KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
1NC (1/3)
The environment is not solely the Earth; it encompasses outer space
Bhutia 10 (WANGCHEN RIGZIN BHUTIA [West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences],“Protection of the Outer Space Environment”; March 17, 2010.
http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
The first thing that comes to a person when one talk about ‘environment’ is the land we live on and the
water we drink or the air we breathe. The value of these resources has only been considered in the
context of human beings and their activity. Therefore there have been many environmental
regulations focusing on the prevention of direct damage to the human interest and not on
the prevention of the damage to the environment so to speak. Therefore there are much
legislation on matters such as toxic wastes, clean air and water and so on. Protection of the sparsely
populated environments, for instance the Antarctica, has only been recently area of legislations. This recent
trend is one indication of the movement towards a broader long term view of human interests and a wider
understanding of the term ‘environment’. However, the ‘environment’ is in reality surrounded by a
much larger environment of outer space the importance of which is growing due to the
stupendous growth in science and technology. The interrelationship of different aspect of
the Earths environment becomes much clearer by placing the earth in a broader context.
As we have seen, there has been a rapid development in the space technology especially after the historic day
when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik-I into the orbit. This achievement marked the opening of a new
territory, full of vast resources and exciting opportunities. A new era began in the life of mankind known as
‘the space age’ which changed ideas, science, communication and the life itself.The technological advances,
such as weather satellites, are increasingly making outer space a part of our everyday lives and, therefore, our
environment.
1
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
1NC (2/3)
Even if you recognize the problem, you’re complicit
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
The question here is open. Could a modern discourse of reflection, responsibility and action be strong
enough to fundamentally re-orientate the relationship between humans and other species and the
natural environment? If so, then maybe a truly revolutionary change in how humans, and specifically
humans in the West, conceive of and interact with the natural world might be enough to counter
environmental disaster and redeem humanity. Nonetheless, anything short of fundamental change – for
instance, the transformation of borderlands modern, industrial society into something completely different –
would merely perpetuate in a less exaggerated fashion the long process of human violence against the nonhuman world. What helps to render a certain type of action problematic is each individual’s
‘complicity’ in the practice of speciesist violence. That is, even if one is aware of the ways in which
modern life destroys or adversely affects the environment and inflicts suffering upon non- human
animals, one cannot completely subtract one’s self from a certain responsibility for and complicity in
this. Even if you are conscious of the problem you cannot but take part in doing ‘evil’ by the mere
fact of participating within modern life. Take for example the problematic position of environmental
activists who courageously sacrifice personal wealth and leisure time in their fight against environmental
destruction. While activists assume a sense of historical responsibly for the violence of the human species
and act so as to stop the continuation of this violence, these actors are still somewhat complicit in a
modern system of violence due to fact that they live in modern, industrial societies. The activist
consumes, acquires and spends capital, uses electricity, pays taxes, and accepts the legitimacy of particular
governments within the state even if they campaign against government policies. The bottom line is that all
of these actions contribute in some way to the perpetuation of a larger process that moves humanity in a
particular direction even if the individual personally, or collectively with others, tries to act to counter this
direction. Despite people’s good intentions, damage is encapsulated in nearly every human action in
industrial societies, whether we are aware of it or not.
2
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
1NC (3/3)
The affirmative’s logic of domination results in objectification of nonhumans and the
inability to impose moral constraints on the dominant group.
Ahkin (Mélanie works at Monash University, “Human Centrism, Animist Materialism, and
the Critique of Rationalism in Val. Plumwood’s Critical Ecological Feminism,” Emergent
Australasian Philosophers, 2010, Issue 3, http://www.eap.philosophyaustralia.com/issue_3/EAP3_AHKIN_Human_Centrism.pdf)
Richard Sylvan and Val Plumwood's pioneering 1979 critique
of human chauvinism within dominant western
ethics defines the concept in relation to class chauvinism, as the “substantially differential,
discriminatory and inferior treatment” of the class of non-human entities by members of the class of
humans, where this treatment lacks sufficient justification. 2 They contend that insofar as dominant western
ethical systems unjustifiably treat humans as uniquely morally significant; fail to provide an account of
humans' direct, non-instrumental moral obligations to non-humans; and promote varying degrees of human dominion
over non-human nature, these frameworks sanction differential, discriminatory and inferior treatment of non-humans and are
by consequence human chauvinist.3 Plumwood's development of this collaborative critique of human chauvinism in her early 1990's
work, and beyond, draws on feminist analyses of oppression and rationalism as well as insights from liberation theory in order to enrich
and expand the analysis of the human mastery of nature.4 Her critique of the dominant western framework of rationalist reason allows
her to draw out the structural features and logical patterns common to various instantiations of oppression, namely the logic of centrism
and its foundational value dualisms, and also the role of related instrumental egoist models of selfhood. Thus she is able to
provide a more global critique of oppression than that offered by the earlier analysis of human chauvinism, involving
not just the problems inherent in the human chauvinist framework's foundational instrumentalist
value theory, but also highlighting the broader conceptual and perceptual distortions involved in
centric structures and dualist logic, and the injustices and prudential dilemmas they cause in both
social and environmental realms.
On Plumwood's analysis, the
rationalist conception of the human self is defined in polarised opposition to
concepts such as materiality, nature, and necessity, and in accordance with those of reason,
consciousness, culture, freedom and transcendence of nature. Together with an emphasis on instrumental
and colonising forms of reason, this exclusionary conception provides an important conceptual
foundation for the human mastery of nature. Indeed, the logic of the foundational human/nature and
reason/nature dualisms which underlie this conception of the human self provide much of the
justification and naturalisation for the instrumentalisation of nature , fostering the assignment of exclusive moral
significance to humans based largely on their allegedly unique possession of the capacity for reason.5 This further emphasises their
conceptual hyperseparation from non-human nature and permits the instrumental valuation and treatment of the sphere of nature.
The rationalist tradition also holds feminine attributes to be similarly radically separate from human virtue (likewise defined principally
in terms of reason), thus creating a “master perspective” which subordinates and is alienated from both the
feminine and nature, marrying the concept of reason with power and domination .6 Given this connection
between the subordination of women and that of nature, Plumwood appeals to androcentrism as a more fully theorised parallel model
for the human mastery of nature and accordingly reconceptualises human chauvinism in terms of the logic of hegemonic centrism.
Plumwood defines hegemonic centrism as “a primary-secondary pattern of attribution that sets up one
term (the One) as primary or as centre and defines marginal Others as secondary or derivative in
relation to it”.7 This logical structure is founded on that of a value dualism, defined as an exaggerated
dichotomy involving the extreme polarisation of contrasting conceptual pairs and their formation in
terms of a value hierarchy. Dualised concepts are formed by a relation of power, promoting the
treatment of inferiorised concepts as mere means to the ends of the superior relata, which seek to
differentiate, dominate and control the inferior relata.8 In Plumwood's terms, "[d]ualisms are not universal
features of human thought, but conceptual responses to and foundations for social domination".9
The five key features of dualism's “logic of domination” are as follows: Radical exclusion or hyperseparation
involves the denial of continuity between dominant and marginalised groups, instead stressing extreme
difference and creating a polarised relation which denies any possibility of overlap . Combined with
backgrounding- the dominant group's denial of its dependency on the marginalised group and rendering of the latter as
inessential background- this works to justify and naturalise the superior relata's claim to unique importance and dominance over
the radically discontinuous and seemingly inessential inferior relata. Incorporation or relational definition involves the definition and
3
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
recognition of the inferior relata solely in relation to (as excluded from) the superior group; this assimilation to the superior
relata's identity, needs and ends negates the needs and ends of the inferior relata and results in the latter's
inability to impose moral constraints or limitations on the dominant group . Thus, it is subject to
instrumentalisation and objectification: it is further stripped of intrinsic value, ends, and needs by means of the denial of its
subjectivity and intentionality, facilitating its treatment as mere means to the ends of the dominant group. The formation of the dualised
relata in terms of a moral hierarchy naturalises this instrumentalisation, making it seem a normal consequence of their
differing degrees of moral significance. The final feature of homogenisation or stereotyping occurs when differences
within the subordinated group are denied, allowing it to be attributed a reductive and stable identity,
thus also promoting the treatment of its constituents as interchangeable and replaceable resources for
the dominant group.
4
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—“ecosystem health”
The affirmative draws the connection between non-humans but not between non-human
and human life.
Crowley 11 (Thomas is Director, Division of Substance Dependence, University of
Colorado School of Medicine, “From Natural to Ecosocial Flourishing” Evaluating
Evaluative Frameworks, Vol. 15 No. 1, 2011,
http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.2979/ETE.2010.15.1.69, JSTOR)
“Ecosystem health”—unlike “natural” and “sustainable”—is not a simple adjective, but rather a broader
framework in which to explore ecological values and evaluations. The framework of “ecosystem health”
owes its existence to the science of ecology, which takes the ecosystem to be a “foundational
organizational unit” (Rangan 2000, 55). Ecology emphasizes the way that ecosystems shape and are shaped by the complex
interactions of their constituent parts, from predator-prey dynamics to nu- trient cycles. Any consideration of ecosystem
health must first start with considerations of ecosystems, and thus of interconnection . For instance, if we
believe a healthy ecosystem is one that supports and sustains a diverse range of species over long
periods of time, we will be led to ecological considerations of how such sustained diversity is ensured.
We might look at the role of keystone species that, because of their connections to the larger web of life in their
ecosystems, play a disproportionally large role in maintaining ecosystem diversity. 21 Unlike “strong”
sustainability, which undermines its own goals because of its atomistic framework, “ecosystem health” points us towards a more
interconnected way of thinking. “Ecosystem health” thus looks promising as an evaluative framework, at
least with respect to highlighting connections. However, upon closer inspection, we see that “ecosystem
health” shares some troubling simi- larities with “sustainability,” including its ambiguity and its
penchant to separate humans from the rest of nature. While the general conception of ecosystems is one that stresses
community and relationship, more specific conceptions—which are necessary to conduct ecological research—can be problematic. For
instance, a basic ecology textbook tell us: “[a]n ecosys- tem is a biological community plus all of the abiotic factors influencing the
community” (Molles 2002, 413). The difficulty lies in determining the boundaries between one community
and the next. The boundaries we draw determine the interactions and interconnections upon which we
focus, and which factors we disregard as isolated disturbances coming from outside the system.
However, given the “infinitely complex web of relationships connecting nearly all living things,” such boundaries will be
provisional at best, and will likely reveal deeper theoretical assumptions (Rangan 2000, 55). This is an
inevitable problem given the very phenomenon we want to recognize: the great complexity and interconnectedness of all life. I do not
suggest abandoning ecosystem thinking simply because it involves difficult conceptual problems; still, we must be very mindful of the
ways we ad- dress the problem. So far, ecologists have drawn boundaries in part by ex- cluding humans from
ecosystems. In other words, the dominant approach to ecosystems has recognized the
interconnectedness of non-human life, but it has not recognized the interconnectedness of humans and
non-humans. In short, “[b]iologists have focused on the ‘impact’ measures of hu- mans, a strategy that puts our species outside the
ecosystems as, at most, a permanent perturbation” (Machlis et al. 1997, 22). This conception of ecosystems (as humanexclusive) leads to a flawed conception of ecosystem health —namely, ecosystems are healthy when humans stay out.
This view has a long history among naturalists and en- vironmentalists, and it is linked to the notion of stable ecosystems;
that is, ecosystems exist in a state of equilibrium and stability (the “balance of nature”) until an
outside disturbance (often anthropogenic) strikes. When the disturbance ends, the ecosystem will return to its stable
state, provided that it has not been permanently damaged.22 This view is implicit in Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, perhaps the most
famous formation of ecosystem health: “[a] thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community.” (1949, 224–45).23 However, Rangan, after reviewing the extensive literature on ecosystem change, concludes: There is
little evidence to support the assumption…that nature, when left alone, always returns to its primordial, stable state. There is no way of
confirming a general law of self-regulating ecosystems that holds true across all time and spatial scales. (2000, 57) The assumption of
bounded, stable ecosystems has more to do with theoretical assumptions about nature and humans’ place in it (or out of it) than with
the results of ecological research. This is a great irony of ecology—a science devoted to exploring the interconnections of nature
removes from the web of interrelations the species that has the greatest ecological impact today: humans. Such human-exclusive
understandings of ecosystems and ecosystem health lead to questionable theories of ecosystem
management. First and foremost, it implies that ecosystem health should be implemented by minimizing human “disturbance” of
ecosystems. Rolston (1999a), for instance, argues that we should manage ecosystems simply by leaving them alone.
5
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—saving environment
Framing environmental protection in terms of “rights” and “justice” assumes non-humans
ac as a human would and justifies saving a species and not their habitat
Purser et. al 95 (Ronald E. Purser is an assistant professor of organization development at
the University of Chicago, Changkil Park is a doctoral candidate in the Dept. of
Organizational Behaviour at Case Western Reserve University, Alfonso Montuori is an
adjunct professor at Saybrook Institute and College of Notre Dame. “Limits to
Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?” The Academy of
Management Review, October 1995, JSTOR, p.1053-1089, Vol. 20, No.4,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258965
Environmental management approaches rely upon a traditional ethical framework that is also rooted in
anthropocen- trism. Traditional ethical analysis is based on a progressive extension model of ethics, better
known as ethical extensionism (Regan, 1983; Singer, 1976). Des Jardin (1993: 142) identified three major
shortcomings of ethical extensionism: (a) it leads to a hierarchical ordering of species (with humans
on top); (b) it is inherently individualistic in focus, paying consideration to individual biological
organisms but disregards whole ecological entities such as habitats and ecosystem processes; and (c) it
lacks comprehensiveness, focusing instead on case-by-case problems that usually do not provide
guidance on what should be done when confronted by more pervasive environmental problems, such
as global warming. Ethical extensionism uses comparable human attributes as the sole moral criteria
for determining the intrinsic value of nonhuman species (obviously, plant, biota, and inanimate objects
are omitted from such analyses automatically). Further, ethical extensionism is atomistic as it focuses upon
individual biological organisms. According to Rodman (1983: 87), this atomistic tendency is "so deeply
imbedded in modern cul- ture, locating intrinsic value only or primarily in individual persons, animals, plants, etc., rather than in communities or ecosystems, since indi- viduals are our paradigmatic
entities for thinking, being conscious, and feeling pain." Thus, with ethical extensionism, objects of
valuation are individual entities (Page, 1992), whereas human interests are the sole measure of right
and wrong. The anthropocentric ethic in environmental management is mainly concerned with issues
of "justice," "rights," and other attempts of extend- ing legal rights to the nonhuman world. Rodman
(1983) criticized this "rights-of-nature" approach as a weak alternative because it assumes that other
species and biota can participate (as humans would) in an ethical system. What is important here is
not whether one agrees that nature or animals have "rights," but that the argument is still based upon
the centrality of the human being as the reference for conferring value or disvalue upon Nature. This is the
problematic of the ethical extensionism approach: extension of intrinsic value to the nonhuman world occurs
only if entities measure up to the criteria that are defined by humans, criteria that must mimic or resemble
humanlike attributes. With this framework, one could arrive at an ethical decision to save an
endangered species without the necessity for also having to save or preserve the endangered species'
ecosystem habitat. Ethical extensionism subjects the nonhuman world to "inappropriate models, without
rethinking very thoroughly either the assumptions of conventional ethics or the ways in which we perceive
and interpret the natural world" (Rodman, 1977: 88).
