template debate

8/10/2019 Template Debate

1/29

Management Kritik


2/29

1NC/Overview


3/29

Management K

Exploration and development of the ocean space is rooted in a destructive,

ontological state of management.

Deuchars, 13Deuchars, Robert. "Governmentality and Risk: Managing Ocean Space."Research Paper International Environmental Law (LAWS

530) (2013): n. pag. Web. Faculty of Law Victoria University of Wellington

The majority of the literature on international environmental law does not consider any of the

above to be anything other than part of the lexicon of terms that are used to describe and toanalyse environmental problems. Similarly ocean space is now increasingly divided upby regional

bodies, established by conventions to oversee the management of (usually) labelled species that are to be managedand or protected by these bodiesthat have a series of measures that have been designed to ensure the survivability of theresources under our gaze. Ernst Haas asked the provocative question in the 1970s Why ocean space rather than thehuman environment, the ecosystem, atmospheric space or outer space?1 What Haas did was to ground theconceptocean space as materiality giving that space a territorial function for the purposes of regime

construction.In that sense Haas made a valuable early contribution to thinking about the vastness of the oceans and of the livingthings that constitute ocean space by attributing to it the same ontological status as territory. It is, of course a double-edged

sword contribution as once the oceans are perceived on the same plane of reality as land atwofold effect occurs. Firstly, there is the recognition that the ocean space is not limitless;it has boundaries.2And secondly, once boundaries are concretised, there is ample room for territorial disputes over the

space itself and increasingly the resources contained within those boundaries.Ocean space andthe ecosystem which is used in the legal definition of the methodological approach to themanagement of ocean spacein fisheries are described as complex adaptive systems and the behaviour of the parts orindividual scale-entities has a co-evolutionary effect on the behaviour of all the other agents. In other words nonlinearity represents

a clear break with Cartesian certainty and opens up theoretical space for uncertainty, irreducibleindeterminism and exposes the weaknesses of our fondness for reductionist forms of analysis.Breaking things down into their smallest constituent parts seems to have much appeal but when we reveal the objects of our enquiries

are more often than not repeated practices and processes situated in irreversible time we are confronted with the in-built limitation

of both static analysis and reductive analysis.3 This is not an entirely new idea and has been well explained in other texts. KarlMannheim in his classic work Ideology and Utopia exposes our tendencies to attempt to make rigid and fixed practices and processes

to give the illusory appearance of spatiotemporal stability. Again, this situation may make for a certain utility of analysis, but covers

up critical areas of experience such as complexity, emergence and the inherent instability of identities. He notes: The wo rld ofexternal objects and of psychic experience appears to be in a state of continuous flux. Verbs are more adequate symbols for this

situation than nouns. The fact that we give names to things which are in flux implies inevitably certain stabilization oriented along

the lines of collective activity. The derivation of our meanings emphasizes and stabilizes that aspect ofthings which is relevant to activity and covers up, in the interest of collective action, the

perpetually fluid process underlying all things.4 Mannheim published this work in the 1930s, not so long after theestablishment of quantum mechanics, which had revealed a number of fundamental problems for physics but which also becamegermane to the study of social systems too. However Mannheim appears to be acutely aware of the functional reasons why we do not,

in most cases, attempt to designate things as they really are. He acknowledges that the interest of collective action

serves to simplify and solidify unstable entities for the explicit purpose of functional activity.This logic gives impetus for us to problematise the fluid concepts of nation-states, the system ofnation-states and the myriad conventions that constitute most aspects of global governance,

including international environmental law. The nation-state and the international system of states are on-goingprojects and can never be said to be fully complete. There is a continuous ebbing and flowing of people, information, laws and

norms, and the transportation of matter-energy flows. When Mannheim mentions the the perpetually fluid process underlying allthings we should be careful to place this phrase in context. It can be taken too far thus disabling our attempts to analyse any given

phenomenon. The stabilization of things is often required for us to make any meaningful statements about them. Although

Mannheims statement may be correct, stability is often required for analytical convenience even when we know that it merely

represents an approximation of the real. In this essay I will consider one body that has been established to manage

the ocean space within set geographic boundaries . As stated in article 2 of its convention the objective ofthis body is to act through the application of the precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach

to fisheries management, to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use offishery resourcesand, in so doing, to safeguard the marine ecosystems in which these resources occur. This body is theSouth Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO), which was instituted after years of negotiat ion under the


4/29

Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean in November 2009

and entered into force in December 2012.5 The Convention itself falls under the auspices of United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS)6 which was established the 1982, although many similar regional regimes predate the present framework for

ocean governance. In the pages that follow I will outline a critique that takes the terms mentioned at the very beginning of this essay

into account and suggest that far from being reasonable and unproblematic, it is more reasonable to suggest that thesewords and terms, and others similar to them, and the framework of thinking in which they inhabit,are indicative of the culturally modernist ontology and predominantly positivist epistemology that

tend to dominate the discourse of so-called advanced industrialised societies. In doing so I will have toopen up the scope of my enquiry well beyond environmental law and into areas of philosophy and

in particular the question of the relationship humans have with nature, the international politicaleconomyof industries beyond fishing techniques and accepted practice, and the great uncertainties and gaps in scientificknowledge7 in general and of the deep seas in particular. Furthermore, my point of departure necessitates a

questioning of the use and abuse of technology to pursue questionable ends in general8 andtechnological practices in particular, especially those practices that have enabled humans to fish

in deeper waters using techniques that do not discriminate between fish, marine mammals, otherlife-forms and the ocean space.

This form of ontological thought destroys our value to life and makes planetary

destruction inevitable.

