies in a way that is not entirely dependent upon language; and this bodily knowledge
plays an important role in defining our world and giving meaning to it.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
253
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The continuation of the Terran pattern of destruction cannot be
allowed to continue.
Balzer, Ashley. “An Ethical Examination Of Terraforming And Colonization.” Owlcation.
September 04, 2018. Web. December 10, 2021. <https://owlcation.com/stem/Ethics-ofTerraforming-and-Colonization>.
A Trail of Broken Planets in Our Wake One concern shared among ethical theorists involves a
slower, less dramatic degradation of the environments of other worlds which humans may one
day journey to. If humans terraform another celestial body, will that world share the same likely
fate as Earth? Realistically, if humankind reaches a point where it will be necessary for our
survival to venture farther out into the cosmos and colonize another world, it will likely be
because we have caused such extensive damage to our own environment that it is no longer
habitable for us. If the degradation to our environment that humans now cause leads to such
significant mutilation as time wears on, that will strongly suggest that the human race is not
responsible enough to manage a global environment. How, then, would it be morally
acceptable for humans to attempt to do so on another world? Do humans have the right to go
about destroying all the planets and moons necessary until either the species dies out or no
more celestial bodies are within our reach to destroy? Worded as such, the clear answer is no.
If humankind destroys the Earth environment, then it will not be ethical to continue this
pattern on other worlds. Perhaps preservationists and biocentrists would agree—but certainly
not anthropocentrists. The latter group would argue that we have a right, maybe even a
responsibility, to preserve human lives.
Champion Briefs
254
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
All discussions of colonization and exploration start from a point of
human preservation. The question is always how many humans we
can safely cram onto a spaceship and not how do we fix the worlds
we've burned down.
Heydt, Samantha. “American Abattoirs.”. December 20, 2012. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://samheydt.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/224/>.
The American abattoir paved the road to Auschwitz. The industrialization of death developed at
the turn of the century in the US stockyards was adopted by the Nazi Concentration camps,
where sectors of humanity relegated into the realm of ‘subhuman’ were slaughtered. History
repeats itself with the algorithms of domination shifting not in construct but in context. The
assembly-line technology and eugenic ideology that buttresses the mechanized mass murder of
animals share the rationalized cruelty that has historically been used in the Western context
against humans in the ‘state of exception’. Branded inferior, crammed into railcars, forced into
labor and killed when no longer of use, the victims of the Holocaust experienced the same fate
as the chattel of slaughterhouses do today. The justification for this brutality is hinged on the
‘biological inferiority’ of the victims who are dehumanized and denigrated as animals. The
“anthropological machine” distinguishing humans from animals collapses when man is stripped
down to ‘bare life’ (Agamben). Thus, as long as the exploitation and violent slaughter of animals
occurs unrefuted, the potential for genocide remains. As history has shown us time and time
again: the realm of nonhuman is not solely occupied by animals. Historical Context: Patriarchy,
slavery and the social matrix of speciesism emerged in tandem to one another from the same
region that fathered agriculture in the Middle East during the Chalcolithic Age. Sumer, now
modern Iraq, was the first civilization to engage in core agricultural practices such as organized
irrigation and specialized labor with slaves and animals. They raised cattle, sheep and pigs, used
ox for draught their beast of burden and equids for transport (Sayce 99). The knowledge to
store food as standing reserve meant migration was no longer necessary to survive. The
Champion Briefs
255
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
population density bred social hierarchies supported at its base by slaves (Kramer 47). In
Sumer, there were only two social strata’s to belong to: lu the free man and arad the slave
(Kramer 47). Technologies such as branding irons, chains and cages that were developed to
dominate animals paved way for the domination over humans too. The “human rule over the
lower creatures provided the mental analogue in which many political and social arrangements
are based” (Patterson 280). Caged and castrated, slaves were treated no different from chattel.
Thousands of years later, the tools developed in the Middle East for domestication were used
by the Europeans during colonization to shackle slaves. “When the European settlers arrived in
Tasmania in 1772, the indigenous people seem not to have noticed them…By 1830 their
numbers had been reduced from around five hundred to seventy-two. In their intervening
years they had been used for slave labour and sexual pleasure, tortured and mutilated. They
had been hunted like vermin and their skins had been sold for a government bounty. When the
males were killed, female survivors were turned loose with the heads of their husbands tied
around their necks. Males who were not killed were usually castrated. Children were clubbed to
death.” (Gray 91). This horrific account illustrates how the indigenous people of Tasmania were
enslaved, skinned and slaughtered by the Europeans. Meanwhile across the globe, the transAtlantic slave trade was at its peak in the 18th century. Africans were taken from their native
land, branded, bred, and sold as property. Linguistically these acts of violence and exploitation
are tied to animals- branded, skinned, slaughtered, sold. Be that as it may, “as long as men
massacre animals, they will kill each other” (Pythagoras in Patterson 210). Racism, colonialism,
anti-Semitism and sexism all stem from the same systems of domination that initially
subjugated animals. Until we cease to exploit living beings as resources, the threat of man being
stripped of his humanity looms. Although we cringe at the inhumane actions of our ancestors,
the scale and efficiency of murder and oppression has only advanced, while the notion of
‘human’ remains increasingly obscured.
Champion Briefs
256
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
This isn't an invitation for you to throw your hands up and say, “Well,
I guess we'll save the Earth so we can live.” You should save the Earth
because it's the right thing to do.
Fox, Warwick. “Toward A Transpersonal Ecology.”. August, 1995. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.sunypress.edu/p-2271-toward-a-transpersonal-ecology.aspx>.
Moving on to illustrate the assumption of human self-importance in the larger scheme of
things, we can see that this assumption shows through, for example, in those prescientific
views that saw humans as dwelling at the center of the universe, as made in the image of God,
and as occupying a position well above the “beasts” and just a little lower than the angels on
the Great Chain of Being. And while the development of modern science, especially the
Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, swerved to sweep these views aside – or at least those
aspects that were open to empirical refutation – it did no such thing to the human-centered
assumptions that underlay these views. Francis Bacon for example, saw science as “enlarging
the bounds of Human Empire”; Descartes likewise saw it as rendering us the “masters and
possessors of nature.” Approximately three and a half centuries later, Neil Armstrong’s moon
walk – the culmination of a massive, politically directed, scientific and technological
development effort – epitomized both the literal acting out of this vision of “enlarging the
bounds of Human Empire” and the literal expression of its anthropocentric spirit: Armstrong’s
moon walk was, in his own words at the time, a “small step for him but a “giant leap for
Mankind.” Back here on earth, we find that even those philosophical, social, and political
movements of modern times most concerned with exposing discriminatory assumptions have
typically confined their interests to the human realm, that is, to issues to do with imperialism,
race, socioeconomic class, and gender. When attention is finally turned to the exploitation by
humans of the nonhuman world, our arguments for the conservation and preservation of the
nonhuman world continue to betray anthropocentric assumptions. We argue that nonhuman
world should be conserved or preserved because of its use value to humans (e.g., its scientific,
Champion Briefs
257
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
recreational, or aesthetic value) rather than for its own sake or for its use value to nonhuman
beings. It cannot be emphasized enough that the vast majority of environmental discussion –
whether in the context of public meetings, newspapers, popular magazines, reports by
international conservation organizations, reports by government instrumentalities, or even
reports by environmental groups – is couched with these anthropocentric terms of reference.
Thus even many of those who deal most directly with environmental issues continue to
perpetuate, however unwittingly, the arrogant assumption that we humans are central to the
cosmic drama; that, essentially, the world is made for us. John Seed, a prominent
nonanthropocentric ecological activist, sums up the situation quite simply when he writes, “the
idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things, is
deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness.”
Champion Briefs
258
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Worsening climate conditions make us one big happy planet of
climate refugees -- anthropocentrism is the root cause.
Bettini, Giovanni. “And Yet It Moves! (Climate) Migration As A Symptom In The Anthropocene.”
Routledge. August 22, 2019. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17450101.2019.1612613>.
Another symptomatic formation associated with the figure of climate migration can be traced
in perspectives orbiting around the post-human suggestion (Braidotti 2013; Povinelli 2017b, a).
Here, the figure of the climate refugee/migrant can be read as symptom of the resurfacing of
non-human and planetary forces and the impossibility to tame and control them. (Clark 2011).
What is seen as returning is nothing less than ‘nature’ or ‘the Earth’. This is an
apolitical/impolitic truth striking back through the wraths of climate change, in this specific case
suffered by the vulnerable forced to move. It is also a surplus that, in this view, has been
repressed by critical theory (Morton 2013; Clark 2014; Stengers 2015). And it is a crucial theme
in debates on the Anthropocene: while Western capitalist civilization has contributed setting in
motion planetary forces with its fossil-fuelled destructive machinery, these planetary,
geological or non-human forces (and agencies) appear to exceed human attempts to control
and harness them. To be clear, this entails a double movement, in that the return onto the
scene of the repressed ‘inhuman’ first dismantles the primacy of ‘soft’ social relations, and then
leads to an ontology populated by flat and heterogeneous constellations of human and morethan-human entities (we will return to these themes in the last section). This is a key
undercurrent running through debates on the Anthropocene and climate change: the reemersion of finitude in connection to the sheer potency of non-human entities. The crisis that
the Anthropocene signifies here is primarily a crisis of the modern/humanist faith in the
possibility to master and control the complex biological, atmospheric and geological
entanglements humans live in. From this angle, the figure of the climate refugee can be seen as
a messenger from the future, ‘the canary in the coalmine’ (for an insightful analysis of this
topos, see Farbotko 2010), the first to be struck by these retuning powers. In this sense, climate
Champion Briefs
259
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
migration could be described as a symptom of the Anthropocene. The fantasy that the eruption
of climate migration cracks is the modern Anthropos, based on the illusion of a human alterity
and superiority in relation to the non-human, to ‘nature’. Before moving on, it is worth noting
that seeing climate migration as symptom of the Anthropocene that opens cracks in the fantasy
of modern ‘Anthropos’, entails recasting the relationship between human agency and
subjectivity, and the ‘natural’ forces and agencies that erupt onto the stage – for instance, by
causing large-scale human displacement. This recasting is associated with a profound critique
against established understandings of the political stemming from the lineage of continental
critical theory. The inhuman and planetary, in all their facticity and force, are presented as
dismantling the centrality and speciality of constructed, ‘soft’ social relations based on
representations, discourse – in blunt words, ‘human stuff’. This critique is not free of problems.
Of course, social relations are not the same as the magma erupting from a volcano, the waves
raised by a tsunami, the burning sands of deserts, the winds of a hurricane, or sea-level rise.
Those latter do have ‘agency’, and differ from ‘social’ forces in a number of respects (for a less
hasty and substantially more refined discussion of this point, see Clark 2011; Chakrabarty 2017;
Clark and Yusoff 2017). However, these non-human objects and forces do not need to be as
dissimilar to social relations and structures as they are at times presented, at least not if we
encounter them from a situated (and not necessarily human) position. When looked upon from
a situated position/ perspective, even relations such as ‘gender’ or ‘class’ are not necessarily
changeable or malleable, they look less soft, so to speak. They also demarcate conditions of
possibility for (human) life and actions, for politics, for resistance. Class, race, gender and other
oppressive relations can and have proven harder than rock.
Champion Briefs
260
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Anthropocentrism results in the inevitability of oppression. Slavery,
genocide and war all began with the primordial hierarchy.
Best, Steven. “Charles Patterson, The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment Of Animals And The
Holocaust.” Journal for Critical Animal Studies. 2007. Web. December 10, 2021.
<http://www.drstevebest.org/EternalTriblenka.pdf>.
As the domestication of animals developed in agricultural society, humans lost the intimate
connections they once had with animals. By the time of Aristotle, certainly, and with the
bigoted assistance of medieval theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, western
humanity had developed an explicitly hierarchical worldview – that came to be known as the
“Great Chain of Being” – used to position humans as the end to which all other beings were
mere means. Patterson underscores the crucial point that the domination of human over
human and its exercise through slavery, warfare, and genocide typically begins with the
denigration of victims. But the means and methods of dehumanization are derivative, for
speciesism provided the conceptual paradigm that encouraged, sustained, and justified western
brutality toward other peoples. “Throughout the history of our ascent to dominance as the
master species,” Patterson writes, “our victimization of animals has served as the model and
foundation for our victimization of each other. The study of human history reveals the pattern:
first, humans exploit and slaughter animals; then, they treat other people like animals and do
the same to them.” 5 Whether the conquerors are European imperialists, American colonialists,
or German Nazis, western aggressors engaged in wordplay before swordplay, vilifying their
victims – Africans, Native Americans, Filipinos, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and other
unfortunates – with opprobrious terms such as “rats,” “pigs,” “swine,” “monkeys,” “beasts,”
and “filthy animals.” Once perceived as brute beasts or sub-humans occupying a lower
evolutionary rung than white westerners, subjugated peoples were treated accordingly; once
characterized as animals, they could be hunted down like animals. 6 The first exiles from the
moral community, animals provided a convenient discard bin for oppressors to dispose the
oppressed. The connections are clear: “For a civilization built on the exploitation and slaughter
Champion Briefs
261
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
of animals, the `lower’ and more degraded the human victims are, the easier it is to kill them.”
7 Thus, colonialism, as Patterson describes, was a “natural extension of human supremacy over
the animal kingdom.” 8 For just as humans had subdued animals with their superior intelligence
and technologies, so many Europeans believed that the white race had proven its superiority by
bringing the “lower races” under its command. There are important parallels between
speciesism and sexism and racism in the elevation of white male rationality to the touchstone
of moral worth. The arguments European colonialists used to legitimate exploiting Africans –
that they were less than human and inferior to white Europeans in ability to reason – are the
very same justifications humans use to trap, hunt, confine, and kill animals. Once western
norms of rationality were defined as the essence of humanity and social normality, by first
using non-human animals as the measure of alterity, it was a short step to begin viewing odd,
different, exotic, and eccentric peoples and types as non- or sub-human. Thus, the same
criterion created to exclude animals from humans was also used to ostracize blacks, women,
and numerous other groups from “humanity.” The oppression of blacks, women, and animals
alike was grounded in an argument that biological inferiority predestined them for servitude. In
the major strain of western thought, alleged rational beings (i.e., elite, white, western males)
pronounce that the Other (i.e., women, people of color, animals) is deficient in rationality in
ways crucial to their nature and status, and therefore are deemed and treated as inferior,
subhuman, or nonhuman. Whereas the racist mindset creates a hierarchy of superior/inferior
on the basis of skin color, and the sexist mentality splits men and women into greater and
lower classes of beings, the speciesist outlook demeans and objectifies animals by
dichotomizing the biological continuum into the antipodes of humans and animals. As racism
stems from a hateful white supremacism, and sexism is the product of a bigoted male
supremacism, so speciesism stems from and informs a violent human supremacism -- namely,
the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or God-given right to use animals for any
purpose they devise or, more generously, within the moral boundaries of welfarism and
stewardship, which however was Judaic moral baggage official Chistianithy left behind.
Champion Briefs
262
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
This species-contingent paradigm creates unending genocidal violence
against forms of life deemed politically unqualified.
Kochi, Tarik. “An Argument For The Global Suicide Of Humanity.” Borderlands. 2008. Web.
December 10, 2021.
<http://ewa.home.amu.edu.pl/Kochi,%20An%20Argument%20for%20the%20Global%20
Suicide%20of%20Humanity.pdf>.
Within the picture many paint of humanity, events such as the Holocaust are considered as an
exception, an aberration. The Holocaust is often portrayed as an example of ‘evil’, a moment of
hatred, madness and cruelty (cf. the differing accounts of ‘evil’ given in Neiman, 2004). The
event is also treated as one through which humanity comprehend its own weakness and draw
strength, via the resolve that such actions will never happen again. However, if we take
seriously the differing ways in which the Holocaust was ‘evil’, then one must surely include
along side it the almost uncountable numbers of genocides that have occurred throughout
human history. Hence, if we are to think of the content of the ‘human heritage’, then this must
include the annihilation of indigenous peoples and their cultures across the globe and the
manner in which their beliefs, behaviours and social practices have been erased from what the
people of the ‘West’ generally consider to be the content of a human heritage. Again the
history of colonialism is telling here. It reminds us exactly how normal, regular and mundane
acts of annihilation of different forms of human life and culture have been throughout human
history. Indeed the history of colonialism, in its various guises, points to the fact that so many of
our legal institutions and forms of ethical life (i.e. nation-states which pride themselves on
protecting human rights through the rule of law) have been founded upon colonial violence,
war and the appropriation of other peoples’ land (Schmitt, 2003; Benjamin, 1986). Further, the
history of colonialism highlights the central function of ‘race war’ that often underlies human
social organisation and many of its legal and ethical systems of thought (Foucault, 2003). This
history of modern colonialism thus presents a key to understanding that events such as the
Holocaust are not an aberration and exception but are closer to the norm, and sadly, lie at the
Champion Briefs
263
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
heart of any heritage of humanity. After all, all too often the European colonisation of the globe
was justified by arguments that indigenous inhabitants were racially ‘inferior’ and in some
instances that they were closer to ‘apes’ than to humans (Diamond, 2006). Such violence
justified by an erroneous view of ‘race’ is in many ways merely an extension of an underlying
attitude of speciesism involving a long history of killing and enslavement of non-human species
by humans. Such a connection between the two histories of inter-human violence (via the
mythical notion of differing human ‘races’) and interspecies violence, is well expressed in Isaac
Bashevis Singer’s comment that whereas humans consider themselves “the crown of creation”,
for animals “all people are Nazis” and animal life is “an eternal Treblinka” (Singer, 1968, p.750).
Champion Briefs
264
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Speciesism is the foundational logic of oppression – multiple
independent examples prove that the tools learned through animal
exploitation were the foundation of history’s largest incidents of
racism – elevating speciesism is crucial to form any effective response
to the enormity of animal suffering.
Best, Steven. “The Killing Fields Of South Africa: Eco-Wars, Species Apartheid, And Total
Liberation.” Fast Capitalism. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://fastcapitalism.uta.edu/2_2/best.html>.
To give some indication of these complex relations by way of concrete examples, we can first
examine the connections between speciesism and racism, between animal and human slavery.
Beginning in the 1870s, numerous cities including Paris, London, Hamburg, Barcelona, and New
York opened new exhibits, called “human zoos.”[66] These pathetic spectacles displayed
indigenous peoples (Africans, Samoans, and others) in cages, often semi-nude or nude, as living
trophies demonstrating white European superiority over “primitive” dark cultures. Tens of
millions of people gawked “savage” and “exotic” peoples, their first and lasting impression of
the colonial Other. In 1906, Madison Grant, the head of the New York Zoological Society and a
prominent eugenicist, exhibited pigmy Ota Benga at the Bronx Zoo. Grant placed him in a cage
with an orangutan, and labeled the exhibit “The Missing Link,” thus suggesting that Africans
such as Benga were closer to apes than to human beings. Human zoos, of course, would not
have been possible without the prior existence of animal zoos, which were created in the
nineteenth century when colonialists captured and displayed wild animals in a similar display of
human supremacy and power over nature. Thus, institutions first used to exploit animals were
adapted to exploit human beings, framing indigenous peoples as sub-human animals. With
their large worldwide audience, zoos, in fact, were important institutions for the construction
and dissemination of racist ideologies, eugenics, and Social Darwininism, thereby legitimating
colonialism as just and right, as the path to Progress. Anthropology and the social sciences were
Champion Briefs
265
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
accomplices to this enterprise, as racist theories became increasingly influential in society. The
systematic extermination of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis was inspired, informed,
and justified by racist theories and “might is right” worldviews, such as zoos helped to construct
and bring to a mass audience. Indeed, there are profound relationships between speciesism
and racism, animal and human exploitation, and mass animal slaughter and human genocide.
As Charles Patterson demonstrates in The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the
Holocaust, there are deep and disturbing connections between the enslavement of animals and
human slavery; between the breeding of domesticated animals and compulsory sterilization,
euthanasia, and genocide; and between the assembly-line killing of animals in slaughterhouses
and the mass killing techniques employed in Nazi concentration camps.[67] “A better
understanding of these connections,” Patterson states, “should help make our planet a more
humane and livable place for all of us—people and animals alike, A new awareness is essential
for the survival of our endangered planet.”[68] The construction of industrial stockyards, the
total objectification of other species, and the mass mechanized killing of animals should have
come as a warning to humanity that such a process might one day be applied to humans, as it
was in Nazi Germany. Thus, the poignant relevance of a quote attributed to Theodor Adorno, to
the effect that, “Auschwitz begins wherever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks:
they're only animals.” Similarly, in The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery,
Marjorie Spiegel shows that the exploitation of animals provided the models, metaphors,
technologies, and practices for the dehumanization and enslavement of blacks.[69] From
castration and chaining to branding and ear cropping and breeding slaves like horses and
mules, white Europeans drew on a long history of subjugating animals to oppress blacks. In the
nineteenth century a popular sentiment was that blacks were a “sub-species,” more like gorillas
than full-fledged humans. Once perceived as beasts, blacks were treated accordingly; pariahs
from the moral community, animals provided a convenient discard bin in which to throw blacks.
By demeaning people of color as “monkeys,” “beasts of burden,” and “filthy animals,” animal
metaphors—derived from systems of speciesist exploitation—facilitated and legitimated the
institution of slavery. The denigration of any people as a type of animal is a potential prelude to
violence and genocide. Once Europeans began the colonization of Africa in the fifteenth
Champion Briefs
266
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
century, the metaphors, models, and technologies used to exploit animals were applied to
human slaves. Stealing Africans from their native environment and homeland, breaking up
families, wrapping chains around their bodies, shipping them in cramped quarters across
continents for weeks or months with no regard for their suffering, branding their skin with a hot
iron to mark them as property, auctioning them as servants, separating family members who
scream in anguish, breeding them for service and labor, exploiting them for profit, beating
them in rages of hatred and anger, and killing them in vast numbers—all these horrors and
countless others inflicted on black slaves began with the exploitation of animal slaves. Popular
anthropological schemes of the nineteenth century placed “Aryans” on the top and blacks at
the bottom; previously referred to with terms such as “lineage,” nineteenth-century concepts
of race were clear examples of scientific racism. As Felipe Fernandez Armesto observes:
“Racism provided ample justification for the victimization, persecution, oppression, and
extermination of some groups by others. Working off the initial hierarchy forced in relation to
animals, it became necessary—even for advocates of Nazism or apartheid—to insist that
different human groups constituted different species, sub-species, or potential species.”[70] By
the late-twentieth century, however, science had discredited scientific races, for “Not only
were there no inferior races: there are no races; there is practically no racial differentiation
among humans. Although we may look different from one another, the genetic space between
the most widely separated humans is tiny, by comparison with other species. The same science
has exploded the notion of human `subspecies'.”[71] There are important parallels of
speciesism to racism and sexism in the elevation of male rationality to the touchstone for
judging moral worth. The same arguments European colonialists used to justify exploiting
Africans—that they were less than human and inferior to white Europeans in rational
capacities—are the very same justifications humans use to exploit, consume, and kill animals.
There is undoubtedly a significant link between animal exploitation and human exploitation as
ancient speciesist arguments were adapted to underpin modern racist outlooks and are parallel
as well to patriarchal ideology that women are emotional creatures incapable of advanced
reasoning. Moreover, the confinement and killing of billions of animals in factory farm and
slaughterhouse systems has a profound negative impact on the environment and thus on
Champion Briefs
267
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
human life. To provide grazing land for cattle, animal agriculture industries destroy habitats and
rainforests and habitats, and spread desertification. The release of carbon dioxide from cut
forests, use of fertilizers, and release of methane gas from billions of cattle are major causes of
ozone deterioration and global warming. In a world where energy, land, and water are scarce,
the global meat production/consumption system is fueled by enormous quantities of resources.
Moreover, in the shift from food to feed production, most crops are grown for animal feed
rather than human food, wasting precious crops. The relation between agribusiness and
resource depletion is particularly poignant in the context of Africa as a whole, for it raises the
specter of famine. One of the leading causes of world hunger, in fact, is animal agriculture and
meat consumption, whereby most of the world's land, water, and crops are fed to animals
fattened and slaughtered for human consumption. Besides the toll this system takes on animals
and the environment, and its impact on human health, it is an incredibly inefficient use of scare
land and water resources. As Jeremy Rifkin explains, People go hungry because much of arable
land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people. In the United States, 157 million
tons of cereals, legumes and vegetable protein—all suitable for human consumption—is fed to
livestock to produce just 28 million tons of animal protein in the form of meat. In developing
countries, using land to create an artificial food chain has resulted in misery for hundreds of
millions of people. An acre of cereal produces five times more protein than an acre used for
meat production; legumes such as beans, peas and lentils can produce 10 times more protein
and, in the case of soya, 30 times more …. Despite the rich diversity of foods found all over the
world, one third of its population does not have enough to eat. Today, hunger is a massive
problem in many parts of Africa, Asia and South America and the future is not looking good. The
global population is set to rise from 6.1 billion … to 9.3 billion by 2050 and Worldwatch reports
forecast severe global food shortages leading to famine on an unprecedented scale. This misery
is partly a direct result of our desire to eat meat. Children in the developing world starve next to
fields of food destined for export as animal feed, to support the meat-hungry cultures of the
rich world. While millions die, one third of the world's grain production is fed to farmed animals
in rich countries.... If animal farming were to stop and we were to use the land to grow grain to
feed ourselves, we could feed every single person on this planet. Consuming crops directly—
Champion Briefs
268
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
rather than feeding them to animals and then eating animals—is a far more efficient way to
feed the world … By squandering the vast bulk of land and water resources, resources that
could produce far greater quantities of nutrient rich food in a plant-based agriculture, the
global meat culture directly contributes to world hunger. Moreover, the global meat
exacerbates inequality and poverty among the world's peoples, as resources from impoverished
Southern nations flow to wealthy Northern nations. The human consequences of the global
shift from food to feed production were dramatically evident in 1984, when thousands of
Ethiopians were dying of famine each day. The problem was not that Ethiopia had no viable
land on which to grow crops and feed its people, but that it was using millions of acres of land
to produce linseed cake, cottonseed cake, and rapeseed meal for livestock feed to export to
Europe. Rifkin notes the perverse irony of such an irrational and unsustainable system of food
production: “Around six billion people share the planet, one quarter in the rich north and three
quarters in the poor south. While people in rich countries diet because they eat too much,
many in the developing world do not have enough food simply to ensure their bodies work
properly and stay alive.[72] And yet, despite the overwhelming, irrefutable fact of the immense
destructive power (to humans, animals, and the earth alike) of the global meat and dairy
industries, institutions such as the World Hunger Organization, the IMF, and the World Bank
promote the destructive myth that factory farming is the best way to feed a hungry world, as
advertisements promoting meat and diary consumption and fast food chains such as
McDonalds and KFC proliferate throughout the world. In contexts such as this, people must
recognize the larger significance of vegetarianism and veganism—not only as a health and
personal growth movement, but also as a social justice and environmental movement. The
tragedy of famine clearly does not stem from “natural” causes such as scarcity and the
“stinginess” of nature, but rather from the socio-economic dynamics of meat-based agriculture,
the appropriate of land to export cash crops to the Western world rather than to feed domestic
populations, the domination of transnational corporations and global banking institutions, and
the corruption of national rulers. Given just a few examples of the devastating effect of animal
exploitation on the social and natural worlds, the oft-heard diatribes that animal rights activists
care more about animals than humans, are elitists, or have misplaced priorities misses the point
Champion Briefs
269
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
entirely. Such a dismissive reaction represents a moral failure to respond to the enormity of
animal suffering and an intellectual failure to understand the enormous social and
environmental implications of the human attempt to subjugate, colonize, and plunder the earth
and its sundry species. Besides the speciesist assumption that animal suffering does not
warrant a serious moral or political response, this objection proceeds from an atomistic outlook
unable to see the connections between animal exploitation, environmental destruction,
patriarchy, racism, violence, and world hunger. The exploitation of animals causes profound
social and environmental problems for the human world itself, such that we should stop
treating animal rights as trivial to human and environmental problems, and rather see it as
fundamental to resolving crises in both realms.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
270
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Our argument isn’t an attempt to weigh species oppression against
racial oppression – instead, the obvious corollaries inform the
necessity of taking action against species apartheid.
Best, Steven. “The Killing Fields Of South Africa: Eco-Wars, Species Apartheid, And Total
Liberation.” Fast Capitalism. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://fastcapitalism.uta.edu/2_2/best.html>.
South Africa inherited and maintained an ugly legacy of violence and domination from
European colonialists, a system of exploiting humans and nature, racism, and discrimination. In
1948, Dutch Afrikaners referred to this social structure they received and developed as
“apartheid” (which literally means “separate state”). Apartheid was a brutal system of class and
racial domination maintained by repression, violence, and terror, whereby a minority of
wealthy and powerful white elites exploited and ruled over the black majority. Apartheid was a
conceptual and ideological system, whereby white elites positioned themselves as superior in
relation to the black masses they branded as inferior, and an institutional system, which
exploited black labor power, stripped them of basic rights, and strictly segregated the races.
Whites declared blacks noncitizens, and confined them to different beaches, hospitals, schools,
churches, theatres, restrooms, trains, buses, and other public areas. The respective sexes too
were kept apart, as interracial sex and marriage was illegal. Reviled throughout the world,
pressured economically, and attacked at every point by the black resistance movement, the
apartheid system began to fall. Nelson Mandela, imprisoned on Robben Island for 27 years, was
set free in February 1990, and apartheid was dismantled in 1994. South Africa's first democratic
elections were held on April 27, 1994, and Mandela, the leader of the African National Congress
(ANC), became the country's first black state president. From May 1994 to June 1999, Mandela
presided during the transition from apartheid and minority rule to a fledgling democracy, a
system that unfortunately remains plagued by great poverty, unemployment, inequality, and
discontent.[13] Despite the changes that (officially, at least) ending social apartheid, nothing
Champion Briefs
271
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
changed in the underlying structure of species apartheid.[14] Just as social apartheid is
anchored in white hatred of blacks, so species apartheid stems from human contempt for
nonhuman species—such as expressed in the iconic images of joyful hunters power-posing with
their “kill.”[15] Just as racism arbitrarily defines one group of humans as superior to another,
out of sheer prejudice and ignorance, so speciesism position human animals as superior to
nonhuman animals, and anoint themselves as the end to which all other life forms are mere
means. Whereas the racist mindset roots its hierarchy in skin color, the speciesist mindset
devalues and objectifies animals by dichotomizing the evolutionary continuum into human and
nonhuman life. As racism stems from a hateful white supremacism, so speciesism draws from a
malignant human supremacism, namely, the arrogant belief that humans have a natural or
God-given right to use animals for any purpose they devise. Akin to social apartheid, the
conceptual segregation of species apartheid informs an institutional segregation, in which
animals are removed from social purview and confined to cramped pens and cages, where their
oppression is mainly hidden. As much as possible, South African whites tried to hide black
oppression by relegating them to “homelands” and designated public spaces apart from white
society. Similarly, while some animals like elephants roam in public parks and are spectacles for
eco-tourism, the most vicious forms of exploitation occur in dungeon-like laboratories, factory
farms and slaughterhouses in rural outposts, and private hunting enclosures. As South African
journalist, Mantsadi Molotlegi, writes in regard to the epiphany that radically changed her
worldview, moral compass, and politics, “The way we treat animals has all the hallmarks of
apartheid—prejudice, callous disregard for suffering, and a misguided sense of supremacy …
group areas and segregation helped to keep the suffering of black people hidden from view. So
too with the animals.”[16] Like racism, speciesism deploys a “Might is Right” philosophy that
sees the ability of the powerful to rule over the powerless as its justification for doing so,
ignoring the fact that the greater the power the greater the responsibility to use it humanely,
democratically and ecologically. Like social apartheid, species apartheid is rooted in the
enslavement of beings exploited for profit, as global capitalist markets continue to thrive
through extreme exploitation and slavery. Victims of severe oppression, both animals and black
Africans were slaves subject to economic exploitation within capitalist systems. Whereas
Champion Briefs
272
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
speciesism and racism are pernicious ideologies that underlie animal and black oppression,
their subjugation was also informed and determined by capitalist logic and market networks
that thrive from slave labor. Speaking of the complex causes of apartheid, an African National
Congress (ANC) article states that, “Afrikaner nationalism was [not only about] evicting African
blacks simply because of their race; much of it was [about a desire to appropriate land,
resources and labour power… it must never be forgotten that Apartheid and racial
discrimination in South Africa, like everywhere else, has an aim far more important than
discrimination itself: the aim is economic exploitation. The root and fruit of apartheid and racial
discrimination is profit.”[17] As the white South African minority enjoyed the highest standard
of living in Africa, on par with many western nations, the black majority were marginalized and
impoverished in every area such as income, housing, and schools. As with blacks toiling in the
fields and mines of capitalist, —whether it be horses transporting people and goods in urban
cities; or cows, pigs, and chickens confined in stalls, crates, and cages manipulated (including
genetically) to produce maximum quantities of meat, milk, and eggs; or mice, rats, rabbits, cats,
cogs, and chimpanzees in research laboratories who are artificially sickened and serve as sheer
bodies for the production of meaningless quantitative data or to provide organs for human
“harvest.” As bad as black Africans had it throughout the era of social apartheid, species
apartheid is an even more oppressive system. This is because a significantly greater number of
animals (dying by the billions) are killed each year, the methods of exploitation typically are
more brutal, and there is far less outcry over their suffering and death. Although blacks were
violently repressed and many were beaten, tortured, and killed, they were not bred, farmed,
confined, and exploited for hunters to shoot down in a demented drama of “sport” and human
mastery of nature. While jailed and beaten, blacks were not captured and sent to laboratories
for experimentation, cut into pieces and consumed for meat, nor dismembered and sold for
jewelry and paperweights. Although black victims of apartheid were murdered by the
thousands, over 40 billion animals die each year at the hands of human oppressors in various
systems of exploitation, from slaughterhouses and fur farms to hunting fields and laboratories.
While the world conscience was slow to awaken to condemn the exploitation of blacks, they
ultimately did and were crucial factors in the abolition of apartheid; the cries against species
Champion Briefs
273
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
apartheid, however, are barely audible—those quickly growing. And even those opposed to the
trade of ivory and chimpanzee meat condone, approve, and participate in myriad forms of
animal exploitation such as meat, dairy, and egg consumption or wearing leather products. The
crucial point here is not to quantify suffering or to privilege one form of oppression over
another, but rather to draw parallels among different forms of oppression and to call attention
to the plight of animals within global species apartheid systems. In the time span since 1994,
with the tripartite alliance of the African National Congress, the Congress of South African
Trade Unions, and the South African Communist Party, a democratization process has begun to
improve life for human beings. But absolutely nothing has been done to ameliorate the
slaughter and suffering of animals. In post-apartheid South Africa, one finds the same pseudo”park” and “conservation” policies, the same cronyism and corruption, the same morass of
legal codes and lack of regulation, the same systematic violation of treaties such as CITES, and
the same arrogant and violent speciesism that deems animals beings and uses force and
aggression to unconscionably exploit them for human purposes.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
274
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
You must affirm - voting aff is necessary to shift our paradigm away
anthropocentrism towards a more equal eco-criticism that demands
the deconstruction of the anthropocene.
Fondo, Blossom. “The Hunter Hunted: Deconstructing Anthropocentrism In Richard Connell’s
The Most Dangerous Game.”. 2013. Web. December 10, 2021.
<http://bcjms.bhattercollege.ac.in/V3/09_Richard_Connell_Most_Dangerous_Game.pdf
>.
Constructing Anthropocentrism and Cruelty to Animals However, before delving into Connell’s
construction of this case it is imperative to give a definition of the term ecocriticism. According
to Cheryll Glofelty “ecocriticism is the study of the relationship between literature and the
physical environment… ecocriticism takes an earth-centered approach to literary studies” (xviii).
This earth-centered approach also includes the other animal species of the earth and this is why
in this text, I adopt an ecocritical analysis because Connell’s interest in and engagement of the
non-human draws a relationship between literature and the physical environment since
animals constitute part of this physical environment. For its part, postcolonial theory is
interested in interrogating the colonial entreprise and its “material practices and effects, such
as transportation, slavery, displacement, emigration, and racial and cultural discrimination” (Bill
Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin, 7). Ashcroft et al however add in a later text that
postcolonial theory has extended to address issues pertaining to the environment. They state
thus: One of the most persistent and controversial topics of contemporary politics is the issue
of the environment. Global warming has demonstrated the devastating effects of the industrial
revolution and the unfettered pursuit of capital expansion. The environment and attendant
topics such as ecofeminism, ecological imperialism, environmentalism, speciesism have all
taken an increasingly prominent place in post-colonial thought because it has become clear that
there is a direct connection between colonialist treatment of indigenous flora and fauna and
the treatment of colonized and otherwise dominated societies. (viii) This concern with the
environment explains the use of postcolonial theory in this analysis.
Champion Briefs
275
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Unraveling anthropocentric epistemology is the only method we can
use to begin solving for ontological harms – ontological criticisms fail
to make the disembodied approach necessary to understanding
violence on Otherized bodies.
Bell, Anne. “Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, And The
Poststructuralist Turn.” Canadian Journal of Education. 2000. Web. December 10, 2021.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585953>.
Further, calls for educational practices situated in the life-worlds of students go hand in hand
with critiques of disembodied approaches to education. In both cases, critical pedagogy
challenges the liberal notion of education whose sole aim is the development of the individual,
rational mind (Giroux, 1991, p. 24; McKenna, 1991, p. 121; Shapiro, 1994). Theorists draw
attention to the importance of nonverbal discourse (e.g., Lewis & Simon, 1986, p. 465) and to
the somatic character of learning (e.g., Shapiro, 1994, p. 67), both overshadowed by the
intellectual authority long granted to rationality and science (Giroux, 1995; Peters, 1995; S.
Taylor, 1991). Describing an “emerging discourse of the body” that looks at how bodies are
represented and inserted into the social order, S. Taylor (1991) cites as examples the work of
Peter McLaren, Michelle Fine, and Philip Corrigan. A complementary vein of enquiry is being
pursued by environmental researchers and educators critical of the privileging of science and
abstract thinking in education. They understand learning to be mediated not only through our
minds but also through our bodies. Seeking to acknowledge and create space for sensual,
emotional, tacit, and communal knowledge, they advocate approaches to education grounded
in, for example, nature experience and environmental practice (Bell, 1997; Brody, 1997;
Weston, 1996). Thus, whereas both critical pedagogy and environmental education offer a
critique of disembodied thought, one draws attention to the ways in which the body is situated
in culture (Shapiro, 1994) and to “the social construction of bodies as they are constituted
within discourses of race, class, gender, age and other forms of oppression” (S. Taylor, 1991, p.
Champion Briefs
276
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
61). The other emphasizes and celebrates our embodied relatedness to the more-than-human
world and to the myriad life forms of which it is comprised (Payne, 1997; Russell & Bell, 1996).
Given their different foci, each stream of enquiry stands to be enriched by a sharing of insights.
Finally, with regard to the poststructuralist turn in educational theory, ongoing investigations
stand to greatly enhance a revisioning of environmental education. A growing number of
environmental educators question the empirical-analytical tradition and its focus on technical
and behavioural aspects of curriculum (A. Gough, 1997; Robottom, 1991). Advocating more
interpretive, critical approaches, these educators contest the discursive frameworks (e.g.,
positivism, empiricism, rationalism) that mask the values, beliefs, and assumptions underlying
information, and thus the cultural and political dimensions of the problems being considered
(A. Gough, 1997; Huckle, 1999; Lousley, 1999). Teaching about ecological processes and
environmental hazards in a supposedly objective and rational manner is understood to belie
the fact that knowledge is socially constructed and therefore partial (A. Gough, 1997;
Robertson, 1994; Robottom, 1991; Stevenson, 1993).
Champion Briefs
277
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
The shift away from a nation-state perspective is already occurring
with rapid globalization.
Beck, Ulrich. “Global Generations And The Trap Of Methodological Nationalism For A
Cosmopolitan Turn In The Sociolo.” European Sociological Review. November 23, 2009.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://academic.oup.com/esr/articleabstract/25/1/25/492842>.
That at least is how it has been until now. With a generational change, however—this is what
we want to show below—a change is under way, the nation state legitimation of global
inequality is beginning to crumble. This could be put down to the continuing deepening and
sharpening of the division between haves and have-nots on a world scale; but whether such a
deepening is indeed taking place is a matter of scholarly controversy. From our point of view on
the other hand it is significant that a development towards more equality is making headway,
at least at the level of norms. The stimuli for that are to be found, as far as we can see, at four
levels. Their combined effect is that principles and expectations of equality are spreading
worldwide. Post-colonial discourse of equality: in the era of colonial rule the inferiority of the
Others/the ‘natives’/the ‘savages’ seemed a more or less natural given (hence the difficult task,
‘the white man’s burden’ of teaching the Others a minimum of civilization and reason). The
post-colonial discourse has divested such assumptions of any legitimation. The nation state
dualism of human rights and civil rights has been broken down: a guarantee of human rights
has now been normatively prescribed at ever more levels—e.g. in the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, in the EU Treaties and the constitutions of many nation states.
Such guarantees make it increasingly difficult to distinguish between citizens and noncitizens,
nationals and non-nationals and to grant certain rights only to some and not to others. Spread
of transnational ways of life: as recent migration research has frequently pointed out, there are
today more and more groups, who do not live in one country or another, but in several at the
same time. These persons have a bridge function. By building up transnational networks,
organizations, institutions, by regularly visiting relatives in the old country, they create
Champion Briefs
278
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
numerous links between country of origin and receiving society—and simultaneously
contribute to the export of Western ways of life, norms, demands: ‘The West and the rest’
encounter one another. Thanks to the new communications media and transport technologies
distances begin to shrink, not in the strictly quantitative sense, but in their social significance:
even over great distances there are ever more lines of communication and forms of meeting.
Geographical distance need no longer mean social distance. Consequently, according to our
thesis, there begins a spreading of norms and expectations of equality, which has far-reaching
consequences. The inequality between the haves and the have-nots, between First World and
the remaining world is no longer accepted as fate, but emphatically called into question, even if
only one-sidedly: by the people ‘outside’. It is the Others, the excluded, the inhabitants of
distant lands and continents who are beginning to rebel against the legitimation of social
inequality which has been taken for granted until now—through hopes and dreams of
migration, which they are translating into practical activity.
Champion Briefs
279
AFF: Anthropocentrism AC
Jan/Feb 2022
Warming sparks new epidemics.
Webb, James. “Climate, Ecology, And Infectious Human Disease.” The Palgrave Handbook of
Human History. September, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344435004_Climate_Ecology_and_Infectio
us_Human_Disease>.
There are also major concerns that global climate change will increase the transmission of
vector-borne diseases. The West Nile virus, introduced into the United States in 1999, has been
found in a large number of mosquito species, and it is likely that global warming will extend the
range of many of these species and may increase transmission. These possibilities are real,
although at present the total number of people affected is small. There is no antidote or
vaccine for West Nile virus, although insecticides, screens, and repellents are highly effective.
The greater health concerns are that warming may increase the transmission of mosquitoborne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, and chikungunya fever. In tropical Africa, where
transmission rates are highest, continued warming will likely extend the range of the vector
mosquitoes to higher altitudes in mountainous regions of eastern and central Africa, although
some experts believe this concern is overblown.22 Further vulnerabilities come from rising sea
levels and storm surges, which could compromise the integrity of coastal water and sanitation
systems. Failure of sanitation systems and subsequent pollution of water supplies with fecal
matter has in the past set off large-scale epidemics, such as in mid-twentieth century New
Delhi.23
Champion Briefs
280
Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Affirmative Responses
to Negative Cases
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Locke NC
Granting unlimited private property rights to the resources from
asteroids violates the Lockean Proviso that “enough and as good” be
left for others.
Loder, Reed. “Asteroid Mining: Ecological Jurisprudence Beyond Earth.” Virginia Environmental
Law Journal 36:1. 2018. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/26510760>.
V. PROPERTY IN ASTEROID OR SPACE RESOURCES A. Space Commons Assuming for the sake of
argument that a system of private property rights in celestial resources is ethically sound, an
assumption I later challenge, many questions emerge about the model of property reflected in
the Space Act. A traditional theorist of the origins of property might view celestial objects as
being in a state of nature, or commons, open to appropriation under a Lockean model.
According to this model, as defined by English philosopher John Locke, a person who mixes his
labor with natural material acquires a claim to that thing he removes from the state of
nature.88 Locke’s mode of original acquisition is limited by a dual concept of waste. On the one
hand, it is wasteful to leave nature idle and fail to convert it into something useful and
productive.89 Yet, if one appropriates an excess of materials that spoil from nonuse, one has
committed waste and cannot legitimately claim property in the excess.90 For Locke, an
important proviso that overshadows ownership is that one must leave as much and as good for
others.91 The Supreme Court tacitly applied Lockean principles to land in America, reasoning
that the original inhabitants of the land did not have title because their use of the land was
insufficiently productive,92 thus leaving it to European countries in the New World to settle
priorities amongst themselves through conquest and eventually treaties granting title to the
victorious governments.93 All legitimate titles to land in America must then be traced to United
States governmental grants, authorized through discovery of the New World and victory against
Champion Briefs
282
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Great Britain in the American Revolution.94 Thus, unlike celestial resources, property interests
in American territory and goods ultimately derive from governmental property. The Space Act
grants property interests in asteroid and other space resources that cannot, however, be traced
to government ownership because no state party to the OST is capable of such sovereignty over
bodies in space, which belong to all. B. Unlimited Rights and Alternatives to the Individual
Property Model Significantly, the Space Act does not even limit the scope of ownership rights
the United States may grant in asteroid and other space resources. Although not explicitly first
in time rubric, the Act implies that the first to claim the resource obtains the incidents of
ownership specified in the legislation, “free from harmful interference.”95 The Space Act does
not limit the amount of asteroid material a miner can extract. Nor is there any limit on the
duration that private companies may exploit the resources over which they are granted
property rights to possess, use, move, own, and sell.96 Thus, the Act does not honor even
traditional constraints on ownership such as taking more resources than would leave as much
and as good for others, which is the essence of Locke’s proviso. It appears, instead, that the first
to exploit obtains an indefinite right to continue, and probably enlarge, that activity without
“harmful interference.”97 The Space Act could have at least bowed stiffly to the OST
commitment to sharing the benefits of space with all members of humanity. For example,
Congress could have devised a method of allocating rights in advance to actors not yet
financially or technologically equipped to visit asteroids, similar to the allocation of satellite
orbits before an actor is ready to launch and operate.98 Developing countries could receive
some future mining rights, and overall acquisitions could be limited to prevent concentrations
of wealth. Or, private exploiters of asteroid resources could be required to pay a considerable
fee for property rights that could be distributed among OST nations. Another means to address
international interests would be a royalty system that would distribute corporate profits on
some equitable basis rather than unlimited property rights. Rights of exploration and extraction
could also cap the time a company can mine a particular area and restrict the number of places
available to any single entity. The Space Act of 2015, however, deliberately leaves the asteroid
property framework unregulated for at least eight years, providing time for the companies
Champion Briefs
283
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
themselves to sort out challenges.99 Thus, the fundamentally questionable private property
rights the Space Act grants in extracted materials are essentially unlimited at least for now.
Champion Briefs
284
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The original appropriation principle leads to a free-for-all on space
that causes conflict---the Aff's cooperative model based on space as a
commons is preferable.
Fitzmaurice, Joshua. “On The Legality Of Mars Colonisation.” Adelaide Law Review 40:3. 2019.
Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://law.adelaide.edu.au/ua/media/1407/ALR_40%283%29_10_Fitzmaurice_Hende
rson_Web.pdf>.