6
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—environmental management
Environmental management paradigm is the obsession with environmental efficiency
Purser et. al 95 (Ronald E. Purser is an assistant professor of organization development at
the University of Chicago, Changkil Park is a doctoral candidate in the Dept. of
Organizational Behaviour at Case Western Reserve University, Alfonso Montuori is an
adjunct professor at Saybrook Institute and College of Notre Dame. “Limits to
Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?” The Academy of
Management Review, October 1995, JSTOR, p.1053-1089, Vol. 20, No.4,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258965
The movement toward an egocentric conception of organizations and management will require a
revolutionary shift in paradigm. However, as Kuhn (1970) suggested, theory development and
revolutionary paradigm shifts do not occur all at once. Instead, there is a long struggle involved in
justifying the plausibility of alternative theorizing (Kuhn, 1970). Accord- ingly, theory development
proceeds as the deconstruction of anomalies associated with the dominant paradigm highlights the
incommensurabil- ity, as well as the continuity, between competing approaches (Kuhn, 1970; Willmott,
1993). Clearly, the foundational concepts and underlying philosophies of the environmental management
and ecocentric responsibility paradigms are incommensurable. The environmental management paradigm
is anthropocentric; its proponents continue to elevate human beings to a dom- inant position over
nature. Indeed, anthropocentrism is foundational to the dominant social paradigm (Dunlap & Catton, 1980;
Milbrath, 1984, 1989). Rather than viewing the environmental crisis as a challenge to, and
consequential anomaly of, the dominant social paradigm, concepts and practices within environmental
management are retrofitted to perpetuate this reigning paradigm. In contrast, the bottom-line within
the ecocentric paradigm is that human beings have moral obligations to ecosystems. However, ethical
considerations regarding the conservation of ecosystems are muted when subjected to the
instrumental technical rationality of anthropocentric dis- course. Surely, those who are more
concerned with calculating the pro- ductivity of old-growth forests, bioengineering designer species, or
mak- ing Chesapeake Bay a more efficient sewer, are not likely to give much consideration to
conserving ecosystem health and integrity (Sagoff, 1992). This problem suggests that members of
egocentric organizations will need to assign much more importance to ethical considerations than typically has been the case, because environmental managers have been primarily concerned with
technical efficiency.
7
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—asteroids—environmental interference
Stopping an asteroid attack is uniquely anthropocentric- even if it benefits humans, it is
still an environmental interference
Cockell 7 (“Space on Earth; Saving our world by seeking others” Charles S. Cockell,
[Professor in geomicrobiology, Chair of the Earth and Space Foundation] 2007, Macmillan.
Pg 128-9. Print)
The realization that Earth has been, and will be, struck by asteroids and comets, potentially destroying
large percentages of life, has led to suggestions that we should divert these incoming objects. We would
do this by detecting them early and then exploding or deflecting them to stop them colliding. These
propositions all have at their core highly anthropocentric environmental ethic. Unlike anthropogenic
ozone depletion or deforestation, asteroid and comet impacts are natural and their prevention is
actually an environmental interference, regardless of whether it happens to be of benefit to
humans. It might be argued that such schemes represent an unacceptable environmental
manipulation. If dinosaurs had implemented an asteroid and comet diversion plan, mammals might never
have risen to preeminence, and we would not exist. Thus, the diversion of asteroids and comets might be
said to have a negative environmental impact when the opportunities for life that arise after such
events are considered to be thwarted. This same argument could be applied to any attempt to prevent any
other natural catastrophes like earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
8
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—space exploration
Every life-form possesses intrinsic value; space exploration rejects this notion and in turn
has abject effects on extra-terrestrial life
Lupisella 9 (Mark is and engineer and scientist for the NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, “The search for extraterrestrial life: epistemology, ethics, and worldviews,”
Published in Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical and
Theological Perspectives, September 28, 2009,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31517429/Exploring-the-Origin-Extent-And-Future-of-LifePhilosophical-Ethical-And-Theological-Perspectives-Constance-M-Bertka, Scribd)
Robel1 Zubrin, the founder of the Mars Society, acknowledges the unique value of extraterrestrial life.
especially scientific value, but nevertheless stresses that we don't hesitate to kill terrestrial microbes
under many circumstances adding to the case for substantial devaluation of Martian microbes relative
to human interests [8]. While this is an understandable sentiment, it is also reasonable to consider that
extraterrestrial life, especially of independent origin, could be unique, valuable, and worthy of respect in
a way that terrestrial microbes are not. The ecologist Frank Golley has argued that activities in space such
as the colonization and terraforming of Mars will be unavoidable since it is consistent with the dominant
myths and metaphors of Western civilization [9]. Unfortunately these dominant myths and the exploration
that results from them have often had serious adverse effects on indigenous environments and life,
including human beings. Indeed the dominant myths of '"manifest destiny" have featured prominently in
public discussions of humanity's relationship to Mars [10, 11],
Although the notion of rights is not explicitly articulated in Carl Sagan's sentiment, his perspective can be
associated with a rights-based metaethics. While the justification of intrinsic value has been philosophically
problematic, rights based ethical views nevertheless often depend on conceptions of intrinsic value. J.
Baird Callicott [13] writes: "The assertion of 'species rights' upon analysis appears to be the modern
way to express what philosophers call 'intrinsic value' on behalf of non-human species. Thus the
question, 'Do nonhumans species have a right to exist?' transposes to the question, 'Do nonhuman
species have intrinsic value?' " Chris McKay has appealed to an intrinsic value of life principle and hence
suggests that Martian microbes, particularly of independent origin, have a right to life -"to continue their
existence even if their extinction would benefit the biota of Earth" [14].' Deep Ecology view, tend to
have as a central tenet, biological egalitarianism, according to which all organisms have an equal right to life
[15]. If one claims that other animals, and in particular, Martian microbes, have rights, but that there are no
degress of rights, how are we to assess situations that involve conflicting interests between humans and
other life forms? Indeed, for those who think Martian life has rights, a compromise might not be
satisfactory. Only a non-interference policy would be acceptable [16] (p. 227). However, degrees of rights or
degrees of value (perhaps even degrees of intrinsic value) may provide a more pragmatic framework for
considering these issues [17].
9
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—space exploration
In outer space we must consider the values of the most primitive life forms
Lupisella 9 (Mark is and engineer and scientist for the NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, “The search for extraterrestrial life: epistemology, ethics, and worldviews,”
Published in Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical and
Theological Perspectives, September 28, 2009,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31517429/Exploring-the-Origin-Extent-And-Future-of-LifePhilosophical-Ethical-And-Theological-Perspectives-Constance-M-Bertka, Scribd)
While the focus of this chapter is not extraterrestrial intelligence, astrobiology nevertheless prompts us to consider
values of other potential rational beings, especially as they might apply to non intelligent or primitive life
forms. For example, if we take a view of ethics in which rational beings are the only moral agents, might the
possible existence of rational extraterrestrial beings prompt the consideration of broader ethical views that
might be important to them- such as a conservation ethic that extends to non-rational living beings (for example
extraterrestrial microbes), perhaps as part of a broader environmental/ cosmic ethic? This is similar to
considering values of our fellow human beings that might go beyond our own values. If others value
something for plausible reasons, shouldn't we be prompted to consider respecting those values?
Extraterrestrial intelligent beings may consider life in the universe, perhaps independent origins of life in particular,
to be extremely valuable, perhaps intrinsically or "cosmically" valuable. Perhaps such values should be
considered as we formulate our own views regarding how we should move out into the solar system and
beyond.
10
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—space exploration
Space exploration harms both the terrestrial environment and beyond
Bhutia 10 (WANGCHEN RIGZIN BHUTIA [West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences],“Protection of the Outer Space Environment”; March 17, 2010.
http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
The exploration of the space environment is a natural extension of the desire of the mankind to explore the
planet to which he belongs. The issue of pollution of the outer space is more complex than the environmental
pollution on Earth. The launching of vehicles into outer space and celestial bodies is known to involve
inevitable contamination as the vehicles emit exhaust gases throughout their burn. The term pollution and
contamination denote the introduction into the environment of toxic substances or other elements in such a quantity
that exceeds the natural ability to render them harmless or purify them and thereby causes harm to animate and
inanimate nature, and the health and welfare of man.
11
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—launches
Space launches kill non-human species for the benefit of humans—hydrochloric acid
decimates fish and other wildlife, and also ruins the ozone layer
Smeaton 5 (Zoe, Reporter Chemist and Druggist, UBM, “Is the Shuttle Green?” August 8,
2005, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4130980.stm)
Professor Fraser said: "The classic example of environmental impact is in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch
site, where there are reports of quite serious environmental damage." For most shuttles, the damage comes
from the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, require at shuttle launch to provide 71.4% of the thrust at lift-off and
elevate the shuttle to an altitude of 45km (28 miles). As a shuttle launches, a "cloud" becomes visible which
contains SRB exhaust products, either dissolved or as particles in the water vapour released by the main engines.
Hydrochloric acid formed in this launch cloud leads to acidic deposits in the surrounding area, a phenomenon
which may also be observed some distance away if exhausts are carried on prevailing winds. The scenes of dead
fish in Spain could be repeated next to launch sites John Pike, president of Global Security.org, and an expert on the
US space programme says: "The hydrochloric acid can pit the paint on your car if it is too close to the launch site."
A 1993 Nasa technical manual considered environmental effects of space shuttle launches at Kennedy Space Centre,
and stated that some cumulative effects of launches in the nearby area are "reduction in the number of plant
species present and reduction in total cover". The manual also pointed out that acid deposits from the launch
cloud can also impact nearby water lagoons and their wildlife. If hydrochloric acid is deposited, the pH value
near the surface of the water may drop and prove too acidic for fish, although these impacts on wildlife do
"appear minimal and manageable". Professor Fraser points out also that while shuttles may cause a small amount
of damage to the ozone layer this will be "far less marked than that from the large number of high altitude aircraft
in the World all the time".
12
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—launches
Ground clouds created by spacecraft launches release toxins that decimates the Earth’s
ozone
Bhutia 10 (WANGCHEN RIGZIN BHUTIA [West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences],“Protection of the Outer Space Environment”; March 17, 2010.
http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
When a spacecraft is launched into the space, they produce something called “ground cloud” which basically
consisting of exhaust gases, cooling water, sand and dust. The use of certain rocket and stratospheric aircraft
fuels has been found to speed the depletion of the earth’s ozone layer. Specifically, the chlorine,
aluminum, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide that are present in these fuels have been detected in the
ozone layer by scientists. The ozone layer is very important as it absorbs harmful ultraviolet rays
and acts as a shield around the earth. The depletion of this shield or the ozone results in incoming ultraviolet
radiation which causes harmful effects on plants, and skin cancer, eye damage on the animals. At least one study has
concluded that the presence of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “may reduce
the temperature of the earth’s surface,” potentially impacting agricultural production. The exhaust gases
released by the spacecrafts will affect the ionosphere which is situated 80 kilometers above the earth’s
surface. This may lead to the creation of a ‘hole’ in the ionosphere which will have harmful effects
on the environment of the earth
13
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link— technocentrism
The drive to accelerate technology is a purely human interest
Grey 93 (William is professor at the University of Queensland, Australian National
University, Temple University, and the University of New England, “Anthropocentrism
and Deep Ecology,” Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475,
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html)
Moral philosophy aims to provide a rational critique or justification of the principles which guide or govern
human conduct. In this inquiry it is of course assumed that these principles are accessible to reason. Human
activity, particularly when amplified by sophisticated science-based technologies, now extends far
beyond the stone age boundaries which constrained our actions for most of human history. The chain
saw and the drift net have transformed biological systems far more rapidly and violently than the
neolithic axe and spear. The rapid and accelerating technologically-driven modification of our natural
surroundings has changed them beyond the wildest neolithic dreams. It is these changes which have
prompted the question whether constraints on human conduct should take into consideration more
than purely human interests. Environmental philosophers have proposed a critique of traditional Western
moral thought, which, it is alleged, is deficient for providing a satisfactory ethic of obligation and concern
for the nonhuman world. This concern, it is claimed, needs to be extended, in particular, toward
nonhuman individuals, wilderness areas, and across time and species. The project of extending our concern
in the latter two cases—over time and over species—is a central concern of this paper.
14
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—technology
Technology fosters the view that nature is merely instrumental to human ends and
advancement
Orr 79 (“In the Tracks of the Dinosaur: Modernization & the Ecological Perspective”
David W. Orr[assistant professor of political science at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill] Polity, Vol. 11, No. 4 1979)
Modernization has destroyed the unity between man and nature. En- vironmentalists since George
Perkins Marsh have argued that indus- trialization and modernization have jeopardized the relationship
between man and nature. The awareness of membership in a natural community has been dimmed by layers
of concrete, steel, asphalt, glass, and an ethic that stresses conquest. But the question remains why man should
regard nature as anything but the exclusive subject of his domination. One answer is that nature must be protected
and its laws understood so that it can serve man more efficiently. Modern techniques of high yield forestry,
seafarming, and agribusiness, based on the concept of "maximum sustainable yield," reflect this instrumental
view. But from the environmental perspective, it remains less than obvious what the management (conquest?) of
nature means and precisely who manages what and why. C. S. Lewis provided one answer by suggesting: At the
moment then, of Man's victory over Nature, we find the whole human race subjected to some individual man, and
those individuals subjected to that in themselves which is purely "natural" -to their irrational impulses
. Nature
untrammelled by values, rules the Conditioners and, through them, all humanity. Man's conquest of Nature turns
out, in the moment of its consumation, to be Nature's conquest of Man.50 If Lewis is correct, the conquest of
nature becomes one way for some men to control other men who use nature only as the medium.
But in the end, the "conquest" proves to be illusory, with nature in fact subduing man. Aldo Leopold reached the
similarly ironic conclusion that nature can serve man instrumentally only if "people really believe that Nature is
something which exists and has value for its own sake." 51 The inevitable price of the material view of man,
then, is the devaluation of a range of important but nonmaterial goals.
15
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—military
Military readiness protects humans at the expense of non-human life, contaminates
groundwater, birds, and marine life.
Glenn 6 (Jerome C. director of American Council for the United Nations University,
director of the Millennium Project, “Nanotechnology: Future military environment health
considerations,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 73 Issue 2, February
2006, Pages 128-137,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162505000909#SECX3)
The following is an unranked list of the panel's suggestions (edited and condensed for clarity) that might occur
between 2010 and 2025: • Artificial blood cells (respirocytes) that dramatically enhance human performance could
cause overheating of the body and bio-breakdowns, and their excretion could add to the environmental load. •
Large quantities of smart weapons—especially miniaturized, robotic weapons and intelligent, target-seeking
ammunition without reliable remote off-switches—could lead to unexpected injury to combatants and civilians,
destruction to infrastructure, and environmental pollution. • Small receptor-enhancers that increase alertness and
reduce the reaction times of humans could cause addiction and/or subsequent Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, leading to
weakness, neural damage, and death. • Inorganic, non-biodegradable nanoparticles (and perhaps also nonbiocompatible) nanoparticles for drug release or cancer treatment, or “permanent” nanosensors, might induce a
foreign body reaction. • Proteomic targeting, genetically selective “designer quasi-viral components,” engineered to
select specific human targets based on definable genetic markers, might mutate, creating a biological pandemic. •
Nanoparticles to “clean up” contaminated areas might create new compounds that could have unknown
impacts on the environment, including long-term leaching into groundwater reserves. • Ubiquitous surveillance
systems deployed without strong controls on the use of information could lead to psychological stress from the sense
of being watched by strangers. • Numerous centimeter-scale buoyant platforms deployed in the atmosphere
might interfere with birds and aircraft, and damaged devices might fall as precipitation at uncontrolled locations
over Earth's surface. • Nanoscale biomolecule-driven motors that enhance the efficiency of ATP (adenosine
triphosphate) usage, the frequency of generation of ATP, and the life of ATP molecules in endurance athletes and/or
long-haul soldiers could cause overheating of the body and biobreakdowns and could possibly lead to Rapid-Onset
Muscle Soreness after a stipulated duration; if allowed to function beyond this duration, they may kill the organism
thus modified. • Ubiquitous sensing in the oceans via large numbers of small drifting devices linked by
acoustically based data-packet networks, and countermeasures to disable them, could affect sea life from these
materials, as well as from acoustic pollution. Other interesting suggestions for the period 2010–25 that are not
conventionally thought of as health or environmental impacts included:
16
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—science
Reductionist science moots the entire context of the Earth’s biota into mechanical ecology;
this mindset forces us to dismiss the intrinsic value in the world.
