cap_aff

8/8/2019 cap_aff

1/12

Cap/DeDev/Sustainability AFF Chad

Infante Spring 2009

1AC

CIVILIZATIONS DIE FROM SUICIDE, NOT BY MURDER

TOYNBEE, 1961: Arnold J. Toynbee: A Study in History.

OBSERVATION 1: INHERANCY

A) OVERCONSUMPTION IS A BIG PROBLEM: IT IS THE TOOL OF

CAPITALISTIC AMERICAN CORPORATIONS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 02:University of Wisconsin - La Crosse: Copyright 2002:http://www.uwlax.edu/murphy/environment/overconsumption/overview1.html

Over consumption is a global problemthat is being caused and worsened by a small fraction of the population.America and its consuming habits are the biggest contributors to the worlds global

consumption problem, but unless it is brought to most peoples attention it is not a problem someone would really think about. Thefirst step into becoming a better consumer is a hard one to take, and unless people are stopped and told what is happening it is not usually taken

without a push. In learning about the problem of consumerism we learn that the way we live is

unsustainable. In fact if the rest of the Earths population lived like North Americans do it

would take three planets to live sustainably. (Wackernagel and Rees, 13)

The main problem is thatAmericans have lost the meaning behind the phrase waste not,want not. We want and desire more and more because advertising and corporations tell us

it is what we need to be fulfilled. As that happens, the waste we produce starts to pile up , asbroken objects, out of fashion items and packaging. Each American on average throws away four pounds of

trash per day (Ryan, 4).Now multiply that number by the population of North America, whichis approximately 274 million. That equals about a billion pounds of trash per day!

NEXT

B) CAPITALISM AND CONSUMERISM GO HAND IN HAND

GORDON 02: (http://www.jakeg.co.uk/essays/consumer_exploitation.htm

In the West, the current economic system iscapitalismwhich is based upon private ownership, which opposes a

socialist economy with its state or community ownership.Consumerism has grown with capitalism, and can be

seen as providing an excuse, reason or driving force for capitalism , allowing the masses tobenefit

throughtheirindividual consumption whilst capitalists profit

1 | P a g e
http://www.uwlax.edu/http://www.uwlax.edu/http://www.uwlax.edu/

8/8/2019 cap_aff

2/12


Infante Spring 2009

FIRST ADVANTAGE: THE ENVIRONMENT

A) CAPITALIST DRIVE TO PRODUCE PROFIT THROUGH

OVERCONSUMPTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DETERIORATION AND

DESTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

SWEEZY 2004:(Founding editor of the Monthly Review, Marxist, economist, Harvard Prof. ) PaulCapitalism and the Environment. Monthly Review, Vol. 56, October 2004.

There is a vast literature on this subject, much of its of high quality, and this is obviously not the place to try to

describe or summarize it. For present purposes, it is enough to point out that by farthe largest part

of the problemhas its origin inthe functioning of the world's economy as

it has developed in the last three or four centuries. This of course has beenthe period of the

emergence of capitalism and of the bourgeois and industrial

revolutions, of coal and steam and railroads, of steel and electricity and chemicals, of petroleum and

the automobile, of mechanized and chemicalized agriculture--and ofthe rapid expansion andurbanization of the world's population in response to the massive

growth of the forces of production at the disposal of humankind. Allof these developments and others directly and indirectly related to them have involved putting growing

pressure on the earth's resources, introducing new methods and substances into the processes of producing,

using, and disposing of the worn-out remains of the things people, groups, and societies require for their

reproduction and expansion. Perhaps there have been cases where these activities were planned and carried

out with a view to respecting and preserving the natural cycles which over the ages have permitted living

creatures, including human beings, to adjust to, and achieve a rough equilibrium with, their environment. But if

there have been such cases, they have been so few and far between as to have left little if any trace in the

historic record.The new departures that have combined to revolutionize

the human economy have always originated withindividuals or, relative to the

whole, small groups in the expectation of achieving specific benefits

for themselves.The indirecteffects on the environment did not

concern them;or, if they thought about it at all, they took for granted that whatever adverse effectstheir actions might have would be easily absorbed or compensated for by nature's seemingly limitless

resilience.