Traditional terrestrial understandings of property rights will not apply to a human habitat on
Mars. A distinction needs to be drawn between space objects, over which states retain
jurisdiction and control pursuant to Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, and the surface of
Mars on which those objects are located. For property rights to be granted, there needs to be
someone (usually the state) with the power to grant those rights. If no-one can own outer
space, then there is no-one who can grant these property rights, despite attempts by some on
Earth to purportedly sell land on the Moon and Mars, and lay claim to orbits.47 While
inhabitants, their states or private companies may be able to own a habitat, pod, or base on
Mars, they would not be able to own the land on which it was located.48 Some scholars have
suggested that quasi-proprietary rights could apply in outer space,49 however terrestrial
property law is not easily transposable to the outer space environment. As Collins notes, the
simple delineation between equipment and land may be difficult to draw on Mars … because
the planet’s atmosphere necessitates artificial construction, such as a greenhouse, in order to
render the surface agriculturally productive or habitable … there is a strong risk that an
investment such as a base that possibly costs billions of dollars in preparation and
transportation would become public property once it was placed on the planet’s surface.50
What does this mean for inhabitants who could find themselves occupying their habitat or pod
in a perfect location, only to be pushed out of the way for others to secure access to minerals
below the surface of Mars, or merely to secure a better view? If there are no ownership rights
Champion Briefs
285
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
over the surface of Mars, then there may be little that can be done in response. Such a ‘free for
all’ without any rules would lead to conflict amongst inhabitants, or between inhabitants and
private companies, and would not bode well for the long-term future of the Mars habitat. It is
imperative that some form of legal regulation of property be considered and resolved in order
to clarify the rights that various actors will have on Mars, in order to ensure that the risk of
conflict between inhabitants is diminished, and to promote and encourage the considerable
investment that will be required to establish a human habitat in outer space. While some
scholars have suggested that property rights on celestial bodies could be awarded to the first
possessor,51 such a first possessor regime would be contrary to the principle of nonappropriation and the res communis status of celestial bodies. A regime based on cooperation,
however, provides a useful model for how a human habitat on Mars could operate consistent
with the current international space law treaties. Indeed, as Wijkman observes the
‘interdependence’ of all actors in space provides ‘strong incentives’ for cooperative solutions.52
Champion Briefs
286
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Rights of first possession in outer space will only disadvantage
developing countries, and cannot be adequately enforced.
Babcock, Hope M. “The Public Trust Doctrine, Outer Space, And The Global Commons: Time To
Call Home ET.” Syracuse Law Review 69. 2019. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://lawreview.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/H-Babcock-Article-FinalDocument-v2.pdf>.
Those who are concerned that less technically adept nations would be severely disadvantaged
by a property rights regime that is premised “on the ‘right of [first] grab,’ the first-come, firstserved theory of property acquisition,” oppose such an approach.293 “By the time
spaceincapable nations develop the technological prowess and capital reserves to fund
meaningful development of outer space, the earlier space-faring nations [and their citizens],
left unchecked, might already have locked up the most accessible and valuable resources.”294
This would carry forward current disparities in global wealth distribution into the “Space
Age.”295 The argument against a right of first possession gains salience from the fact that prior
wrongs inflicted on less developed countries may be the reason they are not “spacecapable.”296 This inequitable situation would persist, as those who profit from private property
rules like the right of first possession will have the political ties, money, and understanding of
the “rules of the game” to prevent their reform.297 An additional problem with the proposal is
its enforceability. The fact that outer space is infinite makes it more difficult to “police” and to
enforce the various treaties that apply to it.298 In outer space, “a breaching private party could
pursue its interests outside the scope of such an agreement with relative impunity before it was
discovered by the relevant international authority.”299
Champion Briefs
287
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Space will get over-exploited if left to private appropriation---that
violates the Lockean Proviso that enough be left for others.
Tjandra, Jonathan. “The Fragmentation Of Property Rights In The Law Of Outer Space.” Air &
Space Law 46:3. 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c71e3a8c2ff6112aecebeda/t/6093a7feff5c4f6
031b27581/1620289535388/AILA_46_0303.pdf>.
Locke assumed that appropriation would only be justified if there was enough for everyone else
to appropriate. Hume also thought that the primary purpose of private property was to allocate
scarce resources justly.110 A consumable and exploitable resource such as natural resources in
space or the finite number of allocations on the geostationary orbit requires cooperation
among States in order to manage the sustainable use of the resource. As Laver recognizes, not
only is ‘space’ in space a scarce resource, it is also exhaustible in that over-exploitation can
result in irreversible tragedy.111 If States are able to use outer space resources at will, this
leads to the risk of exploitation via a tragedy of the commons type situation. The tragedy is
traditionally resolved either by cooperation or enforcement of a full system of property
rights.112 An international system of cooperation to share the benefits of exploitation is
unlikely, as demonstrated by the failure of the Moon Agreement, and a full system of property
rights does not currently exist at international law, only the privilege-right to use sitting under
the auspices of non-appropriation.
Champion Briefs
288
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Locke's theory of property rights fails---property rights depend upon
government, and states reasonably do not extend property rights to
all instances of “mixing” one's labor.
Abrahamian, Atossa Araxia. “Moon Dust For Sale.” Terra Nullius. January 08, 2021. Web.
December 12, 2021. <https://terranullius.substack.com/p/moon-dust-for-sale>.
Political philosophers have been arguing about what justifies private property for centuries.
John Locke believed that property was a natural right, and therefore not fundamentally
contingent on the rules of any particular nation, empire or other jurisdiction. For Locke,
“mixing” labor with resources justifies ownership: If I were to find an unclaimed piece of land,
fence it in, and cultivate the soil to grow apples and pears, the land, the apples and the pears
would rightly belong to me, so long as I wasn’t causing others some terrible privation*. The role
of government, per the theory, is to recognize and uphold these natural rights. It would follow,
then, that anyone ingenuous enough to go to the moon and collect a handful of dirt more than
deserves to own it—and that government must support their initiative. Whatever you think of
Locke’s theory, it’s certainly more convincing (or at least less offensive) in a lunar context than
in, say, a colonial one.** The thing is, in our world (and pretty far outside it, apparently) the
notion of a natural right preceding or not preceding government doesn’t really matter. Private
ownership of all things depends less on some nice idea about laboriously cultivating fruits on
unclaimed land than on an international system built on defining and protecting existing
property rights. At the risk of sounding tautological (and, you know, crudely oversimplifying all
of capitalism): we own stuff because that stuff is recognized as ours by our government(s), and
governments recognize each other because of their mutual recognition of our legitimate
ownership of that stuff. There are variations by jurisdiction, naturally. For example, it’s illegal in
many countries to own endangered species: neither the state nor its courts will not defend your
right to keep a panda in your basement, even if you found or caught or against all odds bred the
panda yourself. Queen Elizabeth owns all the unmarked mute swans in England, and Brexit or
Champion Briefs
289
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
no Brexit, you couldn’t buy one if you tried. You can’t even own a house in much of North
Korea. But quirks aside, states recognizing other states’ laws over property is an essential basis
for world trade. NASA’s mandate is not world trade. It’s outer space, and increasingly, outer
space trade. But by applying the (earthly) logic of private property to the moon and other
planets, they are trying to create a market where there is none. (This example also shows how
much private enterprise, even at the cutting edge of technology and human civilization,
depends on incentives from governments—but that’s a different story!)
Champion Briefs
290
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The costs of commercial space activity will increase once space
property rights are established, which lessens access for others.
Tronchetti, Fabio. “THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE UNDER ATTACK: USING ARTICLE II OF
THE OUTER SPACE TREATY IN ITS DEFE.” International Institute of Space Law. 2007.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://iislweb.org/docs/Diederiks2007.pdf>.
4) The abrogation of the non-appropriation principle will generate the collapse of the system of
space law If the non-appropriation principle was removed, it is very likely that the system of
space law as we have know it so far would cease to exist. In a future space scenario without the
presence of the non-appropriation principle, conflicting claims among States would arise. This
situation would engender international tension and increase the risk for armed conflict in outer
space. Moreover, as soon as a State was able to gain control over an area of a celestial body,
there would be nothing to prevent such a State to impose taxes and royalties for the acquisition
of rights by private operators to use such area and its resources. As indicated by Sters and
Tennen, in a similar scenario the costs for utilizing space resources and for carrying out
exploitative missions would increase36. Therefore, the abrogation of the nonappropriation
principle would prevent instead of favour, as it is suggested by some, the commercial
development of outer space. Additionally, if States were allowed to acquire sovereignty rights
over parts of outer space, obviously they would pursue their own purposes and interests. Thus,
the idea that the exploration and use of outer space is the “province of all mankind” would lose
its relevance.
Champion Briefs
291
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Land grabs in outer space will interfere with free access to celestial
bodies.
Foster, Craig. “EXCUSE ME, YOU’RE MINING MY ASTEROID: SPACE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE
U.S. SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION.” Journal of Law, Technology & Policy. 2016. Web.
December 12, 2021. <http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Foster.pdf>.
There are also a number of concerns surrounding the passage of the Space Act. One source
points out how important the issue of space resources is and fears that Congress is pushing
through the legislation too quickly.143 There is also the fear that the Space Act will lead to
inevitable breaches of the Outer Space Treaty.144 The Outer Space Treaty seeks to quell any
land grabs and to promote the “free access to all areas of celestial bodies.”145 If, though, an
entity is given too much freedom in its operations to extract resources, free access might be
hindered. “Failing to balance these rights adequately could create overly expansive ‘bright line’
zones that could amount to land grabs strictly prohibited by the Treaty.”146 Others are
concerned by the Space Act’s lack of a system of licensing.147 This is troubling to some because
the Outer Space Treaty requires countries to take control over their citizens operating in space,
and the lack of a licensing scheme might mean that the U.S. is refusing to meet these
international obligations.148 While it appears that a licensing scheme is forthcoming upon the
presidential report required under the Space Act,149 it is not clear how long it will take for the
scheme to be in place.
Champion Briefs
292
A/2: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Profitable activities in space are still possible without property rights.
Sterling Saletta, Morgan. “Can Space Mining Benefit All Of Humanity?: The Resource Fund And
Citizen's Dividend Model Of Alaska.” Space Policy. 2018. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964616300704>.
Furthermore, in addition to important, and possibly irreconcilable, differences between a
California gold rush style approach and the OST [42], arguments suggesting fee-simple or
similar ownership is necessary for profitable private outer space resource exploitation simply
do not stand in the face of contrary evidence from numerous terrestrial examples. These
include offshore oil drilling, mining, timber and grazing operations in the United States and
internationally which are regularly and profitably undertaken without ownership [43]. Thus P.
M. Sterns and L. I. Tennen argue that the current international regime does provide an
adequate framework for commercial development in space, that fee-simple ownership is
unnecessary and: “those who advocate the renunciation and abandonment of the
nonappropriation principle are either seeking to increase their own bottom line by
disingenuous and deceptive constructs, or lack an appropriate appreciation and respect for
international processes [[44], p. 2439]”. Thus, claims that a lack of private property rights in
outer space will be a deterrent to commercial resource exploitation ventures in space do not
reflect an adequate reflection and analysis of the manner in which current terrestrial practices
might be extended into outer space without abrogating the current treaty regime. Nor would a
system based on fee simple ownership be likely to tangibly benefit more than a small
proportion of the world's population. Instead, the eventual wealth from exploiting celestial
bodies would be concentrated in the hands of a few, exacerbating rather than alleviating
existing problems for humanity and global sustainable development.
Champion Briefs
293
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Hegel NC
Private property is not integral to self-realization---Hegel overstated
his claim.
Schmidt Am Busch, Hans-Christoph. “Personal Freedom Without Private Property? Hegel, Marx,
And The Frankfurt School.” International Critical Thought 5:4. 2015. Web. December 11,
2021.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21598282.2015.1102076?casa_token=
tC6fhMztW5IAAAAA:hPERieHnH5luuGgFsEIrhTwfcoTR2iso68G18_i2IZcL9J61Z4p5a85FLV
f1lUgZo0V5tmgo2IpXLQ>.
There are good reasons to be skeptical about Hegel’s treatment of the conceptual connection
between personhood and private property. As we have seen, this connection is established by
an argument that is speculative in the Hegelian sense of the word; it relies on the assumption
that the self-relation constitutive of personhood “must” be realized in the form of a social
praxis (see section 3, Thesis a). For this reason, Hegel can at best simply show that the
connection he sees between personhood and private property is valid against the backdrop of
the premises presupposed by his “philosophy of spirit.” Yet, even if one adopts these premises,
it is unclear whether Hegel’s argument is truly satisfactory. The structural similarity Hegel posits
in Thesis c—between the self-relation that is constitutive for personhood and the relation an
individual with private property rights has towards his property—is questionable at best. While
a person can willfully distance himself from his needs, inclinations and desires as an
“individual,” it appears that an individual entitled to possess things as private property depends
on an agreement with others— and thus the recognition of those others—in order to be able to
distance himself from his property. This is obvious if one presupposes, as Hegel explicitly does
(see Hegel 1991, 102– 3), that distancing oneself from one’s property does indeed occur in
practices of gift giving and exchange. Finally, it is important to recall that Hegel tacitly assumes
Champion Briefs
294
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
that the relation of a private owner to his property is the only social relation that is structurally
similar to the willful self-relation that is constitutive of personhood (Thesis d). Here it would be
worthwhile to investigate whether or not the self-relation in question is not realizable in other
institutionalized practices as well. If that were the case, then one would be able to conclude
from Hegel’s own starting point that the institution of private property is only one possible way
in which the willful self-relation that is constitutive for personhood may be socially realized.
Champion Briefs
295
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Because Hegel's view of rationality is dialectical, even pre-property
conditions are rational---the Neg's framework is ahistorical.
Pottage, Alain. “Property: Re-appropriating Hegel.” The Modern Law Review 53:2. March, 1990.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.14682230.1990.tb01811.x>.
The more fundamental problem is that Waldron fails to get to grips with the Hegelian idea of
reason, and therefore he misunderstands Hegel’s description of private property as being
rational. The most obvious difficulty is that there is little or no appreciation of the vital Hegelian
theme of ‘reason as synthesis;’ in particular, Waldron completely (and, it must be said, quite
inexplicably) misses the point that Hegel is concerned to map out the progress of reason in
history. Even if one has reached the ‘end’ of history (and there is, of course, some argument as
to Hegel’s view on this possibility) one’s attitude to what has gone before will not be one of
crude ‘moral superiority.’ Although we might not be entirely ambivalent about having reached
the point at which we have become fully at home in the world (or become ‘satisfied’, to use
Kojbve’s expression), when it comes to observing or recalling (from the vantage point of this
dimnche de Za vie) earlier stages on the route to the end of history, what is involved is not so
much a form of criticism; rather, it is a recollection of the progress of reason in history. The
historical examples which appear in The Philosophy of Right are presented as moments in a
dialectical progression in which that which is dialectically suppressed is, in a sense, as rational
as that which supersedes it. Even pre-property states are rational in that they are a necessary
moment in the process of becoming, and are therefore an essential fragment of the rational
whole. In short, things become ‘irrational’, and the only judgement to be made is that which is
made by the tribunal of History:I7 Weltgeschichte ist Weltgericht. As Hegel observes in the
context of a discussion of property and personality: ‘[Examples] from history may serve to
rebuke the impatience of opinion and to show the length of time that mind requires for
progress in its self-consciousness. ‘I8 Waldron’s failure to take these historical concerns on
board leads him to make some rather excessive claims. There is, for example, the suggestion
Champion Briefs
296
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
that: ‘ … the case for private property given in The Philosophy of Right is a case which may be
made by or for any individual at any juncture in history, once the idea of freedom and with it
the idea of property have entered the world.’19 The obvious point about this sort of assertion is
that it betrays the extent to which Waldron remains indebted to a tradition which deals with
ethical questions as though it were a matter of dealing with 1 ‘home en soi, abstracted from his
historical context. A more specific point is that, whatever the conditions against which private
property might be judged to be rational in The Philosophy of Right, they are quite different
from the context against which the same judgement might be made of, say, the Roman empire.
The institution of private property was, in the context of the Roman empire, rational because,
in dissolving the immediate ethical unity of the early Greek and Roman states, it introduced the
idea of universality which is implicit in juridical personality. (Before this, in the world of
immediate ethical unity, there was no sense of autonomous individuality, and hence no regime
of private property.) The idea of abstract universality is not, however, sufficient in itself, which
is why, by the time we reach the State which is described in The Philosophy of Right, the
institution of property as abstract right is complemented by a reconciliation with the other
essential moments of the completed ethical community. It is a little odd, then, to say that The
Philosophy of Right develops a sort of a-historical ‘case’.for property. Hegel’s project is quite
simply not one of ‘justification. ’
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
297
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Neg's framework begs the question of the content of private
property rights, which should depend upon other considerations of
justice.
Pottage, Alain. “Property: Re-appropriating Hegel.” The Modern Law Review 53:2. March, 1990.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.14682230.1990.tb01811.x>.
In the context of ‘liberal’ thought, this is reflected in the fact that the question of property is
treated as but one facet of a wider debate about ‘justice.’ Given that this wider problem is
essentially concerned with principles or meta-principles of liberty, no argument about private
property can be free-standing. As Alan Ryan points out: ‘[Plroperty rights are nowadays
important because they are rights rather than because they are property rights. In the past a
good deal now achieved by quite other means than the creation of property rights was
necessarily achieved differently.’4 Even from the point of view of a Nozick, for whom there are
rather obvious strategic reasons for referring the conditions of the ethical good life to a right to
accumulate private wealth, there is the problem not only of specifying the content of that right
but also of assuring the political recognition and protection of this ordering of the social.
Viewed from this perspective, Jeremy Waldron’s The Right to Private Property might seem just
a little odd. There is, of course, nothing eccentric about the business of arguing for or against
the institution of private property: what does at first sight appear slightly outdated about
Waldron’s account is that, in contrast to other contemporary liberal discussions, there is no
attempt to attend to those issues which necessarily impinge upon the modem question of
property. There is, for example, no discussion of the content which a right to property might be
given. Neither is there any consideration of the relationship between property rights and rights
in general; nor (which may be the same thing) is there a discussion of the sort of political
framework within which a right to private property might make sense. The focus is more or less
exclusively on the question of an isolated right to private property. (Although The Right to
Champion Briefs
298
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private Property carefully avoids describing itself as a ‘justification’ of - or an argument for private property, one is left with the impression that this is more or less what its determination
of ‘the conditions of plausibility’ of arguments for private property amounts to. It is a nice
distinction between justifying private property and justifying the justifications.)
Champion Briefs
299
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Neg's individualistic notion of property rights overlooks the public
subsidies that made space exploration possible---that public support
justifies the cooperative ethic which guides the Aff.
Loder, Reed. “Asteroid Mining: Ecological Jurisprudence Beyond Earth.” Virginia Environmental
Law Journal 36:1. 2018. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/26510760>.
C. Corporate Incentives and Public Subsidies The companies interested in asteroid mining argue
that restrictive measures would dampen their incentive to innovate and to take on the risks and
expense of space prospecting and extraction. They urge that the Space Act is needed to support
such purposes.100 Yet, these companies fail to acknowledge that “private” innovation is
fundamentally dependent on more than fifty years of public investments in space programs
around the world.101 Governments should not give corporations unfettered property rights as
rewards for their creative energy based on an individualistic model because public
commitments, priorities, and sacrifices of other public goods have paved the way for that
innovation. In short, the Space Act has not only bypassed the treaty obligations of the United
States by creating rights of private property in space resources, but it has done so through a
simplistic, exclusive, unlimited model of ownership that overlooks enormous public interests
and contributions. The Space Act represents an aborted opportunity to shape space law on an
improved idea of property based more on cooperative relationships and reciprocal obligations
than exclusive ownership.102 Some existing property laws illustrate this tendency toward a
more communal view. Even current rights to exclude are subject to more important rights of
access in some instances to safeguard public rights,103 protect people against
discrimination,104 and protect residential tenants from unsafe and unhealthful conditions.105
Environmental law and land use regulation also significantly limit the use of private property,
sometimes interfering with development plans.106 The companies on the verge of reaping the
advantages of the Space Act have benefited from a common human venture with potential to
Champion Briefs
300
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
affect posterity. The narrow concept of exclusive private property does not match this posture.
The Space Act conceives a pre-regulatory framework, essentially leaving the right to define any
constraints on extraction and use to the first companies that arrive. Of course, legal limitations
do not apply in outer space beyond relatively sparse treaty obligations. Yet, allowing unfettered
private control is ethically concerning. Not only would actors claiming the exclusive mining and
ownership rights on asteroids violate treaty prohibitions against asserting state sovereignty
over space bodies, but the extraction, use, and transport of materials from those bodies could
also significantly alter the territory itself.
Champion Briefs
301
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Appropriation alone is insufficient under Hegel's theory of property
rights---the transfer of property via contract is necessary.
Wilson, M. Blake. “Personhood And Property In Hegel's Conception Of Freedom.” PhilArchive.
2019. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://philarchive.org/archive/WILPAP-29>.
In another departure from Locke, who prioritized the acquisition aspect of ownership, Hegel
emphasizes the contractual elements of ownership in which the parties to a property
transaction are briefly united in a common will34. Specifically, Hegel claims that we truly
become owners not by acquiring property, but when we «cease to be an owner of property» by
getting rid of it through a contract to sell it (§ 72). Hegel recognizes that the contractual or
alienable element in property means that, for a brief moment, structures such as residential
buildings are neither house nor home but both for the parties – this is the moment where an
owner’s will identifies with the next owner’s will in a «unity of different wills» (§ 72-73): This
relation of will to will is the true distinctive ground in which freedom has its existence. This
mediation whereby I no longer own property by means of a thing and my subjective will, but
also by means of another will, and hence within the context of a common (gemeinsamen) will,
constitutes the sphere of contract (§ 71). It is in the moment of this profoundly important
agreement (the «transition from property to contract») that the «contracting parties recognize
each other as persons and owners of property» (§ 71R; emphasis in original), and where the
alienation of property allows its soon-to-be former owner to experience their independence
from it as the experience of freedom from the thing itself. In this way, Hegelian property serves
as a way to mediate the intersubjectivity between persons: it is not merely the “receptacle” of
individual will or labor as liberal Lockean property theory imagines it to be. It permits persons
to recognize oneself and one another, and property holding therefore permits recognition
between conflicting persons and their competing wills. Because property transfers are social
interactions, they therefore require extensive moral foundations as well as social institutions
for their success. The primary moral foundation is the idea of respect.
Champion Briefs
302
A/2: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private property rights aren't necessary to space development. The
Moon Agreement, for example, facilitates space mineral development
without private property rights.
Sterling Saletta, Morgan. “Can Space Mining Benefit All Of Humanity?: The Resource Fund And
Citizen's Dividend Model Of Alaska.” Space Policy. 2018. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964616300704>.
The Outer Space Treaty has provided an effective legal framework for the exploration of outer
space for over 50 years. Based on the history of treaty regimes governing other international
spaces, UNCLOS and the ATS, it seems likely that, in future, additional protocols and
agreements will be layered onto the OST and that calls to abrogate and to negotiate a wholly
new treaty system are unlikely to succeed. While low participation in the Moon Agreement,
also known as the Moon Treaty of 1979, which has not been ratified by either the United
States, Russia, or China, has raised questions of legitimacy, it has recently been argued that the
Moon Treaty may receive renewed interest in the international community. René Lefeber
argues that, far from stifling commercial ventures, the Moon Agreement “provides the best
available option for mankind, states and industry to develop space mineral resources in a
harmonious way [[5], p. 47]”, and that, as resource exploitation in outer space now seems
likely, the need to elaborate an international regime to prevent conflict over resources may
bring other parties to ratify, accede to, or sign the treaty.
Champion Briefs
303
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
No environment impact - tipping points are wrong and we don't need
biodiversity to survive.
Brook, Barry. “The Limits Of Planetary Boundaries 2.0.” Brave New Climate. January 16, 2015.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://bravenewclimate.com/2015/01/16/the-limits-ofplanetary-boundaries-2-0/>.
Steffen et al (2015) revise the “planetary boundaries framework” initially proposed in 2009 as
the “safe limits” for human alteration of Earth processes(Rockstrom et al 2009). Limiting human
harm to environments is a major challenge and we applaud all efforts to increase the public
utility of global-change science. Yet the planetary boundaries (PB) framework – in its original
form and as revised by Steffen et al – obscures rather than clarifies the environmental and
sustainability challenges faced by humanity this century. Steffen et al concede that “not all
Earth system processes included in the PB have singular thresholds at the
global/continental/ocean basin level.” Such processes include biosphere integrity (see Brook et
al 2013), biogeochemical flows, freshwater use, and land-system change. “Nevertheless,” they
continue, “it is important that boundaries be established for these processes.” Why? Where a
global threshold is unknown or lacking, there is no scientifically robust way of specifying such a
boundary – determining a limit along a continuum of environmental change becomes a matter
of guesswork or speculation (see e.g. Bass 2009;Nordhaus et al 2012). For instance, the landsystem boundary for temperate forest is set at 50% of forest cover remaining. There is no
robust justification for why this boundary should not be 40%, or 70%, or some other level.
While the stated objective of the PB framework is to “guide human societies” away from a state
of the Earth system that is “less hospitable to the development of human societies”, it offers
little scientific evidence to support the connection between the global state of specific Earth
system processes and human well-being. Instead, the Holocene environment (the most recent
Champion Briefs
304
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
10,000 years) is assumed to be ideal. Yet most species evolved before the Holocene and the
contemporary ecosystems that sustain humanity are agroecosystems, urban ecosystems and
other human-altered ecosystems that in themselves represent some of the most important
global and local environmental changes that characterize the Anthropocene. Contrary to the
authors’ claim that the Holocene is the “only state of the planet that we know for certain can
support contemporary human societies,” the human-altered ecosystems of the Anthropocene
represent the only state of the planet that we know for certain can support contemporary
civilization. Human alteration of environments produces multiple effects, some advantageous
to societies, such as enhanced food production, and some detrimental, like environmental
pollution with toxic chemicals, excess nutrients and carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and the
loss of wildlife and their habitats. The key to better environmental outcomes is not in ending
human alteration of environments but in anticipating and mitigating their negative
consequences. These decisions and trade-offs should be guided by robust evidence, with
global-change science investigating the connections and tradeoffs between the state of the
environment and human well-being in the context of the local setting, rather than by framing
and reframing environmental challenges in terms of untestable assumptions about the virtues
of past environments. Even without specifying exact global boundaries, global metrics can be
highly misleading for policy. For example, with nitrogen, where the majority of human
emissions come from synthetic fertilizers, the real-world challenge is to apply just the right
amount of nitrogen to optimize crop yields while minimizing nitrogen losses that harm aquatic
ecosystems. Reducing fertilizer application in Africa might seem beneficial globally, yet the
result in this region would be even poorer crop yields without any notable reduction in nitrogen
pollution; Africa’s fertilizer use is already suboptimal for crop yields. What can look like a good
or a bad thing globally can prove exactly the opposite when viewed regionally and locally. What
use is a global indicator for a local issue? As in real estate, location is everything.
Champion Briefs
305
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
No impact to warming - empirics, adaptation, and their science is
flawed.
Shani, Amir. “There Is Always Time For Rational Skepticism: Reply To Hall Et Al.”. April, 2015.
Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517714001836?casa_token=
YyiNztGuRL8AAAAA:dV8Gx8Lvk6vug55FBzStVEdlWpZogozjDq7pCItT4liGschbPS8kNq4zTetDnU0o81OGU9UtCk>.
The uncertainty that encompasses current climate change assessments is strengthened in light
of the studies indicating that over earth's history there have been distinct warm periods with
temperatures exceeding the current ones (Esper et al., 2012, McIntyre and McKittrick, 2003 and
Soon and Baliunas, 2003). Reviewing the relevant scientific literature, Khandekar, Murty, and
Chittibabu (2005) concluded that “in the context of the earth's climate through the last 500
million years, the recent (1975–2000) increase in the earth's mean temperature does not
appear to be unusual or unprecedented as claimed by IPCC and many supporters of the global
warming hypothesis” (p. 1568). Other studies challenged the mainstream climate change
narrative, according to which CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere play a prominent role in
rising temperatures. One notable example is the research by Shaviv and Veizer (2003), which
demonstrates that the earth's temperature correlates well with variations in cosmic ray flux,
rather than changes in atmospheric CO2. These findings and others stir contentious debates
within the climate scientific community, but are nevertheless largely overlooked by the IPCC,
which ignores alternative explanations for climate change. Regrettably, Hall et al. scornfully
dismiss this evidence, presented in our research note, based on cherry-picking of a few “nonpeer-reviewed” references that were cited, some vague claims about “misreading” and
“selective citing,” as well as other semantic nitpicking. 4. Impacts of climate change The IPCC
warns that climate change is likely to have severe consequences, particularly for poor countries,
such as increased hunger, water shortages, vulnerability to extreme weather events and
debilitating diseases. However, these estimations have been heavily criticized for failing to
Champion Briefs
306
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
properly account for substantial improvements in adaptive capacity (i.e., the capability of
coping with the impact of global warming) that are likely to occur due to advances in economic
development, technological change and human capital over the next century (Goklany, 2007).
Fostering economic growth and technological development, largely achievable through the use
of fossil fuels, will strengthen both industrialized and developing countries' adaptive capacity to
deal not just with possible future climate change consequences, but also with other
environmental and public health problems. Such policy will provide greater benefits at lower
costs than drastic climate change mitigation efforts involving substantially cutting greenhouse
gas emissions (Goklany, 2004 and Goklany, 2012). Furthermore, the analyses of Galiana and
Green (2009) exemplify that in the current state of energy technologies, the suggested plans for
ambitious emission reductions will likely severely clobber the global economy, especially in
view of present economic conditions. In order to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at accepted levels,
there is a need for enormous advances in efficient energy technology, which is currently
missing (Pielke, Wigley & Green, 2008). In any case, even if every industrialized nation meets
the most ambitious emissions targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, such efforts are likely to have
little effect, particularly in the light of the considerable increases in greenhouse gas emissions
by rising economic superpowers as China and India, as well as the remaining developing world
(Wigley, 1998). Hall et al. criticized us for choosing “selective citations…that discuss natural
processes potentially affect climate in specific locations and times.” Yet the purpose of referring
to such studies was to refute the claims made by the IPCC and other climate change alarmists
to the effect that recent extreme weather events (e.g., floods, droughts and storms) are the
consequences of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Moreover, data shows that
despite claims that the number and intensity of extreme weather has increased, between 1900
and 2010 the average annual death and death rates from extreme weather events has declined
by 93% and 98%, respectively (Goklany, 2009). This is mostly due to economic and technological
factors, such as improved global food production, increase globalized food trade and better
disaster preparedness. IPCC's exaggerated estimations of climate change impacts were also
noted in an op-ed in Financial Times written by climate economist Richard Tol (2014), a week
following his demand that his name as one of the leading authors be removed from the IPCC's
Champion Briefs
307
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
AR5 due to its over alarmist assessments of the impacts of AGW and underestimation of
humanity's adaptive capacity. As concluded by Tol, “Humans are a tough and adaptable species.
People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived ice
ages with primitive technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to
humankind is laughable” (2014, para 1).
Champion Briefs
308
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Overpopulation is good, a decrease in fertility rates fuels populist
sentiment.
Khazan, Olga. “A Surprising Reason To Worry About Low Birth Rates.” Atlantic. May 26, 2018.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/05/asurprising-reason-to-worry-about-low-birth-rates/561308/>.
Discussion about the great American baby bust often seems meant to induce fear. The concern
is that with fewer babies, economic growth will plummet, and too-few workers will have to
shoulder the burden of an aging population. But if I’m being honest, the latest news about the
drop in American births did not raise my blood pressure much. Maybe it’s because I, myself, am
kind of “eh” on kids in general. Maybe I’ve just been watching too many men beseech women
to do their feminine duties on Handmaid’s Tale. So American women are opting out of
parenting? Good for them! More time for Netflix, making money, reading my articles—to name
just three very pleasurable activities that don’t cause stretch marks. Or at least, so I thought. I
recently came across something that’s made me sit up and pay attention to fertility rates: There
is research linking falling fertility to rising populism. Definitions of populism vary, but it’s often
thought to be a political philosophy in which “the people” are pitted against elites and outsiders
in a struggle for domination. The rhetoric of President Trump is often considered to be populist.
In the world’s largest cities, where populations are densely concentrated and growing,
economies are generally thriving and cosmopolitanism is embraced. Where populations are
sparse or shrinking, usually in rural places and small cities, economies are often stagnant, and
populism sells. Why does it hold such appeal in these places? Nativist, nationalist rhetoric—
”Make America (or Whatever Other Country) Great Again”—appeals because it promises to
restore the rightful economic and cultural stature of “common people” … Where populations
decline, populists arise—more often than not, promising to reverse history and restore past
glory if not demographic dominance. The problems typically associated with falling fertility are
a struggle to pay for Social Security and Medicare in the long run. Fewer babies today means
fewer workers in the future, which means less money in the Social-Security pot. These might
Champion Briefs
309
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
seem like relatively manageable threats: We could simply raise immigration quotas to boost the
number of “missing” workers, for example. But it’s the very arrival of these immigrants that
might fuel populist sentiment. The way this would work, as my colleague Derek Thompson has
explained, is in a sort of doom loop: Population plummets, immigration increases, people get
scared by the influx of newcomers, they become more xenophobic, and thus more inclined to
support nationalist parties. “There is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white
countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived
threat of the foreign-born to national culture,” Thompson writes. It’s not clear that simply
increasing the number of immigrants to the United States will tilt people further to the populist
right. For one thing, societies and cities with large numbers of immigrants don’t necessarily
harbor more populist sentiments, as the psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky explains at The
Conversation: For example, in 1978, when net migration to the U.K. was around zero, up to 70
percent of the British public felt that they were in danger of “being swamped” by other
cultures. Conversely, in the early 2010s, the white Britons who were least concerned about
immigration were those who lived in highly diverse areas in “Cosmopolitan London.” Instead, it
might have more to do with how fast the immigrants come in, where they end up living, and
how well they’re received. Just before the 2016 election, The Wall Street Journal found that it
was counties that were diversifying more quickly than the rest of the country that were more
likely to be drawn to Donald Trump. In other words, these weren’t places like Miami and Los
Angeles, where immigrants have long made up much of the population. These are places like
Arcadia, Wisconsin, where the “diversity index” had increased by more than 150 percent in
recent years. There, “Mr. Trump’s pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border and
prioritize jobs for American workers has struck a chord with some whites uneasy over rapidly
changing demographics,” the WSJ reporters Janet Adamy and Paul Overberg wrote. “They said
they are worried illegal immigrants are crowding schools and unfairly tapping public assistance,
problems they believe Mr. Trump would fix.” That vague sense of “unease” seems to be the
crux of nationalist and populist sentiment. Rather than being predominately motivated by
racism—though it often is that—populism seems like a wide-ranging desire to return to the
glory days, before things changed so much. In a 2011 academic article, Anna Sofia Lundgren and
Champion Briefs
310
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Karin Ljuslinder describe how populism and an aging population might be related. Populist
rhetoric requires an enemy that is meant to be defeated, they write, and in this case, that
enemy is a lack of native births—a trend that’s portrayed as unnatural: What is central to
populism is not just the constitution of an enemy, but also the location of that enemy outside
of the system. In the studied case this meant setting aside the possibility that the processes of
population ageing are inherent to modern societies. For example, modern aspects such as
improved and increasingly technology-intensive equipment, more expensive medical care,
better living conditions, norms of ‘‘finding oneself’’ before starting a family, increased demands
for higher education and so on, all contribute to higher average age rates and lower fertility
rates. These are all things that most people find central to an individualized democratic modern
lifestyle and which they do not wish to change. By ignoring how our way of living and thinking
contribute to a situation of population ageing, populist discourse produces population ageing as
not only a threatening enemy, but also as an external enemy that is conceptualised as
inexorable. It doesn’t seem to matter if the immigrants that come in don’t actually displace
native-born people, or if the lower birth rate reflects the true desires of the native-born
women. As Lewandowsky writes, populism seems to have more to do with how people feel
about their place in the world relative to others, rather than where they actually sit: There is
now reasonably consistent evidence that populism thrives on people’s feeling of a lack of
political power, a belief that the world is unfair and that they do not get what they deserve—
and that the world is changing too quickly for them to retain control. Whenever people
attribute the origins of their perceived vulnerability to factors outside themselves, populism is
not far away. Finally, a study from 2016 in Belgium underscored how the powerlessness, the
rapid demographic change, and the xenophobia all fuel a kind of anarchic and bleak perspective
on the country’s future. It found that “populist attitudes are grounded in a deep discontent, not
only with politics but also with societal life in general.” People who feel more vulnerable in
various ways, that study suggests, are drawn toward populism as a sort of coping strategy. This
is where I could see falling birth rates playing a role in populism. Seeing your small town vanish,
watching your friends grow old and die and not leave anyone behind—it can make you feel kind
of, well, vulnerable. Places don’t tend to feel complete without young people. The desire to
Champion Briefs
311
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
avoid that absence is natural, but left unchecked, it can be xenophobic, too. In the most
extreme cases, it might make you drawn to the promise that your kind of people will rise again.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
312
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Low fertility rates increase cultural anxiety.
Wichterman, Jenna. “NYT Columnist Lectures On Impacts Of Low Fertility Rates.”. April 26,
2017. Web. December 11, 2021. <https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/nytcolumnist-lectures-on-impacts-low-fertility/docview/1891864375/se2?accountid=10901>.
Ross Douhat was the youngest columnist ever to be hired by the New York Times. The youngest
columnist to ever be hired to write for the New York Times, Ross Douthat, delivered a lecture in
Minor Hall Monday and spoke about how low fertility rates in the Western world can
contribute to economic and cultural unrest. Director of the National Marriage Project Brad
Wilcox hosted Douthat’s lecture, which was entitled, “Other People's Babies: The Unhappy
Politics of Low Fertility.” A crowd of roughly 50 students and community members were in
attendance. Douthat began by pointing out the low fertility rates in the West and said Western
women aren’t having enough children in order to replace current population numbers. He cited
high child survival rates as something which reduces incentives to have big families as well as
the shift from agrarian to industrial economies, which takes away the necessity of having
children to help around the house. Douthat said one result of low fertility rates is an economic
stagnation. “Low replacement birthrates turn rich societies into aging societies, with fewer
workers and more retirees,” Douthat said. Douthat said studies show older populations tend to
be less dynamic and more risk-averse than societies with younger demographics. Douthat cites
this as one reason for stagnant wages, slow economic growth and disappointing technological
progress outside of information technology. Douthat mentioned that in the U.S. and Europe,
one way of dealing with low fertility rates has been through allowing larger-scale immigration.
This, he noted, has its own consequences on certain Western populations. “[Immigration]
delivers the promise of a more dynamic future, potentially,” Douthat said. “But for natives who
are aging and these communities aren’t thriving, it also suggests that the benefits of that
imagined future belong to people who seem culturally alienated, to inheritors who aren’t your
natural heirs, to other people’s children and grandchildren rather than the dwindling numbers
Champion Briefs
313
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
of your own.” The name of Douthat’s talk is a reference to Congressman Steve King’s
controversial tweet published March 12 where he referenced a Dutch politician and said “We
can’t restore our civilization with someone else’s babies.” Douthat said he felt this tweet was
bigoted but pointed to a larger cultural feeling of anxiety in some parts of the West about
increased immigration. “The conclusion of the talk is basically that this anxiety could push
Western society, and especially maybe European societies, towards deeper political crisis, more
sort of populism, more tensions between immigrants and so on,” Douthat said. Douthat offered
possible solutions to this anxiety and division, one of them being encouraging native-born
Westerners to have more children. “Had older generations of the Brexit-voting British and the
Trump-voting Americans had more children in every family, then they would enjoy a larger
economy, better growth prospects, less inequality, more of a community around them in their
old age,” Douthat said. Douthat said higher fertility rates in native-born Westerners will also
likely lead to a more welcoming culture towards immigrants. “The West would need immigrants
less, but find it easier to welcome them, since the prospect of assimilating migrants and
refugees might look like less of a challenge to the country’s core identity,” Douthat said. Vijay
Menon, a fourth-year College student, attended the lecture and had read Douthat’s articles
before he saw him speak at the University. He said he thought the talk was informative, but had
some doubts about Douthat’s solutions. “The one thing I am skeptical over is the ability of
government policy to effectively promote child-rearing,” Menon said. Menon said the biggest
thing he took away from the event was an emphasis on family. “Family is important, and it goes
beyond your own family,” Menon said. “It can have important consequences for culture,
politics and the way we interact with each other.”
Champion Briefs
314
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The colonization of Mars is literally impossible - laundry list of
reasons.
Dvorsky, George. “Humans Will Never Colonize Mars.” Gizmodo. July 30, 2019. Web. December
11, 2021. <https://gizmodo.com/humans-will-never-colonize-mars-1836316222>.
The suggestion that humans will soon set up bustling, long-lasting colonies on Mars is
something many of us take for granted. What this lofty vision fails to appreciate, however, are
the monumental—if not intractable—challenges awaiting colonists who want to permanently
live on Mars. Unless we radically adapt our brains and bodies to the harsh Martian
environment, the Red Planet will forever remain off limits to humans. Mars is the closest thing
we have to Earth in the entire solar system, and that’s not saying much. The Red Planet is a
cold, dead place, with an atmosphere about 100 times thinner than Earth’s. The paltry amount
of air that does exist on Mars is primarily composed of noxious carbon dioxide, which does little
to protect the surface from the Sun’s harmful rays. Air pressure on Mars is very low; at 600
Pascals, it’s only about 0.6 percent that of Earth. You might as well be exposed to the vacuum
of space, resulting in a severe form of the bends—including ruptured lungs, dangerously
swollen skin and body tissue, and ultimately death. The thin atmosphere also means that heat
cannot be retained at the surface. The average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees Fahrenheit
(-63 degrees Celsius), with temperatures dropping as low as -195 degrees F (-126 degrees C). By
contrast, the coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was at Vostok Station in Antarctica,
at -128 degrees F (-89 degrees C) on June 23, 1982. Once temperatures get below the -40
degrees F/C mark, people who aren’t properly dressed for the occasion can expect hypothermia
to set in within about five to seven minutes. Mars also has less mass than is typically
appreciated. Gravity on the Red Planet is 0.375 that of Earth’s, which means a 180-pound
person on Earth would weigh a scant 68 pounds on Mars. While that might sound appealing,
this low-gravity environment would likely wreak havoc to human health in the long term, and
possibly have negative impacts on human fertility. Yet despite these and a plethora of other
issues, there’s this popular idea floating around that we’ll soon be able to set up colonies on
Champion Briefs
315
A/2: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mars with ease. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is projecting colonies on Mars as early as the 2050s,
while astrobiologist Lewis Darnell, a professor at the University of Westminster, has offered a
more modest estimate, saying it’ll be about 50 to 100 years before “substantial numbers of
people have moved to Mars to live in self-sustaining towns.” The United Arab Emirates is
aiming to build a Martian city of 600,000 occupants by 2117, in one of the more ambitious
visions of the future. Sadly, this is literally science fiction. While there’s no doubt in my mind
that humans will eventually visit Mars and even build a base or two, the notion that we’ll soon
set up colonies inhabited by hundreds or thousands of people is pure nonsense, and an
unmitigated denial of the tremendous challenges posed by such a prospect. Pioneering
astronautics engineer Louis Friedman, co-founder of the Planetary Society and author of
Human Spaceflight: From Mars to the Stars, likens this unfounded enthusiasm to the unfulfilled
visions proposed during the 1940s and 1950s. “Back then, cover stories of magazines like
Popular Mechanics and Popular Science showed colonies under the oceans and in the
Antarctic,” Friedman told Gizmodo. The feeling was that humans would find a way to occupy
every nook and cranny of the planet, no matter how challenging or inhospitable, he said. “But
this just hasn’t happened. We make occasional visits to Antarctica and we even have some
bases there, but that’s about it. Under the oceans it’s even worse, with some limited human
operations, but in reality it’s really very, very little.” As for human colonies in either of these
environments, not so much. In fact, not at all, despite the relative ease at which we could
achieve this. After the Moon landings, Friedman said he and his colleagues were hugely
optimistic about the future, believing “we would do more and more things, such as place
colonies on Mars and the Moon,” but the “fact is, no human spaceflight program, whether
Apollo, the Space Shuttle Program, or the International Space Station,” has established the
necessary groundwork for setting up colonies on Mars, such as building the required
infrastructure, finding safe and viable ways of sourcing food and water, mitigating the
deleterious effects of radiation and low gravity, among other issues. Unlike other fields,
development into human spaceflight, he said, “has become static.” Friedman agreed that we’ll
likely build bases on Mars, but the “evidence of history” suggests colonization is unlikely for the
foreseeable future.
Champion Briefs
316
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Unilateral US pursuit of space mining will cause counterbalancing by
China and Russia---only an international framework such as the Aff
will prevent space from becoming a Wild West.
Jamasmie, Cecelia. “Experts Warn Of Brewing Space Mining War Among US, China And Russia.”
Mining.com. February 02, 2021. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.mining.com/experts-warn-of-brewing-space-mining-war-among-uschina-and-russia/>.
A brewing war to set a mining base in space is likely to see China and Russia joining forces to
keep the US increasing attempts to dominate extra-terrestrial commerce at bay, experts warn.
The Trump Administration took an active interest in space, announcing that America would
return astronauts to the moon by 2024 and creating the Space Force as the newest branch of
the US military. It also proposed global legal framework for mining on the moon, called the
Artemis Accords, encouraging citizens to mine the Earth’s natural satellite and other celestial
bodies with commercial purposes. The directive classified outer space as a “legally and
physically unique domain of human activity” instead of a “global commons,” paving the way for
mining the moon without any sort of international treaty. Spearheaded by the US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Artemis Accords were signed in October by
Australia, Canada, England, Japan, Luxembourg, Italy and the United Emirates. “Unfortunately,
the Trump Administration exacerbated a national security threat and risked the economic
opportunity it hoped to secure in outer space by failing to engage Russia or China as potential
partners,” says Elya Taichman, former legislative director for then-Republican Michelle Lujan
Grisham. “Instead, the Artemis Accords have driven China and Russia toward increased
cooperation in space out of fear and necessity,” he writes. Russia’s space agency Roscosmos
was the first to speak up, likening the policy to colonialism. “There have already been examples
Champion Briefs
317
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
in history when one country decided to start seizing territories in its interest — everyone
remembers what came of it,” Roscosmos’ deputy general director for international
cooperation, Sergey Saveliev, said at the time. China, which made history in 2019 by becoming
the first country to land a probe on the far side of the Moon, chose a different approach. Since
the Artemis Accords were first announced, Beijing has approached Russia to jointly build a lunar
research base. President Xi Jinping has also he made sure China planted its flag on the Moon,
which happened in December 2020, more than 50 years after the US reached the lunar surface.
The next Wild West? China has historically been excluded from the US-led international order in
space. It is not a partner in the International Space Station (ISS) program, and a US legislative
provision has limited NASA’s ability to cooperate with it in space since 2011. “America and
China should cooperate in space,” say policy experts Anne-Marie Slaughter and Emily Lawrence.
“If the US managed to coordinate with the Soviet Union on space policy during the Cold War, it
can find a way to cooperate with China now,” they note. Slaughter, a former director of policy
planning in the US State Department from 2009 to 2011, believes that President Joe Biden’s
team should distance from Trump’s accords and instead pursue a new course within the UN
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. “Biden can restore some of America’s global
legitimacy by working to establish a multilateral framework, negotiated with all relevant parties
that protects areas of common interest while granting internationally accepted commercial
opportunities,” Slaughter and Lawrence wrote. It will not be an easy task, they say, but a
necessary one. “Without an international framework that includes all major spacefaring
countries, the moon could become the next Wild West.” The race is on. It has been for a while.