Harding (Stephen, resident ecologist at Schumacher College, an international centre for
ecological studies. Trained as a field ecologist, Stephan Harding collaborates with James
Lovelock on Gaian computer modeling,
“From Gaia Theory to Deep Ecology,” May 6, 2011,
http://www.adishakti.org/pdf_files/from_gaia_theory_to_deep_ecology_(gn.apc.org).pdf)
To understand Gaia, we must let go of the mechanistic, compartmentalising conditioning imposed on us since
childhood by our society. From an early age nearly all Westerners (and especially young scientists) are exposed to
the concept that life has come about due to the operation of blind, meaningless laws of physics and chemistry,
and that selfishness underpins the behaviour and evolution of all plants and animals. A child’s mind becomes totally
ensnared by this style of intellectuality, so that the intuitive, inspirational qualities of the mind are totally ignored. The mind’s intuitive ability to
see each part of nature as a sub-whole within the greater wholes is destroyed by this sort of education. The result is a totally dry,
merely intellectual ecology, not a genuine perception of the dynamic power, creativity and integration of
nature. A Gaian approach opens new doors of perception and opens up our vision of the inter-dependence of all things within the natural
world. There is a symphonic quality to this interconnectedness, a quality which communicates an unspeakable
magnificence. When you stand on a sea-cliff in winter, watching masses of grey cloud rolling in from the
Atlantic, a Gaian view helps you understand the cloud in its global context. It has formed due to massive climatic forces
and has manifested within a small part of the whole ~ the part you happen to be standing in. The water in the cloud is circling
through the water cycle, from rain to river to sea to Coccolithophore to cloud again. As you experience this
dynamic, ever-shifting reality, you may suddenly find yourself in a state of meditation, a state in which you
lose your sense of separate identity, and become totally engrossed in the life process being contemplated. The
contemplated and the contemplator become one. From this oneness there arises a deep appreciation of the reality of inter-dependence, and from
this comes the urge to be involved in opposing all sorts of ecological abuses. Here arises the feeling that what is happening in
evolution has great value and a meaning impossible to articulate or to detect via reductionist scientific
methodology. This highly developed sensitivity, this experience of radical interconnectedness, is the hallmark
of supporters of the Deep Ecology movement, and is the basis for the elaboration of any ecological
philosophy, such as the pioneering work of the Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, who first coined the term 'deep ecology'. No student of
ecology is ever introduced to this new mode of mental discipline ~ in our schools and colleges. There is no culture of experiencing oneness with
the natural world. All one does on an ecology field trip is to collect and measure. Deep contemplation of nature is considered to
be at worst a waste of time, at best something to do during one’s spare time. It can be argued that truly great
scientists had this connection, this sense of the greater whole of which they were a part. Without educating this
sensitivity, we churn out scientists without philosophy, who are merely interested in their subject, but not thoroughly awed by it. We churn
out clever careerists, whose only concern is to make the grade, be the first to publish, be the first to be head
of a department, or to split the atom. It is this kind of training which leads to the mentality responsible for
the massive social and environmental mistakes of Western-style development. Trained to shut down our
perception of the world so that we see it as a mere machine, we are perfectly free to improve the clockwork
for our own ends. We are perfectly free to build huge dams which flood vast areas, perfectly free to log
established forests, perfectly free to sanction economic growth at all costs, or to alter the genetic make-up of
any organism for our own ends. Gaian perception helps to remedy this great mental and spiritual plague, a malaise which has arisen in
the West and which is now claiming millions of victims, human and non-human, throughout the world. Gaian perception connects us with the
seamless nature of existence, and opens up a new approach to scientific research based on scientific institutions arising from scientists’ personal,
deeply subjective ecological experience. When the young scientist in training has sat on a mountain top, and has completed her first major
assignment to ‘think like a mountain’, that is, to dwell and deeply identify with a mountain, mechanistic thinking will never take root in her
mind. When she eventually goes out to practise her science in the world, she will be fully aware that every
interconnected aspect of it has its own intrinsic value, irrespective of its usefulness to the economic activities
of human beings.
17
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Wipeout Alternative
Humanity as a whole has inflicted enough damage on the environment and non-human beings to
justify our removal as a species. No ethical grounds exist for justification for the continuation of
our empirically harmful existence.
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
This blurring and re-defining of the subject of moral discourse can be found in other ecocentric writings
(e.g. Lovelock, 1979; Eckersley, 1992) and in other philosophical approaches. [5] In part our approach
bears some similarity with these ‘holistic’ approaches in that we share dissatisfaction with the
modern, Western view of the ‘subject’ as purely human-centric. Further, we share some of their
criticism of bourgeois green lifestyles. However, our approach is to stay partly within the position of
the modern, Western human-centric view of the subject and to question what happens to it in the field
of moral action when environmental catastrophe demands the radical extension of ethical obligations
to non-human beings. That is, if we stick with the modern humanist subject of moral action, and follow
seriously the extension of ethical obligations to non-human beings, then we would suggest that what we
find is that the utopian demand of modern humanism turns over into a utopian anti-humanism, with
suicide as its outcome. One way of attempting to re-think the modern subject is thus to throw the
issue of suicide right in at the beginning and acknowledge its position in modern ethical thought. This
would be to recognise that the question of suicide resides at the center of moral thought, already.
There continues to be a debate over the extent to which humans have caused environmental problems
such as global warming (as opposed to natural, cyclical theories of the earth’s temperature change) and over
whether phenomena such as global warming can be halted or reversed. Our position is that regardless of
where one stands within these debates it is clear that humans have inflicted degrees of harm upon
non-human animals and the natural environment. And from this point we suggest that it is the
operation of speciesism as colonialism which must be addressed. One approach is of course to adopt
the approach taken by Singer and many within the animal rights movement and remove our species,
homo sapiens, from the centre of all moral discourse. Such an approach would thereby take into
account not only human life, but also the lives of other species, to the extent that the living
environment as a whole can come to be considered the proper subject of morality. We would suggest,
however, that this philosophical approach can be taken a number of steps further. If the standpoint that we
have a moral responsibility towards the environment in which all sentient creatures live is to be taken
seriously, then we perhaps have reason to question whether there remains any strong ethical grounds to
justify the further existence of humanity. For example, if one considers the modern scientific practice
of experimenting on animals, both the notions of progress and speciesism are implicitly drawn upon
within the moral reasoning of scientists in their justification of committing violence against nonhuman animals. The typical line of thinking here is that because animals are valued less than humans
they can be sacrificed for the purpose of expanding scientific knowledge focussed upon improving
human life. Certainly some within the scientific community, such as physiologist Colin Blakemore, contest
aspects of this claim and argue that experimentation on animals is beneficial to both human and nonhuman animals (e.g. Grasson, 2000, p.30). Such claims are ‘disingenuous’, however, in that they hide the
relative distinctions of value that underlie a moral justification for sacrifice within the practice of
experimentation (cf. LaFollette & Shanks, 1997, p.255). If there is a benefit to non-human animals this is
only incidental, what remains central is a practice of sacrificing the lives of other species for the benefit
of humans. Rather than reject this common reasoning of modern science we argue that it should be
reconsidered upon the basis of species equality. That is, modern science needs to ask the question of:
‘Who’ is the best candidate for ‘sacrifice’ for the good of the environment and all species concerned?
The moral response to the violence, suffering and damage humans have inflicted upon this earth and its
inhabitants might then be to argue for the sacrifice of the human species. The moral act would be the
global suicide of humanity.
18
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Wipeout Alt—Solvency—only
Withdrawing from modernity is impossible for humans—a wipeout is the only option
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
For some, guided by the pressure of moral conscience or by a practice of harm minimisation, the
appropriate response to historical and contemporary environmental destruction is that of action guided
by abstention. For example, one way of reacting to mundane, everyday complicity is the attempt to
abstain or opt-out of certain aspects of modern, industrial society: to not eat non-human animals, to
invest ethically, to buy organic produce, to not use cars and buses, to live in an environmentally
conscious commune. Ranging from small personal decisions to the establishment of parallel economies
(think of organic and fair trade products as an attempt to set up a quasi-parallel economy), a typical modern
form of action is that of a refusal to be complicit in human practices that are violent and destructive. Again,
however, at a practical level, to what extent are such acts of non- participation rendered banal by their
complicity in other actions? In a grand register of violence and harm the individual who abstains from
eating non-human animals but still uses the bus or an airplane or electricity has only opted out of some
harm causing practices and remains fully complicit with others. One response, however, which bypasses
the problem of complicity and the banality of action is to take the non-participation solution to its most
extreme level. In this instance, the only way to truly be non-complicit in the violence of the human
heritage would be to opt-out altogether. Here, then, the modern discourse of reflection, responsibility and
action runs to its logical conclusion – the global suicide of humanity – as a free-willed and ‘final
solution’.
19
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Wipeout Alt Solvency—thought experiment
The question of consider to what extent our existence is worth the harm of other species—
it’s a thought experiment
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
While we are not interested in the discussion of the ‘method’ of the global suicide of humanity per se, one
method that would be the least violent is that of humans choosing to no longer reproduce. [10] The
case at point here is that the global suicide of humanity would be a moral act; it would take humanity out
of the equation of life on this earth and remake the calculation for the benefit of everything nonhuman. While suicide in certain forms of religious thinking is normally condemned as something which
is selfish and inflicts harm upon loved ones, the global suicide of humanity would be the highest act of
altruism. That is, global suicide would involve the taking of responsibility for the destructive actions of the
human species. By eradicating ourselves we end the long process of inflicting harm upon other species
and offer a human-free world. If there is a form of divine intelligence then surely the human act of
global suicide will be seen for what it is: a profound moral gesture aimed at redeeming humanity.
Such an act is an offer of sacrifice to pay for past wrongs that would usher in a new future. Through the
death of our species we will give the gift of life to others.
It should be noted nonetheless that our proposal for the global suicide of humanity is based upon the
notion that such a radical action needs to be voluntary and not forced. In this sense, and given the
likelihood of such an action not being agreed upon, it operates as a thought experiment which may help
humans to radically rethink what it means to participate in modern, moral life within the natural world.
In other words, whether or not the act of global suicide takes place might well be irrelevant. What is
more important is the form of critical reflection that an individual needs to go through before coming
to the conclusion that the global suicide of humanity is an action that would be worthwhile. The point
then of a thought experiment that considers the argument for the global suicide of humanity is the
attempt to outline an anti-humanist, or non-human-centric ethics. Such an ethics attempts to take into
account both sides of the human heritage: the capacity to carry out violence and inflict harm and the
capacity to use moral reflection and creative social organisation to minimise violence and harm. Through
the idea of global suicide such an ethics reintroduces a central question to the heart of moral reflection:
To what extent is the value of the continuation of human life worth the total harm inflicted upon the
life of all others? Regardless of whether an individual finds the idea of global suicide abhorrent or
ridiculous, this question remains valid and relevant and will not go away, no matter how hard we try
to forget, suppress or repress it.
20
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Wipeout Alt Solvency—new standpoint
The proposal of a wipeout helps us identity the way in we value different forms of life
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
Finally, it is important to note that such a standpoint need not fall into a version of green or eco-fascism
that considers other forms of life more important than the lives of humans. Such a position merely
replicates in reverse the speciesism of modern humanist thought. Any choice between the eco-fascist and the
humanist, colonial-speciesist is thus a forced choice and is, in reality, a non-choice that should be rejected.
The point of proposing the idea of the global suicide of humanity is rather to help identify the way in
which we differentially value different forms of life and guide our moral actions by rigidly adhered to
standards of life-value. Hence the idea of global suicide, through its radicalism, challenges an ideological
or culturally dominant idea of life-value. Further, through confronting humanist ethics with its own
violence against the non-human, the idea of global suicide opens up a space for dialectical reflection in
which the utopian ideals of both modern humanist and anti-humanist ethics may be comprehended in
relation to each other. One possibility of this conflict is the production of a differing standpoint from
which to understand the subject and the scope of moral action.
21
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
22
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
23
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Cosmocentric Alternative
Cosmocentric framing is best- functions to include the extraterrestrial environment; allows
us to realize the interconnectedness of nature on a larger and more accurate scale
Lupisella 9 (Mark is and engineer and scientist for the NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center, “The search for extraterrestrial life: epistemology, ethics, and worldviews,”
Published in Exploring the Origin, Extent, and Future of Life: Philosophical, Ethical and
Theological Perspectives, September 28, 2009,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31517429/Exploring-the-Origin-Extent-And-Future-of-LifePhilosophical-Ethical-And-Theological-Perspectives-Constance-M-Bertka, Scribd)
In exploring ethical issues regarding the extraterrestrial environment, several writers have suggested
the need for a "cosmocentric ethic" because they conclude that existing ethical theories exclude the
extraterrestrial environment since they are geocentric and cannot be applied to extraterrestrial environments
[18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. While many philosophers would disagree about the extent to which ethical theories are narrowly constrained to
geocentric application, the relatively new context or "lens" of space does nevertheless appear to raise
interesting and novel ethical challenges, and provides us with an additional perspective with which to
re-examine ethics and value theory in general. Exploring a broader-based ethic such as a cosmocentric
ethic may be helpful in sorting through issues regarding the moral considerability of primitive
extraterrestrial life as well as other ethical issues that will confront humanity as we move out into the
solar system and beyond [23, 24]. But as with environmental ethics, an important challenge for a cosmocentric ethic is justifying
intrinsic value [25]. Indeed, part of the usefulness of appealing to the universe as a basis for an ethical view is that a justification of
intrinsic value and perhaps degrees thereof might be possible since it could be based on what is for many a compelling objective
absolute-the universe itself.Systemic nature is valuable as a productive system, with Earth and its humans on one,
even if perhaps the highest in richness or complexity, of its known projects. Nature is of value its capacity to
throw forward all the storied natural history. On that scale, humans on Earth are latecomers, and it seems
astronomically arrogant for such late products to say that the system is only of instrumental value, or
that not until humans appear to do their valuing does value appear in the universe. (Holmes Rolston III
[26]) Holmes Rolston offers a view that appeals to the "formed integrity" of "projective nature." This view
suggests that the universe creates objects of formed integrity (for example objects worthy of a proper
name) which have intrinsic value and which should be respected. Robert Haynes points out, how-ever,
that such a view appears to conflict with modifying the Earth, even to the benefit of humans [18]. The
systemic interdependent connectedness of ecosystems is often cited as a foundation justifying the value of
parts of the larger whole, since a subset con-tributes to the maintenance of the larger whole. Consider
Leopold's egalitarian ecosystem ethic: "A thing is right when it if to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong if it tends to do otherwise" [27]. Freya Mathews
suggests that intrinsic value can be grounded in self-realization, which is a function of
interconnectedness. The universe qualifies for selfhood and hence self-realization (again, for which
interconnectedness plays a critical role) and humans participate in this cosmic self-realization.