We now know that such ways of thinking about the processes in question were and are delusory. Activities

damaging to the environment may be relatively harmless when introduced on a small scale; but when they

come into general use and spread from their points of origin to permeate whole economies on aglobal

scale, the problem is radically transformed.This is precisely what has happened

in case after case, especially in the half century following the Second World War, andthe cumulative

result is what has become generally perceived as theenvironmental crisis.

The major elements of this crisis are well known and require no elaboration here: the greenhouse

effect stemming from the massive combustion of fossil fuels,

combined with the accelerating destruction of carbon dioxide-

absorbing tropical forests; acid rain which destroys lakes and

2 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

3/12


Infante Spring 2009

forests and other forms of vegetation, also caused by fossil-fuel

combustion; the weakening of the ozone layer in the upper

atmosphere that protects human beings and other forms of life

from the sun's potentially deadly ultraviolet rays; destruction of

top soils and expansion of deserts by predatory agricultural

methods; fouling of land and surface waters through industrial

dumping and excessive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides;

mounting pollution of the oceans once thought to be an infinite

repository of all kinds of wastes but now, in what has become one

of the most visible

NEXT

B) CAPITALIST TRENDS CAUSES DESTRUCTION OF BIODIVERSITY

SOSKOLNE AND BERTOLLILNI 02:of the University of Alberta and WHO argue in 2002:[Colin L.Soskolne & Roberto Bertollini, Professor Department of Health Sciences, University of Alberta & WHO, 2002, Conservation

Medicine, eds. Aguirre, Ostefeld, Tabor, House & Pearl, p. 373]

Public health consequences of the ecological nonsustainability of current global trends in

the short, medium, and long term depend on whether we have a managed decline or a

catastrophic decline. In the short term, we would probablyseeclassicalenvironmental effects

associated with air pollution, toxics, flooding, and famines. In the medium term, we might

see resource depletion, which could result in civil strife and evenwar. Longer term possibilities

are more uncertain andcould include extensive resource depletion leading to large-scale famine

and societal disruption.

NEXT:

C) LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY CAUSES GLOBAL EXTINCTION

WAPNER 94: Paul Wapner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics andLife Sciences, 1994, p. 177

Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which

species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animalscannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species

holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because

3 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

4/12


Infante Spring 2009

removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the

extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "Theramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so

far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species

is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes.

NEXT:

D) THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT IS FOR CAPITALISMTO FAIL AND FOR US TO MOVE TO A MORE SUSTAINABILITYLIFESTYLE.

CALLINICOS 03: Professor of European Studies 2003(Alex, An Anti-Capitalist Manifesto)

The final requirement,sustainability, also needs little argument to support its inclusion. From Seattle onwardsthe

environmental destruction wreaked by global capitalism has been one of the main themes

of the protests. John Bellamy Foster suggests thatsustainable development implies the following

conditions: (1) the rate of utilization of renewable resources has to be kept down to the rate

of their regeneration; (2) the rate of utilization of non-renewable resources cannot exceed

the rate at which alternative sustainable resources are developed; and (3) pollution and

habitat destruction cannot exceed the "assimilative capacity of the environment".' 10 By these

criteria, of course, current development is very far from sustainable. Probably most important from the viewpointof an alternative economic system are the steps needed to counteract global warming. Stabilizing the proportion of carbon dioxide in theatmosphere at levels that do not produce severe climate change would require drastic cuts in global emissions relative to their 1990 levels