So much so that NASA has laid out a $28 billion plan to launch an unmanned mission around
the moon in 2021, followed by a crewed moon flyby in 2023, then a lunar landing in 2024. NASA
plans to build a permanent moon-orbiting base called the Gateway, similar to the ISS. From
there, the agency hopes to build a base on the lunar surface, where it can mine the resources
required to fly the first astronauts to Mars. Russia has been pursuing plans in recent years to
return to the moon, potentially travelling further into outer space. Roscosmos revealed in 2018
plans to establish a long-term base on the moon over the next two decades, while President
Vladimir Putin has vowed to launch a mission to Mars “very soon.”
Champion Briefs
318
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Assertion of US hegemony in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty
will produce a “first dibs” mindset that threatens the safety and
ecological sustainability of space.
Taylor, Kurt. “Fictions Of The Final Frontier: Why The United States SPACE Act Of 2015 Is
Illegal.” Emory International Law Review 33:4. 2019. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1218&context=
eilr>.
C. Practical Concerns: Government Force Another argument some scholars advocate for is that
the United States is asserting its intentions with the passage of the SPACE Act of 2015 without
any regard to the Outer Space Treaty through hegemony.138 If the international community
allows countries to pass domestic laws like the United States SPACE Act of 2015, it is allowing
those countries to completely disregard the Outer Space Treaty and instead engage in
hegemony. This is essentially a “so what” approach where a country uses its military power and
international authority to exercise dominance over an outer space resource to the exclusion of
all other countries, and without regard to the Outer Space Treaty.139 As Alfred McCoy points
out, such international displays of hegemonic power are not a new practice of the United
States,140 and it is likely that the United States intends the passage of the SPACE Act of 2015 to
be one of these displays.141 The biggest problem with this perspective is that it does not really
resolve the dissonance between the Treaty and the Act at all, but simply ignores it. It also
seems unlikely that the international community will accept this kind of dominion over outer
space resources by one or a few countries without forceful opposition by other states. Moving
forward, it makes most sense for the current international regime against appropriation of
outer space resources to control for reasons that go beyond international norms of treaty law.
First, as previously discussed, there is a risk of hegemony over outer space resources if the
United States protects its citizens’ appropriation. Further, the risk of hegemony and its
potential for abuse goes against the purpose of the original Outer Space Treaty itself. It is
Champion Briefs
319
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
apparent that concerns about ensuring international cooperation and agreement over outer
space in its entirety was important to the drafters. In addition, the drafters were very specific in
their desire for outer space to be the province of all humankind for scientific use and other
peaceful purposes.142 Allowing the United States to continue its apparent path of
appropriation through hegemony goes directly against the purpose of the Outer Space Treaty.
It, by its very definition, gives only countries—like the United States—first dibs, and therefore
the rights to claim ownership over outer space resources simply because they have the means
to get there. In a theoretical world where the Outer Space Treaty does not continue to control,
consequences of a space race to claim as many celestial resources as possible is likely to ensue.
Without the Outer Space Treaty, countries are essentially free to use outer space in any way
they wish without giving any regard to other countries or the celestial resources themselves.
For instance, a country could mount a nuclear weapon on the moon or dump its nuclear waste
in outer space without facing any real repercussions for doing so. It is necessary to have some
kind of instrument to govern the use of outer space. If the Outer Space Treaty does not
continue to control, then another treaty or instrument is necessary to ensure the safety and
ecological impact of using outer space.
Champion Briefs
320
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Unilateral recognition of private property rights in space will backfire
with reputational costs to the US for violating international law. That
undermines leadership in the long-term.
Brehm, Andrew. “Private Property In Outer Space: Establishing A Foundation For Future
Exploration.” Wisconsin International Law Journal. 2015. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://uwlaw-omeka.s3.us-east2.amazonaws.com/original/85c099453455f8163454cd946f8762427c1a910f.pdf>.
Of course, the United States could withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and unilaterally
recognize private property ownership in outer space. However, this action would result in a
number of potentially problematic consequences. First, the United States would face
international political consequences if it were to unilaterally adopt domestic legislation that
establishes private property rights in outer space. Such an action is certainly possible but, as
space law attorney Michael Listner points out, “to take that stand against the rest of the world,
would take a lot of political will and the government would take a hit. It's sort of a nonstarter.”'
Additionally, there is a serious concern about the precedent that would be created if the United
States were to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and recognize property rights through
domestic legislation. For example, Szoka and Dustin pose questions about what would prevent
China, for example, from adopting domestic legislation that goes even further: “[w]hat if the
first time a Chinese probe lands on the moon, the moon could be claimed [under Chinese
Domestic Law] by the 'Great Wall Company,' owned by the People's Liberation Army?” 62 This
would place the United States in a position that it would have to argue that its law should be
followed while the Chinese law is invalid and should not be permitted. Such an outcome would
result in the sort of territorial competition the Outer Space Treaty was intended to prevent and
would directly contradict the treaty's preamble, which states that “cooperation will contribute
to the development of mutual understanding and to the strengthening of friendly relations
between States and peoples.”63
Champion Briefs
321
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
American unilateralism fails to produce effective norms because it
leaves out China, Russia, and India from the process.
Boley, Aaron. “Response [to Letter To The Editor].” Science Magazine 370. November 27, 2020.
Web. December 12, 2021. <https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf2456>.
The four treaties that make up the core of international space law, to which Gilbert et al.
positively refer, were negotiated through a multilateral process. The U.S. approach leaves out
Russia, China, and India—all powerful space actors. As for deep seabed mining, the greatest
challenge has not been multilateralism, but prohibitively high costs. So far, the International
Seabed Authority created under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has issued
exploratory contracts for over 1.3 million square kilometers of the high seas (4). Sundahl
focuses exclusively on the Artemis Accords without acknowledging the multiple components we
discussed that now make up U.S. Space Policy, including the September 2020 announcement
that NASA would purchase lunar regolith from a private company. Such a purchase would set a
precedent for the U.S. view that commercial space mining is legal—a view not supported by
most other nations. Our Policy Forum examines the concerted U.S. effort to secure widespread
acceptance of the U.S. preferred interpretation of space law as the international interpretation
of space law. We are pleased that NASA partner states ultimately chose not to make the
Artemis Accords legally binding. As explicitly non-binding political documents, their effect on
existing international law will be limited. At the same time, this means that—legally speaking—
the United States might continue to act unilaterally in space, for instance, by pursuing the
planned purchase of regolith. Although the Accords make multiple references to an eventual
multilateral process, this is not guaranteed and would take place against the backdrop of any
U.S. unilateralism. As for the safety zones foreseen in the Artemis Accords, we appreciate that
the zones are only meant to be advisory; however, notifying the United Nations of any such
zone will have no legitimizing effect in the absence of a multilateral regime for space mining. It
also raises the question of how China and other spacefaring nations might regard any safety
zones that they choose to establish, now that the United States has opened this door.
Champion Briefs
322
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Unilateral norm setting by the US in space decks US-Russia relations--lack of cooperation between space-faring powers means that space
mining will cause even more debris.
Boley, Aaron. “U.S. Policy Puts The Safe Development Of Space At Risk.” Science Magazine 370.
October 09, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd3402>.
The Artemis Accords have been condemned by Russia as a blatant move to remake
international space law in favor of the United States. The first casualty of this initiative might
therefore be the long and stable relationship of space cooperation between these two nations.
Nor is there any indication that the United States will involve China, another superpower and
an increasingly capable space actor, in this effort to develop a new governance regime. Mining
Opportunities and Risks The commercial potential of space mining is receiving most of the
attention, but there is also a strong motivation rooted in science and exploration. At least 14
national space agencies have identified in situ resource use (ISRU) as a needed capability for
long-duration missions, including crewed missions to the Moon, Mars, and deep space (2).
Artemis will be the first such NASA-led program (3). Resources such as ice and water-bearing
minerals from the lunar South Pole will provide fuel, radiation shielding, and life support for
surface and orbital operations. The regolith will be mined for construction materials and as a
source of hydrogen and oxygen (4). Many asteroids also contain an abundance of water and
minerals (5, 6) that could be used to support space operations. ISRU will provide new science
opportunities and unprecedented sampling of celestial bodies. For example, asteroids contain
some of the oldest materials in the Solar System, some of which have experienced little thermal
processing since their incorporation into parent bodies. The Moon's ice deposits are a partial
record of volatile delivery to Earth. However, space mining, especially if conducted by loosely
regulated private companies, could hinder science. For example, water and oxygen could be
extracted from astromaterials by pyrolysis (7), and, without systematic scientific sampling
Champion Briefs
323
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
before alteration or consumption, valuable information about the Solar System (e.g., locked
into cosmochemical or mineralogical signatures) could be lost. Analysis to maximize resource
yields is not generally the same as that needed for understanding the Solar System. Inconsistent
practices in resource extraction, a likely result of purely national regulations, would only
exacerbate the losses in scientific opportunities (8). Some of the first efforts at private space
exploration have already manifested a less than rigorous approach to risk avoidance. In 2019,
the Israeli nonprofit SpaceIL crashed a robotic lander on the Moon. Unbeknownst to SpaceIL, its
partner—the Arch Mission Foundation—had placed thousands of nearly indestructible
tardigrades on board (9). In 2018, SpaceX launched a Tesla automobile on an orbit that extends
past Mars; although no impact with Mars is expected, there was an initial lack of clarity on the
mission profile and the potential for the unsterilized payload to encounter Mars (10). Mining
can generate serious operational concerns. Lunar dust is a known challenge to operations on
the Moon. Any surface activity could exacerbate lunar dust migration, including by lofting dust
onto trajectories that cross lunar orbits, such as that of NASA's proposed Lunar Gateway (11).
Moreover, without cooperation by all actors, the limited number of useful lunar orbits could
quickly become filled with space debris.
Champion Briefs
324
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The Artemis Accords will fail to secure US leadership over space
norms---it's already caused backlash because the US went outside
traditional diplomatic channels.
Newman, Christopher. “Artemis Accords: Why Many Countries Are Refusing To Sign Moon
Exploration Agreement.” The Conversation. October 19, 2020. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://theconversation.com/artemis-accords-why-many-countries-are-refusingto-sign-moon-exploration-agreement-148134>.
Controversial issues If the substance is reassuring, the US promotion of the accords outside of
the “normal” channels of international space law – such as the UN Committee on the Peaceful
Uses of Outer Space – will be a cause of consternation for some states. By requiring potential
collaborators to sign bilateral agreements on behaviour instead, some nations will see the US as
trying to impose their own quasi-legal rules. This could see the US leveraging partnership
agreements and lucrative financial contracts to reinforce its own dominant leadership position.
Russia has already stated that the Artemis Program is too “US-centric” to sign it in its present
form. China’s absence is explained by the US congressional prohibition on collaboration with
the country. Concerns that this is a power grab by the US and its allies are fuelled by the lack of
any African or South American countries amongst the founding partner states. Intriguingly
Germany, France and India are also absent. These are countries with well developed space
programmes that would surely have benefited from being involved in Project Artemis. Their
opposition may be down to a preference for the Moon Agreement and a desire to see a
properly negotiated treaty governing lunar exploration. The European Space Agency (ESA) as an
organisation has not signed on to the accords either, but a number of ESA member states have.
This is unsurprising. The ambitious US deadline for the project will clash with the lengthy
consultation of the 17 member states required for the ESA to sign on as a whole. Ultimately,
the Artemis Accords are revolutionary in the field of space exploration. Using bilateral
agreements that dictate norms of behaviour as a condition of involvement in a programme is a
Champion Briefs
325
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
significant change in space governance. With Russia and China opposing them, the accords are
sure to meet diplomatic resistance and their very existence may provoke antagonism in
traditional UN forums.
Champion Briefs
326
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The US's bilateral model of norm-setting in space will set a precedent
for unregulated, chaotic space mining---a patchwork of conflicting
national regulations will increase the prevalence of space junk.
Wall, Mike. “US Policy Could Thwart Sustainable Space Development, Researchers Say.”
Space.com. October 08, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://www.space.com/usspace-policy-mining-artemis-accords>.
The United States' space policy threatens the safe and sustainable development of the final
frontier, two researchers argue. The U.S. is pushing national rather than multilateral regulation
of space mining, an approach that could have serious negative consequences, astronomer
Aaron Boley and political scientist Michael Byers, both of the University of British Columbia in
Vancouver, write in a “Policy Forum” piece that was published online today (Oct. 8) in the
journal Science. Boley and Byers cite the 2015 passage of the Commercial Space Launch
Competitiveness Act, which explicitly granted American companies and citizens the right to
mine and sell space resources. That right was affirmed this past April in an executive order
signed by President Donald Trump, they note. The researchers also point to NASA's
announcement last month that it intends to buy moon dirt and soil collected by private
companies, and its plan to sign bilateral agreements with international partners that want to
participate in the agency's Artemis program of crewed lunar exploration. Artemis, one of
NASA's highest-profile projects, aims to return astronauts to the moon in 2024 and establish a
long-term, sustainable human presence on and around Earth's nearest neighbor by the end of
the decade. Making all of this happen will require the extensive use of lunar resources, such as
the water ice that lurks on the permanently shadowed floors of polar craters, NASA officials
have said. Boley and Byers take special aim at the planned bilateral agreements, known as the
Artemis Accords. In promoting them, the U.S. “is overlooking best practice with regard to the
sustainable development of space,” the researchers write. “Instead of pressing ahead
unilaterally and bilaterally, the United States should support negotiations on space mining
Champion Briefs
327
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
within the UN [United Nations] Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the same
multilateral body that drafted the five major space treaties of the 1960s and '70s,” they write in
the Science piece. (The most important of the five is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which forms
the basis of international space law.) “Meanwhile, NASA’s actions must be seen for what they
are — a concerted, strategic effort to redirect international space cooperation in favor of shortterm U.S. commercial interests, with little regard for the risks involved,” Boley and Byers add.
The researchers worry that the U.S. is setting an unfortunate precedent for other countries to
follow, and that space mining and other exploration activities may therefore proceed in a
somewhat careless and chaotic fashion in the not-too-distant future. “That's kind of our worstcase scenario — that you have all of these different national regulations, and they can vary
greatly, they allow for 'flag of convenience,' they cause disregard of the environment, largescale pollution of orbital environments, of the surface of the moon in terms of waste materials
and so forth,” Boley told Space.com. “That's what we're worried about.” He cited the growing
space-junk problem as a cautionary tale. For decades, spacefaring nations have been licensing
launches internally, without much international coordination, cooperation or long-term
planning. In recent years, low-Earth orbit has become crowded enough with satellites and
hunks of debris that collisions are a real concern. For example, the International Space Station
has had to maneuver itself away from potential impacts three times so far in 2020 alone.
Champion Briefs
328
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Assertions of US leadership on space mining are antithetical to
compliance with international law.
Oduntan, Gbenga. “Who Owns Space? US Asteroid-mining Act Is Dangerous And Potentially
Illegal.” The Conversation. November 25, 2015. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://theconversation.com/who-owns-space-us-asteroid-mining-act-is-dangerousand-potentially-illegal-51073>.
An event of cosmic proportions occurred on November 18 when the US congress passed the
Space Act of 2015 into law. The legislation will give US space firms the rights to own and sell
natural resources they mine from bodies in space, including asteroids. Although the act, passed
with bipartisan support, still requires President Obama’s signature, it is already the most
significant salvo that has been fired in the ideological battle over ownership of the cosmos. It
goes against a number of treaties and international customary law which already apply to the
entire universe. The new law is nothing but a classic rendition of the “he who dares wins”
philosophy of the Wild West. The act will also allow the private sector to make space
innovations without regulatory oversight during an eight-year period and protect spaceflight
participants from financial ruin. Surely, this will see private firms begin to incorporate the
mining of asteroids into their investment plans. Supporters argue that the US Space Act is a
bold statement that finally sets private spaceflight free from the heavy regulation of the US
government. The misdiagnosis begins here. Space exploration is a universal activity and
therefore requires international regulation. The act represents a full-frontal attack on settled
principles of space law which are based on two basic principles: the right of states to scientific
exploration of outer space and its celestial bodies and the prevention of unilateral and
unbriddled commercial exploitation of outer-space resources. These principles are found in
agreements including the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and the Moon Agreement of 1979. The
US House Committee on Science, Space and Technology denies there is anything in the act
which violates the US’s international obligations. According to this body, the right to extract and
use resources from celestial bodies “is affirmed by State practice and by the US State
Champion Briefs
329
A/2: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Department in Congressional testimony and written correspondence”. Crucially, there is no
specific reference to international law in this statement. Simply relying on US legislation and
policy statements to justify the plans is obviously insufficient.
Champion Briefs
330
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Space Debris DA
Private companies lack jurisdiction to clean space debris.
Oliver, Stéphane. “Active Debris Removal: A Business Opportunity?.” Toulouse Business School.
2015. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://chaire-sirius.eu/f/Oliver-Pugliese-2015-ActiveDebris-Removal-A-Business-Opportunity-Unknown.pdf>.
A clear lack of jurisdiction. Since the first steps of mankind in space, spacefaring nations have
established agreements in order to create a juridical framework for the space conquest and the
space industry. The Outer Space Treaty, ratified in 1967, forms the basis of space law and gives
the first principles for governing the activities of States in the exploration and the use of outer
space. In 1972 the Space Liability Convention, dealing with the eventual damages caused by
space objects, started including space debris in its scope, thus expanding the former treaty. One
of the main principles of this convention is that ?States are internationally responsible for all
space objects that are launched within their territory […], and then States are fully liable for
damages that result from their space object?. In other words, nations are responsible for their
actions and potential damages that they can cause in the space environment. It means also that
the consent from the country owning a spacecraft is mandatory to remove the aforementioned
object, may it be from a private or a public ownership. Indeed, the Outer Space Treaty specifies
that ?countries are responsible for the outer space activities of both sides, their governmental
and non-governmental entities?. However, despite all these measures written to create a
jurisdiction regarding space activities, the clear lack of a comprehensive definition of space
debris remains a major issue for the development of an active debris removal solution. Indeed,
even if the United Nations Committee On the Peaceful Use Of Space (UNCOPUOS) implements
a new definition for space debris, we observe that the definition is too evasive. For instance,
according to the IAA Cosmic Study on Space Traffic Management ?no legal distinction is made
between valuable active space-craft and valueless space debris.? In fact, international
Champion Briefs
331
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
organizations did not even take into account the fact that some space debris may not have an
assigned launching state. According to Paul Kallender -Umezu in A Market for Cleaning Up
Space Junk ?, ?Neither the Liability Convention nor the OST cover who is at fault if a third party
disturbs a piece of debris, which explodes and later collides with another satellite, or who is
liable for a removed debris object that lands on a house, private property, etc.? Eventually, it
seems that the lack of definition and details of international laws regarding space debris makes
it impossible to identify removable objects and to actually create a legal framework that would
manage ODR operations and deal with space disputes. But as we will explain it in this second
part, the fragility of space laws is not the only issue in this matter.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
332
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
No risk of miscalc. Debris strikes occur regularly and NASA has a
robust tracking system.
Cain, Fraser. “How Do Astronauts Avoid Debris?.” Universe Today. December 23, 2015. Web.
December 13, 2021. <http://www.universetoday.com/121067/how-do-astronautsavoid-debris/>.
So, just how do we keep our space stations, ships and astronauts from being riddled with holes
from all of the space junk in orbit around Earth? We revel in the terror grab bag of all the
magical ways to get snuffed in space. Almost as much as we celebrate the giant brass
backbones of the people who travel there. We’ve already talked about all the scary ways that
astronauts can die in space. My personal recurring “Hail Mary full of grace, please don’t let me
die in space” nightmare is orbital debris. We’re talking about a vast collection of spent rockets,
dead satellites, flotsam, jetsam, lagan and derelict. It’s not a short list. NASA figures there are
21,000 bits of junk bigger than 10 cm, 500,000 particles between 1 and 10 cm, and more than
100 million smaller than 1 cm. Sound familiar, humans? This is our high tech, sci fi great Pacific
garbage patch. Sure, a tiny rivet or piece of scrap foil doesn’t sound very dangerous, but
consider the fact that astronauts are orbiting the Earth at a velocity of about 28,000 km/h. And
the Tang packets, uneaten dehydrated ice cream, and astronaut poops are also traveling at
28,000 km/h. Then think about what happens when they collide. Yikes… or yuck. Here’s the
International Space Station’s solar array. See that tiny hole? Embiggen and clarinosticate! That’s
a tiny puncture hole made in the array by a piece of orbital crap. The whole station is
pummeled by tiny pieces of space program junk drawer contents. Back when the Space Shuttle
was flying, NASA had to constantly replace their windows because of the damage they were
experiencing from the orbital equivalent of Dennis the Menace hurling paint chips, fingernail
clippings, and frozen scabs.
Champion Briefs
333
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
No risk--orbital debris tracking and maneuvering procedures limit risk
of miscalculation and debris strikes.
Cain, Fraser. “How Do Astronauts Avoid Debris?.” Universe Today. December 23, 2015. Web.
December 13, 2021. <http://www.universetoday.com/121067/how-do-astronautsavoid-debris/>.
That’s just little pieces of paint. What can NASA do to keep Sandra Bullock safe from the larger,
more dangerous chunks that could tear the station a new entry hatch? For starters, NASA and
the US Department of Defense are constantly tracking as much of the orbital debris that they
can. They know the position of every piece of debris larger than a softball. Which I think, as far
as careers go, would be grossly underestimated for its coolness and complexity at a cocktail
party. “What do you do for a living?” “Me, oh, I’m part of the program which tracks orbital
debris to keep astronauts safe.” “So…you track our space garbage?” “Uh, actually, never mind,
I’m an accountant.” Furthermore, they’re tracking everything in low Earth orbit – where the
astronauts fly – down to a size of 5 cm. That’s 21,000 discrete objects. NASA then compares the
movements of all these objects and compares it to the position of the Space Station. If there’s
any risk of a collision, NASA takes preventative measures and moves the Space Station to avoid
the debris. The ISS has thrusters of its own, but it can also use the assistance of spacecraft
which are docked to it at the time, such as a Russian Soyuz capsule. NASA is ready to make
these maneuvers at a moment’s notice if necessary, but often they’ll have a few days’ notice,
and give the astronauts time to prepare. Plus, who doesn’t love a close call? For example, in
some alerts, the astronauts have gotten into their Soyuz escape craft, ready to abandon the
Station if there’s a catastrophic impact. And if they have even less warning, the astronauts have
to just hunker down in some of the Station’s more sturdy regions and wait out the debris flyby.
This isn’t speculation and overcautious nannying on NASA’s part. In 2009 an Iridium
communications satellite was smashed by a dead Russian Kosmos-2251 military satellite. The
collision destroyed both satellites instantly. As icing on this whirling, screaming metallic orbitalterror-cake, it added 2,000 new chunks of debris to the growing collection. Most material was
Champion Briefs
334
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
in a fairly low orbit, and much of it has already been slowed down by the Earth’s atmosphere
and burned up. This wasn’t the first time two star-crossed satellites with a love that could-notbe had a shrapnel fountain suicide pact, and I promise it won’t be the last. Each collision adds
to the total amount of debris in orbit, and increases the risk of a run-away cascade of orbital
collisions. We should never underestimate the bravery and commitment of astronauts. They
strap themselves to massive explosion tubes and weather the metal squalls of earth orbit in
tiny steel life-rafts. So, would you be willing to risk all that debris for a chance to fly in orbit?
Tell us in the comments below.
Champion Briefs
335
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Low risk of miscalc or escalation, collisions happen regularly and don't
result in conflict.
Gray, Melissa. “Chinese Space Debris Hits Russian Satellite, Scientists Say.” CNN. March 09,
2013. Web. December 13, 2021. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/09/tech/satellite-hit/>.
A piece of space debris left over from a 2007 Chinese missile test collided with a Russian
satellite earlier this year, rendering the satellite unusable, a researcher said Saturday. The
collision appears to have happened January 22. That's when it's thought a piece of the Feng Yun
1C weather satellite, which was destroyed in the 2007 missile test, accidentally hit the Russian
satellite, said T.S. Kelso, a senior research astrodynamicist at the Center for Space Standards &
Innovation. The collision changed the orientation and orbit of the Russian satellite, which was
being used in scientific experiments, Kelso said. It may have also damaged it. “There has been a
piece of debris catalogued by U.S. Strategic Command as a result of that collision,” Kelso said.
“That would suggest that at least a part of the satellite broke off because of the collision.” It
was February 4 when two scientists with the Institute for Precision Instrument Engineering in
Moscow noticed a change in the orbit of the satellite, known as BLITS, Kelso said. The scientists
estimated the change happened January 22. They contacted Kelso because CSSI operates a
service that looks for close satellite approaches, he said. CSSI looked for objects that may have
had a nearby approach with the BLITS satellite around the time of the collision. The Chinese
debris was the only object they found. Although the predicted distance between the debris and
the satellite seemed to preclude a collision, the fact that the close approach happened within
10 seconds of the change in orbit made the Feng Yun 1C debris the likely culprit, Kelso wrote in
a blog post. CSSI is now working with the Russian scientists to find out more about the collision.
BLITS is a small glass sphere that reflected laser beams for research. Because of the collision,
the satellite now faces the wrong way and can't be used, Kelso said. The collision also sped up
the satellite's spin period from 5.6 seconds to 2.1 seconds, Kelso said. China launched the Feng
Yun 1C polar orbit weather satellite in 1999. It was destroyed in 2007 when China targeted it for
a test of a ground-based, medium-range ballistic missile. U.S. tracking sensors determined the
Champion Briefs
336
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
missile collision created hundreds of pieces of space debris, according to a U.S. official at the
time. The test prompted formal protests from the United States and several U.S. allies including
Canada and Australia. The problem of collisions involving space debris is not a new one.
“Collisions happen all the time, everywhere. Big collisions -- now those are the rare ones,” said
space debris expert William Schonberg, chairman of the Civil, Architectural and Environmental
Engineering Department at the Missouri University of Science and Technology. The last major
space debris collision was in 2009 between Iridium 33, an operational U.S. communications
satellite, and Cosmos 2251, a decommissioned Russian satellite, Kelso said. Scientists know of
only a handful of such collisions, but that's only because they happened with objects that were
being monitored. Kelso and Schonberg say it's likely there are other “junk to junk” collisions
involving unmonitored objects that no one knows about. In the case of the Russian satellite in
January, “it would have been very difficult to tell there had been a collision if it hadn't been for
the fact that somebody was operating the satellite and noticed a collision,” said Kelso. Experts
and leading government agencies have been working on the space junk problem for decades,
but it's a tricky one to solve, Schonberg told CNN. Trying to catch or deflect debris runs the risk
of making the problem worse, he said. The debris could shatter into more pieces or change
orbit and be on a collision course with something else. Some soft-impact lasers can nudge
objects into a calculated orbit toward Earth so they will be pulled down and burn up in the
atmosphere, Schonberg said. But scientists must make sure that happens over an ocean to
minimize danger to people. “Our technology has not caught up with our desire to clean up our
mess” in space, Schonberg said. “If nothing else,” said Kelso, this collision “was a bit of a
reminder that it will likely happen again, and maybe we should get back to work trying to figure
out what to do about it.”
Champion Briefs
337
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Increased private space activity increases debris.
Parker, Andrew. “Space Pollution.”. September 27, 2011. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.greeniacs.com/GreeniacsArticles/Waste/Space-Pollution.html>.
There are many types of pollution in our environment: water pollution, air pollution, noise
pollution, and more. But one of these – space pollution – is in a category all by itself. Space
pollution refers to the gathering debris in orbit around the Earth, made up of discarded rocket
boosters, broken satellites, and more. And just like the other types of pollution, space pollution
is a cause for increasing concern as the amount of material continues to grow. “Big Sky” or
“Kessler Syndrome”? Several decades ago, as the U.S. was just beginning to launch items into
space, NASA officials relied on the “big sky theory” when faced with the question of
accumulating debris. According to the theory, objects left in space would disperse and
eventually re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, where they would burn up before hitting the
ground. Following this logic, there was no reason to be concerned about over-crowding the
space around our planet. The big sky theory was challenged in 1978 by a NASA scientist named
Donald Kessler. Kessler published a paper titled “Collision Frequency of Artificial Satellites: The
Creation of a Debris Belt,” which argued that the increasing number of man-made objects in
space posed a huge threat. It wasn’t just the slow growth of these objects, Kessler wrote, but
the way in which inevitable collisions would create a domino-like effect. One big collision could
generate thousands of pieces of debris, each of which might go on to strike other objects,
leading to a chain reaction that would exponentially increase the number of items in space. This
phenomenon, later dubbed the “Kessler Syndrome,” would produce a “growing belt of debris.”
The development of this “belt of debris” would have significant consequences, beginning with
damage to existing satellites, as more and more are pelted with sharp objects traveling at high
speeds. This could eventually disrupt satellites tasked with communication and weather
observation functions, causing a noticeable impact for people on Earth. Even worse, any future
space exploration missions – or even service missions to repair existing objects in orbit – would
become far more dangerous.
Champion Briefs
338
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights would increase space debris.
Cherian, Jijo George. “Concept Of Private Property In Space – An Analysis.” The Journal of
International Commerical Law and Technology. 2007. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/28805-EN-concept-of-private-propertyin-space-an-analysis.pdf>.
One of the primary concerns is the degradation of celestial bodies in exercise of property rights
granted to persons. The International community fears whether degradation of celestial bodies
would have a negative impact on the environment of the Earth. Man seems to have an inherent
trait to alter the ecology of his habitat sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly. Space is
one of the very few realms that mankind has not been able to effectively pollute, but even that
challenge is being overcome. The issue of space debris is one of such concern. Even in the
absence of private players, space debris is now assuming alarming proportions, especially since
mankind’s contribution to the increase in space debris is substantial. In the event that there
exists a possibility that, the climate of earth maybe negatively affected, a thorough study must
be undertaken to swot up the possible repercussions of such degradation. And if property rights
are indeed deemed to be fit to be incorporated into space law, the issue of pollution of space
environment will need to be addressed on “war footing”. Another classical example is the offer
of the company TransOrbital. It is a private company that, through its “TrailBlazer lunar
orbiter,” is offering the “first delivery service to the moon”. TransOrbital claims it is “the only
private company to be authorized by the [U.S.] State Department and [the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration] for commercial flights to the Moon”. The company's delivery
system will take capsules that contain items of the customer's choice, including business cards,
jewellery, art, and cremated remains, to the Moon. While, it maybe argued that such action is
detrimental to the ecology of the moon, it cannot be said to be the first of its kind. Although the
various Space treaties explicitly prohibit the conducting of nuclear tests in space, space tourism
will cause its fair share of problems including despoilment of the moon surface
Champion Briefs
339
A/2: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private actors can resolve disputes the same way they would if they
took place on Earth—no reason for governmental territorial claims.
Salter, Alexander William. “Celestial Property Rights How We Can Achieve A New Commerce
Fueled Space Age.” Space News. September 26, 2020. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://spacenews.com/op-ed-celestial-property-rights-how-we-can-achieve-a-newcommerce-fueled-space-age/>.
Every major spacefaring nation signed the Outer Space Treaty. Breaking it would have huge
repercussions. Given this, appropriating territory and extending legal jurisdiction to, say, the
moon is foolish. But what then of property rights? Don’t we need legal jurisdiction for
governments to define and enforce ownership? To start, it’s not the case that absence of legal
jurisdiction means courts can’t enforce property rights. If two U.S. entities have a business
dispute while operating in Germany, a U.S. court can hear the dispute without the U.S.
asserting jurisdiction over Germany. This is why several national efforts to improve property
rights protection, such as the 2015 SPACE Act, do not necessarily violate Article II. But there’s
another, more radical solution. Consider an analogous case to celestial property rights that has
a long terrestrial history: international commerce. Modern international trade is largely
privately governed. There is no international super-sovereign, after all: if traders have a
dispute, their only recourse is arbitration. Yet international commerce works quite well, and the
majority of it is based on a self-enforcing body of private law dating back to the High Middle
Ages. Celestial capitalists have the same option. Private actors, such as asteroid miners, can
form their own agreements about owning and trading outer space resources. These
agreements can ground a self-enforcing body of commercial space law, with private arbitration
to resolve disputes, in exactly the same way as private contracts and arbitration agreements
work for international commercial law.
Champion Briefs
340
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Internet Access DA
“Mega-constellations” of satellites for the purpose of Internet access
will increase space debris from satellite collisions---there's currently a
legal vacuum that allows private actors to pursue mega-constellations
without regulation.
Goswami, Tanishka. “SpaceX, OneWeb And The ‘Mega’ Effect Of Mega-Constellations On
International Space Law.” Jurist. May 31, 2021. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2021/05/goswami-aggarwal-international-spacelaw/#>.
On 15 May 2021, SpaceX launched 52 satellites as part of its Starlink mega-constellation, less
than a week after it had launched the previous batch with 60 satellites. When fully deployed in
the Low Earth Orbit (“LEO”), this constellation would form a network of thousands of satellites
providing affordable access to high-speed internet. Starlink faces competition from the likes of
OneWeb, which has so far deployed 146 satellites in its LEO constellation. This (planned)
deployment of satellites by different non-governmental entities (“NGEs”) raises concerns over
increasing congestion in the LEO. This could escalate risks of in-orbit satellite collisions and
impinge upon freedom of access to outer space, which forms a core principle of customary
international law in outer space. Until the 1990s, large mobile-communication satellites used to
be deployed in a circular orbit located approximately 36,000 km above the equator, known as
the Geostationary Orbit (“GSO”). Subsequently, companies developed novel space-based
communication systems, envisioning satellite constellations deployed at an altitude of less than
2000 km. Unlike a single GSO satellite providing permanent coverage over a large area, LEO
mega-constellations stretch across several kilometers of orbit, providing extensive coverage
over the Earth’s surface. Subsequently, the GSO came to be recognized as a scarce natural
Champion Briefs
341
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
resource, under Article 44 of the Constitution of the International Telecommunication Union
(“ITU”). The 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and
Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (“Outer Space Treaty” or
“OST”) establishes the legal regime governing outer space activities. In Article VI, it envisages
direct responsibility of States for their ‘national space activities‘: it obligates an appropriate
State to ensure authorization and continuing supervision over space activities of nongovernmental entities, without defining any of these concepts. States have enacted national
space legislation defining the scope of their jurisdiction and establishing authorization and
supervision regimes by way of licensing and regulatory mechanisms. The current form of Article
VI OST emerged from an American-Soviet compromise, at a time when there was little-to-none
involvement of NGEs in outer space activities. Fifty years thereafter, commercialization has
emerged as an outcome of outer space activities being conducted in an ever-globalizing world.
For instance, OneWeb’s satellites have been launched from the Russian spaceport Vostochny
Cosmodrome since 2019: however, the Russian government did not allow OneWeb to provide
internet connectivity services in Russia, citing national security concerns. OneWeb also filed an
application before the United States’ Federal Communications Commission last year, to
increase the number of satellites in its constellation. Additionally, the United Kingdom
government and India-based Bharti Enterprises Limited recently acquired a stake worth US$1
billion in OneWeb. Evidently, given the involvement of multiple States in their operations, it is
difficult to pinpoint the State(s) responsible for the activities of any mega-constellation
operated by NGEs (or even the appropriate State whose authorisation-supervision regime
OneWeb is subject to, for instance). Bearing this in mind, scholars have understood the phrase
‘national space activities’ under Article VI OST as referring to all activities: first, having a ‘special
connection’ with the concerned State; or second, over which a State exercises effective
territorial, quasi-territorial, and personal jurisdiction (see Bin Cheng, here). That said, private
space law instruments such as the Cape Town Convention and Space Protocol may assist in the
development of frameworks that supplement the State responsibility regime created by the
OST. Proceeding further, Article II OST prohibits ‘national appropriation’ of outer space by
claims of sovereignty, use/occupation, or any other means. Understood in light of Article I OST
Champion Briefs
342
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
that declares outer space to be the ‘province of all mankind‘, the non-appropriation principle
bars States from asserting exclusive rights in outer space. Preserving this customary law
principle assumes greater relevance with respect to mega-constellations, which involve the
deployment of satellites and exercise of States’ jurisdiction over several orbital planes. In
contrast to States that develop and launch mega-constellations, developing nations that lack
abilities to fuel such large-scale space projects are at a significant disadvantage in exploring
outer space. Voicing their concerns, in 1976, certain equatorial States claimed exclusive rights
over portions of the GSO located above their territory, to preserve their interests in conducting
scientific investigations in outer space. Referred to as the Bogota Declaration, these claims did
not receive any international support or recognition. However, this highlights the dilemma in
international space law of balancing concerns of orbital congestion alongside equitable access.
Further, the principles enshrined under the existing space treaties and ITU frameworks do not
currently envisage a mechanism for space traffic management. In fact, the ITU allocates orbital
slots and spectrums to countries launching telecommunication satellites on a ‘first come, first
serve’ basis. Hence, the exclusive orbital use by a mega-constellation for economic benefits is
still a fairly unregulated domain. Therefore, a two-fold impact of this legal vacuum can be
drawn out: first, equitable access to the LEO for developing countries stands to be impeded;
and second, light pollution caused by these bright satellites in the Dark Skies would potentially
hinder astronomical research. The crucial question posed before the body of international
space law is whether the launch of mega-constellations by NGEs violates Article II OST.
Advocates of such large-scale projects may argue that: first, these mega-constellations aim at
serving the ‘benefits and interests of’ all mankind by providing affordable global broadband
services; second, the use of outer space to that end does not constitute an assertion of any
ownership rights or sovereignty; and lastly, in any case, international space law does not
prohibit the launch and operation of mega-constellations. On the other hand, those opposing
these advancements assert that: first, the deployment of mega-constellations and associated
risks of collision impede similar outer space endeavors by developing countries; second, the
phrase ‘any other means’ in Article II indicates that there may be means other than claims of
sovereignty or ownership that constitute appropriation of outer space. To that end, there exists
Champion Briefs
343
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
a possibility of the development of subsequent practice influencing treaty interpretation as per
Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, thereby establishing a
contemporary meaning of Article II OST. Hence, the issue of equitable access to outer space
needs to be addressed today more than ever before, in light of the emerging NewSpace wave.
Mega-constellations appear to be the way forward; however, the concerns raised with respect
to their deployment by a few NGEs are bound to surge with the entry of new market players.
Even Chinese State-run space enterprises have announced plans to soon launch and deploy the
Guowang constellation, comprising of 13,000 satellites. A recent study conducted by the
University of British Columbia suggested that the activities of even any one of such
constellations, in an already-overcrowded LEO, may cause the occurrence of a ‘tragedy of the
commons’ in outer space. The absence of guidelines or any binding framework to manage
space traffic and allocation of orbital slots in the LEO for mega-constellations has intensified the
ultra-hazardous nature of outer space activities. Recently, OneWeb and SpaceX satellites
dodged a potential in-orbit collision, after coming as close as 190 feet of each other. Even
though the Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines are a step towards maintaining the long-term
sustainability of space activities, any potential LEO collisions can exponentially exacerbate the
risk of space debris accumulation. These challenges to the nature of outer space as the
‘common province of mankind’ highlight an urgent need for moving beyond the treaties and
‘soft law’ currently in force. The tensions caused by the launch, deployment, and operation of
mega-constellations can be resolved through improved inter-State coordination and clarity in
national regulatory frameworks.
Champion Briefs
344
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations for satellite Internet will cause a significant
increase in space debris---a recent near-collision involving SpaceX
proves the risk is real.
Baudoin, Corinne. “The Space Legal Issues With Mega-Constellations.” Space Legal Issues.
November 03, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.spacelegalissues.com/mega-constellations-a-gordian-knot/>.
SPACE DEBRIS The problem of congestion is directly related to the risk of a significant increase
in Earth orbit debris. The increase in the number of objects in orbit necessarily increases the
chances of collisions between aircraft. Concerning Starlink project, placing the satellite in LEO,
will allow them to de-orbit in a few months thanks to their own propulsion system, whereas a
traditional satellite placed more than one thousand kilometres from Earth takes one to five
years to de-orbit. However, Starlink’s satellites or those of other mega constellation projects
are likely to fail. It is estimated that already three per cent of Starlink’s satellites are out of
service; these satellites are no longer manoeuvrable and are therefore likely to collide. This risk
is real and has already been observed. In September 2019, the European Space Agency had to
perform evasive maneuvers on one of its satellites in order to avoid a collision with a megaconstellation of SpaceX. In this case, the device in question was in operation, but its anticollision device was deactivated. Therefore, if nothing is done to prevent these risks, repeated
collisions could occur, which could lead, in the extreme, to Kessler’s scenario: an exponential
increase in debris and impact probabilities that would make space exploitation impossible. The
law is silent on the subject of space rights and mega-constellations. Jean-Yves le Gall, head of
the French space agency and former president of the IAF, believes that mega-constellations
would make it necessary to establish an international law on waste: “There are practically no
examples of satellites that have had a problem because of debris. But this is beginning to
become urgent because of the mega-constellation projects. SpaceX doesn’t do anything that
breaks the rules, the problem is that there are no rules. There are air traffic controllers for
airplanes, we’re going to come up with the same system for space”.
Champion Briefs
345
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
If space debris grows too widespread, it'll trigger the Kessler
Syndrome, a problem where debris will preclude access to outer
space -- that turns all Neg impacts.
Larsen, Paul. “Solving The Space Debris Crisis.” Journal of Air Law and Commerce 83:3. 2018.
Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4092&context=jalc>.
SPACE DEBRIS is an unresolved problem. The amount of debris from past activities in space has
accumulated to the extent that there are several hundred thousand pieces of debris in orbit,4
and the prospects for the old debris to be removed from orbit are slim. Existing space law5 is of
little deterrence because it was established before space debris became generally recognized as
a major problem. In fact, existing space law is in some ways a hindrance to the solution of the
problem. Thus, the debris of past space activities continues to multiply as it fragments in
accordance with the Kessler Syndrome.6 Kessler predicts7 that, unless a drastic remedy is
introduced, the accumulation of debris will eventually preclude access to outer space. Most
debris are too small to be tracked and are therefore unavoidable. The International Space
Station, which is navigable, has been required to change orbit to avoid collision with debris
twenty-five times.8 Space debris moves at a speed of 56,000 kilometers per hour.9 It can cause
great damage to other objects in outer space. Space debris also presents a risk of damage to
activities on the surface of the Earth. This deterioration is growing rapidly. The Iridium 33
collision with a defunct Cosmos satellite in 2009 added more than 2,000 large pieces of
debris.10 An even larger amount of debris was caused in 2007 by China’s deliberate destruction
of a defunct weather satellite.11 That resulted in about 3,000 pieces of debris, most of which
are still in orbit.12 One expert predicts that collisions with functioning satellites will begin to
happen regularly beginning about the year 2036 and that the rate of collisions can then be
expected to increase gradually, ending eventually with foreclosure to outer space.13 ESA’s 2017
Overview of Space Debris states that there may be as many as 750,000 space debris objects
Champion Briefs
346
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
larger than one centimeter in outer space, and the ESA Overview observes: At typical collision
speeds of 10km/s in low orbits, impacts by millimetre-sized objects could cause local damage or
disable a subsystem of an operating satellite. Collisions with debris larger than 1 cm could
disable an operational satellite or could cause the break-up of a satellite or rocket body. And
impact by debris larger than about 10 cm can lead to a catastrophic break-up: the complete
destruction of a spacecraft and generation of a debris cloud.14
Champion Briefs
347
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Guidelines for mega-constellations are non-binding and lead to free
riding---only the Aff solves the harms of mega-constellations.
Boley, Aaron C. “Satellite Mega-constellations Create Risks In Low Earth Orbit, The Atmosphere
And On Earth.” Scientific Reports 11. 2021. Web. December 11, 2021. <Satellite megaconstellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth>.
No binding international rules exist on other aspects of mega-constellations. In 2007, the InterAgency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC), currently representing 13 space agencies,
indicated that direct re-entry at the end of a satellite’s operational life was preferred but
nevertheless only recommended that deorbiting conclude within 25 years. This widely accepted
guideline is poorly suited for mega-constellations made up of thousands of satellites with short
operational lives. It also overlooks placement, with satellites at higher altitudes producing
relatively high collision probabilities when de-orbiting timescales are long34. The IADC also
recommended collision avoidance and end-of-life deorbiting technologies. These add costs, and
in 2017 the IADC reported that adherence to its guidelines was “insufficient and no apparent
trend towards a better implementation is observed”35. More recent analyses indicate that
compliance with the end-of-life guidelines is now improving by some metrics36. However,
these improvements appear to be driven, at least in part, by SpaceX’s own practices, which may
not be followed by other mega-constellation operators. Guidelines allow for ‘free riding’,
whereby individual actors can save costs through non-compliance while benefitting from the
compliance of others. In the context of any shared resource, free riding can lead to a ‘tragedy of
the commons,’ which is exactly what needs to be avoided in LEO.
Champion Briefs
348
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Satellite collisions will have a cascading effect that makes all satellite
tech and routine space launches impossible for decades.
Siegel, Ethan. “Flaremageddon: How Satellite Mega-Constellations Could Create A New Natural
Disaster.” Forbes. February 19, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/02/19/flaremageddon-howsatellite-mega-constellations-could-create-a-new-natural-disaster/?sh=26ac9cb649cf>.
The worst-case scenario, and this scenario gets worse with every new large satellite that goes
up (and every communications satellite is “large” by this metric), is that each collision increases
both the likelihood and frequency of in-orbit collisions. In short order, potentially just weeks or
months, the region around Earth will become a debris field, with a significant percent of
existing satellites destroyed. At present, every space disaster, including collisions and failed
missions that have exploded or malfunctioned in various ways, means that there are perhaps a
few hundred thousand pieces of space debris the size of your fingernail or larger. These are
already hazardous to our existing satellites, with one of them colliding with the International
Space Station just a few years ago, cracking a window. But with hundreds of thousands of large
satellites, a single collision could set off a catastrophic chain reaction like we've never seen. In
short order, the number of pieces of space debris could rise into the tens of millions, impacting
satellites in both low-Earth orbit and medium-Earth orbit. The first company whose satellites
cause such a disaster would likely impact every other one, to say nothing of military and
scientific satellites presently in orbit. Not only will satellite technology become an impossibility
for decades or even many generations, but routine space launches will become an enormous
gamble.
Champion Briefs
349
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations will contaminate and undermine astronomical
observations.
Sutter, Paul. “Megaconstellations Could Destroy Astronomy And There's No Easy Fix.”
Space.com Expert Voices. October 06, 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-could-destroy-astronomy-no-easy-fix>.
Every single satellite is a source of contamination. The satellite bodies themselves, as well as
their expansive solar panels, reflect sunlight. To an astronomer using the largest telescopes on
Earth to capture the faintest objects in the heavens, the megaconstellations aren't a boon, but
a nuisance. When a satellite constellation crosses a telescope's field of view, it isn't just a single
streak but multiple ones that can potentially wreak havoc on astronomical observations.
Advocates of the megaconstellations have argued that the high altitudes of the satellites will
reduce their impact on astronomy and that only certain kinds of observation programs will be
at risk. So researchers decided to use available data to predict the impact of these
megaconstellations on astronomical observations. Modeling the impact It's impossible to know
just how bad the skies will get until all the satellites are up and astronomers try to do
astronomy. But by then, it might be too late. In the meantime, a team of astronomers
attempted to model the impact of megaconstellations on modern astronomy. The astronomers
took their best guess, based on the publicly available information, for the orbital configurations
of the future megaconstellations. Then, they modeled each satellite's size and brightness, which
depends greatly on the angle between the satellite and the sun as seen from Earth. They then
folded these models into simulated observations with different kinds of astronomical
instruments, such as wide-field giant telescopes and high-resolution spectrographs. The team
found that almost every aspect of modern-day astronomy will be affected in some way,
because the satellites will generally be bright enough to be seen by even moderately sized
professional telescopes. However, some observing programs will fare much worse than others.