24
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Cosmocentric Alt Solvency—new ethic
Establishing a new all-encompassing framework is critical to realizing that all beings have
intrinsic value, not just to be seen as instruments for human use
Frodeman (Robert Frodeman is a Proffessor and former chair in the Dept. of Philosophy at
the University of North Texas, “Separated at Birth, Signs of Rapprochement
Environmental Ethics and Space Exploration,” Vol. 13 No. 1 Spring 2008, Project Muse,
Ethics and the Environment Journal
http://www.csid.unt.edu/files/env_ethics_and_space.pdf)
Lessons learned about our
impact on the Earth’s surface and atmosphere have relevance as we travel
beyond our home planet. The unintended and often destructive effects of humankind on the Earth environment
highlight the need for caution and restraint as we travel beyond our home planet . Several authors,
acknowledging the probability that humans will one day be active and constant presences in
space, have suggested the need to identify and preserve wilderness areas on celestial and
planetary bodies. Using the United States National Parks System as an analogue, scientists Charles Cockell and Gerda
Horneck (2004) suggest that an extraterrestrial park system with strict regulations and enforcement measures would go a long
way to ensure that portions of Mars remain pristine for science, native biota (if any exist), and human appreciation. Such a policy
would acknowledge the competing interests and priorities of many parties: national space agencies, the international community,
the community of space scientists, private enterprises who have fixed their sights on space tourism, commercial, and/or industrial
enterprises in space, environmental ethicists, and the general public. The issues involved are complex. National Parks in the
United States were established after centuries of thinking through the relationships between human and
nonhuman, nature and culture, beauty, truth, and the sublime, and humans’ obligations toward
the Earth. Scientists and political decision-makers will have to confront these issues, whether
explicitly or implicitly, as they consider the future of the space program. But this thinking will
now take place in a context where humans are aliens. Earthbound environmental philosophy occurs in a context
where we are a natural part of the environment. On other planets we face a new first question: what are the
ethical and philosophical dimensions of visiting or settling other planets? In short, should we go there at
all? To date,the discussion of natural places has turned on questions concerning intrinsic and instrumental values. Intrinsic values
theorists claim that things have value for their own sake, in contrast to theories of instru- mental value where things are good
because they can be used to obtain something else of value (economic or otherwise). This debate tends to get caught
up in attempts at extending the sphere of intrinsically valuable entities. Ethical extensionism
depends on human definitions of moral considerability, which typically stem from some degree of
identification with things outside us. This anthropocentric and geocentric environmental
perspective shows cracks when we try to extend it to the cosmic environment. The few national or
international policies currently in place that mention the environment of outer space (e.g. NASA’s planetary protection policy,
United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space) consider the preservation of planetary bodies for science,
human exploration, and possible future habitation, but there is not yet any policy that considers whether these
anthropocentric priorities should supersede the preservation of possible indigenous
extraterrestrial life, or the environmental or geological integrity of the extraterrestrial
environment. Anticipating the need for policy decisions regarding space exploration, Mark Lupisella and John Logsdon
suggest the possibility of a cosmocentricethic, “one which (1) places the universe at the center, or
establishes the universe as the priority in a value system, (2) appeals to something characteristic
of the universe (physical and/or metaphysical) which might then (3) provide a justification of
value, presumably intrin- sic value, and (4) allow for reasonably objective measurement of value”
(Lupisella & Logsdon 1997,1). The authors discuss the need to establish policies for pre-detection and post-detection of life
on Mars,and suggest that a cosmocentric ethic would provide a justification for a conservative
approach to space exploration and science—conservative in the sense of considering possible impacts before we
act.5 A Copernican shift in con- sciousness, from regarding the Earth as the center of the universe
to one of it being the home of participants in a cosmic story,is necessary in order to achieve the
proper environmental perspective as we venture beyond our home planet. Of course, given current and
prospective space technology, our range is quite limited. The current Pluto New Horizons probe, launched by NASA in January
2006, travels at 50,000 mph, the limit of chemical propulsion. At such speeds Pluto is nine years distant, Alpha Centauri 55,000.
On the other hand, there are perhaps 1000 near Earth asteroids greater than 100 meters—not counting those in the Asteroid Belt
beyond Mars—with a frequency of impact of perhaps one in a hundred years that would cause a regional scale disaster.
25
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Impact— extinction of natural environment
This mode of thinking strips nonhuman life of all beauty and restricts ethical concern to
humans, which leads to extinction of the natural environment
Ahkin (Mélanie works at Monash University, “Human Centrism, Animist Materialism, and
the Critique of Rationalism in Val. Plumwood’s Critical Ecological Feminism,” Emergent
Australasian Philosophers, 2010, Issue 3, http://www.eap.philosophyaustralia.com/issue_3/EAP3_AHKIN_Human_Centrism.pdf)
Such an anthropocentric framework creates a variety of serious injustices and prudential risks, making
it highly ecologically irrational.13 The hierarchical value prescriptions and epistemic distortions responsible
for its biased, reductive conceptualisation of nature strips the non-human natural realm of noninstrumental value, and impedes the fair and impartial treatment of its members. Similarly,
anthropocentrism creates distributive injustices by restricting ethical concern to humans, admitting
partisan distributive relationships with non-human nature in the forms of commodification and
instrumentalisation. The prudential risks and blindspots created by anthropocentrism are problematic for
nature and humans alike and are of especial concern within our current context of radical human dependence
on an irreplaceable and increasingly degraded natural environment. These prudential risks are in large part
consequences of the centric structure's promotion of illusory human disembeddedness, self-enclosure and
insensitivity to the significance and survival needs of non-human nature: Within the context of humannature relationships, such a logic must inevitably lead to failure, either through the catastrophic
extinction of our natural environment and the consequent collapse of our species, or more hopefully
by the abandonment and transformation of the human centric framework.15 Whilst acknowledging the
importance of prudential concerns for the motivation of practical change, Plumwood emphasises the
weightier task of acknowledging injustices to non-humans in order to bring about adequate dispositional
change. The model of enlightened self-interest implicit in prudentially motivated action is inadequate
to this task insofar as it remains within the framework of human centrism. Although it acknowledges
the possibility of relational interests, it rests on a fundamental equivocation between instrumental and
relational forms of concern for others. Indeed it motivates action either by appeal to humans' ultimate
self-interest, thus failing to truly acknowledge injustices caused to non-human others, remaining
caught within the prudentially risky framework of anthropocentrism, or else it accepts that others'
interests count as reasons for action- enabling recognition of injustices- but it does so in a manner which
treats the intersection of others' needs with more fully-considered human interests as contingent and
transient. Given this analysis, it is clear that environmental concern must be based on a deeper
recognition of injustice, in addition to that of prudence, if it is to overcome illusions of human
disembeddedness and self-enclosure and have a genuine and lasting effect.
26
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Impact—speciesism
The ability to suffer puts animals and humans on the same level; to disregard this
connection and think we possess superior moral status is similar to the logic of sexists and
racists
Singer 3 [Pete, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University; Professor at the Centre for
Applied Philosophy at the University of Melbourne]May15, 2003,“Animal Liberation at
30” The New York Review of Books, Vol. 50, No. 8
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer04.htm
In the text that followed, I urged that despite obvious differences between humans and nonhuman
animals, we share with them a capacity to suffer, and this means that they, like us, have interests. If we
ignore or discount their interests, simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the
logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists who think that those who
belong to their race or sex have superior moral status, simply in virtue of their race or sex, and
irrespective of other characteristics or qualities. Although most humans may be superior in reasoning or in
other intellectual capacities to nonhuman animals, that is not enough to justify the line we draw between
humans and animals. Some humans—infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities—have
intellectual capacities inferior to some animals, but we would, rightly, be shocked by anyone who
proposed that we inflict slow, painful deaths on these intellectually inferior humans in order to test the
safety of household products. Nor, of course, would we tolerate confining them in small cages and then
slaughtering them in order to eat them. The fact that we are prepared to do these things to nonhuman
animals is therefore a sign of "speciesism"—a prejudice that survives because it is convenient for the
dominant group— in this case not whites or males, but all humans.
27
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
AT: Perm
A combination in moral theories justifies self-serving actions such as the aff
Lupisella and Logsdon 97 (“DO WE NEED A COSMOCENTRIC ETHIC?” MARK
LUPISELLA{University of Maryland} and JOHN LOGSDON {Director, Space Policy
Institute, The George Washington University}November 1997)
Steve Gillett has suggested a hybrid view combining homocentrism as applied to terrestrial activity
combined with biocentrism towards worlds with indigenous life.32 Invoking such a patchwork of theories
to help deal with different domains and circumstances could be considered acceptable and perhaps even
desirable especially when dealing with something as varied and complex as ethics. Indeed, it has a certain
common sense appeal. However, instead of digging deeply into what is certainly a legitimate
epistemological issue, let us consider the words of J. Baird Callicott: “But there is both a rational
philosophical demand and a human psychological need for a self-consistent and all embracing moral
theory. We are neither good philosophers nor whole persons if for one purpose we adopt utilitarianism,
another deontology, a third animal liberation, a fourth the land ethic, and so on. Such ethical eclecticism
is not only rationally intolerable, it is morally suspect as it invites the suspicion of ad hoc
rationalizations for merely expedient or self-serving actions.”33
28
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
AT: Perm—serial policy failure
To allow the aff to still happen is the banality of evil; this re-entrenches policies created in
anthropocentric paradigms and causes serial policy failure
Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, “An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity,” December
2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au,
http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
In one sense, the human individual’s modern complicity in environmental violence represents
something of a bizarre symmetry to Hannah Arendt’s notion of the ‘banality of evil’ (Arendt, 1994). For
Arendt, the Nazi regime was an emblem of modernity, being a collection of official institutions
(scientific, educational, military etc.) in which citizens and soldiers alike served as clerks in a bureaucratic
mechanism run by the state. These individuals committed evil, but they did so in a very banal manner:
fitting into the state mechanism, following orders, filling in paperwork, working in factories, driving
trucks and generally respecting the rule of law. In this way perhaps all individuals within the modern
industrial world carry out a banal evil against the environment simply by going to work, sitting in
their offices and living in homes attached to a power grid. Conversely, those individuals who are driven
by a moral intention to not do evil and act so as to save the environment, are drawn back into a banality of
the good. By their ability to effect change in only very small aspects of their daily life, or in political-social
life more generally, modern individuals are forced to participate in the active destruction of the
environment even if they are the voices of contrary intention. What is ‘banal’ in this sense is not the lack
of a definite moral intention but, rather, the way in which the individual’s or institution’s
participation in everyday modern life, and the unintentional contribution to environmental destruction
therein, contradicts and counteracts the smaller acts of good intention. The banality of action hits against
a central problem of social-political action within late modernity. In one sense, the ethical demand to
respond to historical and present environmental destruction opens onto a difficulty within the relationship
between moral intention and autonomy. While an individual might be autonomous in respect of moral
conscience, their fundamental interconnection with and inter- dependence upon social, political and
economic orders strips them of the power to make and act upon truly autonomous decisions. From this
perspective it is not only the modern humanist figures such as Hawking who perpetuate present violence and
present dreams of colonial speciesist violence in the future. It is also those who might reject this violence
but whose lives and actions are caught up in a certain complicity for this violence. From a variety of
political standpoints, it would seem that the issue of modern, autonomous action runs into difficulties of
systematic and institutional complicity.
29
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
AT: Reciprocal ethics
Justifying deplorable treatment of animals with ethics stemming from reciprocity is flawed
Singer 3 [Pete, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University; Professor at the Centre for
Applied Philosophy at the University of Melbourne]May15, 2003,“Animal Liberation at
30” The New York Review of Books, Vol. 50, No. 8
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer04.htm
That takes us to the second question. If species is not morally important in itself,
is there something else that
happens to coincide with the human species, on the basis of which we can justify the inferior
consideration we give to nonhuman animals?Peter Carruthers argues that it is the lack of a capacity to
reciprocate. Ethics, he says, arises out of an agreement that if I do not harm you, you will not harm me.
Since animals cannot take part in this social contract we have no direct duties to them. [8] The difficulty
with this approach to ethics is that it also means we have no direct duties to small children, or to future
generations yet unborn. If we produce radioactive waste that will be deadly for thousands of years, is it
unethical to put it into a container that will last 150 years and drop it into a convenient lake? If it is,
ethics cannot be based on reciprocity.
30
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
AT: “Nonliving” irrelevant
Whether or not something is ‘living’ by our standards doesn’t compromise the intrinsic
value of it; there’s no clear distinction in the environment
Nicholson 92 (Shirley J. Nicholson, former chief editor of Quest Books , Krotona Institute
of Theosophy in Ojai, CA, "Gaia's Hidden Life: The Unseen Intelligence of Nature" 1992,
http://books.google.com/books?id=dLJW84nISZYC&dq=gaia+nicholson&lr=&source=gbs
_navlinks_s, Google Books)
If this vital force, like Sheldrake's "immaterial" and "subtle" something that makes a body alive, is the energy that is
equivalent to all matter (E=mc2), then indeed everything is alive, including those things we usually
consider inanimate, such as rocks, water, and molecules.
Esoteric philosophy has long held that everything is alive. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, in her source book of ancient wisdom The Secret
Doctrine, confirms this view: "It has been stated before now that Occultism does not accept anything inorganic in the Kosmos. The
expression employed by Science, "Inorganic substance,' means simply that the latent life slumbering in the
molecules of so called 'inert matter' is incognizable. ALL IS LIFE, and every atom of every mineral
dust is a LIFE, though beyond our comprehension and perception, because it is outside the ranger of the laws known to those who
reject Occultism" In this view even the remains of a dead animal contain potential life force that permeates
everything in the universe, but it becomes obvious to us only when the organism is imbued with
purpose and self regulation, as is a living plant or a human being.
There are certainly those who would vehemently disagree with this interpretation of what in our world (and perhaps in the universe, too)
can be considered as life. Lovelock mentioned in his definition of life, similar to Blavatsky's, that this sort of definition would
also apply to flowing streams, to hurricanes, to flames, or possibly even to objects made by humans.
However, Lovelock and Margulis, after much soul-searching, have come to observe that the boundary between
life and what we consider inanimate (the fire, the flowing steam, rocks), which most of us intuitively
believe not to be alive, may not be so easily drawn after all. They studied the complex interactions on our Gaian earth,
the way plant becomes rock becomes gas becomes a part of plant again. They considered that matter and energy appear to be completely
different yet completely interchangeable. They concluded that one can substitute living organisms and their inorganic
environment for each other. This is tantamount to stating that at least all matter on earth is alive, and perhaps this includes
all matter in the universe as well. According to Lovelock, "there is no clear distinction anywhere on the
Earth's surface between living and nonliving matter. There is merely a hierarchy of intensity going
form the 'material' environment of the rocks and the atmosphere to the living cells. "
31
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
-----AFF ANSWERS----No Link—we protect an ecosystem
We do prioritize the intrinsic value of the environment; this is uniquely ecocentric
Purser et. al 95 (Ronald E. Purser is an assistant professor of organization development at
the University of Chicago, Changkil Park is a doctoral candidate in the Dept. of
Organizational Behaviour at Case Western Reserve University, Alfonso Montuori is an
adjunct professor at Saybrook Institute and College of Notre Dame. “Limits to
Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?” The Academy of
Management Review, October 1995, JSTOR, p.1053-1089, Vol. 20, No.4,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258965
The ecocentric responsibility paradigm is based on efforts to maintain, preserve, or restore the health of
ecosystems. Legislation pertaining to the loss of wetlands, old-growth forests, and the Wilderness Acts are just
some examples of where a responsibility for preserving the health of the land has been of major concern (Des
Jardins, 1993; Leopold, 1970; Rolston, 1994). As Leopold (1970: 274) pointed out, "A science of land health
needs, first of all, a base-datum of normality, a picture of how healthy land maintains itself as an organism."