McWhorter 92(Ladelle, Asst Prof of Philosophy @ Northeast Missouri State Univ., Heidegger and the Earth, p. x)In "Earth-Thinking and Transformation," Kenneth Maly shows us ways in which Heideggerian reflection upon thefact of our being as earth-dwellers can be transformative of our thinking at its very core and

therefore transformative of our world. Maly believes that our culture's insistence upon a divorcebetween rationality and other ways of thinking and knowing has resulted in animpoverishment of our being and a destructive distancing from the earth that gives rise to, shelters, andsustains us. When we take ourselves and the earth as fixed entities to be comprehended byrational observation and theoretical constructs we lose sight of earth and being-human as

process, as forever unfixed, as changing, growing, outgrowing, as living and therefore dying.It is only when webegin to think human being and earth as unfixed, as always undergoing transformation in aliving unfolding of our/its being that a new, less destructive understanding of humanity-in/on-

earth can come into being. And such understanding, Maly would argue, is absolutely necessary if we

are to avoid destroying the earth.

Alterative: Reject the 1AC and its managerial relations with the ocean.

We must do nothing in the face of the affirmatives call for action only through

this passivity can we escape the cycle of control created by managerial thought.

McWhorter 92(Ladelle, Heidegger and the Earth Essays in Environmental Philosophy, Thomas Jefferson University Press,pg. 4-5)

Heidegger frustrates us. At a time when the stakes are so very high and decisive action is so loudly and urgentlycalled for, Heidegger apparently calls us to do - nothing. If we get beyond the revulsion and anger that such acall initially inspires and actually examine the feasibility of response, We begin to undergo the frustrationattendant upon paradox; how is it possible, we ask, to choose. to will, to do nothing? The call itself

places in question the bimodal logic ofactivity and passivity; it points up the paradoxical nature of ourpassion for action,of our passion for maintaining control. The call itself suggests that our drive for

actingdecisively and forcefully is part of what must be thought through, that the narrowoption of will versussurrender is one of the power configurations of current thinking that must be allowed to dissipate. But of course,those drives and those conceptual dichotomies are part of the very structure of our self-understandingboth asindividuals and as a tradition and a civilization.Hence, Heidegger's call is a threatening one, requiring greatcourage, "the courage to make the truth of our Own presuppositions and the realm of our own goals

into the things that most deserve to be called in question3 Heidegger's work pushes thinking to think through


5/29

the assumptions that underlie both our ecological vandalism and our love of scientific solutions, assumptions that also ground the most

basic patterns of our current ways of being human.


6/29

Overview

Every time they say exploration and development, they mean exploitation and

envelopmentthe 1AC is an act of otherizing and managing nature and using it as a

standing reserveour Deuchars in 13 evidence says that using the ocean as a

consumable good for human gain through exploration and development is a form of

domination of the environment which sees this space as "out there" allowing for

endless exploitation.

It turns casethis environmental management lock us into a calculative mindset

that perpetuates and magnifies the root cause of the affirmatives harms.

McWhorter, 92[Ladelle, Heidegger and the Earth, p.20]

Thinking ecologically - that is, thinking the earth in our time means thinking death; it means thinkingcatastrophe; it means thinking the possibility of utter annihilationnot just for human being but for all that lives on this

planet and for the living planet itself. Thinking the earth in our time means thinking what presents itselfas that which mustnot be allowed to go on, as that which must be controlled, as that which must be stopped. Such thinking seems to call forimmediate action.There is no time to lose. We must work for change, seek solutions, curb appetites, reduceexpectations, find cures now,before the problems become greaterthan anyone's ability to solve them - if they have not alreadydone so. However, in the midst of this urgency, thinking ecologically, thinking Heideggerly, means rethinking the very

notion of human action. It means placing in question ourtypical Western managerial approach to problems,our propensity for technological intervention, our belief in human cognitive power, our commitment to ametaphysics that places active human being over against passive nature. It is the thoughtless deployment ofthese approaches and notions that has brought us to the point of ecological catastrophe in the first

place.Thinking with Heidegger, thinking Heideggerly and ecologically, means, paradoxically, acting to place in question the acting

subject, willing a displacing of our will to action; it means calling ourselves as selves to rethink our very selves, insofar as selfhoodin the West is constituted as agent, as actor, as controlling ego, as knowing consciousness. Heidegger's work calls us not to rush inwith quick solutions, not to act decisively to put an end to deliberation, but rather to think, to tarry with thinking unfoldingitself, to release ourselves to thinking without provision or predetermined aim.

Extend the first piece of McWhorter evidenceit gives two impacts against the

affirmative:

1. ExtinctionOur constant attempts at management of the Earth inevitably causes

carelessness for the health of our planet, causing mass ecological damage that

results in planetary extinction.

2. Value to LifeThe attempt at domination makes entire populations disposable in

order to achieve complete controlthis causes a regime of power that dictates our

beingthis outweighs the affs extinction claims for in a world where there is no

value to it we are already the walking dead and death becomes irrelevant.

No risk of offenseany part of the affirmatives managerial thought before the

alternative causes error replication makes their impacts worse.

Burke 5(Anthony, Politics and IRUniversity of New South Wales, Iraq: Strategy's burnt offering', Global Change, Peace & Security, 17:2,191213]

Yet Hannah Arendt, in The Human Condition, had already sounded a warning - pointing to the emptiness of

a utilitarianismthat gets caught in an 'unending chain of means and ends' in which ' all ends arebound to be of short duration and to be transformed into means for some further ends'.116 This


7/29

perfectly describes the rolling disaster of the United States' policy towards Iraq, from the time the Reagan administration decided to

make of Saddam a 'strategic asset', then sought his removal through a decade of failed and ever more destructive policy, until only the

invasion and occupation of the country could seemingly achieve US goals. Itperfectlydescribes the geopolitical panic

and ambitionof the Bush neoconservatives,who have sought to build one illusory strategic'victory'on another(Afghanistan, Iraq, then) without consideration of what counts as victory, its

manifest failures and its unbearablehuman, economic and political costs.Strategy, seeking one proliferating endafter another,

becomes an end in itself and the ultimate, narcissistic source of meaning. To use Arendt's

words, it 'defies questioning about its own use utility established as meaning generates

meaninglessness'

Our alternative is to reject the 1AC and its managerial relations with the ocean

our McWhorter evidence proves that only passivity in the face of their call to action

can allow us to question the ontological underpinnings of the 1AC and destroy the

managerial foundations that exist upon themthe 1AC can happen under a world

of the alternative but not the other way aroundonly rejecting a call for action can

allow policy to happen without calculative modes of thought.