Depending on the particular telescope, the time of year and the observing program, a typical
science run observes anywhere from 0.01 to 20 satellite trails in every exposure. Narrow-field
Champion Briefs
350
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
instruments, which image only a small portion of the sky at a time, will be the least affected,
since they are unlikely to have a satellite cross into their field of view during any particular
observation, the astronomers found. On the other hand, wide-field telescopes, such as the Vera
C. Rubin Observatory, will face a lot of difficulties — at sunrise and sunset, for example — and
the observatory could lose up to half of each image because of interfering satellite trails, the
astronomers wrote in a paper recently published to the preprint server arXiv. Observations
made during the first and last hours of the night will suffer the most, since the angle of the
satellites from the ground will make them appear the brightest and most visible, the team
found. Spectroscopy will be affected, too. Even though low- and mid-resolution spectroscopic
instruments, which are attached to telescopes around the world and split light into the specific
wavelengths of light it contains, will be less affected than instruments that produce images. But
the level of contamination will be much higher for spectroscopic instruments, with the pollution
from the satellites giving roughly the same size signal as the target science data.
Champion Briefs
351
A/2: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Voluntary self-regulation by companies fails for megaconstellations.
Siegel, Ethan. “How Can Astronomers Overcome The Damage Being Done By Satellite MegaConstellations?.” Forbes. July 08, 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/08/how-can-astronomersovercome-the-damage-being-done-by-satellite-mega-constellations/>.
Despite the widespread sentiment that the night sky is a natural resource that belongs to no
person, corporation, or nation, the actions of a few companies and individuals are dramatically
changing the skies for the foreseeable future for all 7+ billion of us here on Earth. As Ian Ayres
and John Braithwaite wrote in Responsive Regulation back in 1992, “We have seen that
corporations may be more capable than the government of regulating their business activities.
But if they are more capable, they are not necessarily more willing to regulate effectively. This
is the fundamental weakness of voluntary self-regulation. A voluntary program will stop many
violations that cost the company money and others that are cost neutral; it will even halt some
violations that benefit the company financially in the short term, for the sake of the long-term
benefit… Recommendations that involve consequences beyond the cost neutral or short term,
however, commonly will be ignored.” Unless we reckon with these issues responsibly,
sustainably, and — most importantly — quickly, we could be dealing with the fallout from these
rapidly deployed satellite megaconstellations for generations, and perhaps even centuries, to
come.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
352
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Mining DA
Space based mining is not likely to be cost effective due to costs
involved in the process.
Dorminev, Bruce. “Does Commercial Asteroid Mining Still Have A Future?.” Forbes. August 31,
2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2021/08/31/does-commercialasteroid-mining-still-have-a-future/?sh=17c18fef1a93>.
Paradoxically, what was extraordinarily precious may become extraordinarily cheap. While that
may lead to new ingenious and more economical uses of PGMs on earth, it would probably
make a space-mining operation’s balance sheet insolvent. If the PGM price per troy ounce is
driven down on earth due to this new cornucopia of asteroid metals, says Kargel, prices for
space metals would be driven down to such an extent that launch and space operational costs
would again make space-mining untenable. “That to me is a conundrum,” said Kargel.
Champion Briefs
353
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Space based mining creates massive amounts of debris.
Jhang, Sarah. “Dust From Asteroid Mining Could Turn Into Another Space Junk Hazard.”
Gizmodo. May 29, 2015. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2015/05/dust-from-asteroid-mining-could-turn-intoanother-space-junk-hazard/>.
There is gold out there on asteroids. Silver and platinum and titanium too. And if we’re
seriously going to mine asteroids, it might be easier to tow them closer to Earth. But that could
be serious trouble for satellites, according to new calculations by astrophysicists. NASA was
recently considering an Asteroid Redirect Mission, where it would tow a bus-sized asteroid into
orbit around the moon for. (It ended up choosing a plan to pluck a boulder off an asteroid and
place it in lunar orbit, instead.) But relocating an asteroid closer to Earth to better mine its
resources is a not unrealistic plan that deserves some serious thought. And in the case of
astrophysicists, some serious maths. (Why have it orbit around the moon rather than the
Earth? A recent episode Gizmodo’s podcast Meanwhile in the Future explains the dangers of a
second moon.) New Scientist reports on a paper recently uploaded to ArXiv that talks about the
danger of dust coming from asteroids being drilled and hammered for precious metals. Of
special concern is satellites in geosynchronous orbit. These satellites are in an orbit that takes
them to the same place in the sky at the same time everyday, making them especially
important for communications and defence. Here’s what might happen: According to Casey
Handmer of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and Javier Roa of the Technical
University of Madrid in Spain, 5 per cent of the escaped debris will end up in regions traversed
by satellites. Over 10 years, it would cross geosynchronous orbit 63 times on average. A
satellite in the wrong spot at the wrong time will suffer a damaging high-speed collision with
that dust. The study also looks at the “catastrophic disruption” of an asteroid 5 metres across or
bigger. Its total break-up into a pile of rubble would increase the risk to satellites by more than
30 per cent. There’s not much danger from NASA’s planned mission, but larger-scale asteroid
mining could add real risks. And there’s a lesson we should have learned from mining on Earth:
There is no mining without waste.
Champion Briefs
354
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Space based mining risks a resource war between the US and China.
Blair, Bruce. “Editors’ Notes: The Space Security Dilemma.”. 2006. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.globalzero.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/BB_Editors-Notes-SpaceSecurity-Dilemma_2006.pdf>.
China and the United States find themselves caught in a cruel paradox: space collaboration
represents the best hope for allaying mutual suspicion, by making their activities in space
transparent to each other, but at the same time this suspicion militates against open
collaboration. The vicious cycle only heightens their mutual suspicion, their aversion to
collaboration and transparency, and their commitment to secrecy in order to hide exploitable
weaknesses and vulnerabilities from a prying potential adversary. For fortress America,
embracing space collaboration with China would Editors’ Notes also incur domestic political
risks. In the current political climate, military unilateralism and superiority, however
questionable or counter-productive, is the politically safer approach to national security. For
China, the prevailing worldview sees a superpower striving for absolute security, a quest driven
by fear or hegemonic ambitions that are impervious to reason. U.S. space policy might be the
best illustration of America’s drive for security at the expense of others’ security. China’s fear of
becoming contained and ‘encircled’ by a hegemonic state and its allies is constant. Through the
eyes of the Chinese military, space is the heart of an ongoing revolution in military affairs and
has demonstrably served this ‘containment’ stratagem of the United States. The United States
has enforced an unprecedented ban on exporting any space-related technology and
commodities to China since 1999, but has steadfastly refused to have any meaningful dialogue
with China either through an international forum or bilateral channels. This comprehensive
isolation of China’s space program confirms the belief and fear of many Chinese military
strategists that the United States seeks to arrest China’s progress in space in order to thwart its
ability to revolutionize its warfighting technologies and win on the high-tech battlefields of the
future. A zero-sum mindset toward space is hardening in China as a result of this apprehension,
as amply illustrated in the public media. Space is eyed in China as an area of resources and
Champion Briefs
355
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
possibilities to be acquired before it’s too late. Shu Xing, whose book is reviewed later in this
journal, likens the grabbing of satellite orbits to the “Enclosure Movement” in late 18th Century
England in which the more capability one has, the more resources one can seize. Another
reviewed author argued that countries scramble into space to fight for the tremendous
resources found there and “once this fight for resources causes irreconcilable conflicts, it may
lead to radical space confrontations.” A space war seems to many Chinese to be another form
of resource war. Such urgency in seeking control over resources is not unique to space, but also
applies to energy and other areas. Given China’s population and rapid economic growth,
controlling resources is understandably a paramount concern. Regarding space, however, a
zero-sum (‘win-lose’) attitude is narrow-minded and misguided. If feverish competition for
resources in space causes Sino-American relations to deteriorate or leads to the outbreak of
war between them, then both parties lose.
Champion Briefs
356
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The barrier for commercialization of space isn’t property rights it’s
capital.
Gangale, Thomas. “To Build Bifrost: Developing Space Property Rights And Infrastructure.”
Astrosociology. September 01, 2005. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/Submissions/To%20Build%20Bifrost.pdf>
.
In recent years, there has been much excitement over individuals arguing for private land
claims on the Moon and Mars as a thrust to commercialize space. There is a fundamental flaw
in the logic of those who purport that these bodies or portions thereof may be privately owned.
It is true that, “The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits any claims of national sovereignty on the
Moon or Mars,” and it is also true that “the treaty says nothing against private property.” It
does not follow, however, that without claiming sovereignty, the U.S. could recognize land
claims made by private companies that establish human settlements there, as would-be
extraterrestrial realtors claim. As a practical matter, property rights exist only if they are
granted or recognized by a government and subject to the protection of law. Such grant,
recognition, or protection is an act of state, and as such is an exercise of state sovereignty. Title
cannot come into existence out of thin air (or the vacuum of space). Legal title must arise from
a sovereign power possessing legal authority over the territory in question. For Congress to
pass “land claim recognition” legislation legalizing private claims of land in space would be an
exercise of state sovereignty, and therefore a violation of international law under the provisions
of the Outer Space Treaty. There is little need for this in any case. Has there ever been a serious
challenge to the US or Soviet/Russian governments over their ownership (or at least their
control) of the material they brought back from the Moon? These precedents established a
principle of customary law that “if you take it, it’s yours.” Essentially, this derives from the
Roman legal principle of uti possidetis: “as you possess,” so you may continue to possess. The
real barrier to commercializing space is the huge capital investment that is required to develop
a transplanetary infrastructure. Some authors imagine that private enterprise can pull itself up
Champion Briefs
357
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
to the Moon and Mars by its own bootstraps. This position ignores the history of opening
frontiers. The libertarian mantra that “government is the problem” is nonsensical. Neither is
government the entire solution, but it is a necessary partner in the solution--on land and on
sea, in the air and in space. Building a transplanetary infrastructure is not something that
private enterprise is going to accomplish… ever. First must come the political vision to build
rainbow bridges to the heavens, then will come the economic incentive to travel them.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
358
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The resources mined from asteroids would be worth less than dirt.
Brak, Ronald. “The Great Mining Con.”. February 06, 2006. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://ronaldbrak.blogspot.com/2006/02/great-asteroid-mining-con.html>.
There are some people who think that mining asteroids is a good idea. And not just for building
things to use in space, but to ship metals to earth to sell. They say things like, “The metals in the
near-earth iron asteroid Amun are worth 20 trillion dollars.” But is the current market value of
metals the proper way to value an asteroid? Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to say that
since I can buy meteorites for 25 cents a gram on e-bay, the market value of the asteroid is 25
cents per gram? And since it weighs 30 billion tons, therefore the asteroid is actually worth
7,500 trillion dollars? I mean that’s using the market price, isn’t it? And while these asteroid
mining enthusiasts like to tell you how much money Amun is supposed to be worth, they never
tell you how much a similar amount of earth dirt is worth. Well according to my calculations 30
billion tons of earth dirt is worth over $1,700,000,000,000,000. Which makes a ton of dirt worth
about $57,000. Not bad, hey? Might be a good idea to run outside with a shovel. But wait a
minute, you say! How can plain earth dirt be worth that much? Well it’s quite simple. You see
99.9999% pure silicon sells for about $200 per kilogram and the earth’s crust is 27.7% silicon. Of
course it’s only worth that much after you have removed and purified the silicon. Before that
the dirt is only worth as much as dirt. But counting an asteroid as being worth what it would be
if all it’s substances were refined, purified and sold at today’s prices is pretty much just as
stupid. To really test how much the asteroid is worth, let’s assume that there is a hole in the
space-time continuum in your bedroom cupboard that not only allows instantaneous
transportation of material from this asteroid, but it delivers it in conveniently sized chunks.
Ignoring its novelty value, how much could you sell this asteroid material for on earth? Well the
answer to that is simple. You could sell it for about $300 U.S. per ton because that’s what scrap
metal sells for these days and an iron asteroid is basically a big chunk of stainless steel. The
good news is there are plenty of scrap metal dealers around so you won’t have to lug it too far
to trade it for cash. This means that But wait a minute! Some people say asteroids are supposed
Champion Briefs
359
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
to be chock full of valuable metals such as platinum which currently sells for about $33 a gram!
Couldn’t we just extract the platinum and forget about the steel? Well there are some
problems with this. You see on earth there’s all sorts of geological activity, mostly involving
water, that can concentrate ores and metals. But iron asteroids don’t have this activity. They’re
just chunks of a busted planetoid’s core. As a result, precious metals aren’t going to be
concentrated but are going to be evenly spread throughout the damn thing.
Champion Briefs
360
A/2: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Massive technological barriers to lunar mining--current tech can't
survive the harsh lunar conditions.
Cheetham, Brad. “Lunar Resources And Development: A Brief Overview Of The Possibilities For
Lunar Resource Extraction.”. 2008. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf>.
Although there are financial difficulties in lunar development, other obstacles now being faced
rest within the fields of science and engineering. Although significant research has gone into
lunar research over the last half-century, there still remain several important and key questions
that must be studied before development can fully commence. Several key areas that require
research involve lunar resource extraction, cryogenic storage of fuels, lunar dust, fusion
technology, and power-transfer of solar power satellites. While research in these topics is
ongoing, the difficulties of these issues will have to be dealt with. An important challenge that
must be studied is the technology associated with lunar resource extraction. Many engineering
obstacles associated with the process of extracting oxygen and hydrogen efficiently from the
lunar regolith must be studied and solved before the opportunity will exist for these resources
to be produced in large quantities. It has been theorized that these materials can be extracted
efficiently from the lunar soil (Bustin), (J. Matchett). However, these activities have yet to be
proven in the field. The lunar environment is a very challenging environment for equipment to
operate over long periods of time (Siekmeier). And as such will require advanced materials and
studies to find ways of dealing with the extremely abrasive lunar regolith and the extreme
temperature differences experienced between lunar day and night.
Champion Briefs
361
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: Overview Effect/Space Tourism
Space tourism is a hobby for the uber wealthy with little foreseeable
benefits.
Roulette, Joey. “The Space Tourism Industry Is Stuck In Its Billionaire Phase.” The Verge. July 17,
2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/17/22573791/space-tourism-industry-bezosbranson-musk-billionaire-phase>.
While Branson and Bezos’ flights to space mark key moments for their space tourism
businesses, the space industry is far from being able to offer its services to the rest of the
public. To get there, they’ll have to clear several hurdles: Can these rockets reliably fly humans
on multiple missions without a hitch? If there is a hitch, like a fatal accident, can the market
survive a damaged reputation? And can someone buy a ticket to space just as they can book an
expensive flight (instead of just the ultra-rich)? Then there’s the court of public opinion, which
may be difficult to win over. Bezos, Branson and Elon Musk’s space ambitions have been
criticized as another example of billionaires spending money on passion projects when there
are places and causes where those funds could arguably be put to better use. The US alone
struggles with vast wealth inequities, poor access to healthcare and a rapidly changing climate,
among other problems that, when paired with space tourism, makes the activity look insultingly
selfish to many. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a leading critic of billionaires, has repeated that
point as the private space race heats up. “Here on Earth, in the richest country on the planet,
half our people live paycheck to paycheck, people are struggling to feed themselves, struggling
to see a doctor — but hey, the richest guys in the world are off in outer space!,” he tweeted in
March. “I can understand it,” Branson says of critiques like Sen. Sanders’, speaking on The Late
Show with Stephen Colbert on July 14th. “But I think maybe they’re not fully educated as to
what space does for Earth.” Branson, like other space advocates, point to the technologies that
Champion Briefs
362
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
investments in space have helped propel into the mainstream, like the GPS capabilities wired
into smartphones, weather tracking services or climate change research and modeling from
satellites in low-Earth orbit. Many of those investments came from public funds — it’s still
unclear what spin-off developments might emerge from the still-fledgling private space tourism
industry. As long as the space industry is dependent on billionaire funds for spacecraft built for
billionaire (and millionaire) customers, the perception that this is a hobby for the ultrawealthy
will inevitably remain. “We have to deal with the fact that billionaires trying to make more
money are the public face of the space sector right now,” Brian Weeden, a director at the
Secure World Foundation, said.
Champion Briefs
363
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
No guarantee space tourism ever becomes affordable enough for
average people, until then it will be reserved for the rich and famous
making the effects limited.
Roulette, Joey. “The Space Tourism Industry Is Stuck In Its Billionaire Phase.” The Verge. July 17,
2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/17/22573791/space-tourism-industry-bezosbranson-musk-billionaire-phase>.
“There’s going to be a fairly large learning curve as companies go from the process of
developing a capability and testing it, to operating it routinely,” Christensen said. It’s possible
that space tourism will follow the same path as computers or airplanes, but there’s no
guarantee that it will succeed. In part, that’s because there’s no single solution to driving down
the cost of launching people to space. Virgin Galactic earlier this year unveiled a new version of
SpaceShipTwo that’s tailored for quick production rates, signaling it’s gearing up to
accommodate its hefty customer backlog and reopen ticket sales, which have been closed since
a fatal 2014 accident during a test flight. (Branson’s presence on Sunday’s flight also served as a
visual reassurance to customers that the ship is safe.) Musk is focusing on better rocket fuel
efficiency with SpaceX’s Starship, a fully reusable launch system being developed to slash the
cost of sending humans to space. But again, what exactly those next-generation prices will be
remain a mystery. Musk hasn’t said how much it’ll cost prospective passengers to fly on
Starship. And Virgin Galactic hasn’t said how much it plans to charge for tickets for its newer
spaceplane, SpaceShipThree, just like Blue Origin, which hasn’t revealed its New Shepard prices.
Currently, you either have to be talented (hand-picked by a billionaire) or lucky to book a ride
on one of these rockets without paying the steep price tag. Raffling off tickets, like Virgin
Galactic plans to do, and donating seats to space enthusiasts who can’t afford them keeps the
public dream of normalized, low-cost space travel alive while the industry races to find the right
recipe for bringing prices down. “I think that in any competitive market you’re going to see
products improve and/or prices drop,” Christensen added.
Champion Briefs
364
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
You’re not going on vacation to space anytime soon, and current
tourism efforts don’t even qualify as orbital meaning there’s no access
to the overview effect.
Stromberg, Joseph. “Why Space Tourism Is Going To Be Utterly Disappointing.” Vox. August 20,
2015. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9181909/spacetourism-cost>.
Now billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson have poured tons of money into building
vehicles for space tourism — and it seems possible that sometime in the next few years, one of
their companies will become the first to carry paying passengers into space. But there's a catch.
Their plans merely involve flights into suborbital space: high enough up to technically cross the
100-kilometer line considered the lower boundary of space and give fliers a few minutes of
weightlessness, but not high enough to actually enter Earth's orbit like a satellite or the
International Space Station. The sad reality is that Virgin flights, currently priced at $250,000 for
an estimated six minutes of weightlessness, might not provide an experience tremendously
different from what's currently available to anyone willing to spend $5,000: a brief zero gravity
flight on a plane often called the “vomit comet.” Now, all these companies — along with Elon
Musk's SpaceX — have vague plans to eventually bring tourists all the way into Earth's orbit,
but experts say it's a long shot. “Fundamentally, it's all very hard to do,” says John Logsdon,
founder of the Space Policy Institute. “We've been launching people into space for 54 years
now, and less than 600 people have made the trip. I think the idea that there's some magic
bullet that could open up orbital space to large numbers of people is illusory.” The hard truth is
that we're closer to the era of space tourism than ever before — but if you're waiting for
vacations in space, you'll probably be disappointed.
Champion Briefs
365
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Suborbital flight won’t trigger the overview effect.
Stromberg, Joseph. “Why Space Tourism Is Going To Be Utterly Disappointing.” Vox. August 20,
2015. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9181909/spacetourism-cost>.
Of course, there's one big difference between suborbital spaceflight and the vomit comet: The
former will offer passengers the chance to look down from about 10 times higher and see the
curvature of Earth. Space tourism companies hope that will induce the so-called overview
effect. Many astronauts have reported that seeing Earth from above — isolated as a marble
floating in space — gave them a profound sense of awe and a dramatically different perspective
on life. But even though suborbital flights might come closer to providing this experience than
Zero-G, they won't allow for a full-on overview of Earth. “At 100 miles up, you are just skimming
the surface and you don’t get a feeling for the Earth as a whole,” astronaut Michael Collins said
in 1986. On Virgin's SpaceShipTwo, you'll be peering through 17-inch-wide portholes to see out.
And these flights won't necessarily even reach 100 miles — the lower boundary of space is just
62 miles up. The space station, by contrast, is 250 miles from Earth.
Champion Briefs
366
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The overview effect disproven—multiple warrants.
Okushi, Jun. “Space And Perceptions Of Space In Spacecraft: An Astrosociological Perspective.”.
2007. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2007-6069>.
The average human being has not experienced the view from space on a personal basis,
although these pictures from space have been around for upwards to 40 years. Subsequent
years have brought more space missions, both human and robotic, with fabulous imagery.
Robotically, we have stood on the ground on Mars, we have seen up close mighty impacts on
Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and towering dune fields on Titan. We have even seen the great
columns of hydrogen clouds spanning light years that are the incubation places of stars and
looked back in time toward the very birth of the Cosmos. Why haven’t the peoples of the Earth
been subsumed by this overwhelming experience of viewing things in space and the world from
the space? Why haven’t they beaten their swords into plow shares, held hands and sang Kum
Bah Yah, and turned their attention to turning the tide against global warming, a fairly
immediate threat as time is kept over generations that can kill more people than all of the wars
of the Earth put together? A. Searching for Answers A clue to this enigma lies in a prediction
that failed to come true that was made by Sir Arthur C. Clarke in his novel 2061: Odyssey 3
(1987, p. 4). 6 In the story, the Earth had become relatively peaceful once everyone had access
to free long-distance telephone calling service. With the Internet and the quality of
communications technology today, we can make free long-distance telephone calls. At least
those of us who can access, can operate, and can afford the technology can make those calls.
One can be in London and make a phone call to someone in Peshawar and the other party
sounds like he is speaking from the next room. But, there are still wars, India and Pakistan
might yet fight a limited nuclear exchange, and the large part of Earth’s population hasn’t yet
caught on to the impending devastation of global warming. What is the problem? The answer
to that has to do with the inadequacy of the delivery systems of these images from space and
to the fact that studies of how humans comprehend spatial and other types of relationships on
the ground, in space, and across cultures are still in the infancy of synthesis and application.
Champion Briefs
367
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Lack of political will is another problem. In An Inconvenient Truth, both the documentary and
the book, 7 Albert Gore also spoke of the “backburner” attitude that his American
congressional colleagues demonstrated when he gave them slide shows about global warming.
The problems on the radar screens of congressional constituents were more immediate so their
representatives did not move to act to hammer out legislation to help offset the more
overwhelming planetary issue. Sitting in the gravity well of the Earth, with some people being
able to see pretty pictures from space, and with some people being able to talk to other people
cheaply at a distance still hasn’t communicated the gravity of our situation. The planetary
situation awareness of the average person is poor. It isn’t very real to most people that Earth is
a planet in space, that it is in danger from global warming, and that seeing it from space helps
us assess the condition of the planet and provides us with direction how to keep it livable.
Champion Briefs
368
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Overview effect lack scientific support.
Speed, Chris. “Developing A Sense Of Place With Locative Media: An “Underview Effect.”. April,
2010. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/leon.2010.43.2.169>.
Frank White's Overview Effect, and the stories from astronauts who have orbited the Earth,
remain as a point of singularity in which the elements of Casey's recipe for a geographical,
social and physiological sense of place come together to provide a life-changing experience.
While the rest of us can hope to experience such an epiphany on a future domestic flight into
space, locative media may hold some potential in providing us with a heightened sense of place
that connects us to people and the environment around us. At the right pitch of people and
geography, our connection to this network may offer us an awareness of place that is big
enough to evoke a sense of being on a planet. In interpreting and communicating Rusty
Schweickart's space flight experiences, White writes: I saw humanity as an organism and
grasped the reality of his [Schweickart's] experience as the “eye” of humanity. I felt that, in
writing it down, I was like a “neuron” firing, sending the message down the line to others [20].
Champion Briefs
369
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The Overview Effect can be obtained virtually.
, Ryan Wyatt. “Visualising Astronomy.”. December, 2010. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252199749_Visualising_Astronomy>.
For many, frankly, a certain amount of frustration. After taking people on a “tour of the
Universe,” I often get asked what things look like “right now”: People grasp the idea that light
travel time reveals objects as they existed in the past, but they find it difficult to divorce the
three dimensions of the virtual model from the three dimensions of ordinary space. (Whereas
the virtual model actually combines spatial and temporal dimensions, and of course, the finite
speed of light allows us to reconstruct the history of the Universe, effectively embedded in the
three-dimensional representation). Overall, one can leave such an experience feeling very
small…But perhaps we can use the “big picture” to evoke other responses. Perhaps placing
Earth in its spatial-temporal context can redefine how people think about their home planet.
One could think of this as an extension of the “overview effect” reported by astronauts, in
which the experience of seeing Earth from space invoked feelings of connectedness and
euphoria. Can such a response be elicited virtually? My institution, the California Academy of
Sciences, USA, does active research in the life sciences as well as outreach, and for a grand reopening in a new, green building, astronomy played a supporting role in a planetarium show
that knitted together the themes of the Academy’s exhibits and research. Fragile Planet placed
Earth in a cosmological context, with the intention of influencing audiences’ ideas about
environmentalism and sustainability. Our as- yet unpublished evaluation of the program
showed that audiences got that message, but not as loudly and clearly as intended. Perhaps
such connections require more specific emphasis. The Academy recently hosted a meeting for
the NOAA-funded Worldviews Network team, and we spent an evening in our GeoDome
strategizing. In the words of the proposal statement, “the Worldviews Network will make
explicit the interconnections of Earth’s life support systems across time and space” with the
goal of “engaging the American public in dialogues about human-induced global changes.” To
paraphrase my colleague David McConville, a cosmological perspective might help open
Champion Briefs
370
A/2: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
people’s minds to the magnitude of the design challenges that face us in a rapidly changing
world. How might the Digital Universe transform people’s views? The current generation of
planetariums, equipped with appropriate technology and data, might just open people’s minds
to new attitudes and understanding.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
371
Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Negative Cases
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Locke NC : 9
The Locke NC argues that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is just
because private entities “mix” their labor with space resources, and by virtue of that productive
activity they deserve private property rights in what they acquire. The framework is based on
the theory of property rights provided by John Locke, who argued for a concept of “original
appropriation” based not only on the “mixing” idea, but also on the premises that property
holders must not waste what they’ve acquired and should also leave “enough and as good” for
others (the latter is called the Lockean Proviso). In Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy
and Governance, Jai Gaillott (cited in this brief) argues that asteroid mining by private entities
satisfies all three of these conditions, though he acknowledges that the strongest objection to
the practice is the egalitarian argument that asteroid mining will increase inequality and
preclude access to space for most people. The most strategic version of this NC would have
contentions/sub-points about each of the three conditions for legitimate, original appropriation
so that you already pre-empt the best Aff argument about inequality. At a minimum, you can
read the argument about mixing labor and get by in most debates, but some smart Affs will
refute the NC on the basis of spoilage or whether “enough and as good” is left for others.
The Locke NC will be effective against many ACs, but you should read a different NC
against the Colonialism AC. Although not every proponent of Lockean property rights agrees
with the historical, violent legacy of colonialism, the inconvenient truth is that Locke
rationalized England’s theft of Native lands in the United States on the basis that Native
Americans allegedly did not improve the soil they cultivated, unlike the English, and therefore
had insufficiently “mixed” their labor.13 If you read this NC, you should look into the literature
that attempts to rehabilitate Lockean property rights from this very compelling historical
objection.
13
Alex Tuckness, “Locke’s Political Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition),
https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=locke-political
Champion Briefs
373
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Asteroid mining satisfies two of Locke's criteria for the justice of
original appropriation, that it involve the mixing of one's labor and
that the resources in question will not spoil under one's care.
Galliott, Jai. “Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy And Governance.” Routledge. March
09, 2016. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=EL61CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22
locke%22+%22asteroid+mining%22&source=bl&ots=lSAoKZ8zA/2&sig=ACfU3U2v32EJyK
uCHt_0ijXmPGeeIkT0mg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIlbHWot30AhVMU98KHZtfCP0Q6
AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&q=%22locke%22%20%22asteroid%20mining%22&f=false>.
The Original Appropriation Argument claims that asteroid mining would violate moral principles
about how agents claim property. Asteroids ae currently unowned parts of what is often called
'the commons'. Mining is a kind of appropriation whereby agents gain property rights over
asteroids, or at least over parts of them. Traditionally, property rights include the right to
choose how property will be used and to transfer ownership to others, often in exchange for
payment of some kind. Because asteroids are currently unowned, their appropriation is
'original'. Famously, John Locke (1980) advanced three criteria for justifiable Original
Appropriation: (1) the labour criterion; (2) the no worsening criterion; and (3) the spoilage
criterion. According to the labour criterion, an agent must mix his labour with an unowned
object in order to appropriate it. This can be as simple as picking an apple from a wild tree to
something as labor-intensive as ploughing a field to sow crops. According to the no worsening
criterion, a person may appropriate only so much from the commons that they leave 'enough
and as good' for others. Thus a wanderer may claim a handful of apples off a wild tree, but not
every apple on the tree, since that would leave everyone else without. According to the
spoilage condition, a person may only appropriate so much such that what is appropriated will
not spoil or go to waste under his care. Thus a person may only claim as many apples as he can
actually eat before they rot, even if taking more would still leave as much and as good for
Champion Briefs
374
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
others. The Original Appropriation argument alleges that asteroid miners will necessarily run
afoul of one of these conditions. Since mining is clearly labour-intensive, even if remotely done
by machines, the practice seems to satisfy the labour condition. Since mined minerals are both
non-perishable and currently subject to significant market demand, it seems unlikely that they
would (or could) spoil in any relevant sense. So if asteroid mining fails to meet one of Locke's
criteria for just appropriation, it must be the no worsening condition. How might this be?
Champion Briefs
375
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Taxes and regulation of asteroid mining solve Locke's provision that
“enough and as good” resources be left for others.
Galliott, Jai. “Commercial Space Exploration: Ethics, Policy And Governance.” Routledge. March
09, 2016. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=EL61CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22
locke%22+%22asteroid+mining%22&source=bl&ots=lSAoKZ8zA/2&sig=ACfU3U2v32EJyK
uCHt_0ijXmPGeeIkT0mg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIlbHWot30AhVMU98KHZtfCP0Q6
AF6BAgREAM#v=onepage&q=%22locke%22%20%22asteroid%20mining%22&f=false>.
To the claims that asteroid mining will wrong people, either by exposing them to risks of
immoral exclusion from opportunities because of failures to meet standards for appropriation
or by exacerbating inequality, the defender of asteroid mining can argue that these wrongs are
not necessarily consequences of asteroid mining. Certainly these are possible consequences,
but with proper regulation, asteroid mining can be conducted without causing serious exposure
to risk or expansion of inequality. As suggested earlier, to address the risk that space
prospectors will not leave enough for others, governments or other terrestrial regulatory
agencies might introduce caps on how much material can be extracted. Alternatively, regulators
might allow prospectors to mine more than their fair share, but tax mined resources beyond
some threshold. Tax revenues could be used to compensate non-miners for the opportunity
costs forced on them by over-extraction. Such taxes could also alleviate the problems of
inequality. James Schwartz has recently advanced similar ideas, relying specifically on a
Rawlsian framework. While asteroid mining has its moral perils, these are evitable with welldesigned regulations.
Champion Briefs
376
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Locke's theory of private property rights is applicable to space.
Akintunde, Iseoluwa. “Lessons From John Locke: Envisioning A Multilateral Legal Regime For
Property Rights Over The Natura.” McGill University. 2016. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE
widgq6KueD0AhVDbs0KHRt6DCEQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescholarship.m
cgill.ca%2Fdownloads%2Fth83m210v&usg=AOvVaw0r6JKeUK_9ySCUdAVNMt3p>.
It is to be noted that in formulating theories, philosophers are usually influenced by their
ideological prejudices and the peculiar sociological context with which the theory is formulated.
It is a constant feature of virtually every legal undertaking. Even attempts to define law itself
have been perpetually elusive, always dependent on the prejudices and idiosyncrasies of
whoever attempts the task.62 This is applicable to Locke’s theory of property rights. Out of the
abundance of property theories, three important reasons inform the choice of the Lockean
school to envision a legal regime for property rights over the natural resources in space. First,
over the years, the Lockean theory of property has proven to be of immense utilitarian value in
legal and political thought. More than most theories, it has been applied to diverse areas
including bioengineering, territorial rights, colonial annexation of territory and international
law. 63 The perceived vagueness of Locke’s theory is accompanied with the advantage of
sustained relevance, thus making the theory amenable to contemporary circumstances and
invoking a variegated tapestry of interpretations. 64 This thesis offers the interpretation of
Locke’s theory of Locke’s theory of property rights to the exploitation of natural resources in
space. Second, most contemporary discussions on the exploitation of natural resources in outer
space undermine or totally ignore the significance of legal theory in shaping a legal framework
for property rights over space resources. While some scholars concentrate on the
interpretation of the existing space law treaties,65 others draw inspiration from other
analogous areas beyond the limits of national sovereignty and/or the other structured legal
regimes within international space law.66 This thesis attempts to fill that gap. This is in keeping
faith with Lord Coke’s dictum that “who knoweth the law, and knoweth not the reason thereof,
Champion Briefs
377
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
soon forgetteth his superfluous learning.”67 Philosophy is the ‘reason’ behind the law. Finally,
and perhaps the most important reason is that, I am persuaded that Locke’s conception and
discussion of property rights can be situated within the context of property rights over the
natural resources in outer space particularly because of Locke’s arguments in favour of private
property and his allusion to “a more affirmative original communism in which everyone has
equal rights to access to the world’s natural resources, and in which people therefore owe
duties to one another from the outset.”68 This appears to fit well within the present framework
for outer space activities which mandates activities in outer space to be carried for the benefit
of all countries.69 When Locke’s theory is applied, the question that arises is whether a
unilateral or multilateral regime is more suitable in bringing about a new regime of property
rights. This thesis argues that the law making process for the provision of property rights over
the natural resources in outer space must to be multilateral and not unilateral. A multilateral
regime is compatible with the object and purpose of international law and the principle of
international cooperation. As we have learnt from international environmental law, developed
and technologically advanced States are more inclined to act unilaterally than their developing
and less advanced counterparts.70 Some States have opted for national legislation to provide
for property rights, while others continue to advocate for a multilateral framework. In
November 2015, the U.S took a huge step towards unilateral regulation of property rights over
space resources by enacting legislation that expressly provides that: “A United States citizen
engaged in commercial recovery of an asteroid resource or a space resource under this chapter
shall be entitled to any asteroid resource or space resource obtained, including to possess,
own, transport, use, and sell the asteroid resource or space resource obtained in accordance
with applicable law, including the international obligations of the United States.”
Champion Briefs
378
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private entities have a property right in space resources precisely
because outer space is presently a commons, the prerequisite for
original acquisition.
Akintunde, Iseoluwa. “Lessons From John Locke: Envisioning A Multilateral Legal Regime For
Property Rights Over The Natura.” McGill University. 2016. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKE
widgq6KueD0AhVDbs0KHRt6DCEQFnoECBMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fescholarship.m
cgill.ca%2Fdownloads%2Fth83m210v&usg=AOvVaw0r6JKeUK_9ySCUdAVNMt3p>.
C. RELATING LOCKE’S THEORY TO PROPERTY RIGHTS OVER THE NATURAL RESOURCES IN SPACE
There are arguments205 that the present legal regime for space exploration is “restrictive and
suffocating”206 and that the res communis principle is a clog in the wheel of progress of
innovation and commercialization of extra-terrestrial natural resources.207 Notwithstanding
this, this author is of the view that while the existing legal framework for space activities does
not accommodate the property rights in outer space, the very principle of res communis is
neither inconsistent nor incompatible with the concept of property rights. In this analysis, the
individuals in Locke’s philosophical commons are likened to States in international arena.208
Just like the resources in Locke’s philosophical commons, the natural resources in outer space
are of no intrinsic commercial value, neither can they fulfil their potential of solving the
problems of humanity in their unmined state. Before resources are extracted from them,
asteroids are nothing more than rocks drifting in space; they are floating objects unconnected
to land.209 Without the application of human efforts, technology and finances in the
exploitation of these resources, there would not be any success in this venture. Thus, if a State
makes investment of money or effort to mine space resources, it would have property rights
over the resources.210 As noted earlier, private entities like planetary resources have already
invested and are still investing resources in exploring space for possible mining. This is similar to
what holds in Locke’s commons, where the available resources are of no value in themselves
Champion Briefs
379
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
until humans mix their labour with it. Even without assurances of property rights, space mining
companies are reported to have expended resources on the prospecting of mining
opportunities in deep space 211 and are certain to expend more when exploitation becomes
more feasible. By taking on an ambitious project of this nature, States and their private entities
are embarking on a highly risky venture that may or may not be profitable. If it becomes
profitable, it is the view of this author that they should be given some rights over them. But it
must be admitted that this proposal, based on the Lockean property rights model, are prone to
diverse challenges due to the geo-political issues that have plagued the exploration and use of
space since inception and are still applicable today. The anticipated reality is that if and when
mining becomes profitable with the accompanying property rights, States would have more
incentives to grab as many asteroids as they can which would lead to conflicts. It is therefore
important to understand the limits of property rights under Locke’s theory and how it relates to
the natural resources in space. The Locke-an approach with respect to space resources would
give rise to the following questions: how do we ensure that States that do not have the
competence and capacity to exploit resources in space are not effectively shut-out by those
who do? Is there an obligation to share the benefits of such exploitation with other States? This
shall now be demonstrated by using the three limitations enunciated by Locke. These
exceptions will now be used to envision a property rights framework within the outer space.
Champion Briefs
380
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Legalized asteroid mining by private entities is compatible with the
recognition that we all share the commons, yet private entities have
the right to mix their labor with natural resources to claim property.
Gershman, Jacob. “A ‘Lockean Approach’ To Asteroid Mining.” The Wall Street Journal.
December 07, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021. <https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-LB52694>.
What would 17th-century English philosopher John Locke think of the U.S. Commercial Space
Launch Competitiveness Act? Locke's life overlapped with Galileo's, so the father of classical
liberalism might need a briefing on advances in astronomy and space exploration. But once up
to speed, he'd cheer the new law, suggests K&L Gates LLP partner R. Paul Stimers in a Wall
Street Journal op-ed. As Law Blog notes, the law signed by President Barack Obama last month
legalizes commercial asteroid mining and has been met with some questions about whether
Congress and the president have the authority to assign such rights under international law.
The issue is whether the law conflicts with a 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which the United
States is a signatory, along with more than 100 other nations. Article I of the treaty says in part
that, “Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration
and use by all States.” Mr. Stimers, who lobbied for the space law and advises a company
aiming to get into the asteroid mining business, calls the law “the most sweeping legislative
recognition of property rights in human history.” He writes that it takes a “Lockean approach”
to navigate around the asteroid field of international law.In his “Second Treatise of
Government,” John Locke argued that God gave the world to humanity in common, but that
each person owns himself and his labor. Therefore, when he puts labor into an object through
work, he can develop a property right in the object. Similarly, the U.S. recognizes that the
cosmos belongs to everyone. But under the new law resources can be retrieved from their
location in space and subsequently developed. It is the work of doing this that creates the
property right … [B]ecause it does not prohibit other kinds of property rights the Outer Space
Champion Briefs
381
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Treaty is generally regarded as authorizing the economic use of space. Congress’s new law
complies fully with the treaty, in that it covers resources “obtained” and not “in situ.” But lest
any doubt arise, lawmakers included a further provision: “By the enactment of this Act, the
United States does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or jurisdiction
over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.” The legal questions aren't abstract. Mr. Stimers
says the company he advises has already “launched the first in a series of technology
demonstration satellites and plans to send its first prospecting probe to an asteroid by the end
of the decade.”
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
382
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
The prior appropriation doctrine (a) requires productive use, which
puts a natural limit on the property right, and (b) does not constitute
a sovereign claim over land in space.
Wrench, John G. “Non-Appropriation, No Problem: The Outer Space Treaty Is Ready For
Asteroid Mining.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 51:1. 2019. Web.
December 12, 2021.
<https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2546&context=jil
>.
The prior appropriation doctrine serves as a unique example for space law because of how it
conceptualizes land ownership. Underlying land is available for use not because it is
“unowned,” but because it is owned by a community who has the right to make productive use
of it.148 Because the community owns the land, claimants have an obligation to use the land
properly and the government is responsible for stewardship.149 This framing fits neatly with
proponents of the idea that outer space is collectively “owned” by the international
community. Regardless, stewardship and government ownership do not necessarily displace
the potential for productive use. Parties do not violate the non-appropriation principle simply
by extracting—or as here, diverting—resources from the land. At no point does extraction
equate to a sovereign claim over the land. In instances where non-productive use or the like
violates those principles, property rights disappear. Furthermore, the OST encourages the idea
that outer space is to be used to benefit the broader international community.150 The prior
appropriation doctrine illustrates that parties can establish and transfer robust property rights
in resources independent from land-ownership, while promoting beneficial use.
Champion Briefs
383
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private property is a moral entitlement predicated on productive use.
Tjandra, Jonathan. “The Fragmentation Of Property Rights In The Law Of Outer Space.” Air &
Space Law 46:3. 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c71e3a8c2ff6112aecebeda/t/6093a7feff5c4f6
031b27581/1620289535388/AILA_46_0303.pdf>.
We have so far established that in outer space, recognition of property rights is limited to a
right to use. The question remains whether the right to use is an adequate basis to acquire
property rights in outer space within the constraints of res extra commercium. Allocations
based on the right to use, rather than the rights to exclude or dispose, results in a more
efficient allocation of resources. Epstein considers that if instead, the law provided only for a
right to exclude, then ‘the world will remain a tundra, in which [the right-holder] could keep
[their] own place on the barren square of the checkerboard’. 102 The right-holder must also
have a privilege-right to use the property. Political philosophers such as Locke have put forward
alternative justifications of property that demonstrate that the productive right to use is
perhaps the essential part of property, for ‘As much land as a man tills, plants, improves,
cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property’. 103 Locke’s Labour Theory of
Property is an understanding of property which is underpinned by an account of the moral
significance of labour. Locke’s theory was an answer to a natural law conundrum: if God gave to
humanity the whole world in common property, then how can individuals be said to have
private property?104 This dilemma is a similar one to the issue in this Article, namely, where
private property can exist if international law declares outer space to be res extra communis.
Locke resolves: Every man has a property in his own person … The labour of his body, and the
work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state
that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it
something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.105 Therefore, the basis for
property rights is using the resource productively. The rights to exclude or dispose are
important only insofar as it protects the owner’s right to use a resource for their own benefit.
Champion Briefs
384
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Further, property is a moral entitlement that stems from productive use. Mere enclosure is
insufficient, so Tonga’s allocation of geostationary orbits would not, according to Locke be
justifiable unless Tonga could use the orbits productively. A person cannot claim property over
a resource by simply claiming a right to exclude all others from it, they must proactively
cultivate it or put it to some use for it to be entitled to protection as property. Locke has a
proviso: one can only claim property ‘where there is enough, and as good, left in common for
others’. 106 This proviso bears striking similarities to the Roman’s treatment of structures on
the seashore as being permissible only if it does not encroach on the common right to use the
seashore or to access the sea. Any acquisition of property is a diminution of another’s rights to
the common resource. The Lockean proviso can only make sense if other persons have some
entitlement to the resource, otherwise it would not matter whether there is anything left over.
Other individuals have privilege-rights in the use of common property and can justly complain if
that interest in the use of land is violated or they are left worse off.
Champion Briefs
385
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private property is a moral entitlement predicated on productive use.
Tjandra, Jonathan. “The Fragmentation Of Property Rights In The Law Of Outer Space.” Air &
Space Law 46:3. 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c71e3a8c2ff6112aecebeda/t/6093a7feff5c4f6
031b27581/1620289535388/AILA_46_0303.pdf>.
We have so far established that in outer space, recognition of property rights is limited to a
right to use. The question remains whether the right to use is an adequate basis to acquire
property rights in outer space within the constraints of res extra commercium. Allocations
based on the right to use, rather than the rights to exclude or dispose, results in a more
efficient allocation of resources. Epstein considers that if instead, the law provided only for a
right to exclude, then ‘the world will remain a tundra, in which [the right-holder] could keep
[their] own place on the barren square of the checkerboard’. 102 The right-holder must also
have a privilege-right to use the property. Political philosophers such as Locke have put forward
alternative justifications of property that demonstrate that the productive right to use is
perhaps the essential part of property, for ‘As much land as a man tills, plants, improves,
cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property’. 103 Locke’s Labour Theory of
Property is an understanding of property which is underpinned by an account of the moral
significance of labour. Locke’s theory was an answer to a natural law conundrum: if God gave to
humanity the whole world in common property, then how can individuals be said to have
private property?104 This dilemma is a similar one to the issue in this Article, namely, where
private property can exist if international law declares outer space to be res extra communis.
Locke resolves: Every man has a property in his own person … The labour of his body, and the
work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state
that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it
something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.105 Therefore, the basis for
property rights is using the resource productively. The rights to exclude or dispose are
important only insofar as it protects the owner’s right to use a resource for their own benefit.
Champion Briefs
386
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Further, property is a moral entitlement that stems from productive use. Mere enclosure is
insufficient, so Tonga’s allocation of geostationary orbits would not, according to Locke be
justifiable unless Tonga could use the orbits productively. A person cannot claim property over
a resource by simply claiming a right to exclude all others from it, they must proactively
cultivate it or put it to some use for it to be entitled to protection as property. Locke has a
proviso: one can only claim property ‘where there is enough, and as good, left in common for
others’. 106 This proviso bears striking similarities to the Roman’s treatment of structures on
the seashore as being permissible only if it does not encroach on the common right to use the
seashore or to access the sea. Any acquisition of property is a diminution of another’s rights to
the common resource. The Lockean proviso can only make sense if other persons have some
entitlement to the resource, otherwise it would not matter whether there is anything left over.
Other individuals have privilege-rights in the use of common property and can justly complain if
that interest in the use of land is violated or they are left worse off.
Champion Briefs
387
NEG: Locke NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights are key to efficient social cooperation---that turns util.
Tjandra, Jonathan. “The Fragmentation Of Property Rights In The Law Of Outer Space.” Air &
Space Law 46:3. 2021. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c71e3a8c2ff6112aecebeda/t/6093a7feff5c4f6
031b27581/1620289535388/AILA_46_0303.pdf>.
Hume takes a similar but positivist view to Locke: ‘A man’s property is some object related to
him. This relation is not natural, but moral, and founded on justice’. 107 According to Hume,
property developed as a way to ensure efficiency in a society to remedy two defects of
resources: scarcity and instability, as without some means of enforcement, one’s use of a
resource is vulnerable to disruption by other people through violence.108 Property rights relies
on social norms, and eventually laws, to be enforceable. Because Hume’s account focusses on
justifying property as being necessary for cooperation within a society, the use and
consumption of resources is the justification for property. That is, property rights exist to
protect the positive right of individuals to efficiently maximize their utility. A right to exclude
provides no benefits for Hume’s society, but a right to use can. These philosophical
justifications for the allocation property on Earth can provide an adequate basis for property in
outer space based on the right to use.
Champion Briefs
388
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Hegel NC
The Hegel NC argues that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is just
because private property rights, expressed through appropriation, are essential to autonomy
and mutual recognition. The framework is based upon the theory of G.W.F. Hegel, who argued,
in the words of Samuel Duncan, that “property is part of a system that not only respects
subjective freedom but also leads individuals to develop their capacities for substantial freedom
through the exercise of such negative freedom.”14 This is the ‘developmental thesis’ in Hegel’s
thought, which Duncan somewhat dislodges in favor of a more nuanced view from Hegel about
the role that private property rights play in the social roles that comprise mutual recognition
and respect in the economy. Regardless of the theoretical take you offer, the basis of this
framework is that private property rights should be treated as absolute, and no theory of
justice would allow for their violation. The cards in this NC do not need to be about outer space
per se (which is a strength of this NC), but it would help for you to have evidence about the
integral role of private property rights in facilitating the appropriation of outer space.
