Download - Relationality K--ADC Final (1)

8/10/2019 Relationality K--ADC Final (1)

1/63

Ocean Eco-Critique


2/63

1NC


3/63

1NC ShellThe affirmative conceptualizes the ocean through the vocabulary of international relationsand sovereigntythis distances humanity from nature and turns ocean species intosomething to be managed externally

Seckinelgin 6[2006, Hakan Seckinelgin is a lecturer in international social policy in the department of social

policy, London School of Economics (LSE), The Environment and International PoliticsInternational fisheries, Heidegger and social method,http://guessoumiss.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-environment-and-international-politics.pdf]

This chapter has looked at how the new international law of the sea , UNCLOS III, has reterritorialised

both ocean spaces and identities in relation to these spaces . I have argued that the main

reason behind the form of this territoriality is located in the general framework of IR, which perceives the international on the basis of sovereign entities. The aim was to show how the fact

of international relations and the narration of this process inter-constituted each other .Reading the case of the South Pacific, it has become clear that, within the disciplinary understanding of IR, it ispossible to account for a successful application of an environmental regime independent of

ecological concerns. Ecology does not play any role insofar as ecology does not function

through a logos based on a sovereign self.By reterritorialisation of ocean space and

identities, ecological concerns are further distanced . The questions that may be asked,

then, are located inand limited bythis conceptual framework underpinned by the

concept of sovereignty . In a nutshell, the question is not about the success of the structuralforms that are created, but about how far they are sufficiently articulated and what the

possibility of these forms is on the basis of the nature of the problems they are trying tosolve.Therefore, Chapter 2 discusses what is disregarded while the success story is being told as an important part of the argument. Throughthe introduction of species of tuna as an ecological component of the ocean system, I will attempt to dispute the above success story, seeing it as

an inadequate way of understanding and thinking about the international. 2 The issue of sovereignty in the context of International Law of the Sea

In order to be able to conduct a comprehensive analysis of South Pacific cooperation, it is necessary to achieve an understanding of all the related

parties in themselves and the impact of their relations on each others existence. Deciding who the parties to this interaction are on the basis ofthe cooperation scheme can be a contentious issue, according to different perspectives. If one takes the parallel line of argument to the FFA, the

parties are those South Pacific island states. The consequences of the cooperation, none the less, suggest a different picture. Through the

relational ethics implied in the ecological call of responsibility, this study considers the

species of the oceans as one of the major parties to the cooperation , albeit a silent one. Inaddition, it seems fundamentally important to consider the fishing industry as another relevant

party to the cooperationinsofar as the existence of this industry has motivated,

and will motivate, the SouthPacific states to cooperate and capitalise on their ocean spaces. So, here the cooperation scheme isconsidered in its multiplicity multiple meanings (Heidegger 1968: 71) insofar as each party affected might bring a new meaning which would

alter the vision of the cooperation. The implication of bringing all the related and affected parties

together would be to cast doubt on the success story that is based only on the interests of the South Pacificstates and the functional efficiency of the cooperative institutions. This move aims to talk about the interests of

species that are implicated in the cooperation scheme, but ignored as a relevant
http://guessoumiss.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-environment-and-international-politics.pdfhttp://guessoumiss.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-environment-and-international-politics.pdf


4/63

component in the success story. This ignoring becomes particularly emphasised by

market concerns that motivate searches for managerial solutions more than

ecological ones .Furthermore, it is also an a contrario demonstration (through positive inclusion) of how

the absence of a holistic understanding produces a success story wrapped in subtle but

one-sided truth claims about resources, sovereignty, interests, and eventually about theexistential location of human beings on Earth . Thus this step aims to establish a path towards an interpretation whichcontradicts the established understanding that is negatively related (Foucault 1990: 83) to ecology. This relation means that the

accepted frame of perception excludes and creates absences of things such as ocean

species. It dislocates them from their natural existential connectedness only to

relocate them as materials to support human existence . By bringing the analysis ofwhat is excluded from the institutional concernin the region, namely the systemic understanding of life in the oceans,into the discussion, the natural location of species as material support for the development of the

region is disrupted. At the same time, through this analysis, the framework and impact of the new ocean

regime are related to the process that considers and reduces the environment to the limitsof a new political/territorial organisation on the basis of which a certain existentialnormality for species is fixed. The possibility of understanding the ocean ecosystem and the

species therein is based on the new politically divided zones. It is argued that new

reorganisation allows individual zones to be articulated as environmentally

separate entities.

This division of humanity from nature results in extinctionunderstanding ourconnectedness to the world is the only way to prevent cycles of planetary destructionThe Dark Mountain 9

[2009, Uncivilization, network of writers, artists, and thinkers, The Dark Mountain Manifesto,http://dark-mountain.net/about/manifesto/]

The myth of progress is founded on the myth of nature.The first tells usthat we are destined for greatness;

the second tells us that greatness is cost-free. Each is intimately bound up with the other. Both tell us that we are apart

from the world; that we began grunting in the primeval swamps, as a humble part of

something called nature, which we have now triumphantly subdued . The very fact

that we have a word for nature is [5] evidence that we do not regard ourselves as part

of it. Indeed, our separation from it is a myth integral to the triumph of our civilisation . We are,we tell ourselves, the only species ever to have attacked nature and won. In this, our unique glory is contained. Outside the citadels of self-

congratulation, lone voices have cried out against this infantile version of the human story for centuries, but it is only in the last few decades that

its inaccuracy has become laughably apparent. We are the first generations to grow up surrounded by evidence that our attempt to

separate ourselves from nature has been a grim failure, proof not of our genius but

our hubris. The attempt to sever the hand from the body has endangered the progress

we hold so dear , and it has endangered much of naturetoo .The resulting upheaval underlies the


5/63

crisis we now face. We imagined ourselves isolated from the source of our existence . The fallout from thisimaginative error is all around us: a quarter of the worlds mammals are threatened with imminent

extinction; an acre and a half of rainforest is felled every second;75% of the worldsfish

stocks are on the verge of collapse; humanity consumes 25% more of the worldsnatural products than the Earth can replace a figure predicted to rise to 80% by mid-century. Even through the deadening lens of statistics, we can glimpse the violence to which our myths have

driven us. And over it all looms runaway climate change. Climate change, which

threatens to render all human projects irrelevant ; which presents us with detailed evidence of our lack ofunderstanding of the world we inhabit while, at the same time, demonstrating that we are still entirely reliant uponit. Climatechange, which highlights in painful colour the head-on crash between civilisation and nature; which makes plain, more effectively than anycarefully constructed argument or optimistically defiant protest, how the machines need for permanent growth will require us to destroyourselves in its name. Climate change, which brings home at last our ultimate powerlessness. These are the facts, or some of them. Yet facts

never tell the whole story. (Facts, Conrad wrote, in Lord Jim, as if facts could prove anything.) The facts of environmen tal crisis we hear so

much about often conceal as much as they expose. We hear daily about the impacts of our activities on theenvironment (like nature, this is an expression which distances us from the reality of our

situation).Daily we hear, too, of the many solutionsto these problems: solutions which usuallyinvolve the necessity of urgent political agreement and a judicious application of humantechnological genius. Things may be changing, runs the narrative, but there is nothing we

cannot deal with here, folks. We perhaps need to move faster, more urgently. Certainly we

need to accelerate the pace of research and development. We accept that we must

become more sustainable .But everything will be fine. There will still be growth, there will still be progress: these thingswill continue, because they have to continue, so they cannot do anything but continue. There is nothing to see here. Everything will be fine. We

do not believe that everything will be fine. We are not even sure, based on current definitions of progress and improvement, that we want it to be.