Finally the role of the ballot is to endorse the best intellectual advocacy in the round

our advocacy is a rejection of entrenched managerialismyour ballot resists thestatic future imbedded by the management ontology and restores value to life denied

by dominative violence.

Bleiker, 2000(Roland; Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics, p 281-2 ]

Transversal forms of dissent cannot succeed overnight . An engagement

with linguistically and discursively entrenched forms of domination works slowly andindirectly.The effects of such interferences are difficult to see or prove , especially if oneapproaches thequestion of evidence with a positivist understanding of knowledge. Buttransversal dissentisneverthelessreal. It enters the social context in the form of what the East German poet Uwe Kolbecalled 'a traceelement'. 7 It does not directly cause particular events . It engenders human agencythrough a multi-layered

and diffused process,through a gradual transformation of societal values. This process has no

end . No matter how successful they are, discursive forms of dissent , even if they manage to transgress nationalboundaries, are never complete . There is no emancipatory peak to be climbed . Dissent is the very act ofclimbing , daily, doggedly, endlessly. It is not an event that happens once, a spectacular outburst ofenergy that overcomes the dark forces of oppression and lifts liberation into an superior state of

perpetual triumph . 'Everything becomes and returns eternally', Nietzsche says. 'Escape is impossible!' 8 Even the most justsocial order excludes what does not fit into its view of the world. Inclusiveness lies in a constant process of disturbing language and

rethinking meaning, rather than in an utopian final stage. If we are to gain and retain a viable understanding ofhuman agency in global politics we must embrace the transversal and the transitional as inevitableaspects of life.Human agency not only engenders transition, it is itself transition. The role and

potential of agency, its ability to open up new ways of perceiving global politics, can be appreciated once we accept, with Rilke, and

as a permanent condition of life, that we always 'stand in the middle of a transition where we cannot remain standing'. A discursive

notion of human agency is grounded precisely in this recognition that there is no end to circles of revealing and

concealing, of opening and closing spaces to think and act.Revealing is always an act, not

something that remains stable. Anything else would suggest a static view of the world, one inwhich human agency is annihilated, one in which the future can never tear down the boundariesof the present . Just as the interaction of domination and resistance has no end, efforts at coming to terms with them will neverarrive at a stage of ultimate insight. Because discursive dissent operates through a constant process of becoming something else thanwhat it is, a theoretical engagement with its dynamics can never be exhaustive. It can never be more than a set of open-ended

meditations. An approach to understanding dissent and human agency thus remains useful only as long as it resists the temptation of

digging deeper by anchoring itself in a newly discovered essence, a stable foundation that could bring the illusion of order andcertainty to the increasingly transversal domain of global politics.


8/29

Framework/Perms


9/29

Framework

A. InterpretationOur interpretation for the debate is that the affirmative should

get a topical plan, and the negative should get to test the plan at the level of

justification and representations.

B. Dont Buy Their Abuse Claims:

1. Affirmative GroundThe aff can always have state good offense against the

criticismthis ground checks any differential in the strategy or predictability

arguments.

2. Reflexivity DAPolicy planning is rooted in a series of value judgments

questioning these assumptions is the only way to effectively learn about policy and

develop good research practicesmeans we control topic education and global

uniqueness.

Bristow, 2005(Gillian, Professor of School of City and Regional Planning @ Cardiff University, Everyones a Winner: Problematizing theDiscourse of Regional Competitiveness, Journal of Economic Geography, 2005, pp.285-304)

This begs the question as to why a discourse with ostensibly confused, narrow and ill-defined

content has become so salient inregional economic developmentpolicy and practice as to constitute theonly valid currency of argument.Whilst alternative discourses based around co-operation can be conceived, they have asyet failed to make a significant impact on the dominant view that a particular, quantifiable form of output -related regional

competitiveness is inevitable, inexorable and ultimately beneficial.The answer appears to lie withinthe policyprocess, which refers to all aspects involved in the provision of policy directionfor the work of the

public sector. Thistherefore includes the ideas which inform policy conception,the talkand workwhich goes into providing the formulation of policy directions,and all the talk, work and collaboration

which goes into translating these into practice.A major debate exists in the policy studies literature about the scopeand limitations of reason, analysis and intelligence in policy-makinga debate which has been re-ignited with the recent emphasis

upon evidence-based policy-making. Keynes is often cited as the main proponent of the importance of ideas in policy making, since he

argued thatpolicy-making should be informed by knowledge, truth, reason and facts.However, Majonehas significantly challenged the assumption that policy makers engage in a purely objective, rational, technical assessment ofpolicy

alternatives. He has argued that in practice,policy makers use theory, knowledge and evidence selectively tojustify policy choices which are heavily based on value judgments.It isthus persuasion (throughrhetoric, argument, advocacy and their institutionalization) that is the key to the policy process,not

the logical correctness or accuracy of theory or data. In other words, it is interests rather than ideas that shape policymaking in practice.Ultimately, the language of competitiveness is the language of the business community. Thus, critical tounderstanding the power of the discourse is firstly, understanding the appeal and significance of the discourse to business interests and,secondly, exploring their role in influencing the ideas of regional and national policy elites.


10/29

3. Our interp is key to negative groundaff choice makes going negative

unpredictable since they could have read a K aff and said we dont get policy

argumentsaffirmatives defending a plan and the negative being able to criticize

that plan is essential to negative predictabilitythe affirmative should get the

resolution and we should get things that are outside of that action.