The Hegel NC is effective against the Neolib AC if you are prepared to argue for Hegel’s
defense of capitalism, though you may not want to stake the debate on impact turns (especially
if you want to link turn the AC!). It would be a lot harder to read this case against the
Colonialism AC, unless you delved into the literature about property and colonialism to
articulate a nuanced middle ground (“the Neg can argue for appropriation without being
complicit in an oppressive historical legacy”). This NC’s weakness is that unlike the Locke NC,
there are not many authors that explicitly tie Hegel to the topic, and usually that connection
makes for great contentions.
14
Samuel Duncan, “Hegel on Private Property: A Contextual Reading,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 55:3,
page 262.
Champion Briefs
389
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
A system of “common property” over private property fails to respect
individual rights.
Duncan, Samuel. “Hegel On Private Property: A Contextual Reading.” The Southern Journal of
Philosophy 55:3. September, 2017. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjp.12238>.
To understand why this is, consider how use rights would be determined in a system of
common property and who would get to determine them. The most natural way of determining
use rights would be in light of social welfare of some sort or other, and either the government
or perhaps bureaucrats would determine who got to use what. So a system of common
property would work out individuals’ rights and responsibilities solely in terms of the common
good. Now Hegel allows for limitations of individuals’ freedom in the name of wider social
goals, but if we work out a scheme of property rights in this way, individuals’ arbitrary freedom
is not even considered as such. This approach only considers the common good and not the
freedom of individuals. Further, since such schemes of common property are almost certain to
be imposed from above they fail as a scheme of mutual recognition, since one is being
directed—even if indirectly—by planners who do not recognize one as an equal. Hegel cites
exactly these sorts of considerations when he argues for trial by jury.13 He admits that a
system of justice that was entirely in the hands of legal professionals might administer justice
as well or even better than does a system with juries. However, such a system is inferior to a
jury system because this whole system implicitly regards those who are on trial as inferior to
the professionals, and so those on trial would become in a sense “wards of the court.” For this
reason, Hegel holds that “the right of self-consciousness, the moment of subjective freedom” is
the crucial factor in favor of trials by jury. In such a system, Hegel believes that the accused
need not feel that his fate is imposed on him from individuals who claim superiority over him. I
believe he would offer the same sort of defense for a system of private property as opposed to
a communal scheme. Private property rights depend on claims of individuals who recognize one
as exactly the same sort of equal individual, and freedom is limited only on the claims of
Champion Briefs
390
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
personality and not on grounds of some overarching social goal, and these factors make it
superior to a communal scheme. So then part of Hegel’s reason for holding that society should
recognize private property and property rights is that we should respect subjective freedom,
and this entails recognizing and respecting some claims to property. The account I have
attributed to Hegel so far is quite straightforward, but it is also open to some pressing
objections.
Champion Briefs
391
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Property claims by corporations are consistent with mutual
recognition and respect in society, which outweighs the effect of
material inequalities on freedom.
Duncan, Samuel. “Hegel On Private Property: A Contextual Reading.” The Southern Journal of
Philosophy 55:3. September, 2017. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sjp.12238>.
So Hegel argues that the institutions and processes he describes in civil society go a long way to
resolving the arbitrariness and indeterminacy that plague Abstract Right’s conception of
freedom and rights. One of the most novel aspects of Hegel’s picture is that he thinks this
happens not by suppressing the sort of subjective freedom we see in Abstract Right, but instead
by letting it fully develop in the sphere of civil society. We see the true originality of Hegel’s
picture only when we appreciate the extent to which he believes that the process of Bildung he
describes in Civil Society is selfimposed. People will certain ends and require property to
embody what they have willed. And so they labor to acquire the property that is a necessary
condition of actualizing their willed ends. They are not forced to labor by some external will for
some fixed good or goods as, say, a serf or peasant was, but instead labor to fulfill ends that
they have chosen. Further, as Hegel points out, individuals in the modern economy have a
choice of careers, and Hegel links this with the modern respect for subjective freedom, faulting
social systems, both real and ideal, that deny this right.22 Hegel’s defense of property and
property rights, then, is that not only do they respect the subjective freedom that modernity
holds in such high regard, but that in the proper sort of social arrangement they play a vital role
in a system that both fosters a more objective and substantial form of freedom in its members.
We can now see how Hegel could address criticisms leveled at his support of private property
on grounds of subjective freedom that is in some way at odds with the importance he places on
mutual recognition. Putting substantial freedom on the table gives us an answer to the claim
that differences in property are incompatible with holding all citizens to have the same basic
Champion Briefs
392
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
level of worth. If property were the only method of recognizing individuals’ capacities for
freedom and rights, then inequality in property would indeed be incompatible with recognizing
one another as free and equal beings as long as there was inequality in property. However,
Hegel thinks that in a properly developed society we are recognized not primarily as an abstract
bearer of rights, but as people who occupy distinct social positions. The most important of
these for our purposes is once again the estate that one occupies. Hegel realizes that the
merely having a job and identifying with its norms and performing them well might not be
sufficient for recognition by other members of society, and this is one of the reasons he
believes that society requires recognized corporations. The corporation is a method of
providing a more explicit and socially recognized community for individuals and in doing so it
serves two purposes that are relevant for our discussion. For one, it makes the norms that
characterize one’s estate more exact and helps to develop them more fully. Hegel recognizes
that the identities provided by some jobs might be a bit too thin to provide an adequate
conception of substantial freedom, and the corporation is at least partially a solution to this
problem. The corporation also provides for recognition from one’s fellow members and the
community at large. A legally recognized corporation makes the borders of the relevant
community clear and shows whose recognition should count for one as a member of a certain
profession. More importantly, it provides explicit legal representation for the corporation’s
members. They are not merely abstract personalities facing other such personalities, but
members of recognized corporations facing one another and the rest of society as such. Hegel
thinks that this ensures that they can gain recognition without having to seek it through
property. In fact, this recognition makes the recognition that one might seek through property
relatively unimportant. However, Hegel tells us that without membership in a corporation,
individuals will try to seek recognition and a sense of their worth and freedom through the
accumulation of property.
Champion Briefs
393
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights are also rights against the state in addition to being
rights between people, which means that the state should not limit
private appropriation.
Wilson, M. Blake. “Personhood And Property In Hegel's Conception Of Freedom.” PhilArchive.
2019. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://philarchive.org/archive/WILPAP-29>.
Because Hegel fails to provide for rights between persons and the state, it cannot be said that
the Hegelian state maintains an institution of private property. What kind of political state,
then, both preserves and uplifts Hegel’s social ideas of property and freedom? As I have shown,
it cannot be the authoritarian, monarchical state that Hegel endorses at the end of Philosophy
of Right. As Honneth has suggested, Hegel can still be profitably read without making a
commitment to this unacceptable conception of the state. To that extent, a Hegelian property
theory, one in which Hegel’s «basic conception of the state has been rejected in principle»95,
can still provide robust social property rights with the understanding that, because those rights
wither at the level of the state, his property theory cannot be said to provide robust political
property rights. Hegel’s basic conception of the state must therefore be rejected because it is
not the kind of state that maintains an institution of private property, which, in order to protect
the abstract property right against fellow citizens, must also protect that right against the state.
In its place is the liberal, democratic, and capitalist state that Hegel gestures towards in his
appraisal of property and freedom and their operation within Sittlichkeit, and it is that kind of
state which preserves these rights against the state itself. By providing for property rights
between private persons as well as between private persons and the state, it is this type of
state that permits Hegel’s idealized abstract property right to be the social and legal
embodiment of personality and freedom.
Champion Briefs
394
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Private property rights enable individuals to pursue their interests and
plans, and obligations to the community do not take precedence.
Wilson, M. Blake. “Personhood And Property In Hegel's Conception Of Freedom.” PhilArchive.
2019. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://philarchive.org/archive/WILPAP-29>.
In a capitalist or market framework, property is, of course, the primary object of trade75. Not
only does Hegel clearly oppose the abolition of private property (§ 46R, § 185R), he is severely
critical of both the grounds for, and the effect of, Plato’s communism for the guardians of the
city. According to Kenneth Westphal, Hegel’s approval of capitalism is qualified, but
nevertheless «he did not oppose it and indeed based his political philosophy on a careful
rethinking of modern political economy»76. For Siep, Hegel believes that individuals can pursue
their abilities and plans «only in the context of the effectively private pursuit of interests,
involving the free choice of profession or occupation and the private disposal over the means of
production»77. The modern era, Hegel writes in §261, promotes this private pursuit, in that
modern human beings «expect their inner life to be respected» as much as we «expect to have
our own views, our own volition, and our own conscience». In Hegel’s view, writes Schmidt am
Busch, [c]ontracts and market-like exchanges are not a possible institutionalization, but a
necessary condition of the realization of personal respect…In fact, individuals who exchange
commodities for money as well as individuals who exchange labor for money or money for
money “recognize each other as persons and property owners”. Therefore, commodity, labor,
and capital markets can, in principle, be said to be (possible) institutionalizations of personal
respect (see § 80)78. Hegel clearly adopts Adam Smith’s theory of the invisible hand of the
marketplace when he writes that the system of needs – the most basic system in civil society,
consisting of requirements for food, shelter, and other necessities – is best met in an economy
where subjective selfishness turns into a contribution towards the satisfaction of the needs of
everyone else. By a dialectical movement, the particular is mediated by the universal so that
each individual, in earning, producing, and enjoying his own account, thereby earns and
produces for the enjoyment of others (§ 199)79. However, according to Peter Stillman, Hegel
Champion Briefs
395
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
does not attempt to justify capitalism, which «simply follows from the play of private property
in civil society»80, nor does he provide an apology for it because he provides for extensive
regulation of property as well as the subjugation of the individual to the state81, a subject that
will occupy the final section of this paper. So, ethical life – a social framework of norms, laws,
and practices that operate only because subjects actively participate in them – creates the
possibility that persons might freely trade and contract for property (the actions of abstract
right) and also engage in moral reflection (the actions of morality). Without ethical life, there is
no free trade but only theft and barbarism, which are the products of failed moral reflection.
For Stillman, Sittlichkeit is «rich in types of human relations, development, and freedom», and it
is here that «[p]roperty must be aufgehoben, both preserved and transcended, so that Hegel
can get from the property centered starting point of abstract right to a Sittlichkeit that is
institutionally pluralistic and varied»82. It is at this point that Hegel is able to reconcile abstract,
individual right with different social contexts by situating ethical life prior to the exercise of
moral behavior, such as refraining from stealing and the enjoyment of property rights. Moral
obligation to the community, however, does not mean that the community takes priority over
private property and the exercise of abstract right: it means that the community has interests
that the individual must respect, and, perhaps more importantly, the individual has interests
(many of which are protected by abstract rights) that the community must, in turn, respect as
well.
Champion Briefs
396
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Even though the state creates property rights, a strong state is
necessary to protect the right of individual appropriation, as
established by the NC.
Cristi, Renato. “Hegel On Property And Recognition.” Laval théologique et philosophique, 5.
June, 1995. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ltp/1995-v51n2-ltp2152/400918ar.pdf>.
In this essay I argue that this social conception does not fully capture Hegel's view on property.
He does propound such a view in his early political works, where he always ties property to
recognition. But in his Philosophy of Right this conception is amended when dealing with
property as an abstract right. The notion of abstract and immediate property dispenses with
recognition and bears all the marks of a possessive individualist conception. As Hegel's
argument develops, this individualist concept of property is joined by a social concept mediated
by the recognition of others. This takes place within abstract right when the argument moves
from property to contract. Contractual property involves recognition by others. But this
relativization of property is not meant to weaken individual appropriation. On the contrary,
Hegel intends its reinforcement. Individual property is duly safeguarded only when social
property re-emerges within civil society and a legal system contributes the required
institutional context. Ultimately, a strong state is the best protection for property when it is
defined in possessive individualist terms.
Champion Briefs
397
NEG: Hegel NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Because property is an abstract right, contingent questions of its
distribution do not weaken the rights claim.
Ritter, Joachim. “Person And Property In Hegel’s Philosophy Of Right (§§34–81).” Hegel on
Ethics and Politics, edited by Robert B. Pippin, and Otfried Höffe, Cambridge University.
2004. Web. December 12, 2021.
<http://faculty.www.umb.edu/steven.levine/Courses/Hegel/Ritter,%20Person%20and%
20Property.pdf>.
Hegel treats the question of property in the first part of the Philosophy of Right, entitled
“abstract right.”1 The “right” that forms the general context for this discussion of property is in
the first instance Roman civil law insofar as the latter, defined expressly in terms of the utilitas
singulorum, is concerned directly with the free individual, a “person,” that is, an individual
capable of bearing rights, in contrast with the unfree individual. The capacity for bearing rights
here signifies that the free individual is a “person” insofar as he or she possesses the right to
dispose over “things” [Sachen] and thereby stands as such in a legal relationship of right with
regard to other free individuals. This constitutes the point of departure for Hegel’s analysis: the
singular individual is to be regarded as a person insofar as he or she possesses the right to place
his or her will in any thing whatsoever and thereby, precisely as the “owner” of “possessions
qua property,” relates to other free individuals as persons (§§40 and 44). Hence the Philosophy
of Right excludes everything that belongs to the subjectivity of any particular personality from
the concept of “person” as such. This subjectivity, together with everything “connected with
particularity,” is a matter of “indifference” (§37 Addition) in relation to the individual as person
in the legal sense. Hegel is equally rigorous in restricting the theory of property to the
relationship between persons on the basis of things as defined in civil law. He expressly rejects
the inclusion here of any questions concerning property that are not defined in terms of right in
this sense, such as “the demand sometimes made for equality in the distribution of land or
even of other available resources” or the claim that “all human beings should have a livelihood
to meet their needs.” Even the question of “what and how much I possess is therefore purely
contingent as far as right is concerned” and “belongs to another sphere” (§49).2
Champion Briefs
398
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
This is meant to be read in two parts. The first five cards included are a part of a
counterplan that should say something like The United States should subsidize private
corporations to colonize mars, or something similar. The first five cards explain how mars is the
best option for colonization, and that mars colonization is actually possible.
The latter 10 cards of the argument are the disadvantage that goes with it. This is a
pretty generic warming disadvantage that just explains how, as it stands, there is no hope to
avoid climate change and that we need to leave the planet. There are a few important warrants
to think about – included in the file are a variety of overpopulation cards. These pieces of
evidence say that overpopulation is the root cause of global warming and if we do want to solve
warming, solving overpopulation is the way to do it. The counterplan solves overpopulation by
moving people away from earth onto mars.
In order to beat this argument, debaters have to answer both the counter plan and the
disadvantage. First, make the standard arguments against counterplans: permutations, no
solvency, links to net benefit, etc. Second, debaters must answer the disadvantage: no link, no
impact, or even turning the argument. There are impact turns to global warming, and included
are a variety of turns to overpopulation.
Champion Briefs
399
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Now is key - the faster the better - survival depends on the future of
exploration.
, AFP. “Space Key To Mankind's Survival: NASA Chief.” Space Travel. September 25, 2008. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://www.spacetravel.com/reports/Space_exploration_key_to_mankinds_survival_NASA_chief_999.ht
ml>.
Mankind's very survival depends on the future exploration of space, said NASA chief Michael
Griffin in an interview with AFP marking the 50th anniversary of the US space agency. This
journey, said the veteran physicist and aerospace engineer, is full of unknowns and has only just
begun. “Does the survival of human kind depend upon it? I think so,” he said. Griffin compared
the first walk on the Moon with Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Americas. “He
travelled for months and spent a few weeks in the Americas and returned home. He could
hardly have said to have explored the New World. “So we have just begun to touch other
worlds,” said Griffin. “I think we must return to the Moon because it's the next step. It's a few
days from home,” he said, adding Mars was also “only a few months” from Earth. But Griffin
acknowledged that like the 15th century explorers who embarked on their adventures without
knowing what they would find, a leap of faith is required for space travel. “As we move out in
our solar system, expanding human presence, we can't prove what we will find will be useful.
“It was understood in Columbus's time that if voyagers discovered new lands they would find
valuable things. We can't prove today that we can exploit what we find to the benefit of
humankind.” However, in the long run, Griffin believes “human populations must diversify if it
wishes to survive.” In explaining his goals for NASA in testimony to Congress in 2004, Griffin
said: “The single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar
system, and eventually beyond. “I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the
difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible.” In this effort, Griffin told AFP
that cooperation between nations is key if mankind's calling to the final frontier is to be
realized. “The space station is much bigger and better and more impressive and more
Champion Briefs
400
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
productive as a result of the partnership with Canada, Russia, Europe, and Japan, than it would
have been if we had done it ourselves,” he said. However, the NASA head lamented the end of
the space shuttle program in 2010, concerned that in the interim period at least the United
States will be reliant on other nations to reach the heavens. “There will be a gap. I don't like it
but there it is. For the US to lose even for a period of time independent access to space, I don't
think it's a good thing.” In the time between the shuttle retires and the new generation of US
spacecraft -- Orion -- gets off the ground, US astronauts will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz
spacecraft to reach the International Space Station. “I think that is a dangerous position to be
in,” said Griffin. “If anything at all in that five-year period goes wrong with the Russian Soyuz …
that is a great concern.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
401
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Counterplan is key - current technology is insufficient.
, NASA. “Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology.” NASA: Mars
Exploration Program. July 30, 2018. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8358/mars-terraforming-not-possible-using-present-daytechnology/>.
Although the current Martian atmosphere itself consists mostly of carbon dioxide, it is far too
thin and cold to support liquid water, an essential ingredient for life. On Mars, the pressure of
the atmosphere is less than one percent of the pressure of Earth’s atmosphere. Any liquid
water on the surface would very quickly evaporate or freeze. Proponents of terraforming Mars
propose releasing gases from a variety of sources on the Red Planet to thicken the atmosphere
and increase the temperature to the point where liquid water is stable on the surface. These
gases are called “greenhouse gases” for their ability to trap heat and warm the climate.
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O) are the only greenhouse gases that are likely to
be present on Mars in sufficient abundance to provide any significant greenhouse warming,”
said Bruce Jakosky of the University of Colorado, Boulder, lead author of the study appearing in
Nature Astronomy July 30. Although studies investigating the possibility of terraforming Mars
have been made before, the new result takes advantage of about 20 years of additional
spacecraft observations of Mars. “These data have provided substantial new information on the
history of easily vaporized (volatile) materials like CO2 and H2O on the planet, the abundance
of volatiles locked up on and below the surface, and the loss of gas from the atmosphere to
space,” said co-author Christopher Edwards of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
The researchers analyzed the abundance of carbon-bearing minerals and the occurrence of CO2
in polar ice using data from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey spacecraft,
and used data on the loss of the Martian atmosphere to space by NASA’s MAVEN (Mars
Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution) spacecraft. “Our results suggest that there is not enough
CO2 remaining on Mars to provide significant greenhouse warming were the gas to be put into
the atmosphere; in addition, most of the CO2 gas is not accessible and could not be readily
Champion Briefs
402
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
mobilized. As a result, terraforming Mars is not possible using present-day technology,” said
Jakosky. Although Mars has significant quantities of water ice that could be used to create
water vapor, previous analyses show that water cannot provide significant warming by itself;
temperatures do not allow enough water to persist as vapor without first having significant
warming by CO2, according to the team. Also, while other gases such as the introduction of
chloroflorocarbons or other fluorine-based compounds have been proposed to raise the
atmospheric temperature, these gases are short-lived and would require large-scale
manufacturing processes, so they were not considered in the current study. The atmospheric
pressure on Mars is around 0.6 percent of Earth’s. With Mars being further away from the Sun,
researchers estimate a CO2 pressure similar to Earth’s total atmospheric pressure is needed to
raise temperatures enough to allow for stable liquid water. The most accessible source is CO2
in the polar ice caps; it could be vaporized by spreading dust on it to absorb more solar
radiation or by using explosives. However, vaporizing the ice caps would only contribute
enough CO2 to double the Martian pressure to 1.2 percent of Earth’s, according to the new
analysis. Another source is CO2 attached to dust particles in Martian soil, which could be
heated to release the gas. The researchers estimate that heating the soil could provide up to 4
percent of the needed pressure. A third source is carbon locked in mineral deposits. Using the
recent NASA spacecraft observations of mineral deposits, the team estimates the most
plausible amount will yield less than 5 percent of the required pressure, depending on how
extensive deposits buried close to the surface may be. Just using the deposits near the surface
would require extensive strip mining, and going after all the CO2 attached to dust particles
would require strip mining the entire planet to a depth of around 100 yards. Even CO2 trapped
in water-ice molecule structures, should such “clathrates” exist on Mars, would likely
contribute less than 5 percent of the required pressure, according to the team. Carbon-bearing
minerals buried deep in the Martian crust might hold enough CO2 to reach the required
pressure, but the extent of these deep deposits is unknown, not evidenced by orbital data, and
recovering them with current technology is extremely energy intensive, requiring temperatures
above 300 degrees Celsius (over 572 degrees Fahrenheit). Shallow carbon-bearing minerals are
not sufficiently abundant to contribute significantly to greenhouse warming, and also require
Champion Briefs
403
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
the same intense processing. Although the surface of Mars is inhospitable to known forms of
life today, features that resemble dry riverbeds and mineral deposits that only form in the
presence of liquid water provide evidence that, in the distant past, the Martian climate
supported liquid water at the surface. But solar radiation and solar wind can remove both
water vapor and CO2 from the Martian atmosphere. Both MAVEN and the European Space
Agency’s Mars Express missions indicate that the majority of Mars’ ancient, potentially
habitable atmosphere has been lost to space, stripped away by solar wind and radiation. Of
course, once this happens, that water and CO2 are gone forever. Even if this loss were
prevented somehow, allowing the atmosphere to build up slowly from outgassing by geologic
activity, current outgassing is extremely low; it would take about 10 million years just to double
Mars’ current atmosphere, according to the team.
Champion Briefs
404
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Human survival requires going to Mars.
Haque, Shirin. “The Beckoning Red Dot In The Sky.” Journal of Cosmology. January, 2011. Web.
December 11, 2021. <http://cosmology.com/Mars151.html>.
The human spirit of adventure and exploration of the unknown is likely encoded into our
genetic makeup to ensure our survival as a species despite the risk and possible death to the
soldiers of exploration at the frontier for the sake of the many that follow and the future. Going
to Mars is nothing more than the next logical step in our advancement of discovery and
exploration. It must be done. Until we can do it -- we remain restless caged spirits. Sometimes,
like in the case of the lunar landings, there was the dynamics of political agendas. Had there not
been political agendas, I believe with certainty that humans would have landed on the moon
nonetheless. It was the logical step at the time. The opportunity to make history, to be the early
charters risking it all is a small price for the satisfaction of doing it. It is an elixir of life only to
experienced. It is a part of us in the deepest sense and what makes us human.
Champion Briefs
405
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mars is the best option for colonization.
Schulze-Makuch, Dirk. “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission To Mars.” Journal of
Cosmology. 2010. Web. December 11, 2021. <http://cosmology.com/Mars108.html>.
There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are
a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid
and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth,
especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our
survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway
global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the
colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term. The
first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the
closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects
falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for
asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and
development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a
moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a
range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a
trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical
rocket technology. In addition to offering humanity a “lifeboat” in the event of a megacatastrophe, a Mars colony is attractive for other reasons. Astrobiologists agree that there is a
fair probability that Mars hosts, or once hosted, microbial life, perhaps deep beneath the
surface (Lederberg and Sagan 1962; Levin 2010; Levin and Straat 1977, 1981; McKay and Stoker
1989; McKay et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2005; Schulze-Makuch et al. 2005, 2008, Darling and
Schulze-Makuch 2010; Wierzchos et al. 2010; Mahaney and Dohm 2010). A scientific facility on
Mars might therefore be a unique opportunity to study an alien life form and a second
evolutionary record, and to develop novel biotechnology therefrom. At the very least, an
intensive study of ancient and modern Mars will cast important light on the origin of life on
Champion Briefs
406
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Earth. Mars also conceals a wealth of geological and astronomical data that is almost
impossible to access from Earth using robotic probes. A permanent human presence on Mars
would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any former
generation. In the fullness of time, a Mars base would offer a springboard for human/robotic
exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt. Finally, establishing a permanent
multicultural and multinational human presence on another world would have major beneficial
political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a strong unifying and uplifting theme for
all humanity.
Champion Briefs
407
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
It's possible to feed a martian colony.
Choi, Charles. “How To Feed A Mars Colony Of 1 Million People.” Space. September 18, 2019.
Web. December 11, 2021. <https://www.space.com/how-feed-one-million-marscolonists.html>.
What might it take to feed a million people on Mars? Lab-grown meat, tunnel-grown crops and
cricket farms, a new study finds. When it comes to plans for crewed missions to Mars, NASA
typically assumes round trips with only brief stopovers on the Red Planet. However, commercial
space companies have emerged with the goal of colonizing outer space, with SpaceX specifically
aiming to develop a civilization on Mars. The most practical strategy for long stays on Mars
involves living off resources that already exist on the Red Planet instead of relying on resupply
ships from Earth. The five major consumable resources that researchers identified Martian
settlements would need include energy, water, oxygen, construction material and food, and the
first four are potentially abundant on Mars. For instance, solar power, likely supplemented with
nuclear-fission reactors, can help provide energy for would-be Martians. Ice and hydrated
minerals on Mars are sources of water. Carbon dioxide can get converted into oxygen. Finally,
Martian soil can be readily made into bricks for building supplies. In comparison, there is no
food naturally available on Mars, and there is no easy way to create it from any raw materials
on the Red Planet using, say, a simple chemical reactor, the researchers said. “Food is probably
going to be the hardest thing to make locally on Mars, and you can't just import it all if you
want to have a self-sufficient settlement,” study lead author Kevin Cannon, a planetary scientist
at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, told Space.com. Given this challenge, the
scientists wanted to see what it might take to reach the radical goal of producing enough food
on Mars to feed 1 million people. “We were working with a lot of people who wanted to grow
plants in the simulated Mars soils we create, and this led us to look at what research was being
done in terms of producing food for future human missions to the moon or Mars,” Cannon said.
“It turns out most of the focus has been on very low-calorie vegetables, and the latest
innovations in alternative protein sources were not being considered. We asked the question:
Champion Briefs
408
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Instead of a short NASA-style mission to Mars, what would it take to feed a city of 1 million
people, like what SpaceX is imagining?” The researchers noted that raising farm animals for
dairy and meat would not be practical on Mars in the near term because of the challenges of
shipping them across space. At the same time, they noted that most people do not want to go
completely vegetarian. The solution? Insect farms and lab-grown meat, they suggested. Insect
farms are well-suited for Martian cuisine, as they provide a lot of calories per unit land while
using relatively minor amounts of water and feed, the researchers said. Crickets in particular
are one of the more promising examples of edible insects, with cricket flour potentially
incorporated and hidden in many different recipes, they noted. “Bugs are the way to go, if
people can get over the gross factor,” Cannon said. For those who do not fancy insects, “cellular
agriculture” — that is, food derived from cells grown in lab dishes — could help people on Mars
eat a somewhat more familiar diet, the researchers said. Everything from algae to meat and fish
to cow-less milk and chicken-less eggs are now possible, they said. The large amounts of money
that investors have poured into refining such technology has already driven down the costs of a
cultured meat burger from $325,000 to $11 per patty in two years, they added.
Champion Briefs
409
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Warming causes extinction---no adaptation.
Kareiva, Peter. “Existential Risk Due To Ecosystem Collapse: Nature Strikes Back.” Futures. 2018.
Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016328717301726>.
In summary, six of the nine proposed planetary boundaries (phosphorous, nitrogen,
biodiversity, land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution) are unlikely to be
associated with existential risks. They all correspond to a degraded environment, but in our
assessment do not represent existential risks. However, the three remaining boundaries
(climate change, global freshwater cycle, and ocean acidification) do pose existential risks. This
is because of intrinsic positive feedback loops, substantial lag times between system change
and experiencing the consequences of that change, and the fact these different boundaries
interact with one another in ways that yield surprises. In addition, climate, freshwater, and
ocean acidification are all directly connected to the provision of food and water, and shortages
of food and water can create conflict and social unrest.Climate change has a long history of
disrupting civilizations and sometimes precipitating the collapse of cultures or mass emigrations
(McMichael, 2017). For example, the 12th century drought in the North American Southwest is
held responsible for the collapse of the Anasazi pueblo culture. More recently, the infamous
potato famine of 1846–1849 and the large migration of Irish to the U.S. can be traced to a
combination of factors, one of which was climate. Specifically, 1846 was an unusually warm and
moist year in Ireland, providing the climatic conditions favorable to the fungus that caused the
potato blight. As is so often the case, poor government had a role as well—as the British
government forbade the import of grains from outside Britain (imports that could have helped
to redress the ravaged potato yields).Climate change intersects with freshwater resources
because it is expected to exacerbate drought and water scarcity, as well as flooding. Climate
change can even impair water quality because it is associated with heavy rains that overwhelm
sewage treatment facilities, or because it results in higher concentrations of pollutants in
groundwater as a result of enhanced evaporation and reduced groundwater recharge. Ample
Champion Briefs
410
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
clean water is not a luxury—it is essential for human survival. Consequently, cities, regions and
nations that lack clean freshwater are vulnerable to social disruption and disease.Finally, ocean
acidification is linked to climate change because it is driven by CO2 emissions just as global
warming is. With close to 20% of the world’s protein coming from oceans (FAO, 2016), the
potential for severe impacts due to acidification is obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more
insidious, is the interaction between climate change and the loss of oyster and coral reefs due
to acidification. Acidification is known to interfere with oyster reef building and coral reefs.
Climate change also increases storm frequency and severity. Coral reefs and oyster reefs
provide protection from storm surge because they reduce wave energy (Spalding et al., 2014). If
these reefs are lost due to acidification at the same time as storms become more severe and
sea level rises, coastal communities will be exposed to unprecedented storm surge—and may
be ravaged by recurrent storms.A key feature of the risk associated with climate change is that
mean annual temperature and mean annual rainfall are not the variables of interest. Rather it is
extreme episodic events that place nations and entire regions of the world at risk. These
extreme events are by definition “rare” (once every hundred years), and changes in their
likelihood are challenging to detect because of their rarity, but are exactly the manifestations of
climate change that we must get better at anticipating (Diffenbaugh et al., 2017). Society will
have a hard time responding to shorter intervals between rare extreme events because in the
lifespan of an individual human, a person might experience as few as two or three extreme
events. How likely is it that you would notice a change in the interval between events that are
separated by decades, especially given that the interval is not regular but varies stochastically?
A concrete example of this dilemma can be found in the past and expected future changes in
storm-related flooding of New York City. The highly disruptive flooding of New York City
associated with Hurricane Sandy represented a flood height that occurred once every 500 years
in the 18th century, and that occurs now once every 25 years, but is expected to occur once
every 5 years by 2050 (Garner et al., 2017). This change in frequency of extreme floods has
profound implications for the measures New York City should take to protect its infrastructure
and its population, yet because of the stochastic nature of such events, this shift in flood
frequency is an elevated risk that will go unnoticed by most people.4. The combination of
Champion Briefs
411
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
positive feedback loops and societal inertia is fertile ground for global environmental
catastrophesHumans are remarkably ingenious, and have adapted to crises throughout their
history. Our doom has been repeatedly predicted, only to be averted by innovation (Ridley,
2011). However, the many stories of human ingenuity successfully addressing existential risks
such as global famine or extreme air pollution represent environmental challenges that are
largely linear, have immediate consequences, and operate without positive feedbacks. For
example, the fact that food is in short supply does not increase the rate at which humans
consume food—thereby increasing the shortage. Similarly, massive air pollution episodes such
as the London fog of 1952 that killed 12,000 people did not make future air pollution events
more likely. In fact it was just the opposite—the London fog sent such a clear message that
Britain quickly enacted pollution control measures (Stradling, 2016). Food shortages, air
pollution, water pollution, etc. send immediate signals to society of harm, which then trigger a
negative feedback of society seeking to reduce the harm.In contrast, today’s great
environmental crisis of climate change may cause some harm but there are generally long time
delays between rising CO2 concentrations and damage to humans. The consequence of these
delays are an absence of urgency; thus although 70% of Americans believe global warming is
happening, only 40% think it will harm them
(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/). Secondly, unlike
past environmental challenges, the Earth’s climate system is rife with positive feedback loops.
In particular, as CO2 increases and the climate warms, that very warming can cause more CO2
release which further increases global warming, and then more CO2, and so on. Table 2
summarizes the best documented positive feedback loops for the Earth’s climate system. These
feedbacks can be neatly categorized into carbon cycle, biogeochemical, biogeophysical, cloud,
ice-albedo, and water vapor feedbacks. As important as it is to understand these feedbacks
individually, it is even more essential to study the interactive nature of these feedbacks.
Modeling studies show that when interactions among feedback loops are included, uncertainty
increases dramatically and there is a heightened potential for perturbations to be magnified
(e.g., Cox, Betts, Jones, Spall, & Totterdell, 2000; Hajima, Tachiiri, Ito, & Kawamiya, 2014; Knutti
& Rugenstein, 2015; Rosenfeld, Sherwood, Wood, & Donner, 2014). This produces a wide range
Champion Briefs
412
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
of future scenarios.Positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle involves the enhancement of future
carbon contributions to the atmosphere due to some initial increase in atmospheric CO2. This
happens because as CO2 accumulates, it reduces the efficiency in which oceans and terrestrial
ecosystems sequester carbon, which in return feeds back to exacerbate climate change
(Friedlingstein et al., 2001). Warming can also increase the rate at which organic matter decays
and carbon is released into the atmosphere, thereby causing more warming (Melillo et al.,
2017). Increases in food shortages and lack of water is also of major concern when
biogeophysical feedback mechanisms perpetuate drought conditions. The underlying
mechanism here is that losses in vegetation increases the surface albedo, which suppresses
rainfall, and thus enhances future vegetation loss and more suppression of rainfall—thereby
initiating or prolonging a drought (Chamey, Stone, & Quirk, 1975). To top it off, overgrazing
depletes the soil, leading to augmented vegetation loss (Anderies, Janssen, & Walker,
2002).Climate change often also increases the risk of forest fires, as a result of higher
temperatures and persistent drought conditions. The expectation is that forest fires will
become more frequent and severe with climate warming and drought (Scholze, Knorr, Arnell, &
Prentice, 2006), a trend for which we have already seen evidence (Allen et al., 2010). Tragically,
the increased severity and risk of Southern California wildfires recently predicted by climate
scientists (Jin et al., 2015), was realized in December 2017, with the largest fire in the history of
California (the “Thomas fire” that burned 282,000 acres,
https://www.vox.com/2017/12/27/16822180/thomas-fire-california-largest-wildfire). This
catastrophic fire embodies the sorts of positive feedbacks and interacting factors that could
catch humanity off-guard and produce a true apocalyptic event. Record-breaking rains
produced an extraordinary flush of new vegetation, that then dried out as record heat waves
and dry conditions took hold, coupled with stronger than normal winds, and ignition. Of course
the record-fire released CO2 into the atmosphere, thereby contributing to future warming.Out
of all types of feedbacks, water vapor and the ice-albedo feedbacks are the most clearly
understood mechanisms. Losses in reflective snow and ice cover drive up surface temperatures,
leading to even more melting of snow and ice cover—this is known as the ice-albedo feedback
(Curry, Schramm, & Ebert, 1995). As snow and ice continue to melt at a more rapid pace,
Champion Briefs
413
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
millions of people may be displaced by flooding risks as a consequence of sea level rise near
coastal communities (Biermann & Boas, 2010; Myers, 2002; Nicholls et al., 2011). The water
vapor feedback operates when warmer atmospheric conditions strengthen the saturation vapor
pressure, which creates a warming effect given water vapor’s strong greenhouse gas properties
(Manabe & Wetherald, 1967).Global warming tends to increase cloud formation because
warmer temperatures lead to more evaporation of water into the atmosphere, and warmer
temperature also allows the atmosphere to hold more water. The key question is whether this
increase in clouds associated with global warming will result in a positive feedback loop (more
warming) or a negative feedback loop (less warming). For decades, scientists have sought to
answer this question and understand the net role clouds play in future climate projections
(Schneider et al., 2017). Clouds are complex because they both have a cooling (reflecting
incoming solar radiation) and warming (absorbing incoming solar radiation) effect (Lashof,
DeAngelo, Saleska, & Harte, 1997). The type of cloud, altitude, and optical properties combine
to determine how these countervailing effects balance out. Although still under debate, it
appears that in most circumstances the cloud feedback is likely positive (Boucher et al., 2013).
For example, models and observations show that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations
reduces the low-level cloud fraction in the Northeast Pacific at decadal time scales. This then
has a positive feedback effect and enhances climate warming since less solar radiation is
reflected by the atmosphere (Clement, Burgman, & Norris, 2009).The key lesson from the long
list of potentially positive feedbacks and their interactions is that runaway climate change, and
runaway perturbations have to be taken as a serious possibility. Table 2 is just a snapshot of the
type of feedbacks that have been identified (see Supplementary material for a more thorough
explanation of positive feedback loops). However, this list is not exhaustive and the possibility
of undiscovered positive feedbacks portends even greater existential risks. The many
environmental crises humankind has previously averted (famine, ozone depletion, London fog,
water pollution, etc.) were averted because of political will based on solid scientific
understanding. We cannot count on complete scientific understanding when it comes to
positive feedback loops and climate change.
Champion Briefs
414
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Climate change is reaching crisis levels.
White, Rob. “Critical Criminology And The Struggle Against Climate Change Ecocide.” Critical
Criminology. August 20, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10612-015-9292-5>.
In recent years criminologists have increasingly turned their attention to the perils of global
warming and the political economic structures and everyday routines of advanced capitalism
that foster and entrench the conditions for rapid climate change (Lynch and Stretesky 2010;
White 2009, 2012a; Kramer 2013a, b; Agnew 2011, 2012, 2013). A crucial part of these analyses
has been conceptualisations of ‘‘the problem’’ as one of state-corporate crime. This is where
nation states are seen to actively collude with particular business interests (especially the ‘‘dirty
energy’’ industries) to promote ‘‘business as usual’’ while simultaneously dampening down
potential radical changes to existing socio-structural arrangements (Kramer 2013b; Kramer and
Michalowski 2012; Michalowski and Kramer 2006; Lynch et al. 2010; Stretesky et al. 2014). The
science of climate change demonstrates that global warming is not only ‘‘real’’, and escalating,
but is primarily due to anthropogenic or human causes (IPCC 2013). Global warming is
transforming the biophysical world in ways that are radically and rapidly reshaping social and
ecological futures. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2013) reports that: •
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased • Each of the last three decades has been
successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 • Ocean
warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more
than 90 % of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 • Over the last two decades, the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink
almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have
continued to decrease in extent • The rate of sea level rise since the mid-nineteenth century
Champion Briefs
415
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia. Scientific data continue
to demonstrate the depth and scale of the problem. The damage caused by global warming will
be felt in the form of extreme weather events, increased competition for dwindling natural
resources, outbreaks of disease and viral infections, further extinctions of species, continued
pressure to trade off food for fuel, intense social conflict and much criminality (Crank and
Jacoby 2015; White and Heckenberg 2014). The gulf between official state policy (and
transnational corporate activity supported by nation-states) and the realities of global warming
translate into intentional transgression by act and omission. This has been interpreted as a
clear-cut instance of ‘‘ecocide.’’ Ecocide has been defined as ‘‘the extensive damage,
destruction to or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other
causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been
severely diminished’’ (Higgins 2012, p. 3). Where this occurs as a result of human agency, then
it can be argued that such harm can be defined as a crime. The concept of ecocide has been
around since at least the 1970s (Teclaf 1994; Gray 1996) and for a time was under
consideration for inclusion in the Rome Statute as a ‘‘crime against humanity’’ (Higgins et al.
2013). The urgency and impetus for this to be officially recognised as a bona fide crime has
been heightened by the woefully inadequate responses by governments, individually and
collectively, to global warming. Climate change is rapidly and radically altering the very basis of
world ecology; yet very little action has been taken by states or corporations to rein-in the
worst contributors to the problem. Carbon emissions are not decreasing and ‘‘dirty industries,’’
such as coal and oil, continue to flourish. For all the exposure of wrongdoing and harm
associated with government inaction on climate change and business carbon excesses, very
little has been said by commentators on how the required social change is to be achieved
(although see Brecher 2015; Klein 2014). Alternative policy prescriptions are put forward (e.g.,
put more funding into renewable resources) and preventive actions advocated (e.g., stop
fracking and widespread logging), but criminologists have provided few strategic
recommendations for action beyond critique of existing systems and policies. Part of the
problem here is that there is no one single earth-shattering event that demarcates the ‘‘crisis’’
of climate change. Transformation is progressive and longitudinal. It is not abrupt, completed or
Champion Briefs
416
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
singularly global in impact. Yet the urgency for change is paramount and exposition of evil
simply will not suffice. There is no doubt that global warming, affecting the world’s climate
systems, will have massive and ongoing consequences for humanity, eco-systems and
nonhuman animals for many years to come.
Champion Briefs
417
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Warming integrates previously separate zones of disease and cause
rapid evolution in diseases.
Webb, James. “Climate, Ecology, And Infectious Human Disease.” The Palgrave Handbook of
Human History. September, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344435004_Climate_Ecology_and_Infectio
us_Human_Disease>.
Climate has had a profound influence on evolving patterns of human disease. From the early
eras of human history to the present, climate forces have been determinative in establishing
the ecological parameters within which human beings and the pathogens that afflict us have
coexisted. As early human societies became more complex, population densities increased, and
networks of exchange thickened, possibilities for the transmission of pathogens broadened.
Over the past few millennia, previously discrete zones of disease transmission became
integrated, with devastating demographic consequences. Shifts in climate phases—between
eras of warming and cooling or between eras of increasing or diminishing precipitation—have
had significant impacts on human communities. At some times and places, climate shifts have
provoked transformations in patterns of land use and thus the environments for animal and
insect vectors that could transmit disease. At other times and places, climate change has
provoked transformations in regional balances of political power. Some of these changes, in
turn, have forced migrants into new environments and exposed them to diseases and
nutritional stresses that have compromised their health. At shorter timescales, extreme
seasons and unique weather events have disrupted agriculture and created food shortages that
promoted the transmission of disease. Floods, earthquakes, volcanic explosions, droughts, and
unseasonal freezes have wreaked havoc on human communities. These threats remain of great
concern, even as over the past century or two human beings have developed technologies and
medicines that are able to limit or mitigate some of the consequences of disease transmission.
The long-term result of these achievements is that human beings in many areas of the world—
even in an era of anthropogenic global warming—are now less susceptible to infectious disease
Champion Briefs
418
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
than at any earlier point in human history, and this trend toward greater security is likely to
continue. This remains true even as newly emerging and reemerging disease threats attract the
attention of researchers trying to estimate the future health impacts of climate change.
Champion Briefs
419
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Overpopulation makes warming inevitable - if we stay on this planet,
then we will recreate the conditions for warming. Get off the rock and
spread our wings to solve warming.
Angell, Marcia. “Our Beleaguered Planet.” Prospect. 2016. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://prospect.org/power/beleaguered-planet/>.
But the cause of global warming is not just our “carbon footprint”—that is, the amount of
greenhouse gases emitted per capita—but the number of humans contributing to it. The world
population is now more than 7.3 billion, compared with 2.5 billion in 1950, when I was growing
up, and 1.3 billion in 1850 during the Industrial Revolution. will reach about 9.5 billion in 2050.
Yet, while there is much discussion of climate change, very little is said these days about
population growth. It seems almost to have been ruled off the table as a legitimate topic, even
though it is an essential part of the equation. How many people can the planet support? The
carrying capacity for any species is defined as the maximum number that can be sustained
indefinitely, and in the case of humans is usually said to be about ten billion, albeit with a wide
range of estimates. But humans are not just any species; we are increasingly divided into rich
and poor, both within and across countries, and the effects of overpopulation are seen
unevenly, and well before any theoretical carrying capacity is reached. For nearly all of human
history, the risk has instead been under-population—the lack of communities large enough to
foster human progress, and even at times, the threat of extinction. We didn’t reach the first
billion until about 1800. But with better sanitation and living standards, especially since the
Industrial Revolution, global population grew rapidly, with shorter and shorter doubling times.
In addition to fossil fuels, we are now exhausting other natural resources, as well as despoiling
the environment in trying to extract them. And we have created what is known, somewhat
misleadingly, as the “great Pacific garbage patch” by dumping into the oceans vast amounts of
discarded plastic containers, which tend to break into small particles that remain suspended in
certain regions just beneath the water’s surface.
Champion Briefs
420
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
US population increases collapse North American biodiversity.
Kolankiewicz, Leon. “Immigration, Population Growth, And The Environment.” Center for
Immigration Studies. April 17, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://cis.org/Report/Immigration-Population-Growth-and-Environment>.
Wildlife and Its Habitats People need a place to live. Every person lives in a home — whether an
apartment, condo, townhouse, or single family dwelling — that takes up space that was once
natural habitat. But everyone also uses other structures, facilities, and infrastructure that
displace additional habitat as well, such as roads, parking lots, office buildings, shopping
centers, recreation facilities, and schools. Yet all of these facilities occupy just a small portion of
the overall land area that each person co-opts. Farmland, rangeland, timberland, and mines
extend across large areas and are exploited to provide food, fiber, and minerals to each
consumer. Most of the energy we use comes from oil and gas wells and coal mines that disturb
or eliminate wildlife habitats. Pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers are used heavily to provide
the food we eat; the former can harm wildlife because of its toxicity, while the latter two can
impair water quality and aquatic life. A notorious “dead zone” up to 6,000-7,000 square miles in
area now appears every summer near the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico;
this zone of severe hypoxia or oxygen deprivation is caused by the runoff of fertilizers (plant
nutrients, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) from farmland in the Mississippi watershed.
Animal wastes and sewage contribute nitrogen and phosphorus as well. Nutrients cause algal
blooms (i.e., algal population explosions) which, when the algae die en masse, deplete
dissolved oxygen, upon which almost all aquatic and marine life depends. Increasing the U.S.
population by 36 percent will severely exacerbate pressures on wildlife and wildlife habitat.
Even if more people opt to reduce their per capita impact by living more compactly and
recycling and eating less meat or no meat at all (which reduces the amount of land and water
required to feed animals), about the best we could hope for voluntarily is to perhaps trim the
increase in aggregate impacts down to 20 percent. In our most overpopulated and biologically
diverse state, several years ago the California Department of Fish and Game counted more than
Champion Briefs
421
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
800 imperiled species, including half of all mammals and one-third of all birds.30 The
department identified the major stressors affecting California's wildlife and habitats. It
emphasized that: “Increasing needs for housing, services, transportation, and other
infrastructure place ever-greater demands on the state's land, water, and other natural
resources.” Of course, all of these are a direct function of population size. Ecological Footprint
The Ecological Footprint (EF) is a measure of the load that aggregate human demands impose
on the biosphere, or “ecosphere”. EF compares the demands of the human economy, or
subsets of it, with the earth's (or a given country's) ecological capacity for regeneration and
renewal, its “biocapacity”. EF represents the amount of biologically productive land and water
area needed to regenerate the renewable resources a given human population consumes and
to absorb and render harmless, or assimilate the corresponding waste or residuals it generates.
The global EF now exceeds global biocapacity by some 50 percent,31 which is not a sustainable
situation over the long run; it means we are drawing down “natural capital” and running up an
“ecological debt”.32
Champion Briefs
422
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Overpopulation causes species loss.
Cafaro, Philip. “How Many Is Too Many? Progressive Argument For Reducing Immigration Into
The United States.”. February 06, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=RTkyBgAAQBAJ&dq=marcia+pimentel+and+immig
ration&source=gbs_navlinks_s>.