Of all humanitys delusions of difference, of its separation from and superiority to the living world which surrounds it, one distinction holds up

better than most: we may well be the first species capable of effectively eliminating life on Earth .This is a hypothesis we seem intent on putting to the test. We are already responsible for denuding the world of much of its richness,

magnificence, beauty, colour and magic, and we show no sign of slowing down. For a very long time, we imagined that nature was somethingthat happened elsewhere. The damage we did to it might be regrettable, but needed to be weighed against the benefits here and now. And in the

worst case scenario, there would always be some kind of Plan B. Perhaps we would make for the moon, where wecould survive in lunar colonies under giant bubbles as we planned our expansion across thegalaxy. But there is no Plan Band the bubble, it turns out, is where we have been living all the while. The bubble is that

delusion of isolation under which we have laboured for so long.The bubble has cut us off from life on the only

planet we have, or are ever likely to have. The bubble is civilisation. Consider the

structures on which that bubble has been built. Its foundations are geological: coal, oil, gasmillions uponmillions of years of ancient sunlight, dragged from the depths of the planet and burned with abandon. On this base, the structure stands. Move

upwards, and you pass through a jumble of supporting horrors: battery chicken sheds; industrial abattoirs; burning forests; beam-trawled ocean floors; dynamited reefs; hollowed-out mountains; wasted soil . Finally, on top of allthese unseen layers, you reach the well-tended surface where you and I stand: unaware, or uninterested, in what goes on beneath us; demandingthat the authorities keep us in the manner to which we have been accustomed; occasion- ally feeling twinges of guilt that lead us to buy organic

chickens or locally-produced lettuces; yet for the most part glutted, but not sated, on the fruits of the horrors on which our lifestyles depend.

Vote negative to inject ecological ethicsecological considerations cannot be fit withconceptual IR toolsthe act of criticism helps us move towards a transpersonal ecologyand reveals the failures of dominant understandingsSeckinelgin 6


6/63


7/63

ethical position implied and deployed through IR is questioned . Ecological ethics is a

challenge to the study of International Relations, which, in its different schools, considers

a world a priori that may be understood , and thus as a given area to be studied .2 In theirdifferences, none the less, most of the schools consider the world that may be understood, according to

the overarching international/sovereignty-based framework, in which a fundamental ethical position is implicitlyapplied.3 In its different variants either as a problem-solving theory or as critical theory, IR also remains within the boundaries of

anthropocentric ontology.4 This pervasive ethical position then becomes a guarantee for

the method used in understanding international relations . By arguing that the questionof environment is foremost an ethical question and not a managerial one, the groundingethical assumption of International Relations is questioned. The morality of the abstractedsovereign individual in relating to the other is scrutinised. The location of first abstracted,and then radically individuated, human being is questioned. 5 In this manner, also, thepossibility of a fixed delimitation of a disciplinary locus, dominant in the social sciences,

based on discrete categorisations of targeted subjectivities may be contested . In

rethinking an ethical relation between nature and human being in terms of belonging, anew space is opened up . This rethinking contests the ideas of fixed the internationaland the agents of action within it. By introducing a larger relationality, ecological ethics shows that the world

which can be studied in IR, as the domain of knowledge in international politics, is deceptive. Therefore, in unsettlingthe grounds of justification of the conceptual plane that can be studied, ecological ethics notonly addresses the environmental issue but targets a problem within IR as a discipline.

Furthermore, it creates a general marker for questioning social method based on abstract

models of human being or the individual person.


8/63

Links


9/63

LinkIRThe 1AC is a research project towards ocean policies that chooses to infuse it with the basicmetrics of IRthis makes all ecological considerations subject to environmental politicsand discounts our role in nature

Seckinelgin 6[2006, Hakan Seckinelgin is a lecturer in international social policy in the department of social


The ecological call, of which ANWR and Rockall are only two manifestations, presents International Relations

with a fundamental challenge . What we see in these examples is very important. The governments

responses to these issues revolve around the disciplinary matrix of International

Relations. However, one of the main arguments in the discussion, namely the ecological claim,urges us to stretch our vision provided by the discourse. The claim that the state, and hence thedomestic government, has a responsibility to people beyond its boundaries attempts to disintegratethe image of responsibility based only on state relationsin the international, which is not concerned necessarilyabout people. Moreover, by bringing in a concern for species that are not able to vocalise theirdissent from the practices threatening their existential space, and therefore their being, this

ecological politics of contestation points to a discursive anomaly in International

Relations . The knowledge produced within the discourse in terms of the internationaldoes not reflect what it is that we perceive to be international, and the larger context

implicated in the concept becomes obscured . Its knowledge claim remains restrictedthrough state behaviour and interests. Thus environmental politics becomes isolated from

the politics of ecological contexts and agents . This book claims that the discourse ofInternational Relations is paralysed by ecological problems. As it tries to overcome this

state of affairs through its traditional discourse, the situation becomes worse . In other words,one can observe a rupture in the discipline through which power relations behind it may bedissected.The internal constitution of the concept of sovereignty and the power relations implicit in it create the rupture insofar as the

ecological issues at hand are always already discounted internally in the discipline.Therefore, the allure of theories of regimes and institutions structured on the basis of

established concepts such as state, sovereignty and the international , used as analytical tools ofengagement, seems outdated. They obscure the possibility of understanding the ecological

call and the implied responsibility therein . The question of this study, then, is: Can IR understand and address theecological call? This question will be expanded and located at a deeper philosophical level as I present the way in which I engage with the

question through this study.


10/63

LinkNational v. InternationalState oriented ocean politics divides pieces of the ocean into distinct national entities thattrades off with a communal understanding of it as shared and interconnectedSeckinelgin 6

[2006, Hakan Seckinelgin is a lecturer in international social policy in the department of socialpolicy, London School of Economics (LSE), The Environment and International PoliticsInternational fisheries, Heidegger and social method,http://guessoumiss.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-environment-and-international-politics.pdf]

On the one hand, the Bushadministration refuses to agree on international obligations, as these do not allow theUSA a justification for the exploration and extraction of hydrocarbons. By using a domestic security argument the administration is able to put

aside a set of international obligations and also to take measures to change its environmental legislation, which would have international

ramifications. On the other hand, in the context of the ocean space claimed for species by Greenpeace,one needs to see the possibility of justificationprovided to the British government in InternationalRelations and conditions on which the governments action is justified. The authority of thegovernment to use a section of ocean spacearound Rockall derives from the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS III), concluded in 1982, which established a new zone of sovereign rightsfor coastal states and islands, i.e. an exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The UNCLOS III process was initiated toformulate an ocean regime which would both deal with the environmental problems andbenefit coastal states.The most innovative and important change was the establishment of EEZs and the regime UNCLOS IIIestablishes on the basis of rights given to the coastal states. These rights were expressed in relation toexploration, exploitation, conserving and managing the natural resources (Art. 56, 1a)9 of a certain

area of the ocean adjacent to the coastal states territory. By relating these rights to state sovereignty the

convention has created national spaces out of a global common . As a consequence, those

national jurisdictions have become legally isolated from the larger context in which theyare located. The position of both governments is based on the possibility of spatial

differentiationbetween states and the internationalin the way we try to understand international relations. Bythis move international law also describes the content of these spaces. In the case of Rockall this means that the British government can isolate

the case within its internal, state systemic conceptualisation by making it part of Scotland, and can thus respond by transforming the case into

what may be discussed on the basis of national interest. In the US case, by articulating an energy crisis theadministration transforms the situation into a national problem rather than its beingrelated to an international issue. Thispossibility of a sharp distinction between the two spaces also means thatthe assimilation of the call for responsibility into national interest is mediated by

international law. It may be argued that the relationality and interconnectedness of human

beings and nature suggested by the activistsactions is not addressed in thegovernmentsresponses. My intention, then, is to find an intellectual orientation for the critical analysis of this juncture

between the activists and the government. The juncture may be spotted between the official response and the ecological interconnectedness of

speciesthat is, their relationality invoked in the protestas well as in the meaning of the non-response to the ecological call for responsibility

beyond official understanding of responsibility in terms of state interest. The critical in critical analysis means that the analysis will

attempt to reveal the limits of knowing10 in terms of ecology within the discourse thatis framed by concepts of state, territory, interest and the international as they are