(perhaps as much as 70 per cent to reach the pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 280 parts per million) and the self-

denying ordinance to abstain from using 75 per cent of known economically viable reserves of fossil fuels.The impact that these

changes would have on productive capacities and standards of living would depend on the

speed with which currently known technologies using clean and renewable sources of

energy such as solar and wind power, biomass, and hydrogen fuels were put into large-

scale use." On the face of it, the resulting energy revolution would not in the long run require the low-consumption society demanded bysome Greens (though the transitional costs in temporarily reduced living standards are harder to estimate). It is, however, difficult to see how it

could take place in a capitalist framework. Not simply does the present economic system to use the

analogyprovided by John McNeill (see chapter 1 above) operatelike a shark, relying on the presence of a

narrow set of conditions such as stable climate, cheap water and energy, but its own

processes are destroying these conditions, thereby forcing us to find a different way of

living.

4 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

5/12


Infante Spring 2009

NEXT:

ADVANTAGE 2: POVERTY AND STARVAION

A) CAPITALIST DRIVEN CONSUMERISM CAUSES HUNGER AND POVERTY

WORKERS ORGANIZATION 08: Coordinating Committee to Form Workers' Organizationhttp://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:00

In the last few weeks on the occasion of World Food Day, there were many reports published regarding the hunger and the ever-increasingnumbers of starving people in the last few years.The dominant discussion, ostensibly, focused the critique on the negligence of governments and international institutions concerning starvation.

In all reportsthe source of starvation is viewed as a natural situation of the lives of the majorityof the worlds inhabitants, and all of the solutions and suggestions to decrease and even to

abolish starvation have been left in the hands of all the protectors of the capitalist system.There is, of course, a need for a discussion about all these clamors and inversions. However, before anything else,one must payattention to the description of the writers of these reports about starvation. They

apparently have spoken about the existence of starving people around the world in a

complaining tone, and with critiques as well as a sense of responsibility about this phenomenon. These people established thefoundation of their task based on a forged reality despite their tune of protest and critique on starvation. As a matter of fact, the number of

starving people around the world is not one billion people rather a few billion. Evenaccording to United Nation reports,there areat least3 billion of the worlds inhabitants who live on less than 2 dollars a day . The 2dollars daily income does not fill any stomach any where . All these 3 billion people are severely hungry. All ofthese people are the working class masses which, on the one side, are the creators of all

capital and wealth of society and, on the other side, are not able to afford a piece of bread.

Many of these people livein shanty townswith no access to fresh water and deprived of access tohealth care and education. Annually there are 18 million and daily there are 50,000 people

who die from starvation. Only the children of these workers families are under the pressures of starvation who surrender to deathby capital, and every minute 20 of these kids are dying. They are all spiteful starving people condemned to death

by capitalism. However, even the real number of starving people is more than this. Whoever is unable to buy his/ her life necessitieslives in a starving situation and the pressure of this drives this person towards sickness and death. A human who does not have suitable housing,whose nutrition is not healthy, and who does not have access to physicians, medicine or education and his surroundings do not guarantee hisnatural physical and spiritual growth without a doubt is a starved human. According to international institutions starved human is defined as a

5 | P a g e
http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226http://www.againstwage.com/?c=120&a=1226

8/8/2019 cap_aff

6/12


Infante Spring 2009

human who is unable to buy any kind of food, and if he does not receive his food the same day he will die. This definition which has been

invented by the protectors of the wage-slavery system demonstrates that a few billions hungry workers do not exist in this world.

NEXT:

POVERTY IS MORE PROBABLE THAN ANY WAR OR GENOCIDE

GILLIGAN 2000 [James, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Violence: Reflections on OurDeadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196]

The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about

100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from

structural violencetothe frequency ofthose caused by major military and political violence, such as WorldWar II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the

Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954-1973), and even a hypothetical

nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million),it was clear that even war cannot begin to

compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every

fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be

killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three

times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi

genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing,

unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak

and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.