This picture is usually derived from ecosystem studies of pristine natural systems with their biological
integrity intact; that is, ecosystems that have not been culturally modified. The health and integrity of a
culturally modified eco- system can be gauged by comparing its functioning with that of a pristine counterpart,
usually located in wilderness areas. "Wilderness," as Leopold (1970: 274) pointed out, "assumes unexpected
importance as a laboratory for the study of land health." An ecosystem's biological integrity is intact to the
extent that it has the ability to maintain "a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and functional orga- nization comparable to the natural habitat of the region" (Karr &
Dudley, 1981; cited in Rolston, 1994: 70). To measure the relative integrity of an ecosystem, conservation
biologists might compare the species constitu- tion of an affected area to that of similar ecosystems that have
not been invaded by humans. Similarly, indicators of ecosystem health have to do with systemic capacities for
self-repair and resilience to stress. A well- functioning, healthy ecosystem is stable and sustainable as member organisms can flourish in their respective niches, free of "distress syn- drome" (Constanza, Norton, & Haskell, 1992).
This is ecosystem health as Leopold defined it: "the capacity of the land for self-renewal" (1970: 258). Healthy
ecosystems then do not require constant repair, upkeep, and management. In contrast, unhealthy ecosystems
require "environmental management," constant doctoring, and engineering. The focus on ecosys- tem
health in this paradigm is not simply to preserve wilderness by at- tempting to outlaw culture from the
perimeters of nature. Modern culture is also a part of nature. Rather, the issue is one of conserving natural
values (Rolston, 1994)-that is, values that do not place the health of ecosystems at risk-values that allow
cultural systems to flourish within safe operating limits and that are fitted to support the biological integrity
of ecosystems. Rolston (1994: 71) maintained that healthy ecosystems "produce natural values, as well as support
cultural values, and such productivity and support is the bottom-line." This shift in perspective places primary
emphasis upon the valuing of ecosystem integrity. Cul- tural development is acceptable so long as ecological
integrity or ecosys- tem health are sustainable. In this case, the focus is on ecological sus- tainability, rather than
sustainable development.
32
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—we protect biodiversity
We protect biodiversity and are instilling a paradigm of intrinsic value rather than
instrumentality for our involvement with nature
Purser et. al 95 (Ronald E. Purser is an assistant professor of organization development at
the University of Chicago, Changkil Park is a doctoral candidate in the Dept. of
Organizational Behaviour at Case Western Reserve University, Alfonso Montuori is an
adjunct professor at Saybrook Institute and College of Notre Dame. “Limits to
Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?” The Academy of
Management Review, October 1995, JSTOR, p.1053-1089, Vol. 20, No.4,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/258965
An ecocentric perspective also gives moral consideration to ecologi- cal "wholes," such as forests,
wetlands, lakes, grasslands, deserts-that are both biotic and abiotic communities. Such ecological
communities are composed of many interdependent relationships. Rather than focusing upon the study of
species isolated from their habitat, an ecocentric per- spective is holistic: the focus is upon
understanding and explaining how a species or biological organism functions within the overall
context of ecosystem processes and relationships. Every species and biological organism is viewed as a
member of a larger biotic community. Ethical holism is derived from this ecocentric perspective: Each
species and bi- ological organism depends upon a web of relationships within its eco- system; conversely,
the stability and integrity of an ecosystem is depen- dent upon the function, role, and operation of
various species interacting in mutually beneficial ways.
33
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—some interference okay
Some instances of stewardship are justifiable; it priorities not just human life, but the
preservation of all life forms.
Grey 93 (William is professor at the University of Queensland, Australian National
University, Temple University, and the University of New England, “Anthropocentrism
and Deep Ecology,” Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475,
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html)
Suppose that astronomers detect a modest asteroid or comet, say five or ten kilometres diameter, on
collision course with planet Earth [8]. The impending collision would be perfectly natural all right, and
cataclysmic enough to do to us what another one rather like it probably did to the dinosaurs. Such periodic
disruptive events are natural all right, though they probably destroy most of the then extant large life
forms. These times of renewal provide opportunities for smaller, flexible organisms to radiate
opportunistically into vacated niches, and life goes on. From a biocentric or ecocentric perspective there
is little doubt that our demise would provide comparable opportunities for development which we
currently prevent. Should we, in such circumstances, step aside so that evolution can continue on its
majestic course? I think not, and I think further that interference with the natural course of events, if
it could be effected, would be no bad thing—at least from our point of view and in terms of our
interests, which it is quite legitimate to promote and favour.
Suppose again that we are entering one of the periodic epochs of reduced solar energy flux. An ice age is
imminent, with massive disruptions to the agriculturally productive temperate zones. However suppose
further that by carefully controlled emissions of greenhouse gases it would be possible to maintain a stable
and productive agriculture. A the detriment of various arctic plant and animal species, but I do not think that
such interference, though "unnatural" would be therefore deplorable. Nature in and of itself is not, I
suggest, something to be valued independently of human interests. It could be argued moreover that in
thus modifying our natural environment, we would be following the precedent of three billion years of
organic evolution, since according to the Gaia hypothesis of Lovelock (1979), the atmosphere and oceans
are not just biological products, but biological constructions.
34
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—satellites
Satellites are the least impacting on the environment
Bhutia 10 (WANGCHEN RIGZIN BHUTIA [West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences],“Protection of the Outer Space Environment”; March 17, 2010.
http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
The use of space for various purposes is increasing day by day. Satellites have been launched by the spacecapable nations including the United States, erstwhile Soviet Union, the European Space Agency, France,
Germany, Japan, China and India for number of applications. The most important application relates to the field of
communications. The satellite communication has brought the world closer and promoted the concept of
global village. Telecommunications was the first aspect of outer space activity to be commercialized. It
remains the most lucrative sector of space commerce. Telecommunications is also the sector with the least
potential for environmental damage from its primary activity. This has led to a number of benefits to man.
Entertainment worldwide is provided by satellite hook up. The weather satellites have helped in the weather
forecasting and monitoring has been a lot easier. The transportation sector of space commerce that is, services for
carrying payloads into outer space, experienced the greatest growth during the 1980s. It has also been the most
competitive sector. Space transportation activities have the greatest present potential for adverse environmental
effects. These activities involve the highest risk of accidents, and they create more waste and debris than do other
types of space commerce. Thus, they have the potential to affect the environment in many different ways, both on
the Earth and in space. Remote Sensing are used for resource mapping, monitoring forest cover and other uses. It is
a small but a competitive and politically controversial are of the commercial activities in space.
35
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—we remove space debris
Space debris can harm the earth’s environment if they come into our atmosphere
Bhutia 10 (WANGCHEN RIGZIN BHUTIA [West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences],“Protection of the Outer Space Environment”; March 17, 2010.
http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
‘Debris’ is derived from the French ‘debrise’ which means to break down. There are no treaties which have given a definition of this
word. In general use, the term debris consists of spent space objects, used rocket stage, separation devices,
shrouds clamps, and all large and small fragments including the particles remaining after the disintegration
of the space objects. Carl Q. Christol suggests that the debris is something that possesses tangible, physical characteristics of the
kind that can be seen, touched, weighed and processed in factories and analysed in the laboratories. He further said that ‘debris’
may consists of a space object, including its component parts, or it may be composed of fragments that are located in
space or which endure the test of atmosphere and ultimately comes to rest on the surface of the
earth.
36
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
PERM—combine theory and practice
A pragmatic approach is best to preserve the life of all beings
Frodeman (Robert Frodeman is a Proffessor and former chair in the Dept. of Philosophy at
the University of North Texas, “Separated at Birth, Signs of Rapprochement
Environmental Ethics and Space Exploration,” Vol. 13 No. 1 Spring 2008, Project Muse,
Ethics and the Environment Journal
http://www.csid.unt.edu/files/env_ethics_and_space.pdf)
Revolutions in philosophic understanding and cultural worldviews inevitably accompany revolutions in science. As
we expand our
exploration of the heavens, we will also reflect on the broader human implications of advances in space.
Moreover, our appreciation of human impact on Earth systems will expand as we come to see the Earth within
the context of the solar system. Most fundamentally, we need to anticipate and wrestle with the epistemological,
metaphysical, and theological dimensions of space exploration, including the possibility of extraterres- trial
life and the development of the space environment, as it pertains to our common understanding of the
universe and of ourselves. Such reflection should be performed by philosophers, metaphysicians, and
theologians in regular conversation with the scientists who investigate space and the policy makers that
direct the space program. The exploration of the universe is no experimental science, contained and controlled in a laboratory, but takes
place in a vast and dynamic network of interconnected, interdependent realities. If (environmental) philosophy is to be a significant source of
insight, philosophers will need to have a much broader range of effective strategies for interdisciplinary collaborations, framing their
reflections with the goal of achieving policy-relevant results. If it is necessary for science and policy-makers to heed the advice
of philosophers, it is equally necessary for philosophers to speak in concrete terms about real-world problems. A philosophic questioning
about the relatedness of humans and the universe, in collaboration with a pragmatic, interdisciplinary
approach to environmental problems, is the most responsible means of developing both the science and
policy for the exploration of the final frontier.
37
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Fails—hopeless
Anti-anthropocentrism is circular and can never truly be achieved; it requires rejecting all
values and preferences so much so that we cannot flourish
Grey 93 (William is professor at the University of Queensland, Australian National
University, Temple University, and the University of New England, “Anthropocentrism
and Deep Ecology,” Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475,
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html)
The attempt to provide a genuinely non-anthropocentric set of values, or preferences seems to be a
hopeless quest. Once we eschew all human values, interests and preferences we are confronted with
just too many alternatives, as we can see when we consider biological history over a billion year time scale.
The problem with the various non-anthropocentric bases for value which have been proposed is that they
permit too many different possibilities, not all of which are at all congenial to us. And that matters. We
should be concerned to promote a rich, diverse and vibrant biosphere. Human flourishing may
certainly be included as a legitimate part of such a flourishing.
The preoccupations of deep ecology arise as a result of human activities which impoverish and degrade
the quality of the planet's living systems. But these judgements are possible only if we assume a set of
values (that is, preference rankings), based on human preferences. We need to reject not
anthropocentrism, but a particularly short term and narrow conception of human interests and
concerns. What's wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that
they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified
anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding
conception.
Our sort of world, with our sort of fellow occupants is an interesting and engaging place. There is every
reason for us to try to keep it, and ourselves, going for a few more cosmic seconds [10]
38
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Fails—bacteria rules
Their totalizing criticism of anthropocentrism fails—bacteria is the dominant life form
Grey 93 (William is professor at the University of Queensland, Australian National
University, Temple University, and the University of New England, “Anthropocentrism
and Deep Ecology,” Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475,
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html)
Consider some extreme cases: should we be concerned about the fate of the planet several billion years
hence, or about the welfare of bacteria? I think not. Such concern would be pointless and misdirected
for the simple reason that there's nothing we can do to affect the fate of the planet in the very long term,
or to seriously disrupt the welfare of single-celled creatures. Bacteria have been the dominant life form
on the planet for more than three billion years—about five sixths of evolutionary history—and will almost
certainly continue long after the demise of our species. It is often said that we live in the Age of
Mammals; but, as Gould has pointed out, it is now, as it has always been, the Age of Bacteria. There are
more e. coli in every human intestine than there have ever been homo sapiens. Multicellular life is a
comparatively recent arrival in the biosphere, having evolved only within the last half billion years or so.
39
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Fails—purely ecocentric bad
Purely ecocentric or biocentric perspectives offers no standards for making decisions and
moving forward
Grey 93 (William is professor at the University of Queensland, Australian National
University, Temple University, and the University of New England, “Anthropocentrism
and Deep Ecology,” Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, Vol 71, No 4 (1993), pp. 463-475,
http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html)
Other natural properties—such as biodiversity, beauty, harmony, stability, and integrity—have been
proposed to provide a non-anthropocentric basis for value. But unless we smuggle in some
anthropocentric bearings, they fare no better than the property of being the outcome of a natural
process in providing an intuitively plausible ordering of better and worse states of the world. For
example, if biodiversity is taken as a basic value-giving characteristic, then the state of the planet just
after the Cambrian explosion (about 570 million years ago) would be rated much more highly than the
world of the present, as it was far richer in terms of the range and diversity of its constituent creatures.
Most biology textbooks recognize between twenty and thirty extant animal phyla—the phylum being the
fundamental design plan of an organism (and the second broadest classification, following 'kingdom', in
biological taxonomy). Yet the Burgess Shale, one small quarry in British Columbia dating back some 530
million years, contains the remains of fifteen to twenty organisms so unlike one another, or anything now
living, as to each constitute a separate phylum (Gould 1989). In terms of basic diversity, a far greater range
of radically different anatomical types existed at that epoch of evolutionary development.
These examples disclose a serious difficulty for a view such as Goodin's which seeks a non-anthropocentric
naturalistic basis for value [9]. The fundamental problem is that we can rank preferences only given
some anthropocentric bearings. An austerely ecocentric or biocentric perspective delivers no
determinate answer as to which of the abundant and wonderfully various unfolding planetary biotas
should be preferred.
40
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
-----Deep Ecology K----1NC (1/)
The current world wide view is that man dominates over nature as he does in his
technocratic society that he created for himself. Deep ecology is needed in order to awaken
the deep inner spirit within that is needed to change world ideals
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San
Francisco and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata,
California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George
Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends
(1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial
Logging (1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on
the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered; pg 65-66)
Many of these questions are perennial philosophical and religious questions faced by humans in all cultures
over the ages. What does it mean to be a unique human individual? How can the individual self maintain and
increase its uniqueness while also being an inseparable aspect of the whole system wherein there are no sharp
breaks between self and the other? An ecological perspective, in this deeper sense, results in what
Theodore Roszak calls "an awakening of wholes greater than the sum of their parts. In
spirit, the discipline is contemplative and therapeutic."'
Ecological consciousness and deep ecology are in sharp contrast with the dominant
worldview of technocratic-industrial societies which regards humans as isolated and
fundamentally separate from the rest of Nature, as superior to, and in charge of, the
rest of creation. But the view of humans as separate and superior to the rest, of
Nature is only part of larger cultural patterns. For thousands of years, Western culture has become
increasingly obsessed with the idea of dominance: with dominance of humans over nonhuman Nature, masculine over the feminine,
wealthy and powerful over the poor, with the dominance of the West over non-Western cultures. Deep
ecological
consciousness allows us to see through these erroneous and dangerous illusions.
1NC (2/)
We control uniqueness the current view of deep ecology is not in the worldly view of
humanity.
41
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 66)
Warwick Fox, an Australian philosopher, has succinctly expressed the central
intuition of deep ecology: "It is the idea that we can make no firm ontological divide in the
field of existence: That there is no bifurcation in reality between the human and the nonhuman realms ... to the extent that we perceive boundaries, we fall short of deep ecological
consciousness."