11/63

deployed by the governments. It is therefore important to conceptualise the nature of the problem between the call forresponsibility and the location of the official government response within International Relations. This location between the two sides allows us

to see what is at stake politically that is different from environmental politics. In the context of this book, the discourse that limits

our understanding of politics is the study of international relations under the discipline of

International Relations (IR).11 The study of International Relations is taken to be a discursive practice insofar as it produces andforms the knowledge in relation to international relations .12 In this productive mode it applies discursive rulesand categories such as sovereignty and the international, without which the discipline of International Relations cannot explain actual

international relations; none the less, in the statement of international relations theserules and categoriesare always already assumed.13 The responsesof the US administration and the British government to their opponentsreflect the discourse of IR, which is based on territorial sovereignty claims through the means of

international law and claims of priority of national interest over international

responsibility in other words, the discourse of International Relations through its rules and categories enables spatial differentiationbetween international and national. It creates two sides of political action where the basis of action is grounded on different ethical relations. Put

differently, this spatial distinction also differentiates the mode of political concerns and agents. Through this structure the statebecomes the agent of political discourse in the international under the assumption of

representing its territorial unityand the unified will of its citizens. In this enabling rests the question of how it is that conceptsof sovereignty and the international create the conditions of the discourse.14 The ecological callas expressed in ANWR and by the

Greenpeace attempt destabilises the disciplinary moves that are based on the framework of

sovereignty and the international. As R.B.J. Walker suggests, the increasing importance of the problemsarising outside traditional sovereignty claims such as those involving the law of the sea, space

law and speculative claims about a global commons or planetary habitat makes traditional

belief that here is indeed here and there is still there (Walker 1993: 174) rather difficult to

sustain .The politics based on ecological relationality exposes the inner tensions ofthe concept of sovereignty. The image of sovereignty as reflected in state action becomes

unstable, since these actions have larger consequences that cannot be assimilated withinthe boundaries of sovereign decision-making.


12/63

LinkDevelopmentOcean development puts a backseat to ecological considerations by turning ocean speciesinto external agents to be used for economic valueit necessitates a division of oceanspaces based on property as exemplified by status quo EEZsSeckinelgin 6

[2006, Hakan Seckinelgin is a lecturer in international social policy in the department of social


These linguistic formulations of marine resources as agent and the new relationship

established are the means through which an EEZ area becomes functional as the industrialzone that has become the engine of development. By definition, the ecological identity, which is

based on ecological life, of the resources is subsumed under the raison dtatin relationto development. Furthermore, a problem of spatiality has been created. By conceptualising a special zone

that has a different and exclusive legal status from that of the rest of the ocean, attention

has been diverted to the immediate interest of the coastal states in their zones . Therefore,the high seas have either been left alone or considered under different measures. Two different systems of cooperationhave emerged: one for the high seas and one for the EEZs . The first system is based on thetraditional freedom of fishing on the high seas, which is a function of voluntary catch limits based on voluntaryinvolvement of fishing fleets that reflects the interests of all the parties involved. This structure, in relation to marineresources, has no obligatory conservation or protection measures . Each fishing party may establish its ownlimits and enjoy them without answering to any legal consideration. The second system is internal to EEZ areas as a

stock management exercise based on external bargaining strategy with DWFs. The system allowsindividual coastal states to assess their own zones and then to make them available to third parties. In relation to neighbouring zones of coastal

states, sovereign considerations only facilitate consultation among the neighbouring zones rather than integrated policy (apart from the EU

Common Fisheries Policy). Since coastal states are granted exclusive rights on the choice of protective measures that are to be initiated in their

EEZs, it is difficult to maintain uniformity of measures of any kind through the borders, an issue which is crucial in the ocean system. At the end

of the day, the final decision about any policy is usually/has to be based on national interest,

given that resources are established as central to a coastal states development. If oneconsiders the ecological call and the relationality expressed therein, it becomes clear thatthe logic of UNCLOS III does not allow ecological relationality to appear as integral to theunderstanding of oceans.The structure of UNCLOS III as a structure of spatial

differentiation by radical materialisation of life forms , namely reducing the life of species

to economic material forms, into agents of development is problematic to say the least. Given thecomplexities of the resources that are meant to be managed, this allows life forms to become distanced from

ecological considerations as part of a life world. Thus one could argue that it is highly questionablehow a system based on political divisions of individual interests could deal with a biologicaland physical whole. Although UNCLOS III presents an innovative law-making process that has been instrumental in redefining therelationship between nature and humankind, albeit implicitly, it could not manage to escape from the grounding constraints of its location. This

redefinition, hence the reterritorialisation, takes the shape of repositioning within a certain framework. The repositioning is


13/63

located within the fragmented idea of the human and externalised environment .Theconvention augments this fragmented understanding by establishing a possibility ofthinking about the environment on the basis of divided sovereign spaces . The epitomisation of this idea

may be seen as assessing ones own zone to decide about external access. Reterritorialisation, therefore, is a move for

further distancing in terms of ecological relations . It may be seen in relation both to the spatiality of the oceanspace and the relations among beings implicated therein. The species of the fragmented EEZ space are nowrelated, or considered to be relevant, by the fact that they belong to a certain coastal state while otherspecies become irrelevant by distance and by belonging to a different coastal state. In short,

ocean space and the species have become materials that belongto someone ,and thusmay be used according to the owners decision and needs.


14/63

LinkEnvironmental ManagementSituating ecological concerns within institutional considerations just turns them intoenvironmental managerialism which maintains existing discoursesSeckinelgin 6


The ecological understanding defined as a holistic relationality between species and the

Earth presents an important discursive problem to International Relations .15 Of course,there is an attempt to locate ecological problems as an environmental problem within thediscourse, as demonstrated by the British governments response. This prompts the question: How is it possible, in the face

of an invocation of ecological responsibility, to manage the environment in terms ofsovereign spaces?Stated differently by Michel Foucault in his attempt to locate the conceptualisation of sex in relation to the generaldiscourse of sexuality, [w]hat is at issue, briefly, is the over-all discursive fact, the way in which sex is put into discourse (Foucault 1990:

11). It is important to realise that the transformation of ecological problems intoenvironmental issues is a discursive move . International Relations may explain the issue of

Rockall through environmental management terms based on British sovereign rights andits international obligations and, by bringing this explanation, imposes its own discursive structureover the issue.None the less, this precise juncture of transformation reveals the anthropocentricprejudice of the discourse. Although there are those theories, or schools, of International

Relations that are receptive to the environmental problems, they remain within the

anthropocentric framework.16 The ecological call raised by these cases discussed above allows us to see the inadequacy of

the rules and categories of the discourse. Or, from a Foucauldian perspective, this inadequacy represents the internal

unvoiced and unthought existential values and norms in the discourse. In other words, tobring the concept of the ecological into perspective is an attempt to uncover power17

reflected in the possibility of the conditions of knowledge framed in the discourse of

International Relations .18 This process also allows us to see what is political inenvironmental politics and how it becomes subsumed under the discursive limits of politicscreated by these values and norms implicit in the discourse.