The Endangered Species Act has helped bring back several species from the brink of extinction,
including such iconic American wildlife as the bald eagle, the American alligator, and the grey
wolf. Its protections have helped hold the line on species extinctions. However, only a handful
of endangered species have recovered sufficiently to take them off the threatened and
endangered list, which currently contains over 1400 species. Why? When we think of an
endangered species, we often imagine direct, purposive activities that are harming them.
Hunters are killing alligators for their skins and selling them to make handbags; wolves are
being poisoned by ranchers. End the direct killing and the species can flourish again. Sometimes
this is exactly how it works. Alligators, which can reproduce quickly, staged a terrific comeback
across much of the southeastern United States once people quit slaughtering them, and they
have since been delisted. Wolves could provide a similar success story, if ranchers manage to
overcome their irrational hatred of them, relinquish a few calves each year, and share the
landscape more generously. But many cases are not like this. People are not directly killing
wildlife; instead, they are competing with them for habitat or other essential resources. This is a
more intractable problem, and one that other species are generally going to lose by attrition.9
The causes of extinction are complex; often a species faces multiple or uncertain threats. But
scientists who have studied the matter agree that habitat loss is the primary threat to species,
and habitat loss is directly tied to human numbers. In a thorough study of Endangered Species
Act information published in the US Federal Register, D. S. Wilcovc and colleagues found habitat
degradation or loss implicated as a cause for 85% of threatened and endangered species in the
United States, making habitat loss by far the number one cause of species endangerment in the
United States.10 Studies looking at worldwide species endangerment have come to similar
Champion Briefs
423
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
conclusions. Consider Table 6-1, from another study, this one by Brian Czech and associates, on
the leading causes of endangerment for American species classified as threatened or
endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We see that a wide variety of human activities
contribute to the displacement of other species, but few of them appear objectionable in
themselves. They are simply the economic pursuits that sustain human well-being, whether
that means growing food, providing people with water or energy, or allowing them to recreate
in enjoyable places. In other words, these are activities that to some degree are part and parcel
of people existing at all. Bring in more people and you will need to work the landscape harder
or use more of it in order to provide these things for them. So, for example, alligators have
made a great comeback in the south eastern United States. But as more people settle in Florida,
Georgia, and the Carolinas, human/alligator conflicts become more common and alligators and
other wildlife get displaced. As more people move into Colorado's mountains to “get close to
nature,” human/bear conflicts increase and “problem bears” tend to be relocated, or if that
does not work, shot. In the communities along Colorado's growing Front Range, indiscriminate
shooting and poisoning of prairie dogs when the area was primarily agricultural has given way
to an appreciation for these intelligent little animals, a keystone species that provides food for
several dozen other animal species that cannot flourish without them. Children learn about
prairie dogs in grade school now, but these tine sentiments are not leading to increased
numbers of prairie dogs on the ground. That is because as these communities grow, prairie dog
colonics are paved over for new houses,new roads, new Walmarts and Targets. To some extent,
Colorado's wildlife is being overrun by wildlife lovers. The bottom line is that more people
means less wildlife.” Strong sentiments, strong laws, and serious efforts to live and let live with
wildlife arc commendable and necessary. But they all will prove insufficient if people are not
willing to limit our numbers, thereby limiting how much habitat and resources we take from
other species. Without limiting our numbers we will, inevitably, replace them with us and our
economic support systems.
Champion Briefs
424
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Species loss risks extinction.
, American Commission For Environmental Co. “Significant Biodiversity Loss Across North
America Says CEC.” Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. January 11, 2002. Web.
December 11, 2021. <https://www.iatp.org/news/significant-biodiversity-loss-acrossnorth-america-says-cec>.
North America is facing a “widespread crisis” due to its shrinking biodiversity, according to a
new report released today by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC). “In the process of finding solutions to our transportation, settlement, energy and other
material needs, remaining natural environments have been placed under enormous stress, and
continue to be fragmented, polluted or damaged in other ways,” says the study The North
American Mosaic: A State of the Environment Report. The report was formally released to the
three NAFTA partner governments on 7 January. “This decline in habitat, plus specific hunting
and harvesting practices, has led to a widespread crisis not confined to any one country or
region,” the report says. Half of North America's most biodiverse eco-regions are now severely
degraded and the region now has at least 235 threatened species of mammals, birds, reptiles
and amphibians. “Our report shows that over the past few decades, the loss and alteration of
habitat has become the main threat to biodiversity,” said Janine Ferretti, Executive Director of
the CEC. “A significant proportion of the plant and animal species of North America is
threatened.” “North America's diminishing biological diversity has profound consequences.
Because the loss is irreversible-species that are lost are lost forever-the potential impact on the
human condition, on the fabric of the continent's living systems, and on the process of
evolution is immense,” the report states. “Some of the region's species depend on healthy,
contiguous forest ecosystems. Habitat fragmentation and loss within these forests now
threaten many migratory species. Birds are losing nesting, feeding, and resting areas,”
according to the report. It says the monarch butterfly faces threats, including “coastal
development in California, deforestation of oyamel fir forests in Mexico and the use of
pesticides on and around milkweed plants,” the species' primary food and where they lay their
eggs.
Champion Briefs
425
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Collapse of north American water biodiversity leads to global species
extinction.
Walsh, Stephen. “The Decline Of North American Freshwater Fishes.” Action Bioscience. 2011.
Web. December 11, 2021. <http://www.nanfa.org/ac/freshwater-fishes-decline.pdf>.
North America has a broad array of freshwater ecosystems because of the continent’s complex
geography and geological history. Within a multitude of habitats—that include streams, large
rivers, natural lakes, springs, and wetlands—rich assemblages of fishes reside, representing
diverse taxonomic groups with unique ecological requirements. They face an unprecedented
conservation crisis.1 In the last few decades, the proportion of inland fishes of North America,
which are considered imperiled or extinct, increased from 20 to 40%.2 Although extinctions
have occurred, many species and populations are declining in range size and abundance. The
fish biota of the continent as a whole remains diverse; however, we can take action to stem any
further declines. Fish biodiversity is prolific. Globally, fishes outnumber all other vertebrates
combined and have the highest rate of discovery of new species.3 Fishes exhibit a remarkable
diversity of morphological attributes and biological adaptations and occur in most aquatic
habitats on Earth. Even in North America, where scientific knowledge of the fauna is advanced,
new species are described every year. These discoveries are the combination of applied
technologies, such as gene sequencing, which increase recognition of biodiversity at all levels,
and the documentation of new, morphologically distinct forms and populations. Biological
taxonomy is the discipline of classifying and naming organisms using an internationally
accepted system or code. Because of the dynamic nature of fish taxonomy, and the extent of
unexplored areas of the planet with potentially many undescribed species, statements or
conclusions about numbers and percentages of species occurring in particular habitats or
geographical regions are but rough approximations. Published information reveals the
following: A conservative estimate is that as many as 32,500 extant (living) fish species may
exist in the world.3 This number may eventually prove greater, however, with approximately
30,000 currently recognized as valid and over 300 new species described each year.4 Fresh
Champion Briefs
426
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
water constitutes only about 1% of the Earth’s surface area and less than 0.01% of its water by
volume. Almost half of fishes are found in fresh waters. About 12,000 species, or approximately
43% of all currently named fishes, occur exclusively in fresh waters. A small number are
diadromous, regularly living part of their lives in rivers, streams, or lakes, and part in the
oceans. North America has the greatest taxonomic richness of freshwater fishes among
temperate regions of the world,1 although it is greatly surpassed in number of species by less
documented areas of the tropics—especially the biological hotspots of South America, Africa,
and southeast Asia.5,6 Currently, there are approximately 1,200 recognized fish species that
occur in inland waters of the continental United States, Canada, and Mexico. Collectively, the
fish fauna (ichthyofauna) of North America’s freshwater ecosystems has at least 435 imperiled
species, another 72 species with distinct populations in trouble, and 36 species that are extinct
from the wild.2 Worldwide, historical, and emerging trends in the conservation of fishes and
fishery stocks portray continued or even accelerated population decreases; yet, there are
reasons for optimism, as well as potential for recovery and protection of these declining
resources given societal resolve.7 Threats to freshwater fishes and habitats Threats to
freshwater ecosystems are so widespread that many endemic species—those naturally
restricted to a single drainage or ecoregion—are imperiled simply because restricted
geographic distribution makes them more vulnerable to human modification of landscapes. The
most important documented threats to fishes in freshwater habitats include:1,7,8,9 Habitat loss
for fish is a major concern. Destruction or modification of habitat resulting in reduced range
size and/or loss of populations. Examples include dam construction, channelization, mining,
clearing of natural forests for agriculture, urban development, and other intensive land-use
practices. Water depletion. Some desert fishes have become extinct because of human
exploitation of limited groundwater resources. Pollution from point and non-point source
contaminants. Runoff from urban areas, and the compound effects of multiple pollutants, often
reduces water quality to the point that only the most tolerant species remain in receiving water
bodies. Erosion and sedimentation. Fine sediments can smother bottom substrates, to the
detriment of many bottom-dwelling (benthic) species, whose prey and reproductive success are
dependent on clean substrates and good water quality. Fishing has overexploited populations.
Champion Briefs
427
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Overexploitation for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Examples of
fishes that have been overharvested include salmons, whitefishes, trouts, striped bass, and
sturgeons. Disease or parasitism. For instance, whirling disease, a microscopic parasite
introduced from Europe, has ravaged many wild and hatchery populations of trouts and
salmons in the U.S. and Canada. Other anthropogenic factors—including introduction of nonnative species—which may result in hybridization, competition, and predation. Numerous
introductions of fishes and other aquatic organisms, both from outside of North America and
intracontinental transplants, have had severe negative impacts on native species,including
some that have caused extinction.10 Climate change. Regional variation in rainfall patterns,
storm events, and droughts can affect habitats and potentially have negative consequences for
rare species. Conservation status Land animals make better news than aquatic animals. Media
coverage of conservation issues about the world’s animals is often greatest for species that are
particularly endearing to humans, such as mammals and birds, whereas perils to aquatic faunas,
including fishes, are often much less publicized. This disparity is due, in part, to taxonomic bias
in research and funding in the field of conservation biology.11 Based on published scientific
literature, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates are greatly underrepresented in
conservation studies relative to the proportion of species of each group known worldwide,11
and organisms in the freshwater and marine realms receive much less coverage than those in
terrestrial environments.12 Among invertebrates, however, it is notable that mollusks and
crustaceans, of which many species are aquatic, are generally better studied than the vast
diversity of arthropods—especially insects, with the exception of butterflies and moths. Even
within freshwater fishes, game, and commercial species often receive greater attention than
non-game species. Fish funding and research is lacking. Major deficits in funding for faunal
surveys, monitoring, basic research, and the general lack of public awareness about the
conservation status of fishes across taxonomic groups and ecosystems is a significant problem.
Given the myriad of threats to aquatic habitats throughout the world; the degree to which
degradation of these habitats is accelerating; and the overall proportion of biodiversity
represented, exceptional natural resources are at risk of being severely diminished or lost. In
particular, freshwater habitats are some of the most threatened in the world.8,9,13 Moreover,
Champion Briefs
428
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
aquatic systems are inextricably linked to terrestrial habitats, and pollutants and sediments
from perturbed landscapes flow into lakes, streams, and rivers. New studies reveal fish are in
peril. The Endangered Species Committee of the American Fisheries Society (AFS-ESC) has
tracked the plight of imperiled fishes in North America for over 30 years, with the explicit aim of
providing objective and unbiased status assessments independent of the influence of policy or
regulatory considerations. Recently, the AFS-ESC—represented by 16 scientists from the United
States, Canada, and Mexico, with the assistance of numerous colleagues— evaluated the
conservation status of the entire continental fish fauna.2 In the latest assessment,
approximately 40% of described North American freshwater and diadromous fish species are
documented as imperiled or extinct, representing a substantial increase over previous
assessments. Past conservation assessments by the AFS were limited to determining the status
of distinct species and subspecies. Undescribed forms, or those not named in the scientific
literature using classic Linnaean binomial nomenclature, were included where sufficient data
were available to document taxonomic distinctiveness, as evidenced by unique morphological,
genetic, or other attributes. In the most recent assessment, additional infraspecific taxa were
included in the form of distinctive populations, or what are sometimes referred to in the
scientific community as evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) or distinct population segments
(DPSs, although this term has certain legal connotations under the Endangered Species Act
within the U.S.).14 A taxon (taxa, plural) is a unit used in biological classification and is defined
based on a natural relationship, formally recognized as one or more lineages (= clades) of
descendants sharing a common ancestry. 700 freshwater fish taxa in N.A. are in peril. Seven
hundred fish taxa are considered imperiled in North America’s inland waters, currently, which
represent 133 genera in 36 families (see Figure 1).2 The majority of taxa are named species
(63%), followed by named subspecies (13%), populations (12%), undescribed species (7%), and
undescribed subspecies (5%). Previous lists from 1979 and 1989 also had about 63% listed
species and 37% infraspecific taxa. Of the total taxa currently listed, 280 taxa are endangered
(E), i.e., in imminent (fewer than 50 years) danger of extinction, or extirpation (loss of
populations) throughout most portions of a taxon’s range. 190 are threatened (T), or in
imminent danger of becoming endangered. 230 are vulnerable (V), that is, in imminent danger
Champion Briefs
429
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
of becoming threatened, which is comparable to a designation of “Special Concern” by many
agencies and conservation organizations. 61 are presumed extinct (X), meaning a taxon that has
not been observed for over 50 years. Two subcategories are included: Possibly Extinct (Xp), a
taxon suspected to be extinct, as evidenced by more than 20 but less than 50 years since living
representatives were observed, and Extirpated in Nature (Xn), where all populations in natural
habitats are presumed eliminated but surviving individuals are maintained in captivity. Figure 1
Chronological increase in the number of fish taxa imperiled in North American freshwater
ecosystems, as assessed by the American Fisheries Society Endangered Species Committee.2
Assessments were conducted in 1979, 1989, and 2008. Delisted taxa are those that appeared
on a previous list but were removed due to improved status, taxonomic invalidity, or
extralimital distributions. The number of imperiled fishes represents a 92% increase over a
nearly 20-year period dating to 1989. The list of imperiled taxa encompasses fishes that span a
remarkable diversity of lineages, morphologies, life histories, and habitats. A taxonomic
breakdown of the list and comparison to known, described species reveals disparities by family.
Nearly one quarter of all imperiled taxa belong to the most species-rich family of North
American freshwater fishes, the Cyprinidae, represented by the minnows and their allies. The
Candy Darter is a vulnerable species found in the New River system of Virginia and West
Virginia. Darters are a colorful, species-rich group of small-bodied fishes limited in distribution
to North America; their greatest diversity is in uplands of central and eastern U.S. Photograph
by N.M. Burkhead. Another 15% is represented by the second-most diverse family—the
Percidae—that includes a large number of darters—small, colorful fishes that have their
greatest diversity and abundance in clear-flowing streams of the central and eastern U.S. The
Salmonidae—trouts, salmons, ciscoes, and their allies—comprise nearly 12% of all imperiled
taxa, but are disproportionally represented in comparison to other families by large numbers of
infraspecific taxa. Imperiled species include minnows and salmon. There are distinct geographic
trends evident for imperiled North American fishes based on distributions within natural
hydrologic units or ecoregions (defined by a combination of physical drainage features and
faunal similarity, see Figure 2).12 Concentrations of at-risk fishes occur in the southeastern U.S.,
the mid-Pacific coast, the lower Rio Grande, and coastal and south-central inland regions of
Champion Briefs
430
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mexico.1 Of particular note is the distribution of imperiled fishes in North America within
ecoregions; 80% of all taxa are confined (endemic) to a single ecoregion, and another 10% are
limited to two ecoregions. Much of the imperilment of the inland continental fish fauna is
attributed to a combination of limited range sizes of many species and broad-scale habitat
degradation. Figure 2 Numbers of imperiled freshwater and diadromous fishes by ecoregions,
within North America, based on the most recent conservation assessment by the American
Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee.2 Why be concerned about the decline? Fish
declines affect humans and other species. Loss of biodiversity on planet Earth is thought by
some to be the greatest impending environmental crisis currently facing humanity.15 The
decline of North American fish species and populations, as with elements of biodiversity
throughout the world, directly or indirectly impacts other faunas, is detrimental to freshwater
ecosystems in general, and affects humankind in a variety of ways. Freshwater fishes are
important sentinels of environmental conditions and play a crucial role in the ecology and
sustainability of natural ecosystems. The natural balance of both aquatic and terrestrial
communities, including birds, mammals, reptiles, and other fishes, is dependent on fish
populations that provide critical functions, such as cycling nutrients and serving as prey to a
large variety of carnivores. The larvae of native freshwater mussels, called glochidia, require
fish hosts in order to complete their life cycles. Some migratory fishes—such as shads, smelts,
chars, and salmons—serve as keystone species of entire ecosystems. For instance, a variety of
predators and scavengers feed on adults of migrating and spawning salmon, their eggs, fry, and
their decaying carcasses. The nutrients that are transferred from the sea and incorporated into
the food chain contribute to the health of forests adjacent to streams in which salmon spawn,
thereby illustrating the linkage between terrestrial and aquatic habitats.7,16,17
Champion Briefs
431
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Loss of BioD causes extinction -- evaluate each instance as an
existential risk.
Noseworthy, Josh. “The Jenga Theory Of Biodiversity: The Tipping Point Of Ecosystems And The
Diversity Of Species.” Nature Conservancy. February 12, 2014. Web. December 11,
2021. <https://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/blog/archive/the-jenga-theoryof.html#.YbSc573MKCo>.
With only 20 seconds left of a roughly seven-minute interview, I ended up using a metaphor of
Jenga — that surprisingly simple game that gives you just enough anxiety to make it fun. I
described how each species can be seen as a block in the tower. If you take a block out
(representing species extinction) it might not make the tower fall, but it does make it weaker.
Every block removed increases the chances of the tower collapsing by taking away the support
of the blocks that remain, and also by shifting the balance of the tower as a whole. After a while
it doesn’t take much to knock the whole thing down. The final blow might be the removal of
that all-important block, or it might be caused by outside forces — a wobbly table, a heavy
breather, or maybe just a fault in one of the blocks that went unnoticed. The resilience of the
Jenga tower becomes increasingly compromised, and everyone sitting around the table knows
that someone will eventually be responsible for a disorderly pile of blocks (amidst squeals of
delighted laughter by those that aren’t responsible, of course). Sea otter, Vancouver Aquarium
(Photo by Wikimedia Commons, Stan Shebs) Sleeping sea otter at the Vancouver Aquarium
(Photo by Wikimedia Commons, Stan Shebs) Probably the most well known “block” relevant to
the topic of biodiversity is the sea otter. The “tower” that the Sea otter supported was the kelp
forest ecosystem of pacific North America. After being driven close to extinction by early
European explorers, the lack of sea otters allowed sea urchins, their favourite food, to explode
in numbers, which in turn caused the disappearance of the kelp forests. Sea urchins munched
these kelp beds into oblivion since the otters weren’t around to control the urchin population,
which then resulted in the disappearance of all the other marine life that depended on the kelp
beds as habitat, from shrimp to whales. We know this because fortunately, remnant
Champion Briefs
432
NEG: Space Colonization CP/DA
Jan/Feb 2022
populations of sea otters were discovered before it was too late, and the impacts of their
reintroduction to their natural habitat were recorded. After putting the otters back, the rich
kelp forest ecosystem with all its diversity of creatures began to return (albeit slowly), including
those that are commercially important for people (we’re just another block, after all). On the
island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, previously home to the infamous dodo bird, there was
once a species of 600-pound tortoise. The story goes that when Dutch sailors first arrived on
the island in 1638 there were so many tortoises that they could walk exclusively on the turtles'
backs without touching the ground (a bit of a stretch most likely, but you get the idea). Then
they ate them all — every last one. The extinction did not seem to have any obvious impacts on
the surrounding ecosystem, until in the 1970s researchers began to notice that the native tree
species (which can live for centuries) were not reproducing and were becoming threatened by
extinction. If the trees were lost, so would be the insect pollinators, the birds that fed on their
foliage, the bats that roosted in their branches and the orchids that grew in their canopies.
After some frantic research, it turned out those trees needed their fruit to pass through the gut
of a tortoise in order to germinate. No tortoise, no trees. In a desperate and controversial
attempt to reverse the decline, a similar species of tortoise was relocated from a nearby island
with some promising results. Although there are still no guarantees of success due to the
unknowns surrounding the ecology of both the tortoise and the tree species, it goes to show
how the removal of a seemingly unnecessary block could have huge repercussions down the
road. Whether the impacts of extinction happen right away or centuries later, they will
undoubtedly happen. No species stands alone, and the loss of one will always have some form
of impact on others, often in a chain reaction. We’ve only scratched the surface of discovering
the interconnectedness within ecosystems; in many cases we know nothing at all. What we do
know however, is that at the end of the day resilient ecosystems — those that are best suited
to remain stable and continuously provide us with goods and services — are the ones that
maintain their full diversity.
Champion Briefs
433
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Science Leadership DA
The Science Leadership DA argues that the appropriation of space by private companies
in the United States is just because it ensures that the United States can maintain a scientific
and technical edge over countries such as China and Russia in the race to commercialize more
of Outer Space. US leadership in space could have ramifications for military dominance and
economic growth, giving this DA the strong potential to access a compelling nuclear war/human
extinction scenario. The uniqueness, link, and internal link cards for this DA should focus on the
SPACE Act of 2015 (the Act legalized private property rights by US companies in space) and the
Artemis Accords (international norms led by the US as of November 2020 which facilitates
space mining with other stipulations for peaceful use of space). Both the SPACE Act and Artemis
Accords demonstrate that the US is attempting to shape outer space norms in the direction of
private sector appropriation, though there are serious questions as to whether these normsetting efforts violate international law (Article II of the Outer Space Treaty). Because this is
essentially a Hegemony (“Heg”) DA, you would be well-equipped to argue that international
laws about space are non-binding and ineffective, and that the US needs to set norms in order
to stop China or Russia from inevitably doing so.
The strength of the Science Leadership DA is that hegemony impacts are very easy to
generate internal links for, and the terminal impact of US leadership can be weighed against
virtually any impact because the authors of those impact cards make sweeping claims about
how American norms can solve for all global crises. These claims are often overstated (which is
good grounds for the Aff to garner impact defense), but if you are looking for the most airtight
link chain to arrive at nuclear war, you could not do worse than getting to hegemony. The
major weakness of this DA is that the Aff has a compelling argument that a multilateral
prohibition on appropriation in outer space would make the great-power competition the DA
describes irrelevant, so the Neg will need to be prepared to argue that China and Russia would
not respect rules against appropriation. The Neg would also have to argue for a version of fiat
where states would agree that the Outer Space Treaty prohibits private sector appropriation,
but that fiat does not necessarily mean states will follow that agreement 100%.
Champion Briefs
434
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private sector space development is key to US leadership in space.
McDowell, Robert. “SpaceX Is An Inspiration But US Leadership In Space Is Under Threat.”
Hudson Institute. May 30, 2020. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.hudson.org/research/16096-spacex-is-an-inspiration-but-us-leadershipin-space-is-under-threat>.
Two brave American souls are expected to lift off from Apollo 11’s historic launch pad on
Saturday afternoon. When they do, the feat will mark the first time that the private sector
blasts humans into orbit. Since 2011, all U.S. astronauts have been launched from a Russian
spaceport. This giant leap for America’s leadership in space bodes well for energizing an
entrepreneurial spirit in the heavens. But outdated federal rules that favor foreign satellite
companies over their American rivals inadvertently threaten to drive crucial investment and
innovation overseas in this burgeoning slice of the economy. If the current regulatory trajectory
isn’t corrected soon, other countries could replace the U.S. as the leader in space investment
and innovation undermining our space-related supply chain security. The global “space
economy” is robust with more than $360 billion in annual revenue and 3 percent growth in
2018, according to the Satellite Industry Association. Space-related commerce affects a wide
swath of human activity: telecommunications, aviation, agriculture, meteorology, science,
national security and much more. The backbone of this increasingly vital economic sector is the
satellite industry which includes satellite services such as navigation and communications,
satellite manufacturing, the launch industry and ground equipment manufacturing. The U.S.
satellite market generates 43 percent of the revenue of the global satellite industry. Yet
antiquated federal rules allow foreign satellite operators access to our robust market while
exempting them from many of the same rules governing American operators. We have
unwittingly created a regulatory asymmetry that could be driving American investors to
become licensed in and operate from foreign jurisdictions that are friendlier to satellite
companies, carrying their capital and technologies with them. For example, U.S. rules to reduce
orbital debris so we can safely launch our astronauts with minimal fear of them colliding with
Champion Briefs
435
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
space junk apply only to American operators. We give foreign operators access to our market
with no obligation to comply with our space debris rules. Not only does this unfairly hamper
U.S. companies, it undermines critical efforts to clean up space. Similarly, American companies
licensed by my old agency, the Federal Communications Commission, have to post performance
bonds of up to $5 million per satellite license to ensure that they build out their satellite
systems as promised, which ties up badly needed capital. Foreign satellite operators are exempt
from these costs and understandably ask to enter the U.S. market after they have constructed
fully operational satellites under easier foreign rules. This loophole provides another incentive
for satellite companies to become licensed in foreign countries, operate under lighter
regulations abroad and then enter the American market with a regulatory and financial
advantage. The results of this disparity were brought to light by a recent FCC proceeding to
auction satellite spectrum called the “C-Band” for terrestrial 5G licenses. All of the satellite
companies operating in the C-Band are foreign and will enjoy a share of the auction’s proceeds.
To make matters worse, the governments of our global competitors are investing directly into
their domestic satellite companies while their regulators find ways to favor the home team.
China and Russia are the obvious examples, but even allies like Canada, France and the U.K. are
working hard to gain advantages over the U.S. in space. The U.K. Space Agency’s strategic plan
makes it a government priority to sell “U.K. capability abroad” to “increase the U.K.s’ share of
the world space market” and “to provide a regulatory environment that promotes” the British
space sector. New satellite companies are crowing about their decisions to take investment
capital and technology overseas and away from America. U.K.-based OneWeb’s CEO proudly
declared earlier this year that they would beat their U.S. rivals “just because we’re not
American,” as they launched their satellites from attractive facilities in … Kazakhstan. Bursting
over the horizon, however, the American private sector will build the next-gen technologies for
the newly created U.S. Space Force, the upcoming manned moon mission and space tourism. As
the COVID-19 crisis has taught us, we must protect America’s supply chain security. With our
competitors taking advantage of our loopholes, U.S. public policy should create regulatory and
tax incentives to on-shore more of the space economy to create new jobs and develop worldleading technologies within our borders. Driving capital and innovation abroad could result in
Champion Briefs
436
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
the “Huawei-fication” of space where foreign-made hardware and software dominate the Final
Frontier. Preventing that is crucial to protecting American national security in the 21st Century.
Beyond rationalizing our regulations before it’s too late, the U.S. should boldly go further and
make America a globally attractive light-touch “free enterprise” zone for the space economy.
We can’t afford another “Sputnik moment.”
Champion Briefs
437
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private property rights in asteroid resources are key to the leadership
of the American space industry.
Resources, Planetary. “President Obama Signs Bill Recognizing Asteroid Resource Property
Rights Into Law.” Space Ref. November 25, 2015. Web. December 11, 2021.
<http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=47408>.
Planetary Resources, the asteroid mining company, applauds President Obama who signed the
U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act (H.R. 2262) into law. This law recognizes
the right of U.S. citizens to own asteroid resources they obtain and encourages the commercial
exploration and utilization of resources from asteroids. “This is the single greatest recognition
of property rights in history,” said Eric Anderson, Co-Founder and Co-Chairman, Planetary
Resources, Inc. “This legislation establishes the same supportive framework that created the
great economies of history, and will encourage the sustained development of space.” Peter H.
Diamandis, M.D., Co-Founder and Co-Chairman, Planetary Resources, Inc., said, “A hundred
years from now, humanity will look at this period in time as the point in which we were able to
establish a permanent foothold in space. In history, there has never been a more rapid rate
progress than right now.” Peter Marquez, Vice President of Global Engagement, Planetary
Resources, Inc., said, “Our nation’s continued leadership and prosperity in space is enabled by
this new law. Planetary Resources is grateful for the leadership shown by Congress in crafting
this legislation and for President Obama signing H.R. 2262 into law. We applaud the members
of Congress who have led this effort. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Patty Murray (DWA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Bill Posey (R-FL) and Derek Kilmer (D-WA) have been unwavering
in their support and leadership for the growth of the U.S. economy into the Solar System.”
Senator Rubio (R-FL) said, “Throughout our entire economy, we need to eliminate unnecessary
regulations that cost too much and make it harder for American innovators to create jobs. The
reforms included here make it easier for our innovators to return Americans to suborbital space
and will help the American space industry continue pushing further into space than ever before.
I’m proud the final bill includes proposals I had previously introduced in the Senate, including
Champion Briefs
438
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
one related to commercial recovery of space resources. This bill is an important win for
Florida’s space coast and the entire space exploration community.” Senator Murray (D-WA)
said, “I am glad that we’ve taken this important step forward to update our federal policies to
make sure they work for innovative businesses creating jobs in Washington state. Washington
state leads in so many ways, and I’m proud that local businesses are once again at the forefront
of new industries that will help our economy continue to grow.” Chairman Smith (R-TX) said,
“The natural resources of our Solar System have great potential to facilitate and support our
human endeavors, both in outer space and on Earth. Commercial space companies in the
United States are making significant investments to develop technical capabilities that will allow
us to explore and use outer space resources. This bill enables this new industry and provides
guidance for future entrepreneurs.” Congressman Posey (R-FL) said, “This bipartisan, bicameral
legislation is a landmark for American leadership in space exploration. Recognizing basic legal
protections in space will help pave the way for exciting future commercial space endeavors.
Asteroids and other objects in space are excellent potential sources of rare minerals and other
resources that can be used to manufacture a wide range of products here on Earth and to
support future space exploration missions. Americans willing to invest in space mining
operations need legal certainty that they can keep the fruits of their labor, and this bill provides
that certainty.” Congressman Kilmer (R-WA) said, “The commercial space industry in
Washington state is leading the way in developing the cutting edge technology necessary to
support human space exploration. The U. S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act will
give these ventures the framework they need to continue to innovate, and to keep the United
States at the head of this growing, global industry.” Chris Lewicki, President and Chief Engineer,
Planetary Resources, Inc., said, “This off-planet economy will forever change our lives for the
better here on Earth. We celebrate this law as it creates a pro-growth environment for our
emerging industry by encouraging private sector investment and ensuring an increasingly stable
and predictable regulatory environment.”
Champion Briefs
439
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private space exploration is key to US leadership in space.
Mosteiro, Steven. “Three Reasons America Must Be A Leader In Space.” Modern War Institute
at West Point. August 03, 2018. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://mwi.usma.edu/three-reasons-america-must-leader-space/>.
Next up in importance: America’s capacity to get into space, both public launch capacity and
private space launch industry. These represent the uniquely American capacity to become and
stay self-reliant handling what we send into space and reliably getting payloads to various
orbits. If we cannot do that, then having the best satellites in the world—the most capable,
tailored, and nimble—will not matter. In practical terms, protecting America’s space
infrastructure—big and little companies that make our policy and programs real—is probably
more important than protecting almost any other American economic sector, tantamount to
protecting America’s power grid, terrestrial transportation, or aviation or communications
sectors. In fact, every one of those critical sectors, depends on the link to space. Without it,
they are lost. Without it, we are lost. Between our national security-related satellites and our
commercial communications, weather, and other satellites, we are highly dependent on
developing and preserving a reliable American launch industry. Finally, our legacy in space is
leadership—in all areas, military to science, orbital exploitation to human exploration.
Americans are rightly proud of our pioneering past, leadership role, risk-taking history, and
exploratory character—in space. To keep this legacy alive, we have to keep taking risks,
protecting the risk takers, and pioneering.
Champion Briefs
440
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
US leadership on space mining norms can make it environmentally
sustainable---global commons-based approaches will fail to set
standards.
Gilbert, Alexander. “U.S. Space Policy: Multilateral Mining.” Science Magazine 370. November
27, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf2456>.
In their Policy Forum “U.S. policy puts the safe development of space at risk” (9 October, p.
174), A. Boley and M. Byers claim that U.S. plans to purchase a small amount of commercial
Moon resources put the safe development of space at risk. To the contrary, U.S. actions are
poised to help jumpstart a new age of space innovation that has the potential to bring scientific
and economic benefits to the whole world. There is no global consensus on international
regulation of space mining. The Moon Agreement and other related recent attempts have been
widely rejected. The United States has led negotiations on the Artemis Accords on a bilateral
basis, but it will be a multilateral agreement, with Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy,
Australia, Luxembourg, and the United Arab Emirates joining in October (1). The Accords can
form a foundation for a future global framework, which ensures all nations can access the
resources of outer space. Environmental management and standards are essential to space
mining but are not guaranteed by international regulatory models. International space law
already requires, or encourages, national regulation with regard to planetary protection,
avoiding harmful contamination, and discouraging harmful interference (2). U.S. leadership in
the space environment can help ensure that sustainability is engrained Edited by Jennifer Sills in
the space mining industry from the start. Early national regulation can facilitate sustainable
space mining innovation; it does not inhibit it. Boley and Byers point to the management of the
deep seabed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as an alternative global
model for sustainable resource use. However, decades later, that model has still not been
successful. No commercial deep-sea mining has occurred in the High Seas, the benefit sharing
Champion Briefs
441
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
mechanism is not established, and the system has struggled to define environmental
management standards. A global approach may eventually emerge, but it is better to begin by
stimulating the market and implementing imperfect regulation than to wait.
Champion Briefs
442
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
US leadership through the recently-negotiated Artemis Accords is
predicated upon a private ownership model for space resources.
Rothermich, Elle. “NASA’s Artemis Accords Boost Commercial Space Activity.” The Regulatory
Review. December 23, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://www.theregreview.org/2020/12/23/rothermich-nasa-artemis-accords-boostcommercial-space-activity/>.
Who owns the Moon? The longstanding international consensus has been that no one does.
But the United States and seven other nations recently agreed on a policy shift: No one owns
the entire Moon, though governments and private actors can own natural lunar resources. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently announced a set of bilateral
agreements called the Artemis Accords. The European Space Administration joined in soon
after, declaring Europe’s intention to collaborate with NASA on the Artemis program. Through
this program, NASA and its partner space agencies seek to develop a stable human presence on
the Moon and travel to Mars. The Artemis Accords require that signatory nations comply with
existing international law. There is no international agreement besides the Accords, however,
that expressly allows for ownership of natural space resources. As a result, the signatories are
operating in a legal grey area: Since so few countries have signed on, it is unclear how much
practical effect the Accords will have. The United States has long pushed for broad acceptance
of this ownership model, arguing that it does not violate international law. As President Donald
J. Trump laid out in an executive order issued earlier this year, the United States rejects the idea
that space belongs to all Earthlings collectively. Instead, presidential administrations have
advocated treating space in a similar manner to our planet’s oceans—no country can claim
sovereignty over them, but public and private actors may claim ownership of ocean resources
they extract. In line with this ownership model, a 2015 federal law permits American
corporations to “possess, own, transport, use, and sell” any space resources they recover in
accordance with the United States’ “international obligations.” These obligations include the
1967 Outer Space Treaty—the foundational document of international space law. Article II of
Champion Briefs
443
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
the treaty prohibits attempts to establish sovereignty over the Moon or any other celestial
body. The signatories of the Artemis Accords reaffirm the principles contained in the Outer
Space Treaty and assert that resource extraction does not constitute “national appropriation”
of space. Some space lawyers and scholars are not so sure, though, whether the Artemis
Accords are in line with the Outer Space Treaty. Since the Artemis program originated with
NASA, they argue that the accords are a vehicle for the United States to assert control over
space activity. The accords meet the letter of the Outer Space Treaty, but opponents worry that
the bilateral agreements undermine the commitment to resource sharing and collective action
that animates the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty. They predict that nations and commercial
outfits will clash over the use of prime mining spots. Even without skirmishes over who gets the
best plot of lunar soil, national governments may not be equipped to handle an explosion of
commercial activity in space. There is no international space agency to coordinate national
regulation efforts or oversee the emerging space economy. In addition, the accords lack an
enforcement provision. Instead, the accords require signatories to make a “political
commitment” to upholding the accords’ principles. Supporters of the Artemis Accords counter
that the new agreements will help to ensure that space exploration and resource extraction can
be sustainable. Jim Bridenstine, NASA’s current administrator, describes the accords as
“operationalizing” the Outer Space Treaty and providing a framework for future cooperation.
Section 11 of the accords, for example, requires signatories and the private actors under their
legal jurisdiction to establish “safety zones” around their areas of operation to prevent one
group’s work from interfering with another’s. Companies in the emerging commercial space
industry have long called for this kind of framework, arguing that existing international space
law is too ambiguous to allow for peaceful and stable development. One remaining source of
ambiguity is the 1979 Moon Agreement, which contradicts the Artemis Accords but which no
major spacefaring power ever signed. The Moon Agreement would preclude governments or
private actors from claiming ownership of natural resources on the Moon or another celestial
body. Despite lacking widespread support when drafted, the Moon Agreement is currently a
subject of active discussion within the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space. Faced with the prospect of a revitalized international effort to forbid private space
Champion Briefs
444
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
activity, some space policy experts and commercial space industry members expressed relief
that President Trump’s executive order made the United States’ opposition to the Moon
Agreement unequivocal.
Champion Briefs
445
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Even though the Artemis Accords permit space mining, they actually
give the Outer Space Treaty some teeth, so US norm-setting facilitates
multilateral cooperation in the future.
Wall, Mike. “US Policy Could Thwart Sustainable Space Development, Researchers Say.”
Space.com. October 08, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://www.space.com/usspace-policy-mining-artemis-accords>.
Not everyone agrees with Boley and Byers' assessment of U.S. space policy and its possible
consequences. For instance, Mike Gold, the acting associate administrator for NASA's Office of
International and Interagency Relations, takes serious issue with the duo's characterization of
the Artemis Accords. For starters, Gold said, that characterization is based on incomplete
information, because the Artemis Accords haven't been released yet. NASA is still evaluating
and incorporating feedback on the text from its international partners. “The Accords are a far
better document because of the international feedback,” Gold told Space.com. Gold also said
that Boley and Byers' description of the planned bilateral agreements is wrong in multiple ways.
As an example, he pointed to the following passage in the new “Policy Forum” piece: “The
Artemis Accords are to include recognition of a right to commercial space mining subject to
national regulation only (i.e., no need for a new multilateral agreement), as well as the right of
companies to declare 'safety zones' around their operations to exclude other actors.” The
Accords do make clear that the extraction and use of space resources are permitted, Gold said.
But that's basically all they say on the topic, he stressed; there's nothing in the agreements
about recognizing a right to commercial mining subject to national regulation only. And the
Artemis Accords will be government-to-government agreements, so the part about companies
declaring safety zones doesn't make much sense, Gold said. In addition, “safety zones are
simply an area where there should be notification as to what a country is doing and where it's
conducting activities, and an obligation to coordinate to avoid harmful interference, as required
by the Outer Space Treaty,” he said. “To exclude actors from any zone of operation would be a
Champion Briefs
446
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
violation of the Outer Space Treaty. And it's certainly not in the Artemis Accords, which is
grounded in the Outer Space Treaty.” The coming agreements will give some much-needed
teeth to the mostly unenforceable Outer Space Treaty, which proponents of multilateral
agreements should appreciate, Gold added. “The Artemis Accords, for the first time, actually
create consequences for not following the Outer Space Treaty — that any nation that violates
the principles of the Outer Space Treaty would not be able to participate in the Artemis
program,” he said. The Accords do go beyond the Outer Space Treaty in some areas, Gold said.
For example, the agreements will require participating nations to publicly release scientific data
and ensure the interoperability of their hardware with that of NASA and other partners. But
overall, the Accords will reinforce and implement the 1967 treaty's principles, he added,
stressing that they're “intended to establish a peaceful, transparent, safe and prosperous future
not only for NASA and its partners but for all of humanity.” All of us should get a chance to see
the Artemis Accords before too much longer; Gold said NASA aims to release them “soon.”
Champion Briefs
447
NEG: Science Leadership DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The Space Act, which grants private property rights to US companies
in outer space, will allow the US to keep pace with other countries.
Foster, Craig. “EXCUSE ME, YOU’RE MINING MY ASTEROID: SPACE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE
U.S. SPACE RESOURCE EXPLORATION.” Journal of Law, Technology & Policy. 2016. Web.
December 12, 2021. <http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Foster.pdf>.
The most obvious positive feature of the Space Act is that it seeks to put some meat on the
bare bones of space property rights. The Outer Space Treaty clearly prohibits appropriation of
whole celestial bodies but is far less clear concerning rights over extracted resources.137 As
discussed earlier, the Treaty seems to foresee some sort of resource extraction and use138—
though the enactment of the Moon Treaty and its prohibitions on owning resources cast doubt
upon whether private ownership and commercialized use of these resources is acceptable to
the international community at large.139 With the promise of property rights comes
confidence for investors, which invariably leads to more money and technology.140 In
providing confidence for investors, companies can move forward with their plans to extract
resources. This will create jobs and allow U.S. companies to keep pace with other countries,
such as China, Russia, and India—and their private companies that intend to move forward with
their own space commercialization missions.141 Not surprisingly, the Space Act has been
heralded by DSI as a “tipping point that will facilitate growth of a global space economy for the
benefit of all mankind.”142
Champion Briefs
448
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Space Debris DA
The space debris DA is a straight froward util argument. The argument made in multiple
cards is that orbital paths are in limited supply and that due to the lack of property rights in
orbit there is both an overabundance of space junk and little incentive to clean it up. Granting
orbital property rights will give corporations and countries an incentive to keep their space
clean and not leave derelict satellites in orbit to hold onto the orbital slot. There are many
impacts to space debris, but the two scenarios isolated in the DA deal with hegemony and
ozone depletion. The heg scenario claims that space debris risks the destruction of GPS and
critical military satellites which collapses readiness and hegemony. The impact is a generic war
scenario, but debaters are free to substitute any US heg good scenario they like. The other
impact claims that increased space debris reentry will lead to ozone depletion which has
multiple environmental impacts including extinction.
The best strategies for affirmatives against this DA is to argue that private space rights
make the space debris problem worse because increased private launches will increase the
amount of debris in space. The other key argument will be to argue that there are alternate
cause to space debris because of ASAT launches by Russia and China. The impact may
ultimately be inevitable whether there are property rights are not because Russia and China
both view anti-satellite tests as ways to deter future conflict.
Champion Briefs
449
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Privately owned satellite operators key for debris removal.
Moore, Adrian. “It's Time For US To Get Serious About Cleaning Up Space Junk,”.” TheHill. July
27, 2021. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/564945its-time-for-us-to-get-serious-about-cleaning-up-space-junk>.
Orbital debris management is not well organized within the government. Right now, the
Department of Defense (DOD) does most tracking of space debris for the U.S. out of the need
to protect military satellites and national security interests. NASA has its own less advanced
systems for tracking debris. However, orbital debris management is not just about tracking
debris anymore. It is also about forming collision warning systems and safely managing traffic in
space. To do this efficiently, we need a civil repository for all orbital debris components,
something that many commercial space companies have already created on their own to stay
aware of orbital debris and help protect their satellites in space. Tracking debris may be a
national security priority, but providing space traffic control is not really in the Defense
Department’s mission. We should be utilizing the private sector’s expertise and advancements
in this area. For example, Astroscale has contracts with both the Japanese and European space
agencies to develop orbital debris removal capability. And responsibility for developing collision
warnings and space traffic management would be best suited for the Office of Space
Commerce, an office with existing connections to the commercial space industry, NASA and
DOD. Partnering with the debris tracking and removal systems private companies are
developing while freeing up DOD to focus on military awareness and NASA to focus on research
and development would be the most efficient way forward. If government works with private
industry through strategic public-private partnerships, the U.S. can best address the threats
posed by orbital debris and create sustainable policies for safe space exploration.
Champion Briefs
450
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Lack of orbital property rights is a direct contributor space debris.
, Ian Blodger. “Reclassifying Geostationary Earth Orbit As Private Property: Why Natural Law
And Utilitarian Theori.” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. February,
2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=mjlst>.
Demsetz argues that property rights arise when the gains of internalization [of externalities]
become larger than the cost of internalization. The current approach to geostationary orbit
allocation creates direct, indirect, and administrative negative externalities, which obstruct
valuable space in geostationary orbit. The effects of the current common scheme are felt
directly though the presence of large amounts of debris. Under the current system, satellite
operators have no long term incentives to keep the orbital area clear from debris since
competitors will be able to take over the slot once the satellite no longer functions. Since the
satellite operator cannot sell rights to the location after the termination of the satellite’s
functions, they can ensure that their competition cannot easily gain access to the same space
by leaving the satellite floating in space. As a result of this type of incentive, [t]he amount of
space junk is increasing by about 5 percent per year; meaning that by the end of the century a
satellite in GEO will have a 40 percent chance of being struck during its operation life-time. This
poses problems for global communications networks, which rely heavily on GEO for their
operations. Not only are these direct costs harmful, but the costs associated with preventing
this kind of damage are also relevant. Satellites must now carry debris shields, debris
monitoring systems, and maneuvering capabilities. Moreover, the lack of an external cost to
profit from the area has increased demand such that the ITU has a large backlog of applications
for GEO orbital slots. The ITU’s current method of granting orbital registration on a first come
first served basis does not allow for an efficient allocation of resources since those who would
be willing to invest more in the space (in the hope of obtaining a larger return for their
investment) are effectively precluded from doing so by the current registration system. Since
the costs to the area are not internalized in the sale value of the area, they are passed on to
Champion Briefs
451
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
others wishing to use the space. Under Demsetz’s theory, if the costs associated with privatizing
geostationary orbit slots are less than the benefits gained from such privatization, then
property interests should be allocated.
Champion Briefs
452
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Orbital property rights increase the likelihood for debris clean up.
, Ian Blodger. “Reclassifying Geostationary Earth Orbit As Private Property: Why Natural Law
And Utilitarian Theori.” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology. February,
2016. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=mjlst>.
First, allowing privatization of geostationary orbit will mitigate future space debris and
potentially allow for a clean up of current debris. Analyzing different methods for reducing
space debris, Nodir Aldinov, Peter Alexander, and Brenda Cunningham concluded that the lack
of costs associated with launching a satellite (apart from the costs necessary to build and place
the satellite in orbit) allows for more satellites than optimum. This is because corporations
seeking to maximize profits have no need to take account of the negative externality its satellite
launches impose on other firms Aldinov, Alexander, and Cunningham conclude that by
instituting a tax on each launch, actors would be incentivized to internalize externalities, which
would in turn bring the number of launches to the socially optimum level. They further contend
that the profits from the launch tax could be used to invest in programs to seek out and actively
clean up space. The creation of a property interest in GEO locations will not only accomplish the
end results of a tax, but it also provides an incentive to launch a satellite in the first place. By
creating a property interest in geostationary orbit, the market will quickly establish a price for
the zone. This price will act in the same way as a tax, forcing actors to consider not just the cost
of the satellite (which will inevitably be lost), but also a potential return on the investment in
the property right itself. The creation of this additional cost and benefit will eliminate negative
externalities associated with too many satellite launches. Additionally, allowing actors to resell
their orbital zone or reuse it as needed provides an added incentive to actively clean up the
area. Therefore, like the imposition of a tax, creating a private interest in a GEO slots will
decrease the number of excess satellites launched into GEO, and provide incentives to clean up
the area in order to maximize profits. Unlike a tax however, property rights more efficiently
ensure a preservation of a clean space environment.159 Murray N. Rothbard’s book, For a New
Champion Briefs
453
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Liberty, discusses a libertarian approach to pollution and finds that the government’s control
over pollution regulations is much less efficient than a private property owner enforcing their
rights through the court system. In part, this inefficiency results from an apathetic enforcement
of the laws, which do not benefit the enforcers. Rothbard additionally argues the government’s
assessment of the potential harms of pollution often differ from those who have a stake in the
matter, and thus fail to take into account the full magnitude of the situation, leading to
inefficient tax regimes. In a private system with redress to the courts, property owners will
zealously defend their property from trespass, and will do so efficiently, because they are able
to take into account the relevant variables that threaten their property, where the government
cannot take such an individualized approach. Thus, while the benefits derived from a system of
taxation and a private property system are similar, the allocation of private property will
ultimately lead to a more efficient protection of GEO.