1NC (3/)
We need to become self-realized in order to live a better life with nature, the method to
achieve this is without the state since it just corrupts the entire process of self-realization.
42
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 66-67)
In keeping with the spiritual traditions of many of the world's religions, the deep
ecology norm of self-realization goes beyond the modern Western self which is defined as
an isolated ego striving primarily for hedonistic gratification or for a narrow sense of
individual salvation in this life or the next. This socially programmed sense of the narrow self or social
self dislocates us, and leaves us prey to whatever fad or fashion is prevalent in our society or
social reference group. We are thus robbed of beginning the search for our unique
spiritual/biological personhood. Spiritual growth, or unfolding, begins when we cease to
understand or see ourselves as isolated and narrow competing egos and begin to identify
with other humans from our family and friends to, eventually, our species. But the deep- ecology
sense of self requires a further maturity and growth, an identification which goes beyond humanity to include the nonhuman world. We must
see beyond our narrow contemporary cultural assumptions and values, and the
conventional wisdom of our time and place, and this is best achieved by the meditative deep
questioning process. Only in this way can we hope to attain full mature personhood and uniqueness.
A nurturing nondominating society can help in the "real work" of becoming a
whole person. The "real work" can be summarized symbolically as the realization of "selfin-Self" where "Self" stands for organic wholeness. This process of the full unfolding of the self can also be
summarized by the phrase, "No one is saved until we are all saved," where the phrase "one" includes not only me, an individual human, but all
humans, whales, grizzly bears, whole rain forest ecosystems, mountains and rivers, the tiniest microbes in the soil, and so on.
43
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
We need a close relationship with nature it is as basic as the need for food, water, and
shelter for without we cannot become fully developed mature humans
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 68)
A fuller discussion of the
biocentric norm as it unfolds itself in practice begins with the realization
that we, as individual humans, and as communities of humans, have vital needs which go
beyond such basics as food, water, and shelter to include love, play, creative expression,
intimate relationships with a particular landscape (or Nature taken in its entirety) as well
as intimate relationships with other humans, and the vital need for spiritual growth, for
becoming a mature human being.
44
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—technology
The technocratic society is leading to over consumption through the spread of propaganda
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 68)
Our vital material needs are probably more simple than many realize. In
technocratic-industrial societies there is overwhelming propaganda and advertising which
encourages false needs and destructive desires designed to foster increased production and
consumption of goods. Most of this actually diverts us from facing reality in an objective
way and from beginning the "real work" of spiritual growth and maturity.
45
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—space
the human view needs to change along with the notion of outer space as the escape idea that
is bad we need to focus our efforts onto fixing rather than escaping the planet that gave
birth to the human race.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco
and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall
is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book,
Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of
Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging (1993). He is completing a book
on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered; pg 176)
The overall claim here has been that the explicit or implicit utopian visions of the
technocratic social worldview-of humans dominating and managing Nature as a resource
in the production
of the "artificial environment" or as an expendable launching pad in the journey to outer
space are indefensible. Human attention must now rapidly shift to an ecological worldview
and utopian vision to serve as a guide for individual and social values and action.
Intellectual debate must focus on the refinement of these visions together with appropriate
social strategies. Educational goals and strategies must follow suit
46
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—development—overpopulation
Overpopulation is bad the people of richer nations produce the most waste per individual
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 72)
As many ecologists have pointed out, it is
also absolutely crucial to curb population growth in the socalled developed (i.e., overdeveloped) industrial societies. Given the tremendous rate of
consumption and waste production of individuals in these societies, they represent a much
greater threat and impact on the biosphere per capita than individuals in Second and
Third World countries.
47
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—government
Government interaction for the environment is bad especially when that is applied to third
world nations that have no interest in deep ecological ideals in the first place.
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 73)
Governments in Third World countries (with the exception of Costa Rica and a few others) are
uninterested in deep ecological issues. When the governments of industrial societies try to
promote ecological measures through Third World governments, practically nothing is
accomplished (e.g., with problems of desertification). Given this situation, support for global action
through nongovernmental international organizations becomes increasingly important. Many
of these organizations are able to act globally "from grassroots to grassroots," thus avoiding negative governmental interference.
48
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—farming
Farming is bad and it is a disease that is destroying the planet it needs to eradicated and
replaced with hunting and gathering it is in our genetics.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco
and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall
is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book,
Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of
Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging (1993). He is completing a book
on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered; pg 172-173)
Not only is farming itself an ecological disease, according to Shepard, but the traditional peasant has
led "the dullest life man has ever lived." While the pioneer subsistence farm is in fairly
close ecological harmony, farmers in a monocultural setting "require constant social
supercharging to remain sane and human." Rural life is hopeless in modern industrial
irrigation farming. Domestic plants and animals are biological disasters, he claims; they
are "genetic goofies." Shepard agrees with Brownell that humans need wild animals in their natural
habitat to model themselves after and become fully human; domesticated pets and farm
animals provide pathetically inadequate substitutes. For Shepard, an ecologically sane future
requires that almost all forms of farming together with genetically-altered plants and
animals must go. Another requirement for the future is the full recognition that humans
are genetically hunters and gatherers: Most people seem to agree that we cannot and do not want to go back to the past; but
the reason given is often wrong: that time has moved on and what was can never be again. The truth is that we can not go back to what we never
left. Our home is the earth, our time the Pleistocene Ice Ages. The past is the formula for our being. Cynegetic man is us.
49
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—science
We can’t expect for science to be the saving grace for all of our problems in the status quo.
Science just shows the view from shallow ecology, with deep ecology we are able to identify
ourselves with other beings like animals and landscapes and feel as they feel, but only with
ecological maturity.
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 75)
"All the sciences are fragmentary and incomplete in relation to basic rules and norms, so
it's very shallow to think that science can solve our problems. Without basic norms, there is
no science.”
"... People can then oppose nuclear power without having to read thick books and without knowing the myriad facts that are used in
newspapers and periodicals. And they must also find others who feel the same and form circles of friends who give one another confidence and
support in living in a way that the majority find ridiculous, naive, stupid and simplistic. But in order to do that, one must already have enough
self-confidence to follow one's intuition a quality very much lacking in broad sections of the populace. Most people follow the trends and
advertisements and become philosophical and ethical cripples.”
"There is a basic intuition in deep ecology that we have no right to destroy other living
beings without sufficient reason. Another norm is that, with maturity, human beings will
experience joy when other life forms experience joy and sorrow when other life forms
experience sorrow. Not only will we feel sad when our brother or a dog or a cat feels sad,
but we will grieve when living beings, including landscapes, are destroyed. In our
civilization, we have vast means of destruction at our disposal but extremely little maturity
in our feelings. Only a very narrow range of feelings have interested most human beings until now.”
50
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Link—space flight
Space flight is just a method discovered by man to avoid the pain that he is feeling deep
within his inner self, and that it continues in the form of the need to get off the rock because
it is going to kill us
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 165)
One space engineer of Eiseley's acquaintance claimed that "We have got to spend
everything we have, if necessary, to get off this planet" because the Ice Age is returning. A
space agency administrator claimed in print that "Should man fall back from his destiny ...
the confines of this planet will destroy him." Eiseley finds the expression of this kind of
continuing psychic alienation from the planet shallow and dangerous:
It is not fair to say this planet will destroy us. Space flight is a brave venture, but
upon the soaring rockets are projected all the fears and evasions of man. He has fled across
two worlds, from the windy corridors of wild savannahs to the sunlit world of the mind,
and still he flees. Earth will not destroy him. It is he who threatens to destroy the earth.
51
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—save planet
man needs to ask deeper questions about the society that we live in and also ask those same
questions to himself. Deep ecology is the best option in the terms of saving the planet.
Devall ‘85(,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 74)
"The essence of deep ecology is to ask deeper questions. The adjective `deep' stresses that
we ask why and how, where others do not. For instance, ecology as a science does not ask
what kind of a society would be the best for maintaining a particular ecosystem-that is
considered question for value theory, for politics, for ethics. As long as ecologists keep
narrowly to their science, they do not ask such questions. What we need today is a
tremendous expansion of ecological thinking in what I call ecosophy. Sophy comes from the Greek term
sophia, `wisdom,' which relates to ethics, norms, rules, and practice. Ecosophy, or deep ecology, then, involves a shift
from science to wisdom.
"For example, we need to ask questions like, Why do we think that economic growth and high levels of consumption are so important? The
conventional answer would be to point to the economic consequences of not having economic growth. But in deep ecology, we ask whether the
present society fulfills basic human needs like love and security and access to nature, and, in so doing, we question our society's underlying
assumptions. We
ask which society, which education, which form of religion, is beneficial for all life on
the planet as a whole, and then we ask further what we need to do in order to make the
necessary changes. We are not limited to a scientific approach; we have an obligation to
verbalize a total view.
52
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—no revolution
Deep ecology helps to provide the best efforts to help fix the planet and stabilizes the
population without revolution
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 75-76)
"For deep ecology, there is a core democracy in the biosphere. In deep ecology, we have the
goal not only of stabilizing human population but also of reducing it to a sustainable
minimum without revolution or dictatorship I should think we must have no more than 100
million people if we are to have the variety of cultures we had one hundred years ago.
Because we need the conservation of human cultures, just as we need the conservation of
animal species.”
53
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—no blindness
The ecotopian view helps to remove the bandages that are covering our eyes to show us the
current issue that we are facing within our technocratic society
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 162)
Creating ecotopian futures has practical value. It helps us articulate our goals and
presents an ideal which may never be completely realized but which keeps us focused on
the ideal. We can also compare our personal actions and collective public decisions on specific issues with this goal. We suggest
that ecotopian visions give perspective on vain-glorious illusions of both revolutionary
leaders and the propaganda of defenders of the status quo. Furthermore, ecotopian visions
help us see the distance between what ought to be and what is now reality in our
technocratic-industrial society.
54
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—interconnected
Deep ecology focuses on one branch of science and that is life sciences and teaches that the
world is all interconnected
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 170-171)
Confronted by [examples of ecological damage], it's easy for the child to see the need
for conservation and then to go on from conservation to morality easy for him to go on
from the Golden Rule in relation to plants and animals and the earth that supports them to
the Golden Rule in relation to human beings. The morality to which a child goes on from
the facts of ecology and the parables of erosion is a universal ethic. Conservation morality
gives nobody an excuse for feeling superior, or claiming special privileges. "Do as you
would be done by" applies to our dealings with all kinds of life in every part of the world.
We shall be permitted to live on this planet only for as long as we treat all nature with
compassion and intelligence
55
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—fabric of life
Man is a part of the fabric of life and that there are too many people on this planet.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco
and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall
is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book,
Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of
Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging (1993). He is completing a book
on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered; pg 171)
Man is but a part of the fabric of life-dependent on the whole fabric for his very
existence. As the most highly developed tool-using animal, he must recognize that the
unknown evolutionary destinies of other life forms are to be respected. There are now too
many human beings, and the problem is growing rapidly worse. The goal would be half of
the present world population, or less!...
56
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Best—no violence
Deep ecology is the best inround option since the ethical response to this leads man to
accepting the world for what it is and rejecting all other forms of violence that is plaguing
the world today
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 167-168)
Mysticism enables man to comprehend the unity of direct experience which is
denied to science, and in so doing he is in touch with the influence of environmental forces
and relationships contextually rather than through the inadequate symbolic formulations of
scientific method. In Brownell's mysticism,, man is more fully aware of the sanctions and limits of the
natural world because he is sensitive to their direct intervention in his daily life, and so is
better able to overcome his anthropocentrism and shape his social life in accordance with
ecological norms [In an ecologically healthy man/nature environment] subjectivity is transformed and
judgment begins to be conditioned by respect for the normativeness of ecosystemic
relationships and sanctions
57
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—save all
Man needs to leave the cradle of the urban world in order to save not only the
environment, but also himself, as well as decentralize society to have a healthly integrated
human society
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 168-169)
From this ecological metaphysical/epistemological base, Brownell launches his attack on the urban/industrial worldview. The
gargantuan size and complexity of modern industrial societies eliminates the possibility for direct concrete experience:
Industrial man, fragmented by the divisive specialization he is forced to engage in, vainly
compensates for his lack of direct experience by vicarious cultivation of still other specializations, either as
spectator or participant in extroverted pursuit of pleasure and material goods, or as lone practitioner of
highly wrought technical and professional skills. For Brownell, our culture is a culture of escape and
substitutive behavior. Substitutive behavior forces us to separate emotion from direct action; and this
separation, Brownell thought, is the essence of decadence.
Brownell was especially critical of urban life:
The greater aggressiveness and violence of city life stemmed from an excessive concentration of the specialized functions and
organizations. But because the activities of corporate organizations increasingly reached out to include the remotest of rural areas, they too
became affiliated with the extensive urban culture. All industrial life is lived in the urban context… [Urban men] have learned to value false
gods. They have been seduced by bright, divisive cultures, specialized perfections and privileges, glittering fragments, gadgets, ready-made arts,
and importations bought promiscuously without relevance to the basic making-using rhythm that is central in any good life. They live on the loot
of the world, on trinkets and odds and ends, the only value of which is often the thrill of acquisition.
Colwell sums up Brownell's critique of industrial society in his review of Brownell's writing
In limiting concrete experience and reinforcing acquisitiveness, the goal of urban culture becomes the perpetual expansion of the
scope of acquisitive experience. An acquisitive culture is a man-centered culture It is morally narrow in its outlook
and suicidal in its course it fails to realize that the destiny of man, his well-being and happiness, must be
framed in accordance with the welfare of the life of the whole of Nature and not just his own immediate
desires. to achieve a healthy, ecologically integrated human community, Brownell called for the
decentralization of society: "The true human community is incompatible with corporate mass society." The
reform of education, even in ecological ways, is by itself insufficient. Education as a social institution is part and parcel of the larger social
context.
58
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—feasible
The solution is as plain as day the world of the alt. is feasible in the world with our
technology in the current world.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco
and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall
is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book,
Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of
Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging (1993). He is completing a book
on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered; pg 173-174)
Unlike some of the earlier utopian literature, Shepard squarely comes to grips with the recent
anthropological /genetic literature on Homo sapiens. In any realistic utopian planning for
the future, it is necessary for our physical and emotional health that we incorporate into
our lives the central features of a hunting/gathering way of life (rituals, exercise, etc.).
Secondly, modern ecological findings support the existence of huge expanses of unmanaged
wilderness to ensure the integrity of ecosystems and wildlife habitat. Shepard also addresses this issue in
his utopian proposal. As he points out:
It is impossible to overestimate the ecological crime of species extinction, which is the only irreparable environmental damage by man.
Extinction is caused by alteration of the habitat. The measures necessary to avoid it are the same that preserve the biosphere as a whole. The
prevention of extinction should be the criterion for a plan or policy of environmental activity of any kind.
Shepard's proposal is somewhat desperate in that he plans for the world population to stabilize at about eight billion people by the year 2020.
In order to meet the requirements for hunting/gathering existence, he
argues that cities of the kind designed by Doxiadis or Paolo
be strung in narrow ribbons along the edges of the continents and islands while
the center of the continents would be allowed to return to the wild.
If eight billion people ... were to live in some 160,000 cities (of 50,000 inhabitants), and
these cities were uniformly distributed over the earth's fifty million square miles of land,
only some three hundred square miles of land would surround each city (allowing two
square miles for each
city itself). Cities would then be only about seventeen miles apart, and no true wilderness
would be possible. If, instead of being dispersed in the interiors of continents, they were
constructed in a broken line on the perimeters of the continents, the whole of the interior
could be freed
for ecological and evolutionary systems on a scale essential to their own requirements and
to human cynegetic culture.