NEXT:

POVERTY PREVENTS PEACE

YUNUS 2007(Muhammad, founder and Managing Director of Grameen Bank, UN Chronicle, combat global poverty,http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue1/0107p22.htm)

Poverty is a chronic problem that impinges on global security issues and plagues nearly

half of the world's people. Poverty is a threat to peace. By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2006 to

Grameen Bank, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has given support to the proposition thatpeace is inextricably linked to

6 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

7/12


Infante Spring 2009

poverty. About 40 per cent of the global population lives on 94 per cent of world income.

Half of the population lives on $2 a day, with over a billion people living on less than half

of that.This is no formula for peace-the frustrations, hostilities and anger generated byabject poverty cannot sustain peace in any society.

PLAN TEXT

THUS THE PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD

SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE ITS AGRICULTURAL SUPPORT BY ELIMINATING

ALL DOMESTIC SUBSIDES FOR, BIOFUELS, CONTRACTED ANIMAL FEEDING

OPERATIONS, CORN, COTTON, DAIRY, FISHERIES, RICE, SOYBEANS, SUGARAND WHEAT.

7 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

8/12


Infante Spring 2009

NEXT:

SOLVENCY:

A) FARMERS HAVE TAKEN OUT MASSIVE LOANS AND EXPANSIONS

MIRING MANY OF THEM IN DEBT REMOVAL OF SUBSIFES WOULD

DEVASTATE LAND VALUES AND FAREMRS PROFIT CAUSING A

COLLAPSE OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND THE FALLING OF

HUNDRES OF BANKS ACROSS THE COUNTRY

BARRETT 08:(Milwaukee journal Sentinel 2008 (Rick Barrett April 27)

Generally our economy rewards people who take risks. But every once in a while you caught Lloyd Holterman said. At stake are livelihoods of

Wisconsin farmers and dozens of communities with ties to agriculture still one of the states largest industries. If we have a

collapse in commodity prices, its going to put a lot of good farmers and families in

jeopardy, said Gary Sipiorski, president and CEO of citizens State bank in the north-central Wisconsin city of Loyal. Farm debt

Sipiorski and others say the current agricultural economy bears some resemblance to the

mid-1970s when a seemingly insatiable demand fell, farm income plunged and forced

thousands of farmers out of business. By the end of this year, farm business debt is expected to reach $228 billion, and$billion increase from 2007 anda recocord high for the fourth consecutive year, according to the US

Department of Agriculture. Much of the debt has been fueled by the need for new

machinery and grain storage, as farmers strive to keep up with increased global demand

for food and biofuels.From the beginning of 2003 to the end of 2008, total farm debt will have increased by about 52.8 billion, ormore than 30% according to their agriculture Department. There are (farm) loans being made at a much higher debt level than we have seen in

the past. We are looking at this very closely and are recommending that some farmers not tdo expansion projects, Sipiorski said.Beside

debt, higher costs of running a farm have taken a bite out of profits. Rising poverty values

have made it more expensive for farers to buy or rent additional cropland. Dairy farmers andlivestock producers havent always welcomed high prices for corn and soybeans, two important animal feed ingredients, even as farmers who

raise those crops benefit from strong commodity markets. The cost of diesel fuel and other energy has permeated just about every farm expense,

from fertilizer and seed to raising livestock and harvesting crops.Costs of almost everything necessary for day-to-day operations of a farm have soared to levels where only high commodity prices are

keeping some farmers from losing money. We are hoping that these prices hold up or

there are going to be a lot of us going out of business, said Pat OBrien, aDane County Diary farmer.Unfortunately, commodity prices fall much faster than our expenses. Nobody sees this as a golden period for agricultural because we are so

affected by fuel prices and other rising costs. We could be very vulnerable, OBrien added. 1980s grain embargo nationwide, nearly 300

agricultural banks failed during the farm crisis in the 1980s in some ways, it was like current home mortgage crisis that has slammed financial

markets. The farm crisis was fueled by changing government policies, including a grain embargo against the Soviet Union that drastically cut