Champion Briefs
454
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights can minimize orbital clutter.
Scheraga, Joel D. “Establishing Property Rights In Outer Space.” Cato Journal. 1987. Web.
December 13, 2021. <https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/catojournal/1987/1/cj6n3-10.pdf>.
The market system applies to scarce resources in outer space as well as to resources on earth,
Scarce orbital slots for geosynchronous satellites can be efficiently allocated if property rights
are assigned and exchange is permitted. The assignment of property rights, if abided by and
done in a spirit of cooperation, need not be feared. Clearly defined property rights underlie
well-functioning markets, which are socially beneficial. This paper has dealt with the issues of
why the establishment of property rights to geosynchronous orbital slots is inevitable and how
these property rights can be created. The focushas been on economic efficiency. The analysis of
alternative allocation schemes suggests that competitive markets can be applied usefully to the
problem of allocating scarce orbital slots for geosynchronous satellites. Clearly defined and
enforced property rights provide sufficient incentives to preserve scarce resources. Scarcity in
the absence of ownership leadsto congestion, inefficiency, and amisuse ofresources, Failure to
assign property rights leads to socially undesirable outcomes. Policy issues that are concerned
with equity, as distinct from efficiency, involve interpersonal comparisons of utility and social
welfare judgments on the part of bureaucratic authorities. Further research will be required to
investigate the equity implications of establishing property rights in outer space, given the
current international distribution of wealth and technology.
Champion Briefs
455
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Space Debris risks miscalc and war.
Gray, Richard. “Space Junk Could Trigger A WORLD WAR.” Daily Mail. January 27, 2016. Web.
December 13, 2021. <https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3419432/Spacejunk-isn-t-just-dangerous-astronauts-trigger-WORLD-WAR-Collisions-satellites-debrisrisk-sparking-conflicts-nations.html>.
The space surrounding our planet is getting increasingly crowded as more and more satellites,
spent spacecraft and debris orbit the Earth. But this steady rise in potentially dangerous 'space
junk' could spark the start of a conflict that may lead to a new world war, a team of space
scientists has warned. It claims that a collision between an operational satellite and the
fragments of old space hardware hurtling around the planet could easily be mistaken as an
intentional attack by another nation. There are 500,000 pieces of 'space junk' currently being
tracked as they orbit the planet at speeds of up to 17,500mph (28,160km/h) - and millions
more that are too small to be accurately traced. Even a tiny paint fleck traveling at these speeds
can cause damage to a spacecraft. Professor Vitaly Adushkin, an expert in geosphere dynamics
at the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow, and his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence of
the Russian Federation, said space debris now posed a 'special political danger'. They warned
that an impact with another spacecraft – especially one used for military purposes – could
provoke political or even armed conflict between space-faring nations. Despite extensive
efforts to track space debris, it would be almost impossible to identify the real cause of a
collision if it occurred with an unregistered piece of 'junk'. As many military satellites also
occupy low earth orbits, this puts them in a region that is at highest risk of such collisions due
to the density of debris there. The experts said: 'In the last decades, there have repeatedly
observed sudden failures of some spacecraft for defense purposes the causes of which have not
been found either by observations or by telemetry. 'So, there are two possible explanations first, unregistered collision with space debris, or second “machinations” of the space adversary.
'And this is a politically dangerous dilemma. 'Special political danger posed by such a grouping
in near-Earth space is that the impact of its element on some spacecraft - especially for military
Champion Briefs
456
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
purposes - may provoke political or even armed conflict between space-faring nations.' Nasa
said it is currently tracking 500,000 pieces of debris that are larger than a marble and 20,000
that are larger than a softball. The European Space Agency estimates there are at least 700,000
dangerous pieces of debris in orbit around the Earth. The Russian Space Surveillance Systems is
tracking more than 23,000 objects more than four inches wide. It estimates there are 100,000
pieces half that size, 600,000 between a third of an inch and four inches across and hundreds of
millions less than a third of an inch in size. Many are pieces of old rocket and satellites while
there are also objects including a spanner, dumped rubbish from Russia's Mir space station. The
space debris crisis has been made worse by past collisions and explosions that have increased
the amount of material needing to be tracked. In 1996 a French satellite was damaged by
debris from a French rocket that had exploded a decade earlier while in orbit around the
planet. The Chinese used a missile in 2007 to destroy an old weather satellite in an anti-satellite
test, creasing 3,000 pieces of debris. A defunct Russian satellite collided and destroyed a
functioning US commercial satellite in 2009, producing 2,000 pieces of debris in the process.
Professor Aduskin and his colleagues, whose study is published in the journal Acta Astronautica,
said the International Space Station has had to take evasive action five times in 2014 to avoid
space debris. The other authors of the study include Stanislave Veniaminov, from the Scientific
Research Centre Kosmos at the Russian Ministry of Defence in Moscow. They suggest launching
moving shielding structures that could be erected around spacecraft in low Earth orbits to help
protect them from debris. But while some steps can be taken to mitigate damage to satellites, it
is almost inevitable there will be collisions in the future. The researchers said: 'The owner of the
impacted and destroyed satellite can hardly quickly determine the real cause of the accident.
'Evan small damage could lead to the whole structure malfunction and finally going out of
service.'
Champion Briefs
457
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Space Debris harms the ozone.
Leonard, David. “Space Littering Can Impact Earth’s Atmosphere.” Space. May 19, 2009. Web.
December 13, 2021. <https://www.space.com/6720-space-littering-impact-earthsatmosphere.html>.
There is growing appreciation that outer space has become a trash bin, with the Earth encircled
by dead or dying spacecraft, along with menacing bits of orbital clutter — some of which burns
up in the planet's atmosphere. The big news of late was a smashup of a commercial Iridium
satellite with a defunct Russian spacecraft earlier this year. Then there was that 2007 antisatellite test by China, purposely destroying one of its aging weather satellites. These events
produced large debris fields in space — adding to the swamp of cosmic compost. But I sense a
line of research that needs exploring: The overall impact of human-made orbital debris, solid
and liquid propellant discharges, and other space age substance abuse that winds up in a highspeed dive through Earth's atmosphere. There's a convenient toss away line that is in vogue:
that such space refuse simply “burns up” — a kind of out of sight, out of mind declaration.
What chemistry is involved given the high heating during reentry of space leftovers made of
tungsten, beryllium, aluminum and lots of composite materials? The impact of these materials
on Earth's atmosphere — top to bottom — would seem worthy of investigation. As for total
mass of uncontrolled objects that re-enter each year — it's in the range of 70 — 80 metric tons.
And that's the trackable, big stuff — never mind smaller bits of orbital jetsam like bubbles of
still-radioactive coolant that has been leaked from old nuclear-powered Soviet satellites. One
study team that looked into the impact of de-orbiting space debris on stratospheric ozone
issued their findings back in 1994.The work was done by an aerospace industry firm for the
Environmental Management Division of the Space and Missile Systems Center. They reported
that objects re-entering the atmosphere can affect ozone in several ways, but not on a
significant level globally. Indeed, as an object plows through the Earth's stratosphere, a shock
wave is created that produces nitric oxide, a known cause of ozone depletion. Spacecraft and
rocket motors are composed of metal alloys and composite materials that melt away during re-
Champion Briefs
458
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
entry. The researchers found that these materials, as they undergo intense heating, also form
chemicals that react directly or indirectly to consume ozone. Overall, the study found that the
physical and chemical phenomena associated with deorbiting debris do not have “a significant
impact” on global stratospheric ozone.
Champion Briefs
459
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Ozone depletion risks extinction--empirically proven.
, University Of Southampton. “Erosion Of Ozone Layer Responsible For Mass Extinction Event.”
Science Daily. May 27, 2020. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200527150158.htm>.
Now, scientists have found evidence showing it was high levels of UV radiation which collapsed
forest ecosystems and killed off many species of fish and tetrapods (our four limbed ancestors)
at the end of the Devonian geological period, 359 million years ago. This damaging burst of UV
radiation occurred as part of one of the Earth's climate cycles, rather than being caused by a
huge volcanic eruption. The ozone collapse occurred as the climate rapidly warmed following
an intense ice age and the researchers suggest that the Earth today could reach comparable
temperatures, possibly triggering a similar event. Their findings are published in the journal
Science Advances. The team collected rock samples during expeditions to mountainous polarregions in East Greenland, which once formed a huge ancient lake bed in the arid interior of the
Old Red Sandstone Continent, made up of Europe and North America. This lake was situated in
the Earth's southern hemisphere and would have been similar in nature to modern day Lake
Chad on the edge of the Sahara Desert. Other rocks were collected from the Andean Mountains
above Lake Titicaca in Bolivia. These South American samples were from the southern
continent of Gondwana, which was closer to the Devonian South Pole. They held clues as to
what was happening at the edge of the melting Devonian ice sheet, allowing a comparison
between the extinction event close to the pole and close to the equator. Back in the lab, the
rocks were dissolved in hydrofluoric acid, releasing microscopic plant spores (like pollen, but
from fern like plants that didn't have seeds or flowers) which had lain preserved for hundreds
of millions of years. On microscopic examination, the scientists found many of the spores had
bizarrely formed spines on their surface -- a response to UV radiation damaging their DNA. Also,
many spores had dark pigmented walls, thought to be a kind of protective 'tan', due to
increased and damaging UV levels. The scientists concluded that, during a time of rapid global
warming, the ozone layer collapsed for a short period, exposing life on Earth to harmful levels
of UV radiation and triggering a mass extinction event on land and in shallow water at the
Devonian-Carboniferous boundary.
Champion Briefs
460
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Debris risk satellite destruction--that kills heg and readiness.
Imburgia, Joseph S. “Space Debris And Its Threat To National Security: A Proposal For A Binding
International Agreement T.” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. May 01, 2011.
Web. December 13, 2021. <https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Space-Debris-andIts-Threat-to-National-Security%3A-AImburgia/fbea02f5bb13dc711ec0ca6bc184169e34908080>.
These gloomy prognostications about the threats to our space environment should be troubling
to Americans. The United States relies on the unhindered use of outer space for national
security.151 According to a space commission led by former Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld, “[t]he [United States] is more dependent on space than any other nation.”152
According to Robert G. Joseph, former Undersecretary for Arms Control and International
Security at the State Department, “space capabilities are vital to our national security and to
our economic well-being.”153 Therefore, a catastrophic collision between space debris and the
satellites on which that national security so heavily depends poses a very real and current
threat to the national security interests of the United States. Since “the [1991] Gulf War, the
[United States] military has depended on satellites for communications, intelligence and
navigation for its troops and precision-guided weapons.”154 Satellites are also used for
reconnaissance and surveillance, command and control, and control of Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles.155 According to the United States Space Command’s Fact Sheet: Satellites provide
essential in-theater secure communications, weather and navigational data for ground, air and
fleet operations and threat warning. Ground-based radar and Defense Support Program
satellites monitor ballistic missile launches around the world to guard against a surprise missile
attack on North America. Space surveillance radars provide vital information on the location of
satellites and space debris for the nation and the world. Maintaining space superiority is an
emerging capability required to protect our space assets. With the modern speed of warfare, it
has become difficult to fight conflicts without the timely intelligence and information that space
assets provide. Space-based assets and space-controlled assets have created among U.S.
Champion Briefs
461
NEG: Space Debris DA
Jan/Feb 2022
military commanders “a nearly insatiable desire for live video surveillance, especially as
provided from remotely piloted vehicles like the Predator and now the Reaper.”157 Moreover,
military forces have become so dependent on satellite communications and targeting
capabilities that the loss of such a satellite would “badly damage their ability to respond to a
military emergency.”158 In fact, the May 2008 malfunction of a communications satellite
demonstrates the fragile nature of the satellite communications system.159 The temporary loss
of a single satellite “effectively pulled the plug on what executives said could [have been] as
much as 90 percent of the paging network in the United States.”160 Although this country’s
paging network is perhaps not vital to its national security, the incident demonstrates the
possible national security risks created by the simultaneous loss of multiple satellites due to
space debris collisions.
Champion Briefs
462
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Internet Access DA
The Internet Access DA argues that the appropriation of outer space by private entities
developing “mega-constellations” (large clusters of satellites designed for expanding global
Internet connectivity) is just. The link story is simple: mega-constellations are on their way
(uniqueness), the Aff would have to rule them out because the mega-constellations appropriate
some part of outer space (link), mega-constellations are key to expanding global Internet access
(internal link), and closing the global digital divide is key to reducing poverty and achieving
other benefits in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (impact). You could
potentially get to extinction with some other harm that expanding Internet access prevents, but
your impact would have to take at least two more steps to reach that point, and global poverty
is still a substantial, compelling impact. The Internet Access DA is strategic because it hones in
on a potentially large benefit of one type of appropriation of outer space, so the Aff has to be
prepared to address the DA if they want to defend the general principle that appropriation of
space by private entities on the whole is unjust. Mega-constellations are also being rolled out in
the present day, whereas some forms of appropriation like asteroid mining are more of an idea
currently and less of a full-fledged market. The technology for mega-constellations is far less in
doubt, so your uniqueness story will be a lot more credible.
The weakness of the Internet Access DA is that it is susceptible to many different impact
turns, not “Internet access bad” but “mega-constellations bad.” From increased light pollution
and the satellites’ direct interference with astronomical observations of the stars and planets,
to the substantial risk of space debris posed by large clusters of satellites roaming around in
low-Earth orbit, the Neg will need to have many frontlines to address the varied objections to
mega-constellations. The Neg may also need to get to extinction in order to outweigh the space
debris turn, because space debris might have ramifications for miscalculation and war between
states.
Champion Briefs
463
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations of satellites are key to expanding Internet access
across the globe---international codes of conduct and automated
collision avoidance systems solve any risk of space debris.
Unal, Beyza. “Collision Risks In Space Due To Mega-constellations.” Chatham House. October
26, 2021. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/10/collision-risks-space-due-megaconstellations>.
Mega-constellations are composed of several hundreds of highly networked satellites in low
Earth orbit, and they are fundamental in providing uninterrupted communication through
networks across the globe, enabling internet access even in remote areas. The space industry
has shown great interest in mega-constellations due to their expected high return on capital
invested. SpaceX, via its Starlink satellite internet constellations, has already launched 60
satellites into low-earth orbit (LEO) in May 2021. It plans to launch thousands more in the
coming years as part of its mega-constellation project. OneWeb, Amazon, and several other
private space companies have similar ambitions. Unregulated launches of mega-constellations,
however, make low Earth orbit too crowded to function safely and securely. Such congestion
increases the risk of collision, such as with other active satellites, untracked debris, and
meteoroids. Even a single collision in outer space can cause significant cascade effects, creating
future collisions, as collisions ‘give rise to more debris and lead to more collisions’. Near misses
provide learnings Space-faring nations and the space industry should learn from the several
near miss incidents that have already taken place with single satellites and mega-constellations
in outer space. In 2018, the mission controllers of the CryoSat-2, a satellite that monitors
precise changes in the thickness of polar ice sheets, had to manoeuvre their satellite into a
higher orbit to prevent collision with a piece of debris. In 2019, the European Space Agency
(ESA) moved its earth observation satellite to avoid it colliding with a Starlink satellite. The
collision risk, in this incident, was estimated to be ‘ten times higher than the threshold that
Champion Briefs
464
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
required a collision avoidance manoeuvre’. While manoeuvring away from a piece of debris is
common practice, the space industry is still learning how to manoeuvre to prevent collision
with an active satellite. The latter requires direct communication hotlines between the
operators involved, at all times. Current communication between operators, however, is
conducted on an ad-hoc basis and over email exchanges. This is neither sustainable nor efficient
as outer space becomes even more congested, exponentially increasing the risk of collision.
Academic assessments also reveal a grim picture for the future of the on-orbit environment. By
using the European Space Agency (ESA)’s debris evolutionary model, researchers tested the
probability of multiple collisions of mega-satellite constellations and identified ‘significant risk
from non-trackable debris objects’. These are objects smaller than ten centimetres in size.
Although non-trackable debris generally poses non-catastrophic collision risks as a result of the
existing shielding in the design of the satellites, these collisions may still be able to disable key
satellite functions such as communications. The loss of critical functions may have cascading
impacts not only on the overall health of the mega-satellite system in question but also on the
functioning of critical national infrastructure on Earth. Another risk relates to the proliferation
of emerging technologies and their impact on outer space security. Research indicates
malicious actors are already capable of manoeuvring a single unprotected satellite to have it
collide it with another satellite or with a space object through cyber means. And, although all
satellites are vulnerable to cyber threats, mega-constellations require additional cybersecurity
considerations because of their increased connectivity and the webbed nature of networks
across units, for instance, through the Internet of Things (IoT) applications for communication
purposes. Recommendations for rules of the road Due to the changing nature of the use of
outer space and potential risks that mega-constellations pose to the safety and security of
outer space, it is important to set out the rules of the road before it is too late to act.
Multilateral solutions: Set up specific regulations and policies around mega-constellations to
ensure sustainable operations and to minimize the risk of collision. This should include
considering new approaches for space traffic management as the capacity of ground-based
platforms ‘may not be sufficient to monitor and control’ the increased number of satellites in
the near future. Create codes of conduct outlining the norms, rules and responsible behaviours
Champion Briefs
465
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
in outer space, not only for states but also for the private sector. This is particularly important
to prevent the monopoly of control over certain orbital regions by a handful of actors (both
companies and countries) and to ensure rightful and equal access to these areas for all.
Establish clear hotlines for communication between operators and for the operators to test
these hotlines through joint exercises. Industry-wide solutions: It is impossible to prevent
cyberattacks in the space and ground domains. Instead, the mega-constellation operators
should conduct risk assessments, have a clear risk mitigation policy (i.e., for cyber threats,
collision risks etc.), and should apply redundancy measures to prevent catastrophic failure. The
ESA is developing an automated collision avoidance system that relies on machine learning
techniques. This automated collision avoidance system will drastically decrease the likelihood
of an in-space collision, once the machine learns from near-misses and can better predict future
scenarios. Regardless, the operators should train their staff in interpreting machine-made
decisions. Keeping humans involved in the decision-making process at all times would aid this
process. Overall, the operator needs to be able to trust the system’s capabilities, and without
adequate testing and evaluation mechanisms, this cannot be achieved. All of these
recommendations should be coupled with the overarching principles of responsible innovation.
For far too long, states have placed the emphasis in outer space security primarily on the
governance of risk, but it is time to shift this paradigm and focus also on the governance of
innovation to use technology for the benefit of international peace and security. All actors
involved in the space domain are mutually responsible for each other’s security.
Champion Briefs
466
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations are key to a truly global Internet.
Rawat, Soumyaa. “What Is A Satellite Mega-Constellation? Advantages And Disadvantages.”
Analytic Steps. May 08, 2021. Web. December 11, 2021.
<https://www.analyticssteps.com/blogs/what-satellite-mega-constellation-advantagesand-disadvantages>.
A Satellite Mega-Constellation is a group of man-made satellites operating together to cover a
vast span of the globe or even the whole land mass. Used for global communications coverage,
satellite mega-constellations are present in the outer atmosphere of the planet and are
connected to each other through the technology of inter-satellite communication. Visible to
numerous stations located on Earth, satellite mega-constellations work on the basis of low
earth orbit (LEO) that refers to the placement of satellite orbits at a low altitude (<2000km). A
network of satellites revolving on various orbits, a satellite mega-constellation involves
satellites revolving on various orbits placed near to each other. Existent in outer space, leo
satellite constellations revolve around orbits with an altitude of upto 2000km or less than that.
The concept of satellite mega-constellations has been in trend ever since the 1990s, but it has
only been in the 21st century that constellations were actually developed in outer space.
Residing in the space cavity that is congested with such constellations, satellite megaconstellations are about to escalate in terms of popularity in the coming years. Majorly
functional in the telecommunications sector, satellite mega-constellations have a huge
commercial significance in terms of global connectivity and the distribution of the internet
services. As more than four satellites are required to be grouped to make a satellite megaconstellation, these networks enable a set of satellites to be visible at once. This means that
even if some satellites in a constellation are unable to connect with stations located on Earth,
there are still many other satellites that can do the task required. One of the largest satellite
mega-constellation is Starlink by SpaceX. The expanse of Starlink coverage in terms of internet
connectivity will become unbeatable in the coming months with more and more satellites being
added to the network. “As of August 23rd 2020, SpaceX's Starlink internet satellite constellation
Champion Briefs
467
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
numbers a total of 653 operational satellites deployed. Starlink is one of the pioneers for
providing internet connectivity from orbit over the whole globe. The ultimate aim is to utilise
12,000 of these small satellites, each weighing between 227–260 kg (500–573 lb), orbiting at a
height of 550 kilometres (340 mi) or below. When each of the individual satellites reach their
end of life, they are deorbited to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.” (largest satellite
constellation) Why are they important? The world is becoming interconnected as the Internet
of Things is unfolding the wonders it can do. Satellites have been in outer space for a long time,
however, satellite mega-constellations are a recent development as the internet is becoming
widespread. In order to keep the world hooked to a network of satellites that stay in loop
throughout, mega-constellations like Starlink and OneWeb have emerged to be the pioneers in
this field. The significance of satellite mega-constellations is hidden in our day-to-day lives - the
omnipresence of the internet and the widespread use of this commodity. With more than 3
billion internet users in the world, the global internet network still eyes the addition of a major
chunk of the human population to be added to this list. Even though terrestrial
telecommunication technology has advanced rapidly, satellite mega-constellations can lessen
the digital divide that continues to be a concern for the global population. With the coming of
satellite mega-constellations that have covered the planet like a blanket, even the remotest
areas stand a fair chance to get access to the internet and stay connected to other corners of
the globe. As 5G internet has successfully arrived in different countries, the need for better
connectivity lures big brands like SpaceX and Amazon to enter the sphere of satellite megaconstellations and make the most out of this technology. The 5G network architecture has
pushed technological advances like these and soon, this technology will connect every human
to the internet. Let us understand the significance of satellite mega-constellations through the
example of Starlink. Advantages and Disadvantages of Satellite Mega-Constellations The coming
of satellite mega-constellations has taken everyone by surprise. The next-generation
innovations attached with this concept highlight the various advantages and disadvantages of
satellite mega-constellations that we will discuss in this segment. Merits Global Connectivity
One of the biggest benefits of satellite mega-constellations is that they encourage global
connectivity. With the aim to provide internet to people residing in any and every part of the
Champion Briefs
468
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
world, satellite mega-constellations have emerged as the pioneer of decreasing digital divide
that continues to draw the attention of millions of scholars and activists. The humongous reach
that these satellite mega-constellations have on the world will determine future technological
advancements, including 5G internet and so on. Furthermore, the widespread presence of
thousands of satellites will ensure that no spot in the world is kept aloof considering the reach
these satellites will have. “Launching a constellation of tens, hundreds or even thousands of
satellites has become a serious option for providing ubiquitous telecommunications services.
This is reflected by the many initiatives spawned in the recent past, ranging from nano and
micro satellites systems dedicated to M2M/IoT, to the Megaconstellations of small and medium
size satellites, like those envisaged by Oneweb, Leosat and Telesat, to mention but a few.
Indeed, constellations of satellites providing access to currently unserved or under-served
regions are one of the latest areas of growth for the space industry.” The idea of Global Internet
One of the most important commodities in the world, the internet is opening millions of
opportunities for people across the world. The satellite mega-constellations aim to advance the
technology of the internet and connect each and every individual with this technology to
ensure global connectivity. As many telecommunication companies are preparing to launch
their respective satellite mega-constellations in outer space, there will also be an increase in
global internet access. Thanks to satellite mega-constellations and the technology of intersatellite communication that have together triggered the availability of internet throughout the
globe. Although this uniformity has not been completely achieved, it is in the process and is
likely to be completed within this decade.
Champion Briefs
469
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The Aff's defense of the “non-appropriation” principle in the Outer
Space Treaty logically rules out mega-constellations.
Boley, Aaron C. “Satellite Mega-constellations Create Risks In Low Earth Orbit, The Atmosphere
And On Earth.” Scientific Reports 11. 2021. Web. December 11, 2021. <Satellite megaconstellations create risks in Low Earth Orbit, the atmosphere and on Earth>.
National regulators such as the FCC are assigning orbital shells to mega-constellations on a first
come, first served basis, without assessing the effects on other countries. These could include
making any addition of further satellites to those shells too dangerous to contemplate. This de
facto occupation of orbital shells likely violates Article I of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which
designates the exploration and use of space as “the province of all mankind” and open to all
countries “without discrimination of any kind.” There is also Article II: “Outer space … is not
subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by
any other means.” Although regulators are not claiming sovereignty over orbital shells, allowing
national companies to saturate them with satellites could constitute appropriation by “other
means.” Lastly, Article IX requires that space activities be conducted “with due regard to the
corresponding interests of other States”. Mega-constellation operators and their regulators
could respond that they are exercising the right to explore and use space without
discrimination, the use of an orbital shell is time-limited as a result of the license, and the
satellites will be actively de-orbited32. They could also reference that countries have been
using slots in geostationary orbit for decades, resulting in the de facto exclusion of others from
any given slot without this being considered appropriation. However, the use of slots in
geostationary orbit is mediated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which
does not play the same role in LEO.
Champion Briefs
470
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellation companies are converging on norms for
responsible conduct that will prevent collisions.
Foust, Jeff. “Can Satellite Megaconstellations Be Responsible Users Of Space?.” Space News.
September 03, 2019. Web. December 12, 2021. <https://spacenews.com/can-satellitemegaconstellations-be-responsible-users-of-space/>.
One megaconstellation company is trying to address the criticism regarding such systems by
explaining how it intends to safely operate in space, setting a standard it hopes others in the
industry will follow. In June, OneWeb rolled out a new initiative called “Responsible Space.”
That effort included a website with a clever URL (www.responsible.space) that outlines its
overall philosophy and specific approaches to safe operations in space. “We are dedicated to
the idea that space is a shared natural resource which, if used responsibly, can help transform
the way we live, work and interact,” the company states on that site. “We always want to have
a mindset towards sustainability and protecting the environment,” said Michael Lindsay, head
of advanced mission design at OneWeb, discussing the Responsible Space initiative at the
NewSpace 2019 conference in July. Responsible Space represents “the practices and operations
that we use, the designs, to make sure that we’re mindful of the potential impacts of utilizing
space,” he explained. “The whole goal is to minimize the potential for harm to the
environment.” That approach has three distinct elements. One is what OneWeb describes as
“responsible design and operational practices.” That includes the design of the satellites
themselves to maximize reliability and maneuverability, as well as the operations of individual
satellites and the overall constellation. “We’re not launching something with a high chance of
failure on orbit,” Lindsay said of the company’s satellites, which will undergo extensive testing
before launch. “Once it fails in orbit, it becomes everybody else’s problem, and we don’t view
that as acceptable.” That approach also covers the design of the constellation. OneWeb chose
an altitude of 1,200 kilometers for its satellites in part because there is a “nice minimum” in the
population of existing satellites and debris at that latitude, he said, compared to more
congested conditions at altitudes of 800 to 900 kilometers. (Another advantage is that the
Champion Briefs
471
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
company needs fewer satellites at that higher altitude to provide global coverage.) That
concept extends to the disposal of satellites at the end of their lifetimes. “We have a high
degree of reliability on the system that allows us to deorbit,” he said, such that it could still
operate even if the rest of the satellite malfunctions. The goal is to remove a satellite from orbit
within five years of the end of its mission, a fraction of the 25-year time frame in existing orbital
debris mitigation guidelines. A second element of Responsible Space is developing what
OneWeb calls an “ecosystem” within the space industry that supports space sustainability.
Lindsay argued that creating business opportunities for companies can be more compelling that
simply forcing them to follow government regulations. “If you develop an ecosystem that
supports and promotes sustainable behaviors and even creates new business opportunities out
of sustainability, then it becomes much more attractive,” he said. For example, OneWeb plans
to include a grapple fixture on its satellites in the event one of its satellites is unable to deorbit
itself. “A third-party satellite could mate with our satellite, grab it and tug it out of orbit, even
when our satellite is non-responsive,” he said. Companies like Astroscale are developing
technologies for what’s known as active debris removal, and such an interface could make their
jobs easier. Lindsay said OneWeb plans to make schematics of that interface publicly available
to support such companies as they develop their debris-removal spacecraft. The final element
of Responsible Space deals with collaboration with other space operators, from sharing
information on the orbits of each others’ satellites to broader policy issues. It’s an
acknowledgment that, no matter what OneWeb does, space sustainability will require
cooperation with other companies and governments. “Ultimately, if one company or operator
is doing something that they think is responsible,” Lindsay said, “it’s not effective unless all the
others are operating with the same amount of responsibility and awareness. Everybody has to
be on the same page.” COMPARE AND CONTRAST OneWeb has taken a variety of approaches
to promote Responsible Space. Besides conference appearances and its website, the company
sponsored an invitation-only workshop by the Secure World Foundation in June about “norms
of behavior” in space. However, a three-page summary of the report, released by Secure World
in August, didn’t reveal any breakthroughs on promoting such norms. The biggest evangelist for
the gospel of Responsible Space, though, is OneWeb’s founder, Greg Wyler, who rarely misses
Champion Briefs
472
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
an opportunity to bring up his company’s commitment to space sustainability. That included
discussing it at the July 22 grand opening of the new factory in Florida that will soon produce
two OneWeb satellites a day. “We can’t go connect every school in the world and bring
broadband to all the rural communities if we do it in an unsafe way,” he said, emphasizing
OneWeb’s commitment to high-reliability satellites. “If we mess it up, if satellites start failing
and they start crashing, there’s virtually no way to clean up the mess.” The concept got an
endorsement at the same event from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. “We particularly
commend OneWeb for your Responsible Space initiative,” he said in remarks before Wyler’s
speech. He called OneWeb’s plans to promptly deorbit satellites “an elegant solution to a key
part of the debris problem.” Wyler’s strongest comments about Responsible Space came in a
keynote he gave Aug. 5 at the annual Conference on Small Satellites at Utah State University.
Speaking to a standing-room-only audience, he discussed space sustainability along with the
history of OneWeb and its satellite deployment plans. He used the speech, and the questionand-answer session that followed, to not only talk about OneWeb was doing but also to subtly
— or perhaps not so subtly — criticize other companies that he felt weren’t taking the issue
seriously. “I’m really not a fan of just launching stuff in space to raise money and launching stuff
in space that’s not finished or not ready and vetted,” he said. “You should not be throwing up
hundreds and hundreds of kilograms of mass that just becomes a missile.” He never named the
company or organization he was referring to, but to many in the audience he appeared to be
criticizing SpaceX. A company spokesperson reported a month after the first Starlink launch
that three of the 60 satellites were had stopped communicating with the ground and “are no
longer in service.” Around the time of that update, the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
announced it was investing in SpaceX, part of a round estimated to raise $310 million. During
that Q&A session, one person brought up astronomers’ concerns about the visibility of satellite
megaconstellations based on the experience with SpaceX. “We’ve thought about it,” Wyler
responded, describing steps the company took to minimize the brightness of its satellites in the
night sky. “To not sit and think about longer-term ramifications of what you’re doing is just
irresponsible.” SpaceX argues that it, too, seeks to be responsible in space. “Due to their design
and low orbital position, all five deorbiting satellites will disintegrate once they enter Earth’s
Champion Briefs
473
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
atmosphere in support of SpaceX’s commitment to a clean space environment,” a SpaceX
spokesperson said in June about the three satellites that failed and two others the company
was intentionally deorbiting to test their propulsion systems. SpaceX Chief Executive Elon Musk
separately said the company was looking at ways to lower the albedo, or reflectivity, of future
Starlink satellites to reduce their brightness, which decreased as most of the satellites moved
into their higher operational orbits. A SpaceX official, speaking on background, acknowledged
that the initial batch of Starlink satellites was something of an experiment, pushing their
capabilities to the limit. “Our learnings here, however, are key to developing an affordable and
reliable broadband service.” Musk, before the launch, told reporters that it was possible some
satellites could fail and even a “small possibility that all of the satellites will not work.”
Watching these developments and debates by OneWeb and SpaceX is someone with a lot of
experience with satellite constellations: Matt Desch, chief executive of Iridium. Speaking at the
Secure World Foundation’s Summit for Space Sustainabilityy in late June, he said he, too, was
worried about the reliability of satellites being launched by megaconstellations, fearing that
some will malfunction and become “rocks” in orbit. “What if you launch 1,000 satellites, 5,000
satellites, 12,000 satellites?” he asked. “Say, 10% create rocks. We are creating an environment
that may make LEO an environment that isn’t sustainable.” Desch, though, endorsed a
modification to SpaceX’s FCC license before that first launch, allowing the company to operate
its satellites at an altitude of 550 kilometers versus 1,150 kilometers as originally planned.
SpaceX says that the lower altitude will reduce latency, but Desch noted that the lower altitude
means the satellites will naturally deorbit within a few years even if they malfunction. “I’m just
thrilled they made that decision,” he said. “It’s a very responsible decision.”
Champion Briefs
474
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations will bridge the global digital divide.
Pultarova, Tereza. “Mega-constellations: Will They Bridge The Digital Divide?.” E&T
(Engineering and Technology). January 22, 2018. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2018/01/mega-constellations-will-theybridge-the-digital-divide/>.
According to the ITU, bridging the digital divide is a key element of achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals set by the United Nations in 2015, which include ending poverty and
hunger, securing education and healthcare for everyone, promoting equality and ensuring
security and justice all over the world. For American entrepreneur Greg Wyler, connecting the
world’s unconnected is something of a life’s mission. After selling his first business, a company
building heat sinks for PCs, in the 1990s, Wyler met the President of Rwanda Paul Kagame and
got inspired by his vision of a better Africa - an Africa that provides opportunities through
education and better access to information. Wyler then spent the early 2000s laying fibre-optic
cables in rural Rwanda and building mobile telecommunications networks, but it was a struggle.
“Fibre is wonderful as long as it’s all nicely packed together, you have nice roads and it’s nicely
laid out,” Wyler commented last year during a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society in
London. “Once the population density gets further apart, these technologies, which were
designed for high GDP (gross domestic product), high-population density, don’t really work in
low GDP, low-population density, so we needed something else.” That’s when Wyler turned his
gaze to the sky. He certainly wasn’t the first one to do so. According to Yvon Henri, who heads
the ITU’s Space Services Department, the union has hoped satellites would one day connect the
world’s unconnected since the mid-1990s. At one of its quadrennial conferences, the ITU
decided to set aside a portion of the radio spectrum it manages for exactly this purpose.
However, technology needed to mature. Satellites have been providing some internet access
since the 1990s but prices were high, bandwidth limited and the connection slow. “To ensure
we really connect the unconnected, you would have to have a terminal that is almost free of
charge,” says Henri. “And this is the challenge in fact – to have those constellations working but
Champion Briefs
475
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
with some ground terminal for people which has a price that is as low as possible.” The first
low-orbiting constellations such as Iridium and Globalstar were focusing on professionals
working in remote environments rather than on low-income users in developing countries. In
case of geostationary satellites, which orbit the Earth at the altitude of 36,000km, signal latency
of up to 700 milliseconds further complicates users’ convenience. Until today, satellite
technology has not been up to the task. The Saint Helenians, for example, share a satellite
internet connection of 20Mbit/s, which is about a fifth of what a single household in most
European cities can enjoy, according to the Connect Saint Helena Campaign, which is pushing
for a fibre-optic cable to be laid to the island. “I just thought: what if we could bring the
satellites closer?” Wyler said. “I am not a satellite engineer so I didn’t know it was hard.” Wyler
wasn’t the first to come up with this idea, but he did so at the right time. In the mid-1990s a
company called Teledesic, backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, envisaged a constellation of
more than 800 satellites in the 700km orbit that would provide uplink speeds of up to
100Mbit/s and downlinks of up to 720Mbit/s all over the world. However, the cost was high
and the project never took off. Wyler’s first shot at bridging the digital divide with satellites was
the O3b constellation. The name stands for the Other 3 Billion, referring to the half of the
world’s population unconnected to the internet. Launched in 2013, the constellation currently
operates 12 satellites at 8,000km altitude covering mostly equatorial regions. For Wyler, O3b’s
reach was not enough. He left O3b, which is now owned by SES, and embarked on a mission
that is hailed by many as the real breakthrough in satellite internet connectivity. “2012 comes
along and 54 per cent of the world’s population still don’t have internet,” said Wyler. “I was
retired for the fourth time or so and I started thinking – this really has to change. We must do
something. It’s really still too big an issue and I started coming up with a vision – what does
success mean?” For Wyler, success meant a solar-powered satellite terminal providing voice
services and at least 50Mbit/s of data on every school in the world by 2022 – a terminal that
would be so cheap and simple that even a school child would be able to install it and build a
local telecommunications network. “There are two million schools that have no internet,” he
said. “That’s a lot of kids and they have very limited opportunities for education because of
that.” Wyler launched OneWeb, a project to deliver affordable high-speed internet access
Champion Briefs
476
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
through a constellation of 720 low-Earth orbit satellites in 2014. At that time, many thought the
venture would follow in the footsteps of Teledesic and never come to pass. However, while
working mostly quietly and out of the media spotlight, OneWeb has been moving fast and
appears on track to start launching first satellites in early 2018. In 2015, a group of high-profile
investors jumped aboard including chip-maker Qualcomm, aerospace giant Airbus, global drinks
business Coca-Cola and satellite operator Intelsat. Airbus was tasked with building OneWeb
satellites – each costing less than $500,000 and weighing some 140kg. To build the whole
constellation in the desired timeframe, the main challenge for Airbus was to develop
manufacturing processes that would make it possible to churn out spacecraft at a pace
previously unheard of in the satellite industry. OneWeb later changed the architecture to
include 640 satellites in 18 orbital planes circling the Earth at 1,200km. During the Royal
Aeronautical Society lecture, Wyler announced that the company, which had a few months
prior to that secured a $1.2bn investment from Softbank, was considering adding a further
2,000 satellites at different low-Earth orbit altitudes in later stages. The satellites will transmit
signals from terrestrial gateways spaced approximately 5,000km apart to user terminals all
around the globe, providing Wi-Fi, 3G and LTE coverage. The user terminals will smoothly
transition from one satellite to the next as they appear within their reach, relying on nextgeneration high-throughput Qualcomm chipsets, Wyler explained. During the lecture, Wyler
insisted that the constellation doesn’t aim to compete with fibre and ground-based cellular
infrastructure but rather complement both. “We don’t want people to stop running fibre, we
don’t want them to stop putting in microwaves,” he said. “We will just pick up whatever is
remaining.” In addition to connecting the 3.5 billion unconnected, OneWeb satellites will
provide coverage for Internet of Things applications, connected air and cruising aircraft. “We
can cover pole-to-pole gate-to-gate connectivity at hundreds of megabits per second: the same
quality of connectivity that you have in your living room,” said Wyler. The relatively short
distance from Earth allows OneWeb to reduce latencies to 30 milliseconds compared to the
700ms of the geostationary satellites. For Saint Helenians, OneWeb brings hope. But the
journey will be more complicated. The island, known mostly as the place of exile of the
defeated French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, is too far from any satellite ground station that
Champion Briefs
477
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
would allow the satellites to deliver internet connectivity to the remote outpost. According to
Christian von der Ropp, who leads the Connect Saint Helena campaign, the next generation of
OneWeb satellites might feature inter-satellite laser links that would allow beaming internet
from one satellite to another. For the first generation, however, the satellite needs to be at the
same time within the line of site of the user terminal and the ground station to be of any use
for bi-directional links. Von der Ropp has been campaigning for an extension of a proposed
submarine fibre-optic cable between South Africa and Brazil to link to Saint Helena since 2012.
He is trying to persuade OneWeb and other emerging satellite operators to build a satellite
ground station on Saint Helena that would lease a portion of the capacity of the prospected
submarine cable and help the economically malnourished island to cover the cost. Saint Helena
is part of a British Overseas Territory that also covers its nearest neighbours Ascension Island
and Tristan da Cunha. “The island is largely reliant on the financial aid from the UK,” von der
Ropp explains. “Every year the UK government spends about £20m on the island and basically
funds everything there. There is no real economy.” The extension of the cable would cost some
$15m, which for Saint Helena is a lot of money. With the cable connection, though, the
islanders could get unlimited data allowance with a bandwidth of at least 16Mbit/s and
OneWeb would be able to cover the whole Southern Atlantic including Ascension Island and
Tristan da Cunha, according to von der Ropp. “Also the maritime sector would benefit,” von der
Ropp says. “And the aeronautic sector. All the airlines look to connect their aircraft so that
passengers have internet access. There are oil rigs as well.” Von der Ropp says OneWeb, as well
as several other projects, are keen on the idea. OneWeb may be the front-runner in the megaconstellation race but there are already others lining up with bold plans to blanket the Earth
with hundreds and thousands of satellites. Elon Musk’s SpaceX is one of them – working quietly
on a rumoured constellation of more than 7,500 satellites in non-geosynchronous orbit with
the same aim to provide broadband coverage all over the globe. According to ITU’s Yvon Henri,
little is known about SpaceX’s plans, although the company has hinted it may launch a test
spacecraft shortly and commence regular launches in 2019, only a year after OneWeb. In 2016,
American aerospace manufacturer Boeing announced similar ambitions. Canadian Telesat
proposed a more modest 117-satelite fleet. “OneWeb is the one that is the most advanced in
Champion Briefs
478
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
terms of the development of the constellation,” says Henri. “We haven’t heard so much from
the others but for OneWeb it’s certainly happening. They will be the first real response to
bridging the digital divide.” According to Henri not all projects will make it from the drawing
board to orbit. The most important resource for such constellations – the radio spectrum – is
limited and will only accommodate a few. “There are certainly more projects than, in reality,
the frequency sharing would allow,” says Henri. “Let’s be optimistic that two systems should be
able to share the bands. That would be really good for the competition. “Being overly optimistic
but very cautious, I would say three might be possible but with a lot of question marks.” ITU
allocates the spectrum on a first-come, first-served basis and every newcomer has to ensure it
will not interfere with previously launched systems. OneWeb has a clever business plan and
hopes to reach the remotest places on the planet through a partner that has done it before –
Coca-Cola. With 39 million points of distribution, the fizzy-drink maker has the largest reseller
network in the world, according to Wyler. “When they did some studies in Africa, they found
that if they add internet connectivity as a proposition to their resellers to sell to their
customers, you are increasing their income,” said Wyler. “Some of these studies have shown a
$50 increase, which for people in these areas is a lot of money.”
Champion Briefs
479
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Ending the digital divide is key to reducing global poverty.
O'Sullivan, Katriona. “A Just Digital Framework To Ensure Equitable Achievement Of The
Sustainable Development Goals.” Nature Communications 12. 2021. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26217-8>.
Digital divide and SDG achievement Developing the digital capabilities necessary to utilize
technology meaningfully is essential for achieving the SDGs. SDG 1 aims to ensure that all men
and women, particularly the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources
that reduce poverty. In recent times we have seen that having the capacity to navigate the
digital world has been central to maintaining employment, education, and connection4.
Through COVID19, even the wealthiest countries have fallen short in ensuring that their citizens
had the appropriate technologies and were skilled enough to maintain meaningful engagement
in their everyday lives. Just as fast as digital access and new and remarkable digital technologies
have accelerated learning and knowledge for many, the lack of access, commodities, and
capabilities leaves behind many more4. This is not only about access to technology but more
fundamentally about people lacking the capabilities to use technology to engage in modern
living. The emerging skills gap is evidence of this5 and the lack of integrated digital systems is
burdening economies, widening the space between the rich and the poor, and preventing
society from achieving SDG 1. Amartya Sen’s Human Capabilities Approach6 states that the
human welfare derived from digital commodities depends not only on ownership and access
but also on what can be done with such goods. In the context of ensuring we achieve all SDGs,
having access to education (SDG 4), work (SDG 9), health (SDG 3), wealth (SDG 1), and security
(SDG 16), requires society to provide both digital commodities and the digital capabilities
needed to garner the benefit of the technological revolution. SDG 9 focuses on building resilient
infrastructures, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation.
However, we are not equally empowered to engage in modern society in a way that supports
innovation and growth. In less than 20 years, commercial internet has become a requirement
for full participation in society, and the digital economy has become a digital ecosystem in
Champion Briefs
480
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
itself. This ecosystem comprises multiple stakeholders, ranging from corporations to
governments to NGOs and international organizations like the United Nations. As there is an
increased dependence on the internet, companies create new services to meet these needs,
like the Internet of Things, the Cloud, and machine-to-machine learning7, making accessible
digital infrastructure critical for the achievement of SDG 9. When considering who has
meaningful access to emerging technologies and developing infrastructures, we begin to see a
new face of inequality emerging. For example, technologies like AI and blockchain offer vast
opportunities to reduce inequalities. One of the commonly known applications of blockchain is
crypto-currency which has been successfully used as an alternative financial sector in emerging
economies8. People experiencing health disparities have also benefited from it in terms of
gaining safe access to health records, telehealth and reducing the spread of misinformation
about medical treatments and vaccines9. However, technical know-how is necessary to garner
the full benefit from blockchain. In low or middle-income countries, there is limited access to
digital infrastructures, which can reduce inequalities. Being absent from data sets that underpin
developing technologies increases the risk of marginalization. This has been seen in AI programs
that determine sentences for criminals, which are biased against African Americans10 or
motion vision algorithms that do not work as effectively on darker-skinned people as lighterskinned people11. In both cases, AI algorithms were developed using data sets with an
overrepresentation of light-skinned people. As it currently stands, there is no SDG dedicated
explicitly to digital systems; only four explicitly reference the impact that emerging Information
Communication Technology (SDGs 4, 5, 9, 17) can have on inequality and the broader
achievement of the SDGs12. The European Commission has highlighted this point, warning that
while growth in AI, blockchain and digitalization has the potential to advance society, it also
risks perpetuating historical inequalities in society, particularly where there are data gaps along
the lines of class, gender, rac, or ethnic lines13. Access to digital technologies also facilitates
financial inclusion, mobile banking, microcredits, remittances, and increases market access14.
These significantly contribute to alleviating poverty by highlighting the needs of vulnerable
groups using real-time analytics and data. Simultaneously, digital systems allow vulnerable
populations to partner with and co-create solutions with a wide range of stakeholders. Digital
Champion Briefs
481
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
finance, e-commerce, and ethical e-governance innovations are increasing access to
information and services. For example, China is seeing a decrease in the rural-urban divide due
to using e-governance to increase access to health, education, and non-agricultural incomegenerating opportunities in rural areas12. In Bangladesh, iFarmer, a digital crowdfunding
platform, gives rural women cattle farmers more access to markets by allowing investors to
offer them capital12. Meanwhile, Rohingya refugees are creating livelihoods in Cox Bazaar
using the e-commerce platform ekShop Shoron12. While digital skills are named in SDG 4, as a
target that seeks to increase the number of people with relevant skills for employment7. These
indicators only focus on relevant skills, ignoring the commodities and infrastructures which
impact their development and use. And reflection upon their growth is based solely on selfreported information of countries, with analysis showing perpetuation of inequalities through
skewed data sets and reporting biases across gender groups, with women under and men
overreporting15.
Champion Briefs
482
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Astronomers and satellite companies can work together to adapt to
the effects of megaconstellations on astronomy.