What would provide the basic diet for humans living in these great ribbons of cities
stretching endlessly around the continents with agriculture gone, only occasional gardens,
and meat brought back from hunting/gathering forays into the wilderness? Surprisingly, Shepard's
answer is a food technology based on microbial life: Biochemistry and microbial biology make
possible the recovery of a livable planet complementing ecology rather than opposing it ... the
Soleri might
transition to non-land-based subsistence might take half a century ... but perhaps three-quarters of the earth could be freed from its present
destructive use.
59
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Solvency—destroy the first world
Man needs to fix the first world that created him since his second world that he created is
destroying the first
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 164)
In his essay "The Last Magician," which appeared in his collection of essays, The Invisible Pyramid (1970), Eiseley says that humanity now faces
a magician who will shape its final form: ... a magician in the shape of his own collective brain, that unique and spreading force which in its
The possible nature of the
last disaster the world of today has made all too evident. Man has become a spreading
blight which threatens to efface the green world that created him ... the nature of the
human predicament is how nature is to be reentered- how man, the relatively unthinking
and proud creator of the second world- the world of culture may revivify and restore the
first world which cherished and brought him into being.
manipulations will precipitate the last miracle, or, like the sorcerer's apprentice, wreak the last disaster.
60
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Education now fails
Education in the status quo doesn’t have the right mentality to attain ethics of the
environment
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco
and Professor Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall
is a well-known lecturer and author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book,
Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means, Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of
Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging (1993). He is completing a book
on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature
Mattered; pg 170)
Specialization ... is necessary and inevitable. And if one educates the whole mind-body along with the
symbol-using intellect, that kind of necessary specialization won't do much harm. But you
people don't educate the mind-body. Your cure for too much scientific specializetion is a
few more courses in the humanities By themselves the humanities don't humanize. They're
simply another form of specialization on the symbolic level. Reading Plato or listening to a lecture on T. S.
Eliot doesn't educate the whole human being: like courses in physics or chemistry, it merely educates the symbol
manipulator and leaves the rest of the living mind-body in its pristine state of ignorance
and ineptitude.
61
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
62
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Education Key
education reforms are needed to help promote the idea of self-realization.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 169)
The goal of the school is to promote the self-realization of each community member,
and this leads to an appreciation of the broad world beyond the culture itself. Man is a part
of Nature, his full humanity is realized when he has defined his own particularity in
relation to Nature's totality…The community is the supreme educational environment, and
however such educators may try to institute instructional reform in the schools designed to
enhance self-realization and overcome alienation, their efforts will fail as long as the
community is organized on the principles of mass-society. Education must therefore
become the agency of social reconstruction to make the small community the primary
environment for educational activity. In so heavily emphasizing the dependency of
educational reform on social reconstruction, Brownell has made the possibility of
educational reform hinge on what amounts to utopian social innovation.
63
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Education key
Education is key to help spread and enforce the deep ecological philosophy into the world
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 162)
In addition to acting as a provocative catalyst for public debate, creating ecotopian
visions is also useful for the development of ecological consciousness in people who struggle
with these visions. This process enables one to sharpen both the image of the ecotopian
future, and the rational skills needed in public debate to argue the points.
We feel this process is an essential part of environmental education for high schooland college-age students. This may help them see viable alternatives to the status quo which
they can incorporate into their own lives. Even grammar school children can gain from this
activity. With some ingenuity on the part of teachers, deep ecology principles can be
introduced using the deep questioning process.
64
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
65
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Perm—two worlds
Man needs to blend his two worlds- the world that he came from with the world that he
created to make the third world that incorporates them both by developing an ethic that
extends to the living world around him as well
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 166)
Today man's mounting numbers and his technological power to pollute his
environment reveal a single demanding necessity: the necessity for him consciously to reenter
and preserve, for his own safety, the old first world from which he originally emerged. His
second world, drawn from his own brain, has brought him far, but it cannot take him out
of nature, nor can he live by escaping into his second world alone. He must incorporate
from the wisdom of the axial thinkers an ethic not alone directed toward his fellows, but
extended to the living world around him. He must make, by way of his cultural world, an actual conscious reentry into
the sunflower forest he had thought merely to exploit or abandon. He must do this in order to survive. If he succeeds
he will, perhaps, have created a third world which combines elements of the original two
and which should bring closer the responsibilities and nobleness of character envisioned by
the axial thinkers
66
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Utopian Key
utopian ideas are the only way that we can maintain cultural and biological diversity.
Devall ’85 (,Bill currently is a consultant to the Foundation for Deep Ecology in San Francisco and Professor
Emeritus in Sociology at Humboldt State University in Arcata, California. Devall is a well-known lecturer and
author, most notably (with George Sessions) of the influential book, Deep Ecology (1985), and Simple in Means,
Rich in Ends (1988), Living Richly in an Age of Limits (1992), and Clearcut: The Tragedy of Industrial Logging
(1993). He is completing a book on bioregional politics and culture, Bioregion on the Edge; “Deep Ecology: Living
as if Nature Mattered; pg 176)
Utopian proposals which are less specific and less global in scope may increase the
likelihood that cultural as well as biological diversity will be preserved as each area works
out its own unique version of reinhabitation.
67
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
-----Deep Ecology AFF ANSWERS----Alt Fails—centric bad
A centric view of the world is bad
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
The ambivalence of deep ecologists toward technology is clearly expressed in the recent book, Gaia's Hidden Life, by Nicholson and
Rosen. This contains some of the best recent thinking in deep ecology-wonderful arguments for the recognition of living being in the
natural world, even among the rocks and stars, etc. But almost every one of the 27 authors, from James Lovelock to
Thomas Berry, unequivocally rejects technology as an invalid, unnatural, even wicked form of existence.
Meanwhile, they idealize the vanishing dream of free, wild biological systems. They seem to want to restore them to their
erstwhile splendor-as though evolution ever moved backwards! This is wishful thinking, like when we
imagined the earth was the center of the universe, or that humans represented the culmination, and hence the
end, of evolution.
This point of view is called biocentrism, and is proudly opposed to anthropocentrism, which is supposed to
be outmoded and provincial, a naive and self-serving 'humanist' outlook. But to me biocentrism is little
better. It is based on the assumption that evolution reached its pinacle not with Man, but with Biology. But
evolution isn't like that. She never reaches a pinacle. She never rests, and she never ever turns back.
A contemplative biologist would not want to be 'centric' about any stage of the evolutionary process. Evolution unfolds
continually and mysteriously out of itself: She has no goal, claims no achievements, and is uninterested in
any past or future states. Just this mysterious present moment unfolding, in which there is most definitely and
certainly nothing to cling to. Sound familiar, dharma students? Where have we heard about this before? All we see in the world
around us, just as with what we find in our own minds is good, or at least authentic, valid, workable. There is nothing to reject,
nothing to protect, nothing to be centric about. Why can't we be as wise in our understanding of the evolution
of this planet as we are gradually becoming about the evolution of our own states of mind?
68
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Alt Fails—authors don’t solve
The authors of deep ecology don’t fix other problems of society
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
Biology is a series of provisional sketches for negentropic systems. These systems are built out of and on top
of and into each other in endless shells of interdependent co-arising fields, just as the microbial world is built
out of and on top of and into the material world of the four elements, just as the multi-celled (i.e. multimicrobe) animals and plants and insects are built out of and into the microbes, and we humans ourselves are
built out of and onto the animals and plants. The world of technology, cultural behaviors and abstract &
concrete symbolic structures are likewise built out of, on top of, and into human brains, emotional drives and
bodies. This is planetary symbiosis at work. Perfectly natural. All this creative activity is blowing in the
restless wind of change, of Impermanence, like the thought forms that flow through our minds. Many
humans, particularly in the contemplative traditions, have come to understand the working of our mind, the
theory and also to some degree the practice-but we still seem to hold primitive beliefs about the workings of
planetary evolution and life systems.
The leading thinkers I've met in deep ecology today all seem to have this biocentric attitude , Gary Snyder, Arne
Naess, Bill Duvall, John Seed, Doloress Lachapelle.... Many or most of them have good dharma teachers too, but they
don't listen to them carefully enough, in my opinion. They talk about surrender to what is natural , following the
Tao, and so on, but are not willing to stretch their arms all the way wide open, and let Everything in. Everything That Moves.
They would like to exclude certain things, exploitive technology, warfare, social injustice, famine, urban
landscape, television, the extinction of non competitive species, the collapse of planetary life support systems
for higher species....
69
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—tech
Technology is not bad they are a part of the balance of nature
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
You have to go to Walt Whitman and William Blake to find a real grasp of these elementary subjects,
biology and evolution, a view in which all of Life is honored impartially, devils and angels together, on
their own scary terms. Zen teachers give clear expression to this, as do Tibetan teachers at times. American Indians know it,
Rumi says it clearly again and again, all the contemplatives are clear on this understanding. It's time for deep ecologists to get up to
speed here. I think the limited, overly precious view of deep ecology today exists because deep ecologists
are not serious contemplative mystics. They specialized too early in a limited professional expertise on
the 'natural environment'. Serious ecologists must learn to let go of personal or social agendas, and
embrace everything that arises, the good the bad and the ugly. Only after this painful surrender can
one go deep.
Technology seems to play the role of the devil for us in this outlook. There's nothing wrong with having
a devil or two or ten million around, but devils should not be insulted, and no attempts to banish or
vanquish them have ever been successful to my knowledge. Like wicked fairies, if you do not invite devils to the
feast, honor and feed them, they make worse mischief. Those who would worship the angels of pure 'unspoiled'
biologies, must allow the devils of technology their due. This means recognizing them as independent
evolutionary forces, in symbiosis, like the microbes, with biological systems.
70
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—tech
In the current world there is a new form of evolution taking over and that is the
technobiotic evolution that we need to accept
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
The first question here must be, what are these new forms of life that seem to have taken over the planet
recently, these machines, the social and metabolic behavior systems of civilization, the new energy,
information & transportation networks that hold our planet in such a close and deadly embrace? Are
they authentic biological entities, legitimate expressions of sentience, the result of the natural working
of evolution on a pristine planetary wilderness? If so, they may be entitled to some respect, perhaps protection or even
saving under the Code of Rights of Sentient Beings.
The Evolution of Non-DNA based Life-systems: "As soon as the primeval soup provided conditions in which molecules could make
copies of themselves, the replicators themselves took over. For more than three thousand million years, DNA has been the only
replicator worth talking about in the world. But it does not necessarily hold these monopoly rights for
all time. Whenever conditions arise in which a new kind of replicator can make copies of itself, the new
replicators will tend to take over, and start a new kind of evolution of their own. Once this new
evolution begins, it will in no necessary sense be subservient to the old. The old gene-selected evolution,
by making brains, provided the 'soup' in which the first memes arose. Once self-copying memes had
arisen, their own, much faster kind of evolution took off. We biologists have assimilated the idea of genetic evolution
so deeply that we tend to forget that is only one of many possible kinds of evolution." Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
We humans are no different than we have been for the last quarter million years or so-our brains and bodies, our emotions and instincts
are the same. But ever since we started using symbolic systems to good effect, some ten or fifteen thousand years ago, the world has
been transformed. These symbolic codes, and the knowledge, tools and social behaviors that came with them, have given rise to
immensely vigorous evolutionary activity: from agriculture and animal herding to social systems and warfare, from city states & nations
to space exploration and global ecological crisis, all are expressions of the power of this new life activity.
In evolutionary terms, the whole biological kingdom, all the animals, plants, microbes etc, is a set of
'morphs', or bodies, built according to the information codes contained in the DNA molecule. Until
humans came along no information codes sufficiently complex to build bodies or shape behaviors
existed on this planet outside of DNA. Nothing else held complex data about how to build a negentropic
object that could do something to keep itself going, and to copy, or replicate, that precious life-giving
information-not the clouds, not the air, not the sunshine or the heat in the earth, not water or mud, not
the rocks, not even the silicates and crystals-all of the vast world of the four elements was dead, inert,
i.e. subject to entropy. Only the DNA molecule could code information, and use it to create things, like bodies.
So four billion years of DNA driven evolution went peacefully by, age after age of dreamy biologies.
Then finally one of the morphs, or body types (humans) develops a brain capable itself of independently storing and manipulating
information structures complex enough to generate morphs or bodies of their own. At last, the first new copying system in the
history of life! The world of technology and culture was born. With the tremendous symbolic activity which our
incomprehensibly large brains allowed, information codes had jumped out of their ancient amino acid cradle, and began to pursue 'their'
own evolutionary destiny. Immediately a torrent of new morphologies and behaviors were loosed on our
innocent and unsuspecting planet. Such things as language, alphabets, mathematics, engineering, arts
and crafts, religions, belief systems, social customs, the stuff of technobiotic civilization, new tools, new
hunting, farming and herding behaviors, new buildings, new forms of social organization. In a blinding
flash, from an evolutionary time frame, the planet has been transformed. A new form of evolution is at last unfolding here.
Information codes are free, free to replicate in any way they wish or are able. The rate of evolutionary change
undergoes a blinding, heart-stopping degree of acceleration, as compared with biological evolution.
No longer forced to be made of either meat or cellulose or chitin, (the animals, plants & insects), you
could make
a body now out of anything you liked. A wood or rock club (arm), wool & leather clothes, a dirt or log
or steel & glass house (skin), metal shovels & swords (claws), ceramics, rubber, plastic, silicon, etc.
Many vibrant morphs are nothing but pure behaviors, like social customs, languages, music, government, and so on. Many more, among
the most evolutionarily potent in fact, are completely abstract in morphological character-most notably ideas, the pure and applied
sciences, music, dreams, etc. All of these are bodies, or life processes, in the scary new meaning of the word. All are active, hungry,
exciting, and dangerous. If you back off ten thousand miles into space and squint your eyes, as a biologist
71
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
from another planet might do, you would see that this planet had gone through an evolutionary phase
change, from a pure 'climax' biology to early techno-biology.
Now then, if there is in fact a new kind of evolution happening on this planet, and the stupendous changes in the last ten
thousand years suggest clearly that there is, we cannot afford to ignore it, to dismiss it as dangerous, ahuman, or
unpleasant. Above all, we must not think we humans, just because we "hosted" it, can control or even
understand this new form of life very well, any more than we do nature herself. This is where deep
ecology can be of help: the attitude we should have toward this new life process could be one based on
respect, on awe and wonder, rather than on likes and dislikes. We should, in fact, have the same attitude toward
techno-biotic evolution that we are finally learning to have toward good old biological nature herself. These are mysteries, divine (that is
to say natural) in origin. We should not seek to accept or reject, nor even to control them, but rather to learn
how to coexist among them, and accept their inherent wildness, to appreciate this dangerous quality, to
honor and respect, even revere it, even when it's dangerous or life threatening to us.
72
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—tech
Biological evolution has become a subset of evolution for this planet and been paired with
technological evolution
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
There may yet arise on this planet, an evolutionarily stable technological civilization, but who would
wish to assert that this one-in-a-million shot just happens to be this one, the first ever made on this
young and still innocent planet? This marriage of biology and technology may have to arise again and again, and again, until
some incredibly lucky combination of biological traits falls in symbiosis with a perfect, sweet and sensitive technology. Today's
world, with our aggressive-ferocious technology linked to the primitive emotional agenda of a top-end
predator-carnivor, does not so far seem to be that perfect , stable union. But of course you never know...