15/63

LinkObservationThe use of observational systems reinforces the same logics that cause environmentaldestruction in the first placeLiftin 99

[Karen Liftin, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Washington,Approaches to Global Governance Theory, 87-89]

The use of ERS data in developing countries raises complex cultural, political, and ethical issues, and the technology is not without its critics. For

instance, Masahide Kato criticizes nonprofit groups based in industrialized countries who supply satellite-generated information to remote areas of developing countries . He believes they represent a newform of imperialism rooted in a "globalist technosubjectivity" which renders theindigenous peoples' territory as resources.63 Indeed, satellites seem to offer the tantalizingprospect of a totalizing knowledge; as one early enthusiast proclaimed, they "show vast terrainsin correct

perspective, from one viewpoint, and at one moment in time."64 Not surprisingly, that"one viewpoint" isgenerally located in the North. Moreover, thatuone moment in time" cannot capture centuries of

past environmental abuse, a fact which may prove profoundly disadvantageous fordeveloping countries when ERS data are used to assign responsibility for ecologicaldegradation.*5 While Kato perhaps too quickly condemns ERS technology, which we have seen can also be used to promote the interestsof local communities and indigenous groups, his critique reveals two interrelated questions regarding the political culture of epistemic authority

implicit in ERS technologies: the control of knowledge (who controls it and for what purposes) and the constitution of knowledge (what counts as

knowledge). One point seems unassailable: by employing ERS data, environmental and indigenous rightsgroups legitimize it as a source of credible knowledge. This is the price paid when localcommunities gain the mantle of scientific objectivity by transposing their traditionalpractices into the language of GIS. The kind of knowledge supplied by ERS technologies , itmay be argued, promotes precisely the impersonality and technological rationalism which are thedefining traits of modernity and which have been a primary source of environmental

destruction. Moreover, the voyeuristic nature ofphotography, including satellite imagery, may promotea view of nature that is antithetical to the ecological goals of grassroots groups. In her famousessay, On Photography, Susan Sontag has argued that "cameras implement the instrumental view of reality.[They] arm vision in the service of powerof the state, of industry, of science."66 Space-based Earth observation represents the ultimate Panopticon, whereby the gaze ofdisciplinary power is globalized and internalized in people's consciousness everywhere .67 Yetsome grassroots groups are wagering that ERS can also "arm vision in the service of power" at the local level. Their efforts are perhaps too recent

for us to draw any decisive conclusions. Users of satellite-generated Earth data have powerful culturaland rhetorical tools on their sidespecifically Enlightenment ideals about the liberatingpower of knowledge. According to one commentator, programs employing ERS information should be based on the premise that"greater knowledge leads to greater wisdom," a premise that is at least debatable.6" But if the link between knowledge andwisdom is weak, the link between knowledge and power may be more tenable. Indeed acore assumption of the architects of ERS systems is that they offer "a whole new tool withwhich to understand our own world, and once we understand it, we can manage it." 69 Suchstatements seem to presuppose a specifically modern conception of agency andresponsibility, with a rational, autonomous self capable of knowing {and therebycontrolling) the Other embodied in the natural "environment ." Nonetheless, if this hallmark ofmodernity is actually at the root of the global environmental crisis, then the faith in ERS


16/63

technology may be fundamentally misplaced. Given the deep entrenchment of theknowledge/power nexus as a cultural cornerstone of modernity, to question the need forinformation approaches heresy. Yet, given the stakes, one must wonder just what practicalresults the informationgenerated by ERS will yield. NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) will produce an unprecedentedquantity of data, at a cost of perhaps $20 billion; its data information system (EOSDIS) will be the largest data handling system ever constructed,

with a capacity of fourteen petabytes (a petabyte is 1015 bytes, or one billion megabytes).70 The primary purpose of thisinformation is to guide policy makers in addressing global climate change. Given that lessthan five percent of Landsat's data has ever been used, one might anticipate that ERS willgenerate more information overload than wisdom.71 According to the World Meteorological Organization, asatellite-based Global Climate Observing System, with EOS as its core, "will require substantial resources, but the costs to society from

continuing the present level of uncertainty about climate change are very much larger."72 What those costs are, who bears them, and how ERS

data will decrease them, are not discussed. The assumption has been that ERS data, augmented by better computermodels, will reduce the uncertainties surrounding climate change and serve as a guide torational action. Yet the recent IPCC(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific assessment hassubstantially undermined the claim that there is too much uncertainty to take decisiveaction. While the 1990 IPCC assessment concluded that it was too early to say whether climate change was underway, the 1995 reportconcludes that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."73 That assessment, which took two years to

complete and involved more than two thousand scientists worldwide, provides the scientific grounds for a major shift in the policy discourse

towards the serious consideration of fossil fuel alternatives and other mitigation strategies. The contribution of ERS data to that discourse is far

from clear, but to the extent that its link to the policy discourse goes unexamined, ERS runs therisk of falling prey to the "technological imperative" of innovation for its own sake .74 Aglobal ERS system is expected to provide "the long-term measurements to determine thehabitability of the Earth."75 Yet if our planet's habitability is truly at risk, then the morefundamental questions should be how to act under uncertainty, not how to "build acomprehensive predictive model of the Earth's physical, chemical, and biologicalprocesses."76 Will the knowledge gained through ERS technology tell us how to livesustainably? The answer to the question will depend not only upon who uses theinformation and to what purposes it is applied, but also upon a willingness to uncover thehidden assumptions in the celebratory discourse surrounding ERS. In others words, thepatterns of epistemic authority which ERS promotes must be uncovered and interrogated.


17/63

LinkScienceScientific approaches to nature distance humanity from it and reinforce Cartesian dualismYoung 8

[2008, Kelly, Trent Univesity, Dan Roronhiakewen Longboat, Trent University, Andrejs

Kulnieks, York Univesity, Beyond Dualism: Toward a Transdisciplanry IndigenousEnvironmental Studies Model of Environmental Education Curricula, pdf, pg 4-5]

Historically, during the latter half of the twentieth century, there was a concern aboutnature that grew intoenvironmental sciences based upon a scientific model about nature rather than a

naturalistand experiential model in nature. Environmental studies moved into booksand fieldcourses. At this time there wasakinaesthetic lossof learning whereby humans no longer fully experiencednature and moved toward text based knowledge as a dominant method of learning

about the environmentin systems of education. The methods involved a shiftfrom experiential learning in natureto learning about the environment in a library. The birth of environmental educationas outlined byCarsons Silent Spring (1967) can be seen as a beginning call for people to critically question humanrelationships with the natural world.From this early questioning to today, environmental education has continuallyevolved and will continue to evolve, driven by both response and need to broaden its understanding of human and environmental interaction.

Environmental Science Model and Indigenous Environmental Model The rise of environmental education in North America included a

distinction between environmental studies and environmental sciences. Environmental studies looked at the human aspect between human and the environment drawing upon a social root metaphor (subjective investigation ofhuman in relation toenvironment as data). Environmental sciences divided into specializations or disciplines in biology, chemistry, geography, and

physics classified as the natural sciences and positioned the environment as a systemdrawing upon amechanistic root metaphor of nature (objective investigation of environment as data): one is to measure, classify, quantify,and examineit over a specified time, to develop a predictive model that could then be universalized and generalized. Emerging as a

sophisticated tool to predict and manage, science continues to dominate and control nature, extending from religiousand philosophical beliefs in a human domination of nature through a Cartesian paradigm(Bowers 2002; Gatta 2004;Merchant 1980; Orr 1992). A science model is tied to a political and economic consumer-producer model through an objective analysis. This

began a process of legitimization whereby if science backs an idea then it must be true, and that if it is true then it has value, and value

can be equated to dollars. Since the way that science ismost often funded is so inextricably linked to the producer-consumer model, it hasvalue in its voice and is an extension of an elitist modelwhereby Latin is the foundational language and English becomes themode of scientific reporting to academia. This is evidenced by the fairly recent publication of the Oxford Dictionary of Ecology, first printed in

1994, that merges ecology and environmental sciences without any link to Indigenous Knowledge (IK). Another example includes a recent

effort to rejuvenate all aspects of the K- 12 curriculum with a focus on the environment through a report Shaping our Schools, Shaping ourFuture (Report June 2007), by a working group on environmental education of the Ontario Ministry of Education in Canada. The report itselfexamined how issues related to environmental education could be integrated across the school curriculum through an incorporation of an analysis

of the environment, climate change, and the importance of conservation into curricular designs. The working group reproduced an approach to

environmental education based on a scientific model in their report, exemplifying once again the reality that Indigenous Environmental

Knowledge (IEK) is often overlooked in environmental education curriculum decision-making processes.