4. Their interpretation doesnt solve our offense you could run a CP that PICs out

of one part of the 1AC and have a criticize of those representationsthis would be

net worse for the affirmative because they could not garner offense off of their plan

which would destroy their ability to compete.

Finallyeven if they win their framework this is not a voting issuethis is a reason

why you would evaluate their impact claimsand we would win in that world as

well because we have a value to life DA to their plan and all of our link argument

are reasons why their plan would not be able to solve.


11/29

A2 Perm Do Both/Nearly All Perms

1. Extend the conceded links hereany part of the affirmative before the passivity

of the alternative links into the managerialism of ocean engagement that magnifies

and is the root cause of the affirmative impacts.

2. Doesnt solve you cannot reject their assumptions of being while perpetuating

action within those assumptions by passing the planthe permutation destroys alt

solvency by elevating management (Also gut check, how do you reject the 1AC and

not reject the 1AC?)

Kinsella 2007Kinsella, William. "Heidegger and Being at the Hanford Reservation: Standing Reserve, Enframing, and Environmental

Communication Theory."Enviormental Communication1.2 (2007): 194-217. Print.

All beings(das Seiendes)sharethe characteristic of being (das Sein), but only human beings exhibit the particular mode ofbeing that Heidegger calls Dasein. The cumbersome expression human-being-in-the-worldcaptures a keyfeature of Dasein, namely, an ongoing, practical engagement with the worldthat entails thrownness

(embeddedness in pre-existing conditions) and projection (perception and action oriented toward

practical projects and goals). Humanbeingsmeet, encounter, confront, respond to, take a stance toward, andoperate upon the world, and in doing so both change and are changed by the world. Here againHeideggers phenomenology is consistent with a bounded constitutive model of communication. While oriented to our

projects, these encounters with otherness are also constrained by the recalcitrant, obdurate, ontic characteristics of the entities withwhich we are thrown into contact. Heideggers concept of Dasein stresses that human being is a product of interactions

with the world,even as it acts upon that world . Thus Dasein is not a static, unchanging

phenomenon; rather, it evolves over time, recursively, as a result of its continuing practicalengagement.

3. TheoryThe permutation either severs its use of the environment or adds a new

clause to overcome the linksboth of these are voting issues because it destroys the

ability for the negative to create strategiesalso rigs the game in favor of the aff

because they have the last speech to make one more perm and win the round


12/29

A2 Perm Other Instances

1. Its intrinsic and not okaythe other instances is not in the 1NC or 1AC text

its a voter because it destroys the ability for the negative to create strategies also

rigs the game in favor of the aff because they have the last speech to make one more

perm and win the round

2. All of our link arguments are DAs to the perm the alternative has to be a pre-

requisite and to question every political decisionmeans the permutation cant

solve

4. This is not an argumentyou wouldnt accept racism in one instance because you

had the opportunity to reject it in other instancesif we prove the aff is undesirable

then you vote neg


13/29

Links


14/29

Development Link

Oceanic development enframes ecology as resourcesit reduces the environment to

a resource base, terraforming it through networks of consumption like highways

and airportsthat ensures separation from nature and produces new strategies of

social control

Luke 97,dept of poly sci @ Virginia Polytechnic institute

(Timothy W., The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerismhttp://www.cddc.vt.edu/tim/tims/Tim528.PDF)

An environmental act, even though the connotations of most contemporary greenspeak suggests otherwise, is a disciplinary

move.33 Environmentalism in these terms strategically polices spacein order to encircle sites andsubjectscaptured within these enveloping maneuvers, guarding them, standing watch over them, or even besieging them. And,each of these actions aptly express the terraforming programs of sustainable development. Seen from the astropanopticon, Earth

is enveloped in the managerial designs of global commerce, which environmentalize once wildNature asnow controllable ecosystems. Terraforming the wild biophysical excesses and unoptimized geophysicalwastes of the Earth necessitates the mobilization of a worldwatch to maintain nature conservancies and husband the worldwide

funds of wildlife. Of course, Earth must be put first; the fully rational potentials of second nature's

terraformations can be neither fabricated nor administered unless and until earth first isinfrastructuralized.34 This is our time's Copernican revolution: the anthropogenic demands of terraforming require a

biocentric worldview in which the alienated objectivity of natural subjectivity resurfaces objectively in managerial theory andpractice as "ecosystem" and "resource base" in "the environment." Terraforming the Earth environmentalizes a once wild piece of

the cosmos, domesticating it as "humanity's home" or "our environment." From narratives of world pandemics,global warming, or planetary pollution, global governance from the astropanopticonnow runs its

risk analysesand threat scenarios to protect Mother Earthfrom home-grown and foreign threats, as the latestsecurity panics over asteroid impacts or X-File extraterrestrials in the United States express in the domains of popular culture.

Whether it is space locusts from Independence Day or space rocks snuffing out Dallas in Asteroid, new security threats are

casting their shadows over our homes, cities, and biomes for those thinking geo-economically in the astropanopticon. From

such sites of supervision, environmentalists see from above and from without, like the NASA-eyedview of Earth from Apollo spacecraft, through the enveloping astropanoptic designs of administratively controllable terraformed

systems.35 Encircled by enclosures of alarm, environments can be disassembled, recombined,

and subjected to expert managers' disciplinary designs. Beset and beleaguered by these all-encompassinginterventions, environments as ecosystems and terraformations can be redirected to fulfill the ends of new economic scripts,managerial directives or administrative writs.36 How various environmentalists might embed different instrumental rationalities

into the policing of ecosystems is an intriguing question, which will be explored below.


15/29

Exploration Link

Exploration approaches to ocean management creates a us and them mentality

separating humanity from nature and creating an inauthentic relationship that

perpetuates managerialism

Irwin 2008Irwin, Ruth. "Technological Enframing."Heidegger, Politics, Climate Change and Risking It All. New York: ContinuumInternational

Group, 2008. N. pag. Print.