8 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

9/12


Infante Spring 2009

food exports.Farm production remained high, goenvemnt surpluses climbed, and the resulting

oversupply sent commodity prices and farmland values plummeting. High interest rates

made matters worse. Farmers who had taken on debt based on high crop prices suddenly

couldnt afford their loan payments. Consequently there was a rush of farm foreclosures

across the county. I remember that period all too well, said Gary Seconomy to be doing so much better than the nonfarm economy,said there are warning signs today, he said. Nationwide, debt for farm land, expected to increase to nearly &121 billion this year, a 2.8 %

increase. With higher farm incomes, its natural for farmers to borrow money and expand their business. Its very unusual for farm economy to

be so much better than the nonfarm economy, said John Blanchfield, director of the American Banking association Center for Agriculture &

Rural Banking. Massive corn Production has been fueled by $6 billion a year in government subsidies for ethanol, a corn-based fuel additive.

Should those subsides be slashed, demand for the crop and the high prices could

plummet. There is a lot of volatility in the agricultural economy, especially with

commodity prices,Blanchfield said

NEXT:

B) IF FARMERS DEFAULT ON THEIR LOAN THEN REGIONAL BANKSWILL FAIL AND THE FDIC WONT BE ABLE TO COVER CAUSING RIPPLEEFFECTS AS PEOPLE WITHDRAW THEIR MONEY FROM ALL OVER THECOUNTRY RESULTING IN AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE

LI 2008 (Mimi, Staff writer for Epoch Times. IndyMac Collapse Sparks Fear of Regional Bank Failures Epoch Times 2008 en.epochtimes.com/n2/business/indymac-collapse-1201.html)

Investors confidence is bound to tumble as depositors and shareholders alike start a

massive pullout of their money and assets. The impact could soon spread to other bank,possibly hitting regional banks hardest. If regional banks fold, the general consensus of the financialcommunity is thatthe Federal deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), after covering IndyMacs disintegration,willnot be able to fully subsidize equity losses other banks may face. experts put the number at

around possibly 300 banks that are at risk of failing. Overthe weekend, speculations arose that mortgage giantsFannie Mae and Freddie Mac could collapse on Monday after IndyMacs demise. But that was not the case Monday, as Federal Reservestatement promising aid to Maes stock drop 5.1 percent to $ 9.7, and Friddie Mac slipped 8.3 percent to $7.11. In conjunction with news,Washington Mutuals stocks plunged 35% to $3.23. NCC was down 14.7% to $3.77, and M&T dove 15.6% to $58.82. Despite the nose-dives, allthree banks were optimistic, confident in their abilities to stay afloat. (WaMu) significantly exceeds all regulatory well-capitalized minimumsfor depository institutions, the bank said in a statement on Monday. If further reassured skeptics that WaMu has current excess liquidity ofmore than $40 billion and a national franchise with approximately $150 billion in retail deposits. NCC echoed the sentiment of WaMu.National City is experiencing no usual depositor or creditor activity, it stated, adding, the bank maintained more than $12 billion of excessshort term liquidityNational City maintains one of the highest Tier I regulatory capital ratios among large banks. The Federal Reserve ismonitoring the crisis constantly and frequently to respond to the fluid financial system. The FDIC reported that it has a problem list of 90

banking institutions that are at risk of holding. In total, banks have more than $26 billion of assets. The FDICs deposit insurance fund may

currently have $52.8 billion, but that number is sure to decline after IndyMacs buyout. IndyMac had about @32 billion in assets and @19 billionin deposits. Because of this, the general assumption of the financial industry is that after IndyMac, and quite possibly Freddie Mac and Fannie

Mae, the government may not be able to bail out too many banks.The implications of this are enormous. Ascollapsing regional banks are left to fend for themselves, diminishing economic conditions

could plunge the nation into deep recession. Already, experts are saying the economic crisis

is the worst in three decades, and yet the situation seems like it could take a turn for the

worse.