Boundaries, to Life-systems? So who are we? Are we still pure humans anymore? Is it even possible to conceive of technology,
machines and information systems etc, as a separate class of existence from humans? I think not. We have become
technobionts, symbiotic members of this new lifeform which has taken over the planet. Any alien
biologist would recognize this at a glance. Our "human" nature has merged with the new
morphologies to become technobiotic nature. It is a nature that cannot be clearly conceived. Its boundaries cannot be
drawn, as they include everything in our culture, in a variety of groupings on endless levels of meaning and organization. Through all
this evolutionary transformation, is our primordial true nature, our original buddhanature still clear? I think so. True nature is
enormously mysterious, but one of its most reliably established qualities is its indestructibleness, its vajra nature. Today's buddhas report
that buddhanature is alive and well, in spite of the odd circumstances and curious surroundings it finds itself in.
New Life. A new form of Life has arisen on this planet, which could be called the Technobia. Its power
and speed of evolution lead instantly off every scale on which we are accustomed to measure living
systems. It is young, but terrifyingly, thrillingly, overwhelmingly vigorous. It is feeding on us humans,
just as we feed on the plant and animal kingdoms, and just as they feed on the microbial kingdoms,
who rest in turn on the material universe. We are not in control of this process, we are merely a part of
it. It is happening to us, and in spite of us, as well as because of us. In this case we are the host organism, the medium in which
technobiotic lifeforces are finding their fertile soil. We humans, with our obsolete bodies, easily exploitable emotional drives, and our
fabulous brains, are the primeval soup our symbiotic technology partners have come to live in.
What this means is that purely biological evolution is no longer the main focus of life on this planet. It's
become a subplot, relegated in its wild forms to out of the way corners, to empty lots, roadsides, and
cracks in the sidewalk of civilization. It's been built over on top of, subsumed, in the best evolutionary
style, by the techno-biotia. So in any discussion of ecology, whenever one refers to rocks, clouds, rivers and mountains,
microbes animals and plants, one should include kitchen tables, cars and computers, stuffed animals and nuclear reactors, as well as
abstract symbolic systems such as mathematics and music, and belief or behavioral morphologies, including social systems, religions,
culture. etc. These are all valid forms of life, if we or rocks and clouds are.
73
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—all natural
Everything that happens on this planet is natural and pristine there is nothing on this
planet that is unnatural
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
The way I see it, anything that arises on this planet is completely natural, pristine, and pure. Created by
God's spontaneous, self-arising nature, sacred. God itself. Deep ecologists reserve this level of honor for wilderness
areas, asking that they be untouched by outside forces, meaning generally man or machines. But is this
entire planet not a pristine, sacred wilderness? Has it ever been touched by 'outside forces'? Is not all
this Gaia's own doing? I wouldn't even insist that it remain untouched from the outside. When aliens do
ever arrive on this planet from other stars (if they are not already observing us discreetly from a nearby 'blind'), that just shifts the
wilderness boundary out a bit. The galaxy as a whole remains a pristine wilderness. If they come from outside the galaxy, the larger
universe will most likely still be a pure evolutionary preserve. Where could 'unnatural' processes ever find a crack in
the skin of this planet, Gaia, natural child of the natural universe, to poke their way in and corrupt
her? No, everything we encounter in this universe must be considered natural, and intimately related
to us in some way, like the contents of one's own mind. This awkward intimacy changes one's point of
view.
The deepest ecology might not seem to be specially 'environmental', because it doesn't cling to any
version of reality; it surrenders continually to whatever situations occur. This viewpoint doesn't
directly advance the work of saving the planet or preserving local landscapes, but it could be helpful for
environmentalists nonetheless. Because unless we enter into the heart of that Wildness where life itself is
continually born, we remain outsiders in our own world, and outsiders never really know what's going
on. Outsiders can't help sentient beings-they don't know what to do.
We have much to lose by entering the world of real wildness that surrounds us today. We are losing a
nice local version of reality we've been basking in for several million years, the lovely landscapes, the fauna and
flora of the late Cenozoic, the Age of Flowering Plants and of Mammals. These have have been sweet indeed, and it is
sad to see them go. Difficult goodbyes must be said. But we won't miss them for long-there's plenty
more where they came from. The unbridled, fecund wildness that lies at the heart of co-arising emptiness-luminosity will not
disappoint us. A really deep ecologist has understanding of this, and faith in it. This fertile, dangerous, healthy and real wildness is
where we should be resting our hopes and our hearts and our minds. We have nothing to lose.
74
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
No Link—all natural
Life includes everything
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
Everything moves. This alone should be enough to demonstrate inherent aliveness. From mindless
hydrogen clouds swirling purposelessly in interstellar space-time, to clouds of thoughts swirling
around in the brain, all cloud forms are the same. They move-they have buddhanature. None of these patterns from
beginning to end have any greater or more distinct 'separate self' than any other. All are meaningless, empty of personal intent. All are
falling into their own true nature, effortlessly, along with all other illusory phenomena. We must not underestimate them.
All are beautiful to behold, including the ugly ones, all are precious, including the worthless ones, all
are friends & relatives, even the dangerous ones, even when they kill you! Their value cannot be conceived in
ordinary ways. Some of these (not all) have a tendency to grow in complexity, energy, and information density, to blow off greater &
greater clouds of waste heat, to become increasingly improbable, ephemeral and fragile. Others prefer to stay simple. They are all
good, because complete. Even the rocks & clouds are like this, even the technobiotia. This good life
stuff is the swirling of clouds-nothing more-it's what evolution does around here.
75
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
AT: Just earth
Life on this planet is not unique there are other places that life can be taking refuge
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
Nothing special has been accomplished in the last 600,000,000 years since the arising of multi-celled creatures on this
planet; nor in the 3,750,000,000 years since microbial life began-no one is looking(!), no one is interested. We
are all alone here in space, and nobody cares what happens to us. For all we know, God might be taking a nap.
Our precious stream of lifeforms during the last four billion years are nothing more than clouds
blowing in the wind.
Nothing special will be lost if we 'higher' lifeforms crash back down to the ranks of microbes. There's plenty more where we
came from too, in the bottomless womb of evolution. Evolution is a child, doodling lifeforms in the
sand, humming a little tune, absentmindedly letting grains of life trickle from her fingers into pretty
piles. Wind & waves erase all by sundown. There is nothing here to save or regret.
What's wrong with a world of microbes anyway? OK, worst case: what if our unruly technologies, in symbiosis with
our unruly human appetites kick the whole planet into a positive feedback heating loop, causing it to
spiral up into thermodynamic equilibrium (shudder, the only thing negentropic entities really fear), at uncomfortably high
temperatures, like 1000! or so, causing biological meltdown and permanent sterility like Venus-or suppose things go the other way, and
we spiral down to subzero thermodynamic equilibrium, clouding over and freezing solid forever like Mars-what's
wrong with that? There's plenty more planets where we came from, plenty more galaxies to give birth to
them, plenty more universes to hatch galaxies....
As for the innumerable creatures on our planet who are undoubtedly suffering and in need of assistance, including very much and most
especially our own personal selves, what kind of saving do we really need? I suspect this saving has more to do with the
ability to see and share the true nature of these beings than it does with trying to increase their good
health and large numbers. Perhaps we should concentrate more on seeing them clearly, on feeling what
they feel, knowing and caring about them, than on setting up biopreserves and housing projects to save
them in. Thinking in this way, one comes to feel that the saving of sentient beings has more to do with
knowing and feeling and suffering and caring with them, than with preventing their extinction or raising
their minimum income level or wiping a bit of pollution off their brow. Sentient beings can take care of themselves, just as we like to
think we can do. Considering them in this way is a mark of respect, it honors them.
This deep frame of reference may seem chilling to some, but it is not. On the contrary, it warms the
heart and lightens the step, and it should help to save the earth and advance the agenda of
conservation biology too, along with any other worthy projects. The buddhas and patriarchs may seem to play
rough, but this roughness is good for us. It is the roughness of real wildness, real wilderness. There's no reason in the world
that environmentalists shouldn't be able to hold a deep view and still be energetic and effective, good
people to have around when things are tough. We aren't babies. We can look at Reality along with the rest of
sentient beings. We do not need to tell ourselves children's stories about how unique and precious we are, to make ourselves go out and
help the world. We are precious and worthless at the same time. We are neither precious nor worthless.
It's not like that.
Collapse Inevitable
Extinction and civilization collapse is inevitable and natural no matter how it happens
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
76
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
This civilization, like all that have preceded it, is bound by the laws of biology, which have expanded to
include the domain of culture. It is likely to do what all others have done: It will expand, or rather
explode, beyond the safe boundaries of its uncontrollable technologies, and then crash back into the
biological/cultural background. The Sumarians, the Egyptians, the Mayans and Aztecs, the endless Chinese dynasties, the
Greeks, the Roman empire, the great African kingdoms, the Mongolian hordes, the Ottoman empire, and so on and on till the pages of
recorded history become too numerous and tattered to read. A corollary principle seems to be, the higher they rise the harder and more
abruptly they fall. This is our diastolic social-cultural rhythm. Civilizations seem to have an indefinite, but
distinctly limited lifespan, just like all other living organisms, whatever their level of organization.
The only recent variation on this theme is that our Civilization is playing out the drama for the first time on a global scale. Does the
global scale make a difference? Not at all-the drama is always played out on the largest possible scale the society
is capable of expanding to and destroying itself on. Measured on a psychometric scale, this means that the collapse
totally engulfs and obliterates all meaningful existence for that society . Whatever remains after the crash,
whatever survives, is considered 'not to count'. Today we feel that to crash the biosystems of the planet back to the
Stone Age, or back to a level where only the arthropods and plants, the fish and microbes, and a few
marginal rodent-like mammals remain, would be tantamount to 'total global death'. Of course this is
nonsense; it would be a very nice earth indeed, and would rebound to a nice climax biology in the
twinkling of an evolutionary eye.
This rush to apocalypse may nonetheless have a useful role to play: It seems to function as a form of
population control of civilizations, and is governed by biological/cultural laws as implacable as those
which mandate the death of individuals and the inevitable extinction of all species. Why should the death of
civilizations be feared any more than the death of individuals or the extinction of species? No matter how painfully it
happens or awkwardly it's done, through ecosystemic collapse or apocalyptic warfare or diseased
culture crisis or toxic pollution, it is natural, and good, magnificent life and death activity.
Any extraterrestrial observer would be quick to point out, having observed our stream of technobial civilizations for a few thousand of
years, that It makes little or no difference what the human beings do on the earth at this point. The torch of evolutionary
development has slipped out of our brains and is loose in the world. The technobiotia are the dominant
lifeform on this planet now, and we/they are defining our own future, as all dominant lifeforms do. No
force whatever can control us, or even exercise any discernible influence over us. We
are alone with the laws of
physics and the rules of evolution. From the point of view of freely evolving technobiotia, we are wild creatures.
There's no safety for wild things. Never has been. This is the good life as it is lived in a real wilderness.
As for who's right about this, and who's wrong, there's no waiting period. 'We shall see', or 'Time will tell' do not apply here. Either
things have been this way for 30,000 years, or four thousand million years, or they are not this way.
77
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Counter Alt—leave
Counter-alternative: deep ecology fails we need a better idea and that is to leave everything
as is and to continue what we have been doing in the world.
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
Deep ecology is good, but not always useful in everyday life. We need a working ecology, something tough
and flexible, that you can use to save the world with. A practical ecology might come in two parts, view and
practice, as follows: The View. Reality is as perfect today as it has ever been. The world in this moment, along with
one's mind in this same moment, is the Great Perfection spoken of in the teachings. It must be enjoyed just as it is,
pollution, warfare, famine & poverty, confusion and materialistic greed and all, no matter how
unlikely, unhappy or sorry a specimen it may seem to be (world or mind). Ecosystems like minds are
always in perfect balance, even when they're neurotic, ill, confused or going extinct, miserably and
unnecessarily.
The Practice. A dynamic ecology has got to work in a world which is changing from one moment to the next. Ecology cannot be
based on trying to preserve ecosystems at some particular stage of their evolution, no matter how
beautiful that stage may have been. This is like trying to prevent our children from growing up, or our
old people from dying. It is a form of materialism to be overly attached to a special set of God's Works, and is doomed to
failure in any case.
We will never "get" our dream of attractive, healthy ecosystems-they will always be collapsing around our ears. This is what
ecosystems do! They have a natural lifespan, which in addition to being short, is frequently terminated
'unnecessarily' early by accident or misfortune. Just like our own lives. Wanting to freeze ecosystems at a certain
charming stage of their existence is like our other foolish dream of always being young, attractive and healthy ourselves. Good luck!
The only ease lies with the process of evolution itself. Sound ecology must be based on respect for God's creative/destructive working
process, not on a childish clinging to pretty toys He may have made. Then we can live in this world, help it out a bit, and go with, lean
into its mysterious unfolding.
78
KNDI 2011
Levy/Liebler/Acosta
Anthropocentrism K
K Lab
Life/ death dichotomy inevitable
The battle of life and death is a sacred activity of the cosmos we need to accept the world
for what it is
McClellan ‘93 (John (PhD, University of Colorado at Boulder) studies the discursive qualities of organizing with
attention to issues of knowledge, identity, collaboration, and change. With an interest in communicative approaches
for living and working together in an increasingly pluralistic society, his research explores collaborative practices
that might enable creative decision-making and mutually-beneficial, sustainable ways of organizing. As a former
organizational change strategy consultant, his research attends to organizing discourses that simultaneously enable
and constrain opportunities to transform the ways we understand and engage organizational life; NONDUAL
ECOLOGY In Praise of Wildness and In Search of Harmony With Everything That Moves, 1993
http://www.colorado.edu/peacestudies/sustainable-economics/nondual-ecology/nondual-ecology.html)
To combine this challenging view with the challenging practice, one simply regards everything that moves as a form of
sacred activity. The mad materialist technobic frenzy gripping the planet is nothing other than this. There is only One Thing
happening, not some things that are good and others that are bad. This includes fragrant ecosystems, fresh and
unsullied in wilderness areas on spring mornings, and it includes urban industrial megagrid, ghettos &
famine zones, materialist mind greed, the extinction of wild animal species and the slavery and torture
of 'domesticated' ones. Life and death. Even television.
Everything we love will die, and everything we hate will live, and vice versa, and we will never be rid of
such problems. No contemplative would want the buddhas and patriarchs to catch him trying to escape death, much less get rid of
it. Death is sacred activity. What is happening on this planet today is the sacred activity of life and death,
which we sometimes call evolution, Ed Abbey and his friends to the contrary notwithstanding. It is perfect as it
stands, flawless, without blemish. But as Suzuki Roshi said, there is always room for improvement too.
So it's proper to fight and struggle with the situation, to take care of each other, and try to save a few suffering sentient beings. We must
do this!, and we do, just as we struggle to improve the 'climate' , 'landscape' and evolutionary process in our own minds and hearts. The
thing to be careful about is not to reject what is ugly and cruel, dangerous and poisonous, even the heartless
machines, the computers & TV's, cars & highways, nuclear bombs, animal and plant slavery and
torture, and money.
These are our sacred enemies. They might even be our sacred friends, one never knows for sure. We
should not try to know for sure. It's none of our business. Friend and enemy are not distinguished on this level. It's disrespectful to try to
do so. To the enemy, one offers a deep bow, as deep, and as filled with respect as one offers to one's friends and
teachers. This bow is offered to everything without reservation. It is a form of protection. It saves us
from attachment and illusion, and in the end, from the wrong sort of despair.
79