Thenarrowperception of technology as tools to be skillfully wielded sets humanity up as the master

of natureand encourages the forgetting of our own objectification as standing reserve and potential

resources under the enframing of technology. In the desire for universal calculation of more and

more efficient means of production and consumption, humanity, Heidegger argues, has lost the

focus on enquiry and meaningfullness that are the particular and most important aspects of what it is to be human.

Rational calculationmight enhance technological innovation but it also reinforces the illusory view that

humanity is in control and mastery over nature. This chapter aims to analyze the limitations ofsubjectivity, language and machine, particularly our transmission of meaning and understanding from and between one another,

whether pedagogical or merely coexistence. What collides in Heideggers philosophy is the culture of individualisms andconsumerism that characterizes modernity and the change in nature of technology in scale, efficiency and long-term mass storage.With special attention to information communication technologies I wish to examine what elements of technology enframe or

subjective experiences of the world as distinct from the interpolation of people into the modern paradigm. Computer programmers,

institutional set ups, approaches to materialism; curriculum and pedagogical relationships are dominated by modern capitalist concepts

of subjectivity, society and the environment. It is impossible to bracket technology out of modern culture as the two are so

intertwined; yet technology and modernity are not exactly synonymous. Technological equipment affects oursubjective phenomelogical experiences of our environment. Distinguishing technology from

modernity as two interlinked but separate elements make it possible to forge a new Unsprung or

origin, which begins new modes of social and environmental interaction with a deeper

commitment to ecological, equable and ethicalliving arrangements. It opens the possibility of anecological fut-ure that includes technological innovation rather than assuming the moderation of

consumerism is inevitably backwards looking, utopian romanticism. It is often argued that humanity is

uniqueamong living beingsbecause we are capable of self-reflectionand thinking about the world that we live in.While individualism has been co-optedby a surveillance regime and governance style based on consumer choices. it is

very difficult to abandon the notion that we each have personal , active agency that is a result ofreflective thinkingand from which we might influence predominate world-views and instigate

change. The determinismof Jungers Gestalt and the usurping of all aspects of nature and character into the warmachine closes down the possibility of anything more than swallowing and willing consumeristculture. Heidegger describes emphasis on master as creating the illusion that each individual has more choices

than ever before. However, These choices are circumscribed the technological horizon of disclosure

which obscures any other ways of knowing or enquiring into the meanifullness of being

alive . Yet, these kinds of discussion make the narrow limitations of the technological gestell, or

horizon, more visible and, paradoxically, introduce a window into a new paradigm . The

environment has been in sore need of reflection and requires a commensurate change in theattitudes and lifestyle that dominates Western culture and is increasingly becoming a global

phenomenon.The global phenomenon of modernityhas become a victim of its own success. Modernity andchange that will result in new philosophies, new attitudes, new narratives and interests and new lifestyles. How the transformation

might take place is difficult to forsee. It has been to the detriment of the entire plane that consumerism hasbecome the right of people everywhere. The ability to think our way of the enframing oftechnology has some potential, although the impossible dreaming often sidelines such thinking, or

it is co-opted into ever-increasing science of govermentality (Foucault, 1979).


16/29

Impact


17/29

Impact Extension

The logic that informs affs thinking is the same logic that drove the death camps of

Auschwitz, the genocide of Native American and the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima

all forms of destruction are inevitable absent the alternative

George, 93(a lecturer in the Dept. of Poly Sci @ Australian National Univ., 93 (Jim, Of Incarcaeration and Closure: Neo-Realism and the

New/Old World OrderMillennium: Journal of International StudiesVol.22 No. 2)

For Flax this represents a growing recognition that the Enlightenment dream is over, that people everywhere are

increasingly awake to dangers of the Enlightenment narrative of reason, knowledge, progress andfreedom. This isan importanttheme in any context concerned to open up incarceration and closure becauseit allows for(effectively)silenced voices to be heard again, including those associated with anti-Enlightenment

sentiments, such as Nietzsche. It is important, in this sense,because it acknowledges the nightmarish dimensionsof the Enlightenment dream, which, for example, connects the ascent of the modern, rational subject

with the experiences of Hiroshima and Auschwitz.The point, of course, is that a celebration of the age ofrational science and modern society cannot simply be disconnected from the weapons of mass

slaughter or the techniques of genocide.Nor can the language and logic of liberty and

emancipation be easily detached from the terror waged in their names, by, for example, the major Cold Warfoeseach proclaiming itself the natural systemic heir to the Enlightenment dream. And while manyin the 1990s celebrate

the `end' of the Cold War, as the victory of one Enlightenment based economic doctrine overanother, the other sideof this particular coin must also be confronted, in the poverty of so much of the

world, and in the growing underclasses in `developed' societieswhere neo-classical and neo-Marxian`scientific' approaches have dominated the economic debates. It is worth pondering too, in this context, that the issue of 'ethniccleansing' rightly condemnedby the Western powers in the 1990s (and resisted in the 1940s) is an integral part of

modern Western history, particularly via its Realist narrative which celebrates the process of modernstate making, the march to the present of modern rational man. Most significantly, ethnic cleansing is an intrinsic

element of the story of Anglo-American triumph over imperial adversity. Even a rudimentaryappreciation of silenced histories implies as muchthe histories, for example, of the Huron, theOgala, the Mandika and the Pitjantjatjaraall victims of 'ethnic cleansing' for the greater good of

a unified, homogeneous state system, and the eradication of (anarchical) difference.The point madehere is not the simple one, nor is it riven with the kind of paradox characteristic of IR study in general. It is not a n attempt atimpossible detachment from subjects. Similarly it resists any grand theorised condemnation of the Enlightenment (or more precisely

its dominant scientific project) in favour of some ready made alternative 'realism', unfettered by its distorting influences. It is