18/63


19/63

technique, by its nature, does not show the way a given species travels. What is seen is only the point atwhich it starts and ends, combined with a generally straight line. On top of this, when all the lines are inflated around thefishing ground, it becomes self-justified to argue that there is no substantial trans-oceanicmigration. Moreover, the maps are species-specific, so it becomes extremely difficult to see theinteractive relationships among the species of a given area, let alone of the whole of the

ocean. Therefore, although science is helpful in understanding the nature of the marinesystem, it is far from being accurate and should be considered in terms of these

limits (i.e. over its accuracy). The way in which scientific analyses are employed in an attempt toease the fishing industrys worries by being taken into account in the industrial practice of

fisheries, which in turn is reterritorialised into sovereign patches that is, shaped byunconcerned motivation to produce more results in the production of a certain

understanding of species that are under considerationcollapses the very space those

analyses are trying to understand into fragmented structures of material existence .These may be seen as waiting to be used, and this fragmented structure somehow becomes

coherent in its exclusion from the life space of human beings. The following brief examples underline thissituation. They bring together issues and agents that are then discussed.


20/63

LinkConservationOcean conservation remains trapped in materialistic considerationsfar removed fromacknowledging ecological relationalitySeckinelgin 6


UNCLOS III has left the world with recognition of the necessity for conservationand protection

of the marine environment. This necessity is based on the material importance of resources tothe developmental effort of the coastal states. Although this may have some important

effects on the general conservation measures of the oceans , it is far removed from

acknowledging any ecological relationality among species. Nevertheless, it may be arguedthat by initially creating such divisions at a time of realisation of the ecological complexity ,it has prompted a response, namely that it is not possible to manage oceans through unilateralmeans based on rigid political formulations. This conjunction of reterritorialisation basedon UNCLOS III and the spatiality implied within it becomes a very important concern as aresult of the wide application of this form of relationality . In the remainder of this chapter I will analyse andassess the impact of the application of UNCLOS III in the South Pacific. This assessment process is looking at a case which is seen largely as a

success story. The possibility of this narrative of success is related to the discursive structure of

IR. The success story is based on the functional assessment of the regime rather than

on its impact on its subject matter . In this, there is an implicit grounding of what may be seen as the relevant subject ofconcern. The attempt is not to deny the functional story, but to show that it does not provide the whole picture whenecological concerns are juxtaposed with functional understanding.


21/63

LinkEnvironmental GovernanceMultilateral ocean protection efforts result in less cooperation and create ocean divisionsthat tradeoff with an ecology of interconnectednessSeckinelgin 6


The idea of cooperation in ocean management based on UNCLOS III has caused the

fragmentation of ocean space into areas of self-interest of individual states .In other words,despite the fact that UNCLOS III calls for cooperation, it both expanded and strengthenedthe impact of sovereignty. The second dimension is the fact that the reflection of strong sovereignty claimson regional cooperation has resulted in an enhanced contrast between the high seas and thenewly created zones, and has somewhat dwarfed any attempt at wider cooperation for

ocean management that is based on a larger ecology than that of the individualsovereign zones. It has also become implicitly obvious that the region would not take part in any formationthat gives less power to its member states or more control to others than they have now. It isfair to argue that the region has become a closed block while having an internal fragmentation ofinterest with regard to the management of the ocean. At this juncture, it is clear that the cultural

edifice is more or less cosmetic . The relations between member states are based on theapplication of Western ideas of sovereign statehood and the rationale for those relations is

expressed as interest rather than deep cultural affiliation. Therefore, relations between members begin fromthis common ground. They are not interested in the question of, for example, why these memberstates have set development and progress targets based on an increase in national incomeswhich is meant to be achieved through capitalising on ocean resources, despite the fact thatthis understanding destabilises their social and cultural systems.


22/63

LinkClimate ChangeTheir relationship to climate change divides human influences on nature from natural

variationsUggla 7

[2007, Ylva, Orebo University in Sweden (!), Journal of Political Ecology, Vol. 17,http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_17/Uggla.pdf]

The theory of global warming as a consequence of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was raised several times in the twentieth century, but it was

not until the 1980s that climate change became a serious political issue. The logic underlying the international community'sconcern for global climate change is based on climate modeling that indicates potential adverse effects-such as intensifieddroughts and floods, and rising sea level-due to human GHG emissions. Climate modeling is also the prerequisite for distinguishingbetween natural climate variability and human-induced climate change, since periods of frequentrainfall, little or no rainfall, or of extreme weather events cannot positively be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. As Edwards puts it:

The inherent variability of weather makes it impossible to attribute individual storms, floods, droughts or hurricanes to changes in the global

climate. Only bycoupling statistical analyses to climate modeling exercises have scientists been able toisolateand display the "fingerprint" of global warming in changing weather patterns around the world. (Edwards2001: 33) Today, there is a complex alliance between science-based descriptions of climate change and climate policy (Edwards 2001: 34). In

this fusion of science and policy, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up in 1988 to provide independent scientific advice

on climate change, functions as a center of authority that must uphold its credibility in the eyes of both the scientific and policy communities

(Edwards and Schneider 2001; cf. Adger 2006). The role of the IPCC is not to conduct research, but to assess "on a comprehensive, objective,

open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of

human-induced climate change" (IPCC 1998: 1). The IPCC summarizes and communicates its assessments to support policy-making, and its

First Assessment Report, published in 1990, constituted the scientific basis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC), adopted in 1992 (Fig. 2). TheIPCC reports present the scientific consensus thatthe Earth'sclimate is being affected by human activities. The Assessment Reports are part of the scientificconstructof the consensus, and this consensus has remained relatively stable over time about one key factor: the sensitivity of the climateto atmospheric CO2 doubling, expressed as a projected increase of global mean temperature (van der Sluijs 1998; cf. von Storch 2009). The

policy responses to climate changeestablished in the UNFCCC are mitigation and adaptation."Mitigation" concerns reducing GHG emissions , and enhancing and protecting greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirssuch as forests and oceans. "Adaptation" concernsvarious human responses toexperienced or expected consequencesof climate change, such as flood control and crop adjustment.Although adaptation includes both moderatingharm and exploiting beneficial opportunities, the international community's adoption of the UNFCCC is a sign of its great concern about the

adverse effects of climate change. Likewise, although previous and present climate variation has resulted and may result in natural disasters such

as droughts, floods, and landslides, the concern underlying mitigation is that anthropogenic climate change has contributed to increased

frequency of events including heat waves, heavy precipitation and intense tropical cyclone activity. Accordingly, climate policy has identified

human interference with the climate, and the need for mitigation measures (Klein et al. 2003; Tol 2005). The focus on humaninterference with the climate systemis consistent with the scientific agenda that supports the logic ofmitigation, based on the presumption of a causal relationship between human activities and increased

concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in climate change with predominantly negativeconsequences for society. In turn, this mitigation imperative results in a bias against adaptation (Pielke, 2005). The UNFCCCprovides an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to control climate change. In the preamble to the UNFCCC, the contracting parties

articulate their concern "that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases", and that

this will lead to additional warming of the earth's surface and atmosphere. This may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind, so theultimate objectiveof the Convention (Article 2) is to: achieve stabilization of greenhouse gasconcentrationsin the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should

be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not

threatened and to enable economic developmentto proceed in a sustainable manner (UNFCCC, Article 2). These formulations
http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_17/Uggla.pdfhttp://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_17/Uggla.pdf


23/63

embrace the notion that human interference with the climate may result in a situation in which ecosystems can no longer adapt naturally, which

in turn will threaten human food supply, welfare and economic growth. From the preamble and the overall objective of the UN Convention, itis clear that the concernexpressed aboutthe adverse effects of climate change exclusively concernhuman survivaland welfare.