Foust, Jeff. “Report Outlines Measures To Reduce Impact Of Satellite Constellations On
Astronomy.” Space News. August 26, 2020. Web. December 12, 2021.
<https://spacenews.com/report-outlines-measures-to-reduce-impact-of-satelliteconstellations-on-astronomy/>.
The workshop concluded that while there are a number of ways to reduce the problem, there is
no panacea. “No combination of mitigations will eliminate the impact of satellite constellations
on optical astronomy,” said Connie Walker of NOIRLab, one of the co-chairs of the workshop, in
an Aug. 25 press conference. The exception, she said, was not to launch such systems at all, but
acknowledged “it’s not viable for industry.” Instead, the report offered a set of
recommendations to mitigate the effects of megaconstellations on astronomy, including ways
for companies to reduce the brightness of their satellites and the amount of time they are
visible in the night sky. Those steps include placing satellites in orbits no higher than 600
kilometers, as well as darkening them and controlling their attitude to reduce their reflectivity.
Even before the SATCON1 workshop, astronomers had been working with SpaceX on mitigation
measures along the lines of those steps described in the report. The Starlink satellites operate
at an altitude of 550 kilometers, and the company has tested measures to both darken the
satellites to reduce their reflectivity as well as to install visors to block sunlight from hitting
reflective surfaces. The first “VisorSat” satellite launched in June and, earlier this month,
reached its operational orbit. Astronomers said it was still too soon to measure its
effectiveness. “We don’t have a complete set of observations yet,” said Lori Allen of NOIRLab,
who chaired a SATCON1 working group on observations. “We do have some initial
observations, but those are still under analysis.” Allen said that the effort to measure the
brightness of VisorSat had been affected by observatories that remain closed because of the
pandemic. However, some amateur satellite observers have observed the first VisorSat this
month and estimate its brightness at seventh magnitude, enough of a reduction to reduce the
Champion Briefs
483
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
worst impacts on astronomy. The efforts to reduce the brightness of Starlink satellites are much
further along than those of other satellite constellations, such as OneWeb and Amazon’s
Project Kuiper. OneWeb, which paused the deployment of its constellation after filing for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in March, worries astronomers because its satellites are in orbits 1,200
kilometers high, making them visible longer each night. The company also recently filed a
proposal to operate as many as 48,000 additional satellites. “SpaceX is leading the charge in
terms of trying to understand these issues and designing mitigations on their satellites,” said
Tony Tyson, chief scientist of the Vera Rubin Observatory and chair of a SATCON1 working
group devoted to mitigation measures. “Others are getting interested,” he added, notably
OneWeb and Amazon, which participated in the workshop, “but we’re nowhere near any kind
of down-to-earth engineering discussions on how to do this.” The report included
recommendations for astronomers as well, such as development of software to plan
observations to avoid or minimize the number of satellites passing through the field of view, as
well as software to identify and remove trails created by passing satellites. It also
recommended astronomers and satellite operators work together to coordinate observations
of satellites to measure changes in brightness over time, and to share more accurate satellite
position data to enable astronomers to more effectively avoid satellites. “We need to greatly
increase the precision of publicly available positions” of satellites, said Jeff Hall of Lowell
Observatory, the other co-chair of the SATCON1 workshop. “They’re not accurate enough for
observatories to work around some of the issues that we’re facing.”
Champion Briefs
484
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Benefits for global Internet access outweigh the harms to astronomy.
Astronomers pushing satellite companies to mitigate harms to the
night sky will be sufficient to solve.
Hadhazy, Adam. “Megaconstellations, Mega Trouble.” Aerospace America. March, 2020. Web.
December 12, 2021. <https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/megaconstellationsmega-trouble/>.
PUSHING BACK — GENTLY As their starting point, astronomers suspect that few authorities
would choose the night sky over the gains in education, health care and economic opportunity
that could come with the internet. “People believe now that internet access is a human right,
like food and water,” says Whitney Lohmeyer, an assistant professor at the Olin College of
Engineering and a former engineer at OneWeb, the London and Virginia company that plans to
erect an initial constellation of 648 internet satellites. Also, the sunk costs in the
megaconstellations are enormous. SpaceX has publicly estimated the cost of establishing its
decadelong Starlink constellation at $10 billion. As for legal recourse, even if there were a
passage in international space law that could be seized, the pace of satellite launches by
SpaceX, OneWeb and soon others mean that any outcome in the astronomer’s favor would
likely come too late. So, the astronomers have chosen to appeal to the megaconstellation
operators to be good stewards of the sky. The strategy might be working. A search has begun
for solutions.
Champion Briefs
485
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Mega-constellations are key to fast, worldwide Internet
communications at low cost.
Foundation, Space. “Interlinked Mega Constellations Reduce User Costs, Achieve Dramatic
Increase In Latency Speeds.” The Space Report. November 05, 2020. Web. December 12,
2021. <https://www.thespacereport.org/uncategorized/interlinked-megaconstellations-reduce-user-costs-achieve-dramatic-increase-in-latency-speeds/>.
Reduced costs and increased service performance are the drivers for today’s satellite internet
systems. Innovation in the U.S. manufacturing and launch industries is making this possible.
There is a stark difference when comparing Iridium of the 1990s to today’s Starlink. The setup
cost for Iridium’s original 77 satellites, which began launching in 1997, was about US$5 billion.
Starlink’s first 77 satellites deployed at a cost of around $75 million. Today, Starlink is being
deployed at approximately $800,000 per satellite compared to the early 2000s, when it costs
Iridium $65 million per satellite. Subscribers stand to benefit from the vast cost reductions
SpaceX has implemented across the board, but SpaceX is not alone in the pursuit to increase
global broadband access on a massive scale. Amazon’s Kuiper is in development, and OneWeb
is coming back from bankruptcy. A Chinese company, identified only as “GW” (most likely,
China Great Wall Industry Corporation -CGWIC), in recent 2020 filings with the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), is requesting spectrum access for 12,992 satellites that will be
spread across two separate LEO constellations, GW-A59 and GW-2. Currently, most broadband
services operate from geostationary orbit (GEO). The higher GEO altitude provides for a greater
service footprint—the geography a satellite can cover—meaning fewer satellites are needed to
provide global coverage. As companies innovate and reduce launch costs and ramp up mass
satellite production, however, new low Earth internet companies are planning constellations
with thousands of satellites to support uninterrupted global connectivity, and they are doing so
with dramatic results. End user costs and latency speeds are primary factors subscribers will
consider when determining which internet provider they will choose. Today, Viasat, operating
in GEO, costs around $170 per month depending on the services. Starlink in LEO will cost a flat
Champion Briefs
486
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
rate $99 per month, plus $499 for a satellite dish, mounting tripod, and a router. SpaceX has
stated it hopes to half that with a $40 per month rate. International companies such as GW in
China have yet to publish pricing information for their “in-development” systems. But with half
the world’s population, China has a much larger initial starting market with which to offer
services. Latency, or the amount of delay that occurs in a round-trip data transmission, is the
primary difference between orbital distances. And now, companies are beginning to compete
globally for the broadband end user. Combine those efforts with the rapidly progressing
technology of optical inter-satellite links (OISL’s), which use laser light to move information, and
latency speeds will diminish dramatically. Higher Earth orbits will have a longer latency, which is
measured in milliseconds. For example, GEO satellites, located about 35,000 kilometers or
22,000 miles from the Earth’s surface, have latency times of around 240 ms. SpaceX is reporting
its Starlink internet system, which operate in LEO at a distance between 210 to 750 miles from
the Earth, has achieved 20 ms latency speeds. These tests were conducted when Starlink had
only 500 operational satellites in orbit, almost 400 fewer than it has in orbit today. According to
Speedtest.net, the average latency for fixed broadband in the U.S. is 25 ms and the rate on
mobile networks is 48 ms. Starlink recently achieved a 18-19 ms latency but is reporting their
initial service package will include latency speeds as low as 20 ms – 40 ms. Over the next few
years satellite broadband end user services will dramatically change the way digital
communication will be accessed by both individual users, and business and governments alike.
The incredible velocity of broadband technological innovation, driven by private companies
looking to reduce cost and improve functionality, is producing change at an unprecedented
rate. Recent studies 1 conducted on the total internet users around the world reported, of the
7.79 billion people on the planet, only 4.57 billion have access to internet services, leaving 3.22
billion without. In the very near future, this burgeoning industry will bring affordability to
worldwide communications at a whole new speed. Update as of November 5, 2020: Last month
marked the beginning of SpaceX’s public “Better Than Nothing Beta” beta testing. With over
900 satellites in operation, testers in the northern U.S. are already reporting remarkably high
download speeds, reaching Starlink’s highest yet, 205 Mbps. Speeds are reportedly averaging
much higher than expected at over 150 Mbps for most users. Beta testing in a U.S. national
Champion Briefs
487
NEG: Internet Access DA
Jan/Feb 2022
forest, where little to no cell coverage exists, was successful after one tester used the Starlink
dish to make video calls and conduct other various tests. Latency speeds are reported within
the expected range originally suggested by SpaceX, around 30 ms – 35 ms. Musk told reporters
that Starlink is set to begin trials in Canada without increasing cost to the Canadian subscriber.
Nine hundred satellites may seem like more than enough coverage to offer completely
uninterrupted streaming uploads and downloads. Yet, Starlink beta testers are still experiencing
some of the downsides. Uploads speeds are still relatively low in some cases, reporting to be
between 33Mbps to 15Mbps. Along with the slow upload speeds, some testers have noted,
disruptions to their internet connections are frequent but resolve themselves rather quickly
after that. Users can expect uninterrupted connectivity and faster upload speeds as Starlink
expands its network to include thousands of operational satellites in 2021. SpaceX’s current
Starlink challenges remain terrestrial. According to Elon Musk, to reduce the $499 package (not
including $99 monthly service), including a wifi router, a tripod, and the terminal necessary for
receiving the signals beaming down from Starlink, SpaceX will have to solve some very technical
challenges.
Champion Briefs
488
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Mining DA
The mining DA is good argument that can provide a lot of different links for a variety of
Impacts. Currently rare earth element supplies are extremely limited with metals like nickel and
lithium being components in new technologies. The main impact story for this DA is that rare
earth metals are K to combating climate change with a global warming impact. Negatives will
have to win the link that property are key for the future of outer space mining. The argument
also has links into heg and space colonization. Pairing this DA with a colonization argument
would be incredibly strategic. Negatives can also find links to heg/leadership arguments within
the DA as well due to the nature of current REE supplies.
Answering this DA debaters should first try to first impact turn the DA. Evidence in this
file suggests that mining in space could create significant amounts of space debris which could
be enough to restrict space travel in the solar system which would potentially prevent further
mining and even hinder colonization efforts. Affs will also want to read no links such as
evidence that allows for private resource extraction without property rights. Just be careful to
only no link when running an impact turn to avoid double turning yourself. Extending offense
and defense against a DA like this is usually a good strategy.
Champion Briefs
489
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private capital necessary for space based mining.
Dorminev, Bruce. “Does Commercial Asteroid Mining Still Have A Future?.” Forbes. August 31,
2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2021/08/31/does-commercialasteroid-mining-still-have-a-future/?sh=17c18fef1a93>.
By some estimates a 100-meter diameter metallic asteroid might contain PGMs worth as much
as $12 billion. And if PGMs are ever imported back to Earth, as Kargel told me in a Forbes post
nearly a decade ago, “Metals used sparingly because of their high prices would suddenly
become much more available for applications that we might not even dream of now.” Thus,
Kargel says that commercial mining of PGM asteroids may still have a future but refuses to put
a date on when he thinks it will finally happen. It’s going to take an Elon Musk-type figure to
either kill the idea or proceed with the idea, he says. Kargel says note only will asteroid mining
require additional new advances in both spacecraft technology and launch capability, it will
need someone with deep pockets to fund serious space-mining development in a way that
enables them to absorb losses of billions of dollars year after year until the technology and
mining operations can be scaled up to be profitable.
Champion Briefs
490
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Space based mining can help limit the harms of terrestrial based rare
earth metal mining.
Pearson, Ezzy. “Space Mining: The New Goldrush.” BBC Science Focus Magazine. December 11,
2018. Web. December 13, 2021. <https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/space-miningthe-new-goldrush/>.
But there is more to space mining than a gold rush for the sci-fi age. Taking mining off Earth
could help relieve humanity’s destruction of our planet’s environment. Society’s hunger for
technology is fed by the rare earth metals needed to make the electronics inside our latest
gadgets. Mining these metals causes a huge amount of damage to both the surrounding
ecosystem and the miners. “On Earth, rare earth metals are mined under highly toxic and
unethical conditions,” says Hunter-Scullion. “[With space mining] you can’t exploit a robot. And
it moves all of the polluting industries into deep space, where there is no delicate biosphere to
damage. I imagine a future where the Earth will be the protected garden of the Solar System,
and all the heavily polluting industries will move off into orbital factories built around captured
asteroids or lunar industrial complexes.”
Champion Briefs
491
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Rare earth elements key to combating climate change.
, Kleinman Center For Energy Policy. “Rare Earth Elements: A Resource Constraint Of The
Energy Transition,”.”. May 18, 2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/rare-earth-elements-aresource-constraint-of-the-energy-transition/>.
Climate change is presenting humans with an unprecedented challenge: the need to wean
ourselves off of a group of valuable natural resources; not because of scarcity or cost, but
because of their long-term global pollution impacts. Although the combined capabilities of
wind, solar, hydropower, and geothermal technologies have the potential to harness near
limitless amounts of energy from our environment, they are not free from the limitations of
resource availability. On the contrary, the clean energy transition will require economic
mobilization on a scale not seen since the industrial revolution, and will strain the global
production of silicon, cobalt, lithium, manganese, and a host of other critical elements (Behr
2019).
Champion Briefs
492
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Terrestrial mining causes significant environmental damage and
increases risk of severe health conditions in nearby populations.
, Kleinman Center For Energy Policy. “Rare Earth Elements: A Resource Constraint Of The
Energy Transition,”.”. May 18, 2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/rare-earth-elements-aresource-constraint-of-the-energy-transition/>.
Regional ecosystems can be significantly altered by the presence of mines, both physically and
chemically. Site preparation, access roads, and ancillary facilities lead to direct—and often
absolute— destruction of the proximate environment, while pollution from mine processes and
storage of residual tailings can lead to widespread chemical imbalances and toxic
contamination (Filho 2016; Xiang 2016; Ganguli 2018). REE mine tailings contain processing
chemicals, salts, and radioactive materials. Tailings are particularly problematic in REE mining,
because of the significant waste-to-yield ration. (Filho 2016; Xiang 2016). For every ton of REEs
that are produced, there are 2,000 tons of mine tailings, including 1 to 1.4 tons of radioactive
waste (Filho 2016). Tailings are most commonly stored in isolated impoundment areas called
tailing ponds. These ponds require complex management, especially if the tailings contain high
concentrations of uranium or thorium. Poor construction or catastrophic failure can lead to
long-term and widespread environmental damage and contamination of surface or
groundwater (Filho 2016). Other significant sources of pollution include aerosols and fugitive
dust from tailing impoundments, which are created from cutting, drilling, and blasting rock. This
pollution can accumulate in surrounding areas (Filho 2016), causing respiratory issues and also
contaminating food sources—as plants absorb the airborne pollutants. An example of this is the
tailing pond for the Bayan Obo mine in China. Villages in the surrounding area have experienced
elevated rates of both cancer and respiratory illness, indicating that the tailings are not being
properly stored (Xiang 2016). While many of these issues exist for other types of mining, they
are particularly problematic for REEs, because of the large volume and radioactivity of tailings.
Champion Briefs
493
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights are the necessary incentive for private space
innovation.
Murphy, Ryan P. “Profit, Loss, And Pluto.” Mises Institute. October 11, 2004. Web. December
13, 2021. <https://mises.org/library/profit-loss-and-pluto>.
Indeed, it is a common misconception that in the free market, “the highest bidder” determines
things. No, in a free market, the owner determines the use of a piece of property. When a man
lets his teenage son take the car for the night, is he renting it to the highest bidder? Of course
not. A system of property rights, and the freely floating prices that accompany the exchange of
these rights, is necessary to ensure the best possible use of resources. This is true in something
as mundane as car production, or something as exotic as trips to Mars. The private sector can
finance safe and efficient space exploration, but it will only do so in projects where the benefits
(including donations from enthusiasts) truly outweigh the costs. The success of SpaceShipOne
illustrates these facts. Now that the public has seen the potential of private space flight,
perhaps it will become politically possible to axe NASA and return its budget to the private
sector.
Champion Briefs
494
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Property rights key to developing lunar mining—the internal link to
unlocking further space exploration.
Basulto, Dominic. “How Property Rights In Outer Space May Lead To A Scramble To Exploit The
Moon’s Resources.” Washington Post. November 18, 2015. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/11/18/how-propertyrights-in-outer-space-may-lead-to-a-scramble-to-exploit-the-moons-resources/>.
This week the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation known as the SPACE Act of 2015
(The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act), which recognizes and promotes the
rights of U.S. companies to engage in the exploration and extraction of space resources from
asteroids and other celestial bodies. That’s a huge win for private space exploration companies,
especially for companies with upcoming plans to tap into the economic potential of the moon.
That’s because the legislation, in its definition of “space resources,” is sufficiently broad to
include resources found on the lunar surface. In short, the moon could now be in play for some
of America’s most innovative space exploration companies. One of those companies is Moon
Express, a privately funded commercial space company with an audacious plan to mine the
surface of the moon. As Bob Richards, co-founder and CEO of Moon Express, told me, minerals
and water found on the moon would be technically classified as a “space resource” according to
Title IV of the SPACE Act, which defines “space resource” simply as “an abiotic resource in situ
in outer space.”
Champion Briefs
495
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Granting property rights to corporations in outer space avoids conflict
over the Outer Space Treaty.
Basulto, Dominic. “How Property Rights In Outer Space May Lead To A Scramble To Exploit The
Moon’s Resources.” Washington Post. November 18, 2015. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/11/18/how-propertyrights-in-outer-space-may-lead-to-a-scramble-to-exploit-the-moons-resources/>.
When it comes to outer space, however, there’s the matter of a pesky little document known as
the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, to which the United States is a signatory. The Outer Space
Treaty indirectly suggests that commercial space companies don’t own the rights to any
resources they find in outer space. The treaty states that no “celestial body” is subject to
“national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other
means.” The SPACE Act of 2015 carefully skirts this issue by specifically making a disclaimer that
the United States “does not thereby assert sovereignty or sovereign or exclusive rights or
jurisdiction over, or the ownership of, any celestial body.” Clever, right? If there’s no U.S.
sovereign claim, then the Outer Space Treaty can’t be applicable to private U.S. companies that
assert a similar type of claim. When asked about a hypothetical example in which a Chinese
company or even the Chinese government might contest the rights of a U.S. company to space
resources, Richards suggests that the SPACE Act would provide a sufficient legal basis. “It’s hard
to imagine what challenge China or any other country could mount against this U.S. legislation,
which is about rights to materials obtained, not territory, and is really just codifying principles
and rights already in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that have been demonstrated by
multinational activities on the moon as applicable to the private sector.” Nearly 50 years ago, of
course, we didn’t know anything about the economic potential of space and nobody was
seriously talking about humans as an interplanetary species. Certainly, there were not any
private companies angling for a piece of the action. Space exploration was solely the preserve
of sovereign governments and we referred to astronauts as the “envoys of mankind.” The
prevailing sentiment, as expressed in the Outer Space Treaty, was that outer space should
Champion Briefs
496
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
belong to all of humanity, not just the first nation to venture into space and plant a flag on the
surface of a celestial body.
Champion Briefs
497
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
The private sector is best suited to perform asteroid mining.
Gertsch, Richard. “Economic Analysis Tools For Mineral Projects In Space.”. 2005. Web.
December 13, 2021. <http://www.kemcom.net/EconAnal.pdf>.
Recognizing that initial space ventures may have some degree of government involvement,
profit may not be the apparent initial motive for the venture. Allowing a commercial operation
to piggyback a government operation can accomplish two things: bootstrap further space
operations, and offset some of the costs incurred by the government. Both are desirable
outcomes. However, the process of selecting the participating companies may have unforeseen
political and economic consequences. Government can also appeal to the profit motive with
devices similar to the Air Mail Act of early this century, where it bids goods and services for
fixed (perhaps even subsidized) prices, and lets private companies make whatever profit they
can. Similar to the old Airmail Act, this has been proposed as a mechanism to deliver oxygen to
cislunar space (Davis, 1983). Sales are generated by two complementary occurrences: 1) the
existence of a product, and 2) a market for the product. Markets are based on need; there is no
market if no one wants to buy the product. Therefore the product must be salable, not just
produceable. Sometimes “marketeers” forget that they must produce something before they
can sell it. General Motors is a well-known poster-child for this problem. During the seventies
and eighties, critics charged that GM forgot they had to make not just cars, but quality cars,
before they had something to sell. In space, the problem is perhaps the opposite. Many
products already have been identified, but the markets are either non-existent or governmentdependent. Habitats, metals, concrete, water, air, He-3, etc., have no real demand yet except as
government-sponsored activities. It becomes very difficult to calculate the true value of a
product in this environment. Equation (1) becomes meaningless, and many would-be space
entrepreneurs must justify their project by simply pointing out that they may be able to supply
a low-demand government mission cheaper than the government can.
Champion Briefs
498
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private industry key to fund space exploration and He-3 mining.
Schmidt, Harrison H. “Mining The Moon.”. 2004. Web. December 13, 2021. <Book>.
It was an electrifying call to action for those of us who share the vision of Americans leading
humankind into deep space, continuing the ultimate migration that began 42 years ago when
president John F. Kennedy first challenged NASA to land on the moon. We can do so again. If
Bush’s initiative is sustained by Congress and future presidents, American leadership can take
us back to the moon, then to Mars and, ultimately, beyond. Although the president’s
announcement did not mention it explicitly, his message implied an important role for the
private sector in leading human expansion into deep space. In the past, this type of publicprivate cooperation produced enormous dividends. Recognizing the distinctly American
entrepreneurial spirit that drives pioneers, the President’s Commission on Implementation of
U.S. Space Exploration Policy subsequently recommended that NASA encourage Private spacerelated initiatives. I believe in going a step further. I believe that if government efforts lag,
private enterprise should take the lead in settling space. We need look only to our past to see
how well this could work. In 1862, the federal government supported the building of the
transcontinental railroad with land grants. By the end of the 19th century, the private sector
came to dominate the infrastructure, introducing improvements in rail transport that laid the
foundation for industrial development in the 20th century. In a similar fashion, a cooperative
effort in learning how to mine the moon for helum-3 will create the technological infrastructure
for our inevitable journeys to Mars and beyond.
Champion Briefs
499
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Privates should lead lunar mining efforts for He-3.
Schmidt, Harrison H. “Mining The Moon.”. 2004. Web. December 13, 2021. <Book>.
Returning to the moon would be a worthwhile pursuit even if obtaining helium-3 were the only
goal. But over time the pioneering venture would pay more valuable dividends. Settlements
established for helium-3 mining would branch out into other activities that support space
exploration. Even with the next generation of Saturns, it will not be economical to lift the
massive quantities of oxygen, water and structural materials needed to create permanent
human settlements in space. We must acquire the technical skills to extract these vital
materials from locally available resources. Mining the moon for helium-3 would offer a unique
opportunity to acquire those resources as byproducts. Other opportunities might be possible
through the sale of low-cost access to space. These additional, launch-related businesses will
include providing services for government-funded lunar and planetary exploration,
astronomical observatories, national defense, and long-term, on-call protection from the
impacts of asteroids and comets. Space and lunar tourism also will be enabled by the existence
of low-cost, highly reliable rockets. With such tremendous business potential, the
entrepreneurial private sector should support a return to the moon, this time to stay. For an
investment of less than $15 billion – about the same as was required for the 1970s Trans Alaska
pipeline – private enterprise could make permanent habitation on the moon the next chapter in
human history.
Champion Briefs
500
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Private capital and the development of a free market economy in
space is key to the development of space resources.
Cheetham, Brad. “Lunar Resources And Development: A Brief Overview Of The Possibilities For
Lunar Resource Extraction.”. 2008. Web. December 13, 2021.
<http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~cheetham/index_files/Moon%20Paper%20441.pdf>.
Another difficulty that arises in lunar development is raising the necessary capital. As Lewis puts
it, “[there is] another „tired new myth?—that space travel must be expensive.” There is a
misconception that only governments can afford any large space development. In order for to
entice an opportunity for financing of space ventures, it will take a great deal of “unique
financing” (Livingston). Livingston states that some methods to increase available financing
include special space development banks and favorable policies towards the new industry.
Ideally, with financial support for space initiatives and industry, true lunar development can
commence. Although there are many difficulties in making lunar development feasible, the
benefits of engaging in such an endeavor are well worth the risks. Lunar development is beyond
merely establishing a lunar industry—such development would be establishing a lunar
economy. Due to the aforementioned benefits, both space exploration and Earth development
will benefit as a result of the lunar economy. This lunar economy has the potential to radically
change the economic aspect of our everyday lives, freeing us from our current „zero-sum
game? of resources (Lewis 11). From Helium-3 to Solar Power Satellites, there is no limit to the
potential for investment and development in the new lunar economy.
Champion Briefs
501
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
Climate change causes extinction.
Sears, Nathan Alexander. “Great Powers, Polarity, And Existential Threats To Humanity: An
Analysis Of The Distribution Of The.” International Studies Association, 2021 Annual
Conference, March/April 2021. March, 2021. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Sears2/publication/350500094_Great_Powers_Polarity_and_Existential_Threats_to_Humanit
y_An_Analysis_of_the_Distribution_of_the_Forces_of_Total_Destruction_in_Internatio
nal_Security/links/60639248a6fdccbfea1a4cc4/Great-Powers-Polarity-and-ExistentialThreats-to-Humanity-An-Analysis-of-the-Distribution-of-the-Forces-of-TotalDestruction-in-International-Security.pdf>.
Climate Change Humanity faces existential risks from the large-scale destruction of Earth’s
natural environment making the planet less hospitable for humankind (Wallace-Wells 2019).
The decline of some of Earth’s natural systems may already exceed the “planetary boundaries”
that represent a “safe operating space for humanity” (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Humanity has
become one of the driving forces behind Earth’s climate system (Crutzen 2002). The major
anthropogenic drivers of climate change are the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, and gas),
combined with the degradation of Earth’s natural systems for absorbing carbon dioxide, such as
deforestation for agriculture (e.g., livestock and monocultures) and resource extraction (e.g.,
mining and oil), and the warming of the oceans (Kump et al. 2003). While humanity has
influenced Earth’s climate since at least the Industrial Revolution, the dramatic increase in
greenhouse gas emissions since the mid-twentieth century—the “Great Acceleration” (Steffen
et al. 2007; 2015; McNeill & Engelke 2016)— is responsible for contemporary climate change,
which has reached approximately 1°C above preindustrial levels (IPCC 2018). Climate change
could become an existential threat to humanity if the planet’s climate reaches a “Hothouse
Earth” state (Ripple et al. 2020). What are the dangers? There are two mechanisms of climate
change that threaten humankind. The direct threat is extreme heat. While human societies
possesses some capacity for adaptation and resilience to climate change, the physiological
Champion Briefs
502
NEG: Mining DA
Jan/Feb 2022
response of humans to heat stress imposes physical limits—with a hard limit at roughly 35°C
wet-bulb temperature (Sherwood et al. 2010). A rise in global average temperatures by 3–4°C
would increase the risk of heat stress, while 7°C could render some regions uninhabitable, and
11–12°C would leave much of the planet too hot for human habitation (Sherwood et al. 2010).
The indirect effects of climate change could include, inter alia, rising sea levels affecting coastal
regions (e.g., Miami and Shanghai), or even swallowing entire countries (e.g., Bangladesh and
the Maldives); extreme and unpredictable weather and natural disasters (e.g., hurricanes and
forest fires); environmental pressures on water and food scarcity (e.g., droughts from lessdispersed rainfall, and lower wheat-yields at higher temperatures); the possible inception of
new bacteria and viruses; and, of course, large-scale human migration (World Bank 2012;
Wallace-Well 2019; Richards, Lupton & Allywood 2001). While it is difficult to determine the
existential implications of extreme environmental conditions, there are historic precedents for
the collapse of human societies under environmental pressures (Diamond 2005). Earth’s “big
five” mass extinction events have been linked to dramatic shifts in Earth’s climate (Ward 2008;
Payne & Clapham 2012; Kolbert 2014; Brannen 2017), and a Hothouse Earth climate would
represent terra incognita for humanity. Thus, the assumption here is that a Hothouse Earth
climate could pose an existential threat to the habitability of the planet for humanity (Steffen et
al. 2018., 5). At what point could climate change cross the threshold of an existential threat to
humankind? The complexity of Earth’s natural systems makes it extremely difficult to give a
precise figure (Rockstrom et al. 2009; ). However, much of the concern about climate change is
over the danger of crossing “tipping points,” whereby positive feedback loops in Earth’s climate
system could lead to potentially irreversible and self-reinforcing “runaway” climate change. For
example, the melting of Arctic “permafrost” could produce additional warming, as glacial
retreat reduces the refractory effect of the ice and releases huge quantities of methane
currently trapped beneath it. A recent study suggests that a “planetary threshold” could exist at
global average temperature of 2°C above preindustrial levels (Steffen et al. 2018; also IPCC
2018). Therefore, the analysis here takes the 2°C rise in global average temperatures as
representing the lower-boundary of an existential threat to humanity, with higher
temperatures increasing the risk of runaway climate change leading to a Hothouse Earth.
Champion Briefs
503
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
NEG: Overview Effect/Space Tourism
This is a classic argument when it comes to any debate about increasing activities in
space. The general thesis of the argument is that increasing private space operations especially
space tourism is a good thing because it produces the overview effect within people. The
overview effect is a concept pushed by those who have visited space whereby the journey to
space and the visual of earth within space causes a profound change in human behavior. These
changes could help limit war and combat climate change.
To answer this argument attack the impact claims. There are several take outs to the
overview effect within the file including 2 that are very strategic. First, you can argue that the
overview effect just isn’t real but pairing that with evidence that current tourism efforts aren’t
even to trigger the overview effect probably should be enough defense on this argument to
mitigate it when it comes time for the ballot. Adding in other evidence such as the virtual
overview effect evidence will also be strategic to successfully affirming against this argument.
Champion Briefs
504
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Humanity is like a fish that doesn’t know it’s trapped in the ocean,
going to space is a transformative event.
White, Frank. “The Explorer Fish.” The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human
Evolution. 1987. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Overview_Effect.html?id=3A/2rz-s3JJsC>.
A fish glides through a liquid world, aware of light and dark, predators and prey, dimly
perceiving the ocean bottom below. On occasion, it may leap out of the water and experience
“something else” strange and different. That experience, however, is rare and not an essential
element of the fish’s life. This is “fish consciousness” — in regard to land, water, air, and sky,
the fish’s knowledge of reality is highly conditioned and extremely restricted by its physical
surroundings. If you were a fish, you would have no idea what land is like and only the vaguest
notion of what water is like, because water would be the fundamental medium in which you
lived. An idea of “sky” would be far beyond your comprehension. To us, it is a strange and
limited life. However, in terms of consciousness and evolution, we are closer to living the life of
a fish than we care to realize. Until recently, all human beings have existed in a state much like
that of the fish and other marine animals. The planet Earth has been our ocean, from which we
have been unable to escape. Even the remote possibility of leaving the planet became
imaginable relatively recently. As a result, it has been extremely difficult to conceive of life off
[end page 6] the planet, and without direct experience, we have been limited to speculation.
Scientists and science fiction writers have tried to understand the nature of the physical
universe beyond our atmosphere, but their attempts were purely conceptual until 1961, when
the first human being actually ventured into space. Since that brief and historic orbital flight by
Yuri Gagarin, about two hundred human beings have experienced this wholly new form of
existence: living and working in space. Their nonterrestrial time has been brief — several
months on the longest journey. Compared to the time humans have spent on this planet, their
time in space is hardly measurable. Nevertheless, the vital importance of their experiences is
beginning to emerge. The evidence suggests that humanity’s expansion into the solar system
Champion Briefs
505
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
and beyond will result in a fundamental transformation of the human species, an evolutionary
step unprecedented in human history. To begin the process of understanding why this is so,
let’s return to the example of our ancestors, the fish.
Champion Briefs
506
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Space exploration prevents human extinction and decreases the risk
of war—it’s a bigger impact than anything we could imagine on Earth.
O’Rielly, Gerard. “Foreword To The Overview Effect: Space Exploration And Human Evolution.”.
1987. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Overview_Effect.html?id=3A/2rz-s3JJsC>.
It is the hope of those who work toward the breakout from planet Earth that the establishment
of permanent, self-sustaining colonies of humans off-Earth will have three vital consequences.
First, it will make human life forever unkillable, removing it from the endangered species list,
where it now stands on a fragile Earth over-armed with nuclear weapons. Second, the opening
of virtually unlimited new land area in space will reduce territorial pressures and therefore
diminish warfare on Earth itself. Third, the small scale of space colonies, the largest some tens
of thousands of people, will lead to local governments that are simple in form, responsive to
the desires of their people, and as reachable and intimate as were the New England town
meetings of America’s heritage. Beyond those immediate needs of survival and freedom, we
look to our purpose as a species. We are far too diverse, far too contentious, and far too
divided by conflicting religious and ideological dogmas ever to be likely to agree on a single
long-term goal for humanity. And we are far too impatient, too short in our attention spans, to
hold to such a goal for a time of many generations. But [end page xiv] fortunately, the realities
of time and space in the era when humanity is freed of Earth’s bonds will lead inevitably to
results that will transcend any program we might devise. In a relatively short time they will
bring a higher degree of independence to human communities than is now possible on Earth. In
a longer time the effects of genetic drift will show, as human groups separated by great
distances evolve into noticeably different forms of humanity. In a much longer time — but a
time still short compared to the interval over which Homo sapiens evolved — there will spread
throughout our galaxy a variety of civilizations, all traceable, though some may forget their
origins, to one beautiful and precious planet, circling a minor star near the galaxy’s edge.
Champion Briefs
507
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
ROB is to endorese the debater that beest promotes space
exploration --it outweighs mere human survival.
White, Frank. “Prologue.”,” The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution.
1987. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Overview_Effect.html?id=3A/2rz-s3JJsC>.
During the forced stand-down in the space program following the accident, many Americans
asked themselves, “What is the fundamental purpose of space exploration; what is the vision
that guides our space program?” It is appropriate that this debate ensued, because it is part of
taking responsibility for what has happened in the past and what can happen in the future in
space. In charting our future in space, we are also choosing our future in general, because space
exploration is not just another government program. It may be a key to human survival and
evolution, and perhaps even more than that. [end page xvii] The thesis of this book is that we
are not simply reaching out into space to use extraterrestrial resources and opportunities here
on Earth. Rather, we are laying the foundations for a series of new civilizations that are the next
logical steps in the evolution of human society and human consciousness. That in itself should
be enough to make us take space exploration seriously and to move ahead vigorously.
However, I will also argue that human exploration of space may serve an even higher purpose
than our own evolution as a species, performing a vital function for the universe as a whole.
Seen this way, space exploration is not a luxury to be pursued after other social priorities have
been handled. Rather, it is the most important activity of all. It is important for everyone, but
for Americans in particular, to grasp this point because of our heritage as explorers, innovators,
and leaders. A relevant interchange occurred on the television program “This Week with David
Brinkley” shortly after the Challenger accident. At one point, columnist George Will said to
author Tom Wolfe, “It seems we have justified space exploration in a very banal way; we have
sold it on the basis that it produced nonstick frying pans and so on.” “Yes,” responded Wolfe.
“We have never had a philosophy of space exploration.” With a new century and a new
millennium only a few years away, the time is right for the people of the United States and of
Champion Briefs
508
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
planet Earth to develop a comprehensive philosophy of space. The purpose of this book is to
help begin that process. The goal is to focus on the vision and purpose of space exploration that
the old space program sometimes failed to articulate and to show how a new space program
can be different.
Champion Briefs
509
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
space exploration is key—only literally changing our physical
perspective of earth solves.
White, Frank. “The Overview Project.” The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human
Evolution. 1987. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Overview_Effect.html?id=3A/2rz-s3JJsC>.
This line of thought led to a simple but important realization: mental processes and views of life
cannot be separated from physical location. Our “world view” as a conceptual framework
depends quite literally on our view of the world from a physical place in the universe. [end page
3] Later, as the plane flew over the deserts and mountains of the western states, the flood of
insights continued. I could look down on the network below and actually “see the future.” I
knew that the car on Route 110 would soon meet up with that other car on Route 37, though
the two drivers were not yet aware of it. If they were about to have an accident, I would see it,
but they wouldn’t. From the airplane, the message that scientists, philosophers, spiritual
teachers, and systems theorists have been trying to tell us for centuries was obvious:
everything is interconnected and interrelated, each part a subsystem of a larger whole system.
Finally, after I spent several hours looking out at Earth’s surface, all the insights linked into a
single gestalt. This is how I expressed it at the time: People living in space settlements will
always have an overview! They will be able to see how everything is related, that what appears
to be “the world” to people on Earth is merely a small planet in space, and what appears to be
“the present” is merely a limited viewpoint to one looking from a higher level. People who live
in space will take for granted philosophical insights that have taken those on Earth thousands of
years to formulate. They will start at a place we have labored to attain over several millennia.
That moment of realization gave birth to the term “the overview effect,” which meant, at the
time, the predicted experience of astronauts and space settlers, who would have a different
philosophical point of view as a result of having a different physical perspective.
Champion Briefs
510
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
space exploration is not just technology and property but a state of
mind—vote negative to endorse human possibility.
White, Frank. “Creating The Future.” The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human
Evolution. 1987. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Overview_Effect.html?id=3A/2rz-s3JJsC>.
For the prisoners in the cave, the wider environment had always been there. Turning around
and going up into the light did not create that wider environment, but it allowed them to
perceive it more fully. Initially they were chained and could not leave to see the new reality.
However, once one of their number had made the trek, it became their choice to continue
staring into the darkness. “It didn’t help him very much,” they would say. The people in the
cave are like the imaginary detractors of the explorer fish, and they are frighteningly like us
today. We fail to realize that we are in space, that we have the means to experience it on a vast
scale, and that doing so will free us from the illusory reality in which we daily indulge. Instead,
we spend our time trying to fit outer space into our current paradigm and criticizing our
astronauts for failing to explain the light in terms that the darkness can understand.
Unfortunately, this is the perfect prescription for our continued solitary confinement from the
rest of the universe. Going into space is not the point. Realizing that we are in space and
beginning to deal with the broader implications is the point. We are in space and we cannot be
anywhere else, ever. The question is whether our expanded awareness will have a positive
impact on social evolution. Seen from this point of view, the issue is whether we are ready to
mature as a species, look beyond our narrow [end page 182] parochial concerns, and become
true citizens of the universe. Realizing that we are in space is mind-expanding, but we hate to
admit it because it brings us back up against the issues of awareness and choice today, not in
the future. The new civilizations, like the Kingdom of God, are within us. Ultimately, going to
space is not about a technological achievement, but about the human spirit and our
contribution to universal purpose. Space, as used in the new space movement, is a metaphor
for expansiveness, opportunity, and freedom. More than a place or even an experience, it is a
Champion Briefs
511
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
state of mind. It is a physical, mental, and spiritual dimension in which humanity can move
beyond the current equilibrium point, begin to change, and eventually transform itself into
something so extraordinary that we cannot even imagine it. Space exploration, in all its forms,
should become humanity’s modern central project, and the human space program the central
project for all five billion of us. The goal should be to get us out of the cave, freeing us to see
reality rather than the illusions that persist for a species chained to a planetary surface. The
choice of becoming citizens of the universe can be rejected, but humanity can no longer plead
ignorance of what is truly possible.
Champion Briefs
512
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Space travel leads to a new planetary consciousness and solves the
root causes of conflict.
Collins, Patrick. “Benefits Of Commercial Passenger Space Travel For Society.” Space Future.
1991. Web. December 13, 2021.
<https://www.spacefuture.com/archive/benefits_of_commercial_passenger_space_tra
vel_for_society.shtml>.
For those who have the opportunity to visit orbit, of course, it will be a popular experience, and
the objective of greatly increasing the number of people who have this opportunity is a
desirable and democratic one. It is one of the strengths of commercial competition that it seeks
to expand markets. Following the rapid growth of air travel in recent years it is likely that
passenger space travel would quickly become widely available, although for a long time it will
remain a once-off experience for which people will have to save seriously. This benefit will be
wider than solely for those who visit orbit. The public has greatly enjoyed such space
photographs as those taken by the Apollo astronauts and the Voyager spacecraft. The
beginning of ordinary passenger travel to space, albeit only to low Earth orbit initially, will
provide a decisive step beyond this, which will offer a new and inspiring goal for popular
aspirations. In addition, of course, “travel broadens the mind,” and space travel may help to
give more people the “planetary consciousness” that is so needed if humans are to overcome
the global problems of the next few critical decades. (Interestingly, in “Gundam”, Japanese
popular culture has generated the idea of “new type” consciousness to refer specifically to the
psychologically beneficial effects of living in space.) Beyond this, passenger space travel will
start to open a genuine new frontier for humanity. The existence of a frontier provides a
foundation for public optimism, and helps to create a popular mood that the future is open and
promising, something which is of real if intangible social value. Is it too fanciful to see the
surprising popularity in the technologically advanced countries of new and irrational religions as
perhaps partly due to the conventional, but mistaken, view of the world as closed? A closed
world system would be less able to overcome the ecological problems caused by increasing
Champion Briefs
513
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
population and industrialization, and the vision of an entirely Earth-bound future lacks
excitement and challenge.
Champion Briefs
514
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
Removing barriers to passenger space travel will allow access to the
overview effect.
Sherwood, Brent. “Comparing Future Options For Human Space flight.”. April 16, 2011. Web.
December 13, 2021.
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576511001044?via%3Di
hub>.
The second option is quite different: Space Passenger Travel. This option does not mean
governments flying passengers in space; rather it means focusing government HSF investment
to develop technologies and remove barriers to accelerate the success and growth of a new,
commercial space passenger travel industry. The precedent is NASA’s own predecessor, NACA,
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics founded in 1915. Formed as an urgent wartime effort, the NACA went on to conduct the fundamental airfoil and other research that still
underpins today’s commercial jet industry and modern supersonic fighters. The core purpose of
the Space Passenger Travel option would be to open space travel to ordinary people, thereby
creating new travel-related industries to conduct and support it. Another expected outcome
would be exposing large numbers of people to the Overview Effect: a perceptual shift
documented to happen to space travelers, which deepens their appreciation for the unitary,
fragile nature of Earth [14]. The Overview Effect is hypothesized to be caused by looking at
Earth ‘‘from outside’’ while experiencing the detached sensation of microgravity. It tends to
sensitize travelers to the planetary impacts of human territoriality and environmental
destruction, and to deepen spiritual convictions. It is conceivable that large numbers of people
experiencing this shift could begin to affect societal views through media and other
memespreading communications. Such an outcome would be a legacy in the fourth column if
unintended, or a ‘‘purpose’’ in the second column if used as a rationale. Increasingly affordable
and accessible space travel could be a transformational contribution to humankind’s 21st
century, more real than watching astronauts on TV. The core myth for this HSF option is the
‘‘Jet Set,’’ a theme arising in the mid-20th century that connotes the freedom, privilege, and
Champion Briefs
515
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
transnational detachment of global travel embodied today by celebrity entrepreneurs like
Richard Branson. While triggered by the commercial jet travel enabled by WW-II technology the
Jet Set myth has roots as far back as the early-20th century Art Deco and International Style
industrial design and architecture movements, which grew in response to early aviation speeds
and materials. For a new myth it is remarkably pervasive: The Jetsons, a middle-class American
family animated into a world of robots, flying cars, and lunar vacations, and the Orbiter Hilton
in 2001: A Space Odyssey depict instantly recognizable, resonant examples from the 1960s. Jetsetters, and the vast populations who admire and emulate them, tend to imagine that flying
into Earth orbit, or to the Moon, is something they will be able to do someday, and this
aspiration makes the myth. An HSF program focused on accelerating Space Passenger Travel
would actively, consciously promote the Jet Set myth. We know this HSF option is real because
even without significant government attention, sub-orbital tourism and orbital habitat
development have attracted private investment. Against all odds, some entrepreneurs—
Bigelow, Rutan, Branson, Musk, and others—are creating a fledgling space tourism industry and
there probably is a business case. A trip that couples the ride of your life with the unique
sensations of weightlessness and the most poignant, ever-changing view in the solar system fits
our contemporary ‘‘experience economy.’’ Former B. Sherwood / Acta Astronautica 69 (2011)
346–353 349NASA Administrator Dan Goldin used to pound on the podium and declare, ‘‘Space
tourism is not my job!’’ However there is no fundamental reason why it could not be; NASA’s
HSF charter could be directed to accelerate Space Passenger Travel. The expected legacy of this
HSF option would be as epochal as Explore Mars, but in quite different ways: (1) routine flights
between Earth and orbit on competing spaceship fleets; (2) in-space destinations with
accommodations likely ranging from budget-utilitarian to highend resort; (3) in-space service
industries, including dining, shopping, recreation and entertainment, medical care, and
maintenance; (4) government space professionals would travel into orbit along with private
passengers as they do today on commercial jets, and stay at commercial hotels while they work
in orbit. A fifth Another orbital passenger travel legacy (or again, it could be a driving purpose)
would be half-orbit intercontinental travel, e.g., London-to-Sydney in less than an hour.
However to accomplish this, the Space Passenger Travel option needs several breakthroughs
Champion Briefs
516
NEG: Overview Effect / Space Tourism NC
Jan/Feb 2022
exceeding the capacity of private enterprise without government help. (1) Earth-to-orbit
transportation would have to be fully reusable for the commercial business case, and be
reliable far beyond anything achieved so far by the world’s space programs. Paying passengers
are not heroes; risk would be acceptable only in the same way it already is for air travel, e.g.,
with ‘‘four nines’’ or greater reliability. (2) A variety of unprecedented space-system
technologies could become essential: large-volume habitats, very large windows, berthing
mechanisms capable of thousands of cycles, fresh food production, air and solid-waste
lifesupport loop closure, space surgery, rotating artificial gravity, sports, and public
entertainment. (3) Targeting government research toward accelerating this new industry would
require public–private partnerships like research consortia, port authorities, and company
towns. (4) Not the least, the long-term radiation health of commercial crew corps and space
workers would need to be managed, and they would need certification. At a reasonable state of
maturity (after 30 years of cumulative public–private investment?) the Space Passenger Travel
option could achieve a continuous throughput of hundreds of thousands of citizens flying in
space per year, supported by thousands of professional crew and in-space workers (at typical
terrestrial ratios, the latter would reach tens of thousands). Its historical significance would be
more subtle than the Explore Mars option: rather than historical headlines, an imperceptible
but irreversible societal evolution.
Champion Briefs
517
Champion Briefs
January/February 2022
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Negative Responses to
Affirmative Cases
A/2: International Law AC
Jan/Feb 2022
A/2: International Law AC: 12
Under customary international law, the “non-appropriation” principle
of the Outer Space Treaty does not prohibit mining natural resources
in outer space.
Pershing, Abigail. “Interpreting The Outer Space Treaty's Non-Appropriation Principle:
Customary International Law From.” Yale Journal of International Law. 2019. Web.
December 11, 2021.
<https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1697&context=yjil>.
II. THE FIRST SHIFT IN CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW’S INTERPRETATION OF THE NONAPPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE Since the drafting of the Outer Space Treaty, several States have
chosen to reinterpret the non-appropriation principle as narrower in scope than its drafters
originally intended. This reinterpretation has gone largely unchallenged and has in fact been
widely adopted by space-faring nations. In turn, this has had the effect of changing customary
international law relating to the non-appropriation principle. Shifting away from its original
blanket application in 1967, States have carved