consistent, rather, with the Foucault of 'What is Enlightenment?' who, in retaining a deep suspicion of modernist rhetoric and

ambition, acknowledges that: the thread that may connect us with the Enlightenment is not faithfulness to doctrinal elements, but

rather the permanent reactivation of an attitudethat is of a philosophical ethos that could be described as a permanent critique of our

historical era.68 This perspective, which dissents against the dominant discursive practices of modem

life, while acknowledging the positive ontological and social potentials of modernity, connects areflectivist CSTapproach to the 'concrete' policy concernsof Post on Bosnia, Lapham on US strategy and Havel onEastern Europe, and distinguishes it from the narrow, abstract 'problem solving' rituals of the neo-Realists. It does so in its

understanding of the need to go beyond simple dichotomy, traditional formulae and respectablepolemic. It does so in Flax's terms in its acknowledgement of the need for a positive critical ambivalence to the ambiguities,paradoxes and uncertainties of everyday realities and the way we understand and cope with them.69 This perception, of course, is no

source of comfort for contemporary thinkers, critically inclined or otherwise. Indeed, as Flax has put it, `the more the fault lines inpreviously unproblematic ground become apparent, the more frightening it appears to be without ground'.7 Hence the 'intellectual

vertigo' she speaks of. There are, however, many who have taken up the challenge of modernity in a positive, constructive manner:

still suffering from 'vertigo' to be sure, still shaken by both the extraordinary achievement and colossal brutality that is their heritage,

but now no longer willing to celebrate the former while remaining blind to the latter. This has meant more than a surfacelevel consciousnessof the need to think andact in more sensitive and tolerant ways. It has meant a more profoundwillingness to critically confront the way we think and act, to strip bare the very basis of thinkingand acting, to reinterrogate its meaning and the ways we legitimate the social and intellectual

'givens' that for so long have been reality: the way the world is 'out there'. It has resulted in a


18/29

range of works which resonate with alternative images of global politics derived often from previouslyalien sources, e.g., German Critical Theory, Gramsci and varieties of post-modernism.


19/29

VTL Impact

Calculative thought kills the value to life by treating all things instrumentally

McWhorter 92[Ladelle, Heidegger and the Earth, P.7]

The danger of a managerial approachto the worldliesnot,then, in what it knows - not in its penetration into thesecrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission - but in what it forgets,what it itself conceals. It forgets that anyother truths are possible, and it forgets that the belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of humanmanagement. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything. What isnowespeciallydangerousabout this sense of our own managerial power, born of forgetfulness, is that it results

inourviewing the world as mere resourcesto be stored or consumed. Managerial or technological thinkers, Heideggersays, view the earth, the world, all things asmereBestand, standing-reserve. All is here simply for human use.No

plant, no animal,no ecosystem has a life of its own, has any significance, apart from human desire and need.Nothing, we

say, other than human beings, has any intrinsic value.All things are instruments for the working out ofhuman will.Whether we believe that God gave Man dominion or simply that human might (sometimes called intelligence or rationality) in the

face of ecological fragility makes us always right, wemanagerial, technological thinkers tend to believe that the earth is only astockpile or a set of commodities to be managed , bought, and sold. The forest is timber; the river, a power source.Even

peoplehavebecome resources, human resources, personnel to be managed, or populations to be controlled. >


20/29

A2 Aff Outweighs

1. The devastation of being always outweighs annihilationwhile annihilation is

finite, being can always be further destroyedalso the fact that we have a extinction

impact as well forces a gut check to preventing ontological destruction.

2. Their form of extinction is impossibletheir claims depend on a status quo

conception of being that compartmentalizes life so that it can be purely destroyed

means only our impacts are true, because we destroy the lens of calculative thought.

3. Managerialism threatens to destroy the essence of humans which would

allow humans to go on living without dignity which is worse than

annihilationRojcewicz, 2006(Richard Rojcewicz [Professor of Philosophy at Point Park University] The Gods and Technology: A Reading of Heidegger,pp.141-142)Heidegger now launches an extended discussion of the danger inherent in modern technology. It needs to be underlined that for

Heidegger the threat is not simply to human existence. The prime danger is not that high-techdevices might get out of hand and wreak havoc on their creators by way of a radioactive spill oran all-encompassing nuclear holocaust. The danger is not that by disposing of so many

disposables we will defile the planet and make it uninhabitable. For Heideggerthe danger- theprime danger-does not lie in technological things but in the essence of technology. Technological thingsare indeed dangerous; the rampant exploitation of natural resources is deplorable; the contamination of the environment is tragic. We

need to conserve and to keep high tech things from disposing of us. Yet, for Heidegger,conservation, by itself, is not theanswer. Conservation alone is not radical enough. Conservation is aimed at things, technologicalthingsand natural things,but it does not touch the outlook or basic attitude that is the essence of

modern technology, and it is there that the danger lies. It may well be that conservation will succeed andthat technology will solve its own problems by producing things that are safe and nonpolluting;nevertheless, the prime danger, which lies deeper down, will remain.For the danger is not

primarily to the existence of humans but to their essence: "The threat to man does not come in the first instancefrom the potentially lethal effects of the machines and devices of technology. The genuine threat has already affected humans-in theiressence" (FT, 29/28). In a sense, the threat inherent in modern technology has already been made good. Though we have thusfar averted a nuclear disaster, that does not mean the genuine threat has been obviated.Humans

still exist; they are not yet on the endangered species list. It would of course be tragic if humans made that list. Yet,forHeidegger, there could be something more tragic, namely for humans to go on living but to lose

their human dignity, which stems from their essence. Here lies the prime danger, the one posednot by technological things but by the disclosive looking that constitutes the essence of moderntechnology.The prime danger is that humans could become(and in fact are already

becoming)enslaved to this way of disclosive looking. Thus what is primarily in danger is humanfreedom;if humans went on living but allowed themselves to be turned into slaves-that would be the genuine tragedy. The dangerin modern technology is that humans may fail to see themselves as free followers, fail to see the challenges directed at their freedom

by the current guise of Being, and fail to see the genuine possibilities open to them to work out their destiny. Then, not seeing

their freedom, humans will not protect it.They will let it slip away and will become mere followers, passively imposedon by modern technology, i.e., slaves to it, mere cogs in the machine. For Heidegger, there is an essential connection between seeing

and freedom. The way out of slavery begins with seeing, insight. But it is the right thing that must be seen, namely, one's own

condition. The danger is that humans may perfect their powers of scientific seeing and yet be blind

to that wherein their dignity and freedom lie, namely the entire domain of disclosedness and theirrole in it.Humans would then pose as "masters of the earth," and yet their self-blindness would make them slaves.