24/63

LinkOcean InfrastructureThe affirmatives infrastructure is an attempt to distance humanity from nature

Duyser 10

[2010, Mitchell Duyser. Master of Architecture at University of Cincinnati. April 2010. Hybrid

Landscapes: Territories of Shared Ecological and Infrastructural Value. Masters Thesis.Pages 3-7]

The construct of modern human life is built uponan invisible foundation. Not invisible as in undetectable, but invisible as inhidden and forgotten. Representative of the infrastructure that enables civilization, this foundation is formed from thehuman and ecological systems that support the continued expansion of modern society. Often unnoticed, this myriad of pipes, wires, rivers, and

oil fields is pushed out of the collective conscious and awareness. So dependent have we become on these systems, minor disruptions in theirfunctionality can threaten civilization itself. As exemplified by events like the 2007 Minneapolis bridge disaster1, and more abstract issues like

climate change, these systems are approaching the point of widespread failure. Such threats of disaster arecurrently the only events capable of bringing infrastructure to the surface of everyday experience , and will

occur with increasing frequency unless widespread societal action is taken. Humans need to change how they interactwith the rest of the world, specifically focusing on the technologies that enable civilization,and the collectively held societal perspective of the environment.Civilization can no longer afford to forgetabout the systems that enable existence, nor can it assume that such infrastructures will be available indefinitely. Infrastructure hastraditionally beenintentionally and methodically hidden from view, buried underground, and moved to the outskirts of town. Allowinghumans to live free of concern for how necessities are acquired , organized, and distributed. Theinfrastructurethat isexposed, such as power lines, roads, and cellular towers, are rendered invisible bytheir ubiquity,subsumed by thecontemporary urban landscape.Throughout modern time, infrastructure has served toinsulate human activity fromits effects on the rest of the planet.Away was a place anywhere but here, removedfrom influence over problems like water quality and climate change. The unavoidable truth however, that this isolation is not

physical but psychological, has been slowly revealing itself over the past fifty years. Books like Rachel Carsons Silent Spring,

published in 1962, and movies like Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth, (2006) have helped illuminate the previously invisible systems bindingcivilization to the rhythms of the planet. We can now attribute much of the current environmental fluxus to the ignorance of our participation in

global and local ecology. Today, truly no place exists that has not experienced the impacts of humanity.2 Thisignorance or rather,willingness to overlookmans interaction with the environment is nota recentsocietal or cultural development.Our actions and reasoning are deeply rooted in the classical tradition, dating back to the founding myths of Christianity and ancient Greece.

Perpetuated and augmented through the Enlightenmentand Industrialization, western culture hasbeen leftwith a fracturedview of nature. One that idolizes and romanticizes the virgin wilderness while simultaneously working feverishly to exploit everyavailable natural resource in the name of societal and economic progress. Romanticism values nature for its aesthetic and sentimental appeal,

while Industrializations commoditization of the environment makes it subservient to human needs and desires. The assimilation of these viewshas led to the perception of nature-as-beauty, allowing for the consumption of less beautiful landscapes with disregard for ecological

consequences. 3 New conceptualizations of nature must recognize the presence of complex and emergent systems, where the whole behaves in a

way that cannot be understood through the isolation of individual parts.4 Work in the field of biomimicry, championed by the b iologist JanineBenyus and the architect William McDonough, is already moving towards this end. Both call for a new industrial organization that looks to

nature to provide specific technologies as well as methodologies for production that displace consumption and disposal with nutrient cycles thatare endlessly renewable and detoxifying for the environment.5 6 An architecture responsive to a redefined conception of nature must address

both the physical and cultural relationships humans have with their environment. Such an architecture must visually and functionally integrate the

previously disparate activities of civilization and nature. Infrastructural solutions can no longer come throughhuman ingenuity alone, but through mentorship and comprehension of the complex systems already existing in nature. This use of

biomimicry allows environmental design to evolve beyond the current sustainability movement where simply being less bad is still good

enough.7 Concepts like the USGBCs LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) system, and other supposedlygreen building practices do nothing to change the fundamental relationship humans have


25/63

with the planet. They function under thedated and false assumption of humanity as a separatesystem from the rest of nature.Polluting and consuming at a slightly slower rate is not a thoughtful means of reintegratingcivilization with ecology.


26/63

Impact


27/63

2NC EpistemologyTheir policy analysis is tilted to exclude ecological concernsyou should be skeptical andprefer our impactsSeckinelgin 6


The possibility of narrating this success story may be located in a certain understanding of

what the success is. The region may be seen as successful only if the understanding of

cooperation is based on a certain perspective of the international . In terms of IR this story mayeither be located in a realist stance, in which case South Pacific cooperation may be seen as successful so long as each member acts in pursuance

of its own interest without passing any overarching power to the institution. In addition, the institution may be seen within the realist concepts ofpower maximisation and security (Stein 1990: 47) whereby each member can achieve those same aims through the facility of the cooperativeinstitution. Or it can be grounded as successful in a liberal standpoint. As Stein explains (1990: 47), cooperative arrangements could emerge as a

result of exchange (i.e. trade). Obviously, through the application of a new Law of the Sea and the conceptof the EEZ the island states were located into a new set of economic relations within theinternational economic structure, and their response to this new situation seemsappropriate, reflecting greater international division of labour and interdependence. Thus the institution is the responseof states to the requirements of the international market in pursuance of their self-interest.Both perspectives consider the South Pacific cooperation to be a success story on the basisof functional efficiency of the institutionsor as an efficient aid to trade relations. The framework which

legitimises these stories only perceives the sovereign state as the unit of analysis. In this,

functional efficiency seems to be evaluated on the basis of individual gains among themembers of the cooperation or group gains in relation to external actors. Through this perspective and

understanding, the paradoxical spatiality in relation to oceans created by UNCLOS III has

been naturalised. The relationship between the institutions and what they are supposed todeal with is severed. The success is not based on how far institutions are suited to the issuesthey are dealing with.Parallel to this discrepancy, it is clear that in the conventional narrative the

subject matter of the discussion(i.e. oceans and resources therein) has been disregarded

as a relevant concern. The concern arises in relation to the contribution of ocean

resources to the finances of development in each individual state. Although it is an

undeniable fact that innovative measures developed through the region are important,they are assessed as successful insofar as they generate a positive financial flow into

the individual island states . When there is a danger to this positive flow, measures are disregarded. Overall, in both theunderstanding and the application of UNCLOS III in the region, ecology, as defined in this

study, has been ignored. The complexity presented by the ocean system is not located

as a part of the formation formulated in UNCLOS III.