9 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

10/12


Infante Spring 2009

C) THE ECONOMY HAS TO FAIL IF WE ARE TO RID OURSELVES OFCAPITALISM

De Blas 2000: 22/07/00 Natural Capitalism Challenged.(Radio Transcript.) Alexandra de Blas: Dr Ted Trainer from the University of New South Wales

While the idea of 'Natural Capitalism', is gaining popularity. It does have its critics. Dr Ted Trainer believes that the levels of

production and consumption in developed country's is unsustainable. He thinks thatthe only way to help theenvironment is to do away with capitalism as we know it and 'to almostcompletely scrap thiseconomy'.

WE MUST FACE THE TRUTH TO ATTAIN A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY

TRAINER 07: Canberra Times (Australia) April 23, 2007 Monday Final Edition: A planet hell bent on eating its futurehttp://www.lexisnexis.com.ez.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?

start=5&sort=RELEVANCE&format=GNBFI&risb =21_T5598767580

We cannot achieve a sustainable and just society unless we face up to huge and radical

transition to what some identify as "the Simpler Way" that is to a society based on non-

affluent but adequate living standards, high levels of self- sufficiency, in small scale

localised economies, and basically cooperative and participatory communities. Such a

society would have to be an economy that is not driven by market forces and profit, with no

growth, and, most difficult of all, little concern with competition, individualism and

acquisitiveness. The Simpler Way could be a far more satisfying way of life. Consider being

able to live well on two days' work for money a week, without any threat of unemployment,

or insecurity in old age, in a supportive community. Yet there is a total failure, indeed an adamant refusal, to eventhink about these themes, let alone to accept that the pursuit of affluence and growth is a terrible mistake

Only the Alt Solves: we cannot hope to survive until capitalism and

consumerism are no more

Trainer 08: Ted Trainer, A short critique of the Stern Review, real-world economics review, issue no. 45, 15 March 2008, pp. 54-58,http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue45/Trainer45.pdf

If the question is How can we provide the energy to run a society committed to affluent living

standards and economic growth? then the answer is that we cannot. A number of distinct lines

10 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

11/12


Infante Spring 2009

of argument show clearly that the lifestyles and per capita resource and ecological impacts of the

rich countries are far beyond sustainable limits. For instance the Australian footprint of

approximately 7 ha of productive land per capita is about 6 times the global average, and

by the time we have 9 billion people on earth the multiple will be about 10. Even if none of

these alarming sustainability problems confronted us, rich world living standards would

not be possible without the grotesquely unjust global economy which delivers most of the

worlds resource wealth to the enrichment of our corporations and supermarket shelves.

The problems consumer society is running into are due to massive faults deep within the

foundations of this society, most obviously to do with an economy driven by market forces,

profit and growth, and a culture obsessed with material wealth. It is not just that

consumer-capitalist society is unsustainable and unjust -- it can not be made sustainable or

just.

A sustainable and just society cannot have anywhere near the per capita rates of resource

consumption typical of rich countries today. The Simpler Way is the label that seems to

me to most appropriately stand for the only way out of the global predicament the

commitment to affluence and growth have got us into. Its key principles have to be, non-

affluent lifestyles, mostly small and highly self-sufficient local economies (peak oil will soon

eliminate globalization), enormous cultural change, away from the competitive,

individualistic pursuit of wealth.The case for all this is spelled out in detail at The Simpler Way website below.

11 | P a g e

8/8/2019 cap_aff

12/12


Infante Spring 2009

NEXT:

BIOLOGICAL COLLAPSE OUTWEIGHS NUCLEAR WAR AND TYRANNY

CHEN 2000: Jim Chen, Professor of Law @ the University of Minnesota. Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 2000winter. Pg. 211

12 | P a g e

cap_aff

Documents