21/29

Alternative


22/29

Alternative Solvency

Rejecting the management of the 1AC solvesonly doing nothing in the face of the

call for action generates ontological investigation that challenges the drive for

control and domination

McWhorter 92(Ladelle, Heidegger and the Earth Essays in Environmental Philosophy, Thomas Jefferson University Press,pgs. vii-viii)

When we attempt to think ecologically and within Heidegger's discourse (or perhaps better: whenwe attempt to think Heideggerly within ecological concerns), the paradoxical unfolds at the siteof the question of human action. Thinking ecologically - that is, thinking the earth in our time -means thinking death; it means thinking catastrophe; it means thinking the possibility of utterannihilation not just for human being but for all that lives on this planet and for the living planet

itself.Thinking the earth in our time means thinking what presents itself as that which must not be allowed to go on, as that whichmust be controlled, as that which must be stopped. Such thinking seems to call for immediate action. There is no time to lose. We

must work for change, seek solutions, curb appetites, reduce expectations, find cures now,before the problems become greater thananyone's ability to solve them - if they have not already done so. However, in the midst of this urgency, thinking ecologically, thinking

Heideggerly, means rethinking the very notion of human action. It means placing in question our typical Western managerial approach

to problems, our propensity for technological intervention, our belief in human cognitive power, our commitment to a metaphysicsthat places active human being over against passive nature. For it is the thoughtless deployment of these approaches and notions that

has brought us to the point of ecological catastrophe in the first place. Thinking with Heidegger, thinkingHeideggerly and ecologically, means, paradoxically, acting to place in question the acting subject,willing a displacing of our will to action; it means calling ourselves as selves to rethink our veryselves, insofar as selfhood in the West is constituted as agent, as actor, as controlling ego, as

knowing consciousness. Heidegger's work calls us not to rush in with quick solutions, not to actdecisively to put an end to deliberation.but rather to think, to tarry with thinking unfolding itself,to release ourselves to thinking without provision or predetermined aim.


23/29

A2 Ontology Not 1st

Ontology is a prior question to political actionit always comes first

Dillon 99[Michael Dillon; Professor of Politics at University of Lancaster; Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics; 97-99; MV]

As Heideggerhimself an especially revealing figure of the deep and mutual implication of the philosophical and the politicalnevertired of pointing out, the relevance of ontology to all other kinds of thinking is fundamental and

inescapable. For one cannot say anything about any-thing that is, without always already having

made assumptions about the is as such. Any mode of thought, in short, always already

carries ontology sequestered within it . What this ontological turn does to other-regional-modes of thought is tochallenge the ontology within which they operate. The implications of that review reverberate through-out the entire mode of thought,

demanding a reappraisal as fundamental as the reappraisal ontology has demanded of philosophy. With ontology at issue,the entire foundations or underpinnings of any mode of thought are rendered problematic. Thisapplies as much to any modem discipline of thought as it does to the question of modernity as such, with the exception, it seems, ofscience, which, having long ago given up the ontological questioning of when it called itself natural philosophy, appears now, in its

industrialized and corporatized form, to be invulnerable to ontological perturbation. With its foundations at issue, the veryauthority of a mode of thought and the ways in which it characterizes the critical issues of

freedom and judgment(of what kind of universe human beings inhabit, how they inhabit it, andwhat counts as reliable knowledgefor them in it) isalsoput in question.The very ways in which Nietzsche,Heidegger, and other continental philosophers challenged Western ontology, simultaneously, therefore reposed the fundamental and

inescapable difficulty, or aparia, for human being of decision and judgment.In other words, whatever ontology yousubscribe to, knowingly or unknowingly, as a human being you still have to act. Whether or notyou know or acknowledge it, the ontology you subscribe to will construe the problem of actionfor you in one way rather than another.You may think ontology is some arcane question of philosophy, but Nietzsche

and Heidegger showed that it intimately shapes not only a way of thinking, but a way of being, a form oflife.Decision, a fortiori political decision, in short, is no mere technique. It is instead a way of being that bears an understanding of

Being, and of the fundaments of the human way of being within it. This applies, indeed applies most, tothose mock- innocentpolitical slaves who claim only to be technocrats of decision making.


24/29

A2 Cede Political

The alternative does not preclude politicsit revolutionizes activism and coalition

building, allowing politics to tailor itself to context, rather than grounding itself in

enframing

Joronen 10(Mikko, Dept of Geography and Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, U of Turku, The Age of Planetary Space: On

Heidegger, Being, and Metaphysics of Globalization, pg 223)