28/63

ImpactHierarchiesThis dualistic thinking about human culture and nature is the root of all exclusion

Frank 3

[2003, Roslyn, University of Iowa, Shifting Identities: The Metaphorics of Nature-Culture

Dualism in Western and Basque Models of Self,http://www.metaphorik.de/04/frank.pdf]

These dyads reflect the underlying hierarchical ontological ordering that structures certain root metaphors found in Western thought (Olds1992). It should be emphasised that the metaphoric understandings coded into the Western model form sets of asymmetric polarities, although

with mutually reinforcing, conceptual frames. For this reason, the culture/nature dualismsets culture above nature, while themind/body dualism places mind above body. Then just as the polarity of reason/emotion can be identified withmasculine/feminine, culture/nature stands for a gendered dualism of masculine/feminine.Stated differently, the metaphoric set of culture/mind/reason/masculine has its counterpart in nature/body/emotion/feminine. In this sense, the

dyads represent examples of Aristotelian proportional metaphors, that is, analogies in the form of A is to B what C is to D. Therefore, since inthe case of a proportional metaphor its mapping must always apply reciprocally to either of its co-ordinate terms, each individual component of

the dyad sets in Diagram 1 is available as a highly complex and expansive metaphoric resource.1 Moreover, although the reciprocity holding

between the dyads, i.e., their status as proportional metaphors, is clearly culturally grounded and hence historically bound, recognition of this

fact is not easy to achieve.2 This is because of the epistemic authority afforded to these concepts, an effect that, in turn, is derived from the

central role played by these metaphors in structuring Western thought, epistemology, ontology, and personhood.3 In recent yearsincreasing attention has been paid tothe development and/or recovery of conceptual frames capable of challengingand overcoming these deeply embedded, hierarchically organised dualities thatcontinue tocharacterise Western thought. As Lakoff and Turner have observed, the worldview known as the Great Chain [ofBeing]itself is apolitical issue. As a chain of dominance,it can become a chain of subjugation(Lakoff/Turner1989: 213).4 Specifically I refer to efforts aimed at discovering a way to move out of an ontology grounded in a logic of dualities, and more

concretely, to the difficulties posed by the deeply embedded, dyadic conceptual frame known as mind/body, formerly soul/body, and its

conceptual twin, the polarity of culture/nature. Although many scholars have documented the evolution of these concepts within Western

thought, particularly the dyads of mind/body, male/female, and more recently, culture/nature,5 less attention has been paid to gaining a

perspective on them from the outside. Indeed, as Descola and Plsson have noted: Deconstructing the dualist paradigm

may appearas just one more example of the

healthy self-criticismwhich now permeates anthropological theory. [] If

such analytical categories as economics, totemism, kinship, politics, individualism, or even society, have beencharacterized as ethnocentric constructs, why should it be any different with thedisjuncture between nature and society?The answer is that this dichotomy is not just another analytical category

belonging to the tool-kit of the social sciences; it is the key foundation of modernist epistemology. (Descola/Plsson 1996: 12) Perhaps one of

the most important and insightful explorations of the role of th e nature/culture (society) dichotomy in Western thought is found in Latours

(1993) work. Briefly stated, these dichotomous concepts haveserved two major purposes in ordering Western thought. First,they have allowed the hierarchical division of humanand other(s)to function as innate and universal, initiallyunder the guardianship oftheological foundationalism, i.e., Gods plan anda vertically oriented cosmology, then latersimply as the Law of Nature.This transition in the model occurred during the Enlightenment and coincided roughly with the period inwhich absolute monarchies were loosing their grip on Europe. As a result, a new type of foundationalism was required, reflected in Linneauschoice of the Great Chain of Being as the classifying mechanism for all of nature and humankind (cf. Schiebinger 1993). Thus, in this new type

of foundationalism, social hierarchies were based, not on Gods plan, but rather on an unchangingand universalistconcept referred to as nature: justifications of existing inequalities were based on thehierarchical order attributed to natureand, in turn, dictated by it. Similarly, in the 18th and 19th centuries, pre-Darwinian socioeconomic thought provided the ground for both Darwins competition metaphor and for the same type of metaphors inthe works of Spencer and other so-called Social Darwinists. Thus, although commonly viewed as mutually exclusive opposites, these two

antithetical concepts are linked and mutually reinforcing: the nature/culture antithesishas played a major role in Western thought,where nature is used to justifyculture, the prevailing socioeconomic order, while at the same time, the prevailing
http://www.metaphorik.de/04/frank.pdfhttp://www.metaphorik.de/04/frank.pdf


29/63

socioeconomic order, culture, is mapped onto this reified entity, things-in-themselves, called nature. In this conceptual circularity lies the reason

for this dyads key foundational role in modernist epistemology (cf. again Latour 1993).


30/63

ImpactValueThis dualism destroys meaning in the natural world, makes our lives pointless, and justifiesenvironmental exploitationRatner 11

[2011, Dena, Louisiana State University, Bhatter College Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies (ISSN 2249-3301), Volume 1, Number 1, SpecialIssue on Earth, Nature, Environment, Ecosystem and Human Society]

There are two kinds of nothing that have a dangerous impact on the environment. One stems from dualistic philosophies that treat the outside

world as that which has no meaning. Although dualism had beenprevalent in Greek philosophy and Christian theology, Descartesbuilt on the idea that nature has no intrinsic value to justify the scientific study and exploitationof nature. After all, why respect nature if it has no metaphysical value? The other kind of nothing is the one that Tolstoy and Camus wroteabout; it arises when the world is divorced both from internal consciousness and from eternal value. When nature has nomeaning, it is easy to conclude that life itself has no meaning. When life has no meaning, it does not matter ifyou throw away your can of coke or recycle it. Nietzsche and Heidegger brought attention to western mans corrupted view of nature and can beconsidered pioneers in environmental philosophy. Over the past thirty years, it has become increasingly difficult to ignore the consequences both

kinds of nothing have had on our environment. The beliefs that natureis an exploitable nothing and that life has nomeaning have justified and perpetuatedthe trashing of our planet. What followed from Descartes scientific revolutionwas the industrialrevolution, a harbinger of ever more intrusive technologies,like factories and cars that sent pollutantsintothe earths air, land, andsea. Now we face consequences of global warminglike draughts, more extreme weather, the melting of the

polar ice caps, and rising sea levels. It is increasingly difficult to believe that we can exploit nature without feeling the negative effects. It seems

that never before has our connection with nature been more strongly proven. Perhaps environmentalism is the thread that can restore a connection

to the universe for those who otherwise believe in nothing. Stripping Nature of Meaning: In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes formulated

the idea that nature is disconnected from man in modern and rational terms. By doubting existence outside of his consciousness, Descartes

reasoned, intelligent nature is distinct from corporal nature (Descartes 27). Since Gods nature is perfect and of the intelligent variety, thatmeant that corporal matter is that which lacks gods presence. Of course, the dualistic concept that matter lacks the essence of God is not originalto Descartes. It is an idea, which was propounded by the Socratics and brought into Christian thought by Augustine. Compare A ugustinesconcept of the origin of sin, You made the man but not the sin in him (Augustine 8) to Descartes, Though we often have ideas which containfalsity, they can only be those ideas which contain some confusions and obscurity, in which respect they do not come from the supreme Being,

but proceed from or participate in nothingness (Descartes 29). So why didnt we see the same level of environmental devastation in Augustinesera as now? In justifying his publication of his principles, Descartes also wrote, Instead ofthe speculative philosophy now taught in the schoolswe can find a practical one and justified using knowledge of nature to make ourselves master and possessors of nature (Descartes 45).Descartes takes the idea that nature has no meaning out of the realm of speculation and thrusts it into the realm of action. Descartes writings in

the seventeenth century had an enormous impact on the scientific revolution and the subsequent industrial revolution. It seems no accident that

thepopular concept that nature isan exploitable nothing, along with advances in technology, madean unprecedentedexploitation of the environment possible. The incipient stages of modern day air pollution started with the introduction offactories and widespread consumption of coal when, virtually no one reckoned that burning coal or oil would tamper with our climate (Henson27). By adding carbon dioxide to the Earths atmosphere over the past 150 years, humans have altered the worlds climate (Henson 7). After themid-1800s, Earths climate took a decided turn for the warmer and by the end of the twentieth century it was clear that global temperatures hadreached the highest temperatures seen in 1000 years (Henson 216). The IPCCs 2001 report break global emissions of carbon dioxide into fourmajor sectors: Industry, Buildings, Transportation, and Agriculture. These industries would not exist if it had not been for the industrial and

scientific revolutions. Dualism provided a philosophical justification for the objectivestudy and the exploitation of nature. The Impact of

Nihilism: Descartes explained the presence of God rationally, but for thinkers who could not find higher meaning, the dualistic

philosophy descended intocosmic and existential nihilism. Cosmic nihilism is related to dualismin that it deniesthe possibility of finding meaning in nature , The cosmos is seen as giving no support to distinctively human aims orvalues (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). When people believe that the world is alien to human value, the meaning of actions in the world

comes into question as well. This view that lifeitself has no meaning is existential nihilismor, that whichnegatesthe meaning of human life, judging it to beirremediably pointless, futile and absurd (Routledge Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy). Both kinds of nihilism are dangerous for the environment. For a cosmic nihilist hog farmer, it does not matter if his hogwash flows

into a local river because the river has no inherent value. For an existential nihilist, there is no point in trying toclean up a planet from which she will inevitablyand eternally depart.