In spite of the revolutionary sense of power-free-letting-be, our role as the ones who let

being to make its transformation poses number of questions concerning our part in thisradical turning from the ontological violence to the other beginning of abyssal being. What isexactly our relation to the finitude of being? Should we only wait for the end of the prevailing mode of being and thus hope a

new sending of being? At least Heideggers comment in his posthumously published Der Spiegel

interview about only god (i.e. a new sending of being)being capable of saving us seems to implythis, apparently leaving little room for human activism(Heidegger 1976:107; see also Schatzki 2007:32).Hence, is our part just to question the prevailing unfolding and so to wait for the new sending, the other beginning, the new

arrival of being? First of all, it is crucial to recognize that waiting for the world-historical

turning is not inactivity but a revolution that turns power-free thinking into

praxis . It is a non-violent revolution, which can take many forms of activism such as

disobedience and protests. In fact, Fred Dallmayr even compares this praxis of non-violentresistance with the paths of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. (2001:267). Altogether, as Malpas writes, thereis no reason why the world-historical turning of being cannot be waited through political

activism, as long as such activism avoids being taken up by a machinational mode

of unfolding and thus remains non-violent and aware of its limitedness and finitude(Malpas2006:300; see also Irwin 2008:170, 188189)


25/29

A2s


26/29

A2 Nazi DA

1. We arent Heidegger we wouldve rejected the Final Solution; at worst weigh

our other sources and drop our Heidegger cards, Oh wait, we dont read any.

2. Their argument is invalidHeidegger recognized Nazism as based ontechnological thought and exploitation, which causedgenocidewe solve this

argument

Thomson, 09(Associate Professor and Graduate Director of the Department of Philosophy of the University of NewMexico, 09. Palgrave Macmillan, New Waves in Philosophy of Technology, ed. by: Jan-Kyrre Berg Olsen, Evan Selinger, and Soren

Riis, p. 151-152)

As such critical references to breeding suggest,Heidegger associates theNietzschean danger of technologicalthinking with National Socialismin 1938. By 1940, however, when America directly enters the Second World War inresponse to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Heideggeris no longer sure Germany will win the massive arms race for global control

he thinks all nations are being driven into by the technological ontotheology underlying theage.Heidegger thus concludes his 1940 Nietzsche lectures dramatically, interpreting (for those students who have not already goneoff to war) Nietzsches famousprophecy that: The time is coming when the struggle for dominion over the earth will be carriedonin the name offundamental philosophical doctrines. According to the reading Heidegger will never subsequently relinquish,

Nietzsches ontotheological understanding of thebeing of entities predetermines the destiny of our contemporary world.Nietzschesontotheological understandingof the totality of entities as such as eternally recurring will-to-power notonly intensifies the struggle for the unrestrained exploitation of the earth as a source of rawmaterials(a struggle already implicit in the modern subject/object divide), it also generates our distinctively last-modern reflexive

application of that limitless objectification back upon the subject itself. Thisobjectification of the subject dissolves the subject/objectdistinction itself and so lays the ground for what Heidegger already recognizes in 1940 as the cynicalexploitation of human resources in the service of the absolute empowering ofwill to power(N3250/NII 333).


27/29

A2 Managerialism/Tech Inevitable

1. This is wrongMcWhorter proves providing passivity can solve calls to action

that are calculativeits not inevitable

2. This is a logical fallacyCivil rights and the ability for women to vote proves thatthe managerialistic mindset can and has been weakened by passivity, rethought and

actionthis is another example of how our alt can overcome calculative and

technological thought

3. This argument is essentially that because bad things happen, we should just let

them happen, racism proves that this should be rejectedevery instance that

managerialistic thinking can be solved, should be solved


28/29

A2 Management Good

Management good args are grounded in flawed truth claimsthey assume the earth

is a mechanistic system whose causal relations are already pre-determinedthat

places humans at the center of the universe and creates an anthropocentric relation

to naturethis description destroys humans and inevitably produces violence

Padrutt 92(Hanspeter, Member of the Daseinsanalytisches Institut in Zurich,Heidegger and Ecologyin

Heidegger and the Earth ed. Ladelle McWhorter, pgs. 19-21)

The place of consciousness is the place of the objectifying Cartesian subject. This subject, the "thinking substance"of

the "I think therefore I am,"tyrannically brings objects before itself. It stands in the center,

surveys, and examines on all sides- sees in perspective - from its own point of view. It is no accident thatconstruction from a central perspective was discovered by two architects in the early Renaissance and soon took its placevictoriously in painting. This perspectival relat ionship of the primary (human) subject to the perspectivally observed world (a

relationship that emerged in the Renaissance) - this perspectival "worldview" - is inextricably linked with the

emergence of the method of natural science grounded in mathematics. The self-certain domination

of the subject and the objectifying method that yields certainty belong together; together they form what Iwould call 'objectifying subjectivism'. The objectifying method - wanting to measure and calculate everything, for the sake ofcertainty - has to reduce everything that is to measurable and calculable quantities. Weight, distance, and duration were most

easily available to exact measurement; but then theobjectifyingmethod reduced nature, too, to acoherence ofmotions of a whole series of points in athree-dimensional, geometric space,coursing in a one-dimensional time, thought as a 'time-axis', and reduced things to geometric substances with defined

extension. Since this reduction robbed events of their singularity, a repeatable reeling off of the same

event became thinkable; repeatable experimenting and engineering set forth on its triumphal procession, and along with itthe interpretation of nature and the whole world as a machine. In objectifying subjectivism humanbeings see themselves

as "master and owner of nature"and the world as a large machine. Finally, theobjectifying turns

backto the subject and, with the supremacy of the machine, itself gets interpretedmore and more exclusively as a

functional, psychosomatic apparatus. In order to get closer to the meaning of being, the meaning of the littleword iswhich gets said in manifold ways (Aristotle) and which also oscillates unsaid in everything that is and in all thathappensHeidegger inBeing and Timein a certain sense beings where Descartes left off. I think, therefore I am; but what does I

am mean? In order to get closer to the everyday Dasein, which in any case has in its being a relation to its being (and to being in

general). Dasein is in the world, not as an item of clothing is in the closet, but rather - thrown into the world - it has the task ofbeing its being as its own being. Dasein is "my own" "thrown projection" in connection with what encounters it: care (Sorge). But

Dasein is not a substance that is merely at hand, not a thinking substance, and not a psychosomatic apparatus. And,respectively, Dasein