31/63


32/63

ImpactNuclear WarDistance from nature desensitizes us to lifekills value to life and is a precondition fornuclear warBookchin 87

[1987, Murray, co-founder of the Institute of Social Ecology An Appeal For Social andPsychological Sanity]

Industrially and technologically, we are moving at an ever-accelerating pace toward a yawning chasm with our eyes completely

blindfolded. From the 1950s onward,we have placed ecological burdens upon our planet that have noprecedent in human history.Our impact on our environment has been nothing less than appalling. The problems raised by acidrain alone are striking examples of [end page 106] innumerable problems that appear everywhere on our planet. The concrete-like clay layers,

impervious to almost any kind of plant growth, replacing dynamic soils that once supported lush rain forests remain stark witness to a massive

erosion of soil in all regions north and south of our equatorial belt. The equatora cradle not only of our weather like the ice caps but a highlycomplex network of animal and plant lifeis being denuded to a point where vast areas of the region look like a barren moonscape. We nolonger "cut" our foreststhat celebrated "renewable resource" for fuel, timber, and paper. We sweep them up like dust with a rapidity and

"efficiency" that renders any claims to restorative action mere media-hype. Our entire planet is thus becomingsimplified, not only polluted. Its soil is turning into sand. Its stately forests are rapidly being replaced by tangled weeds andscrub, that is, where vegetation in any complex form can be sustained at all. Its wildlife ebbs and flows on the edge ofextinction, dependent largely on whetherone or two nationsorgovernmental administrationsagree that certainsea and land mammals, birdspecies,or, for that matter, magnificent treesare "worth" rescuingaslucrative items on corporate balance sheets. With each such loss, humanity, too,losesa portion of its own characterstructure:its sensitivity toward lifeas such, including human life, and its rich wealth of sensibility. If we can learn to ignore thedestiny of whales and condorsindeed, turn their fate into chic clicheswe can learn to ignore the destiny of Cambodians in Asia, Salvadorans

in Central America, [end page 107] and, finally, the human beings who people our communities. If we reach this degree ofdegradation, we will then become so spiritually denuded that we will be capable of ignoringthe terrors of thermonuclear war. Like the biotic ecosystems we have simplified with our lumbering and slaughteringtechnologies,we will have simplified the psychic ecosystems that give each of us our personaluniqueness. We will have rendered our internal mileau as homogenized and lifeless as ourexternal milieuand a biocidal war will merely externalize the deep sleep that will havealready claimed our spiritual and moral integrity . The process of simplification, even more significantly than

pollution, threatens to destroy the restorative powers of nature and humanitytheir common ability to efface the forces of destruction andreclaim the planet for life and fecundity. A humanity disempowered of its capacity to change a misbegotten "civilization," ultimately divested of

its power to resist, reflects a natural world disempowered of its capacity to reproduce a green and living world.


33/63


34/63

AltK2 PragmatismIts a prerequisite to pragmatic solutions to environmental problemsPaterson 6

[2006, Barbara, Red Orbit, Avian Demography Unit, Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Cape Town in South Africa,

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/410448/ethics_for_wildlife_conservation_overcoming_the_humannature_dualism/]

The challengefor environmental ethics is to find asolid rationaljustification for why nature should beprotectedfrom human actions. Arguments that stress the instrumental value other species have for humans provide practical muscle forconservation where it counts, on the ground (Myers 1979a). However, arguments based on instrumental value imply that it is the

conservationists responsibility to prove that such value exists. Althoughthe conservation of nature in general iswidelyconsidered valuable, conservationists find that in practice they have to fight the samebattles again and again to protectwild speciesfrom harm. There is a perceived need to express the value of wild speciesin objectively measurable economic terms that can be employed as incentives for wildlife conservation or as arguments against land uses that are

harmful to wildlife. Thisassumption is underpinned by a negative view of humanity, in that it assumes that peoplein themselves

will not conserve nature unless it is clearly to their direct benefit. Humans and nature are seenas being inprofound conflict with each other.The concept of the wildlife conservationist is that of a resource manager whosejob is to manage natural resources for the benefit of people, but who is fighting an ongoing battle to prove the value of this work. The existence of

intrinsic value in nature, on the other hand, would free conservationists of the obligation to prove that there is value in conserving a particular

species. Although it is generally accepted that human life is intrinsically valuable, the possibility of intrinsic value in nonhuman life forms a large

part of the environmental ethics debate. Extensionist approaches, which aim to define moral criteria on which such value can be based, are

problematic for wildlife managers because they consider individual organisms, not species and ecosystems. By drawing directly from ecological

concepts rather than from a human-centered frame of reference, philosophers such as Leopold, Rolston, and others call for a rethinking of our

moral framework. Nonetheless, biocentric approaches to environmental ethics can be seen as implying the prioritization of nonhuman life over

human life, thus sharpening the dichotomy between humans and the natural environment. The human- versus-naturedualism that underpins boththe instrumental and the intrinsic value approaches is unhelpful towildlifeconservation and management, which are concerned with balancing both social and environmental goals.It is not surprisingthat the endeavor of providing a rational ethical foundation for conservation is proving difficult, considering that the Western

worldview, which has become increasingly influential on a global scale, hasfor centuries seen the conquestand subjection ofnature as its greatest challenge. In contrast, thetraditional Eastern view sees humanity as part ofnature, not as a rival(Ikeda 1994, p. 144). Ikeda suggests that the differing attitudes toward nature may be grounded in thedifferences between the Easternand Western views of lifeitself. In the tradition of Buddhist thought, Ikedas exposition of thetheories of dependent origination and the oneness of life and its environment transcends theman-nature dualism. Thisapproach provides a bridge between environmental ethics and the resolution of practicalenvironmental problems.Ikedas work does not in itself constitute an environmental ethic. However, the concepts of dependentorigination and the oneness of life and environment provide an ample platform for developing such an ethic. To Ikeda, ethics are notamatter of timeless rules that can be applied to particular situations. Rather, ethicsdepend on asensitivity toward the principle of dependent origination. Consequently, Ikedas aim is notthe development of an abstract theory

butrather theempowerment of the individual to lead a contributive way of lifebased onanawareness of the interdependent natureof our lives-of the relationshipsthat link us toothers and ourenvironment (Ikeda 2002). The modern conservation paradigm, conservationfor and with people, requires that weovercome the dualism of human versus nature, which creates antagonism betweenconservationists and other people.Ikedas philosophy provides a basis for a conservation philosophy that sees theconservationist not as a defender of the natural world against the harmful impact of human actions but as one who realizes theinterdependencesboth between people and between people and nature, and who strives toawaken suchawareness in others in order to achieve a better future for all.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/410448/ethics_for_wildlife_conservation_overcoming_the_humannature_dualism/http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/410448/ethics_for_wildlife_conservation_overcoming_the_humannature_dualism/


35/63


36/63

AltDiscourse KeyDiscursive analysis is criticalpower hides its production of new knowledge throughdiscursive omissions and fissuresusing those to situating resistance is criticalSeckinelgin 6


The relationship between power/knowledge and discourse isan extremely interesting andimportantone. In considering discourse as the reflection of deeper, internal values andnorms, and the relationship between them, it is possible to dissect the knowledge claim of a discourse in

relation to th

Download - Relationality K--ADC Final (1)

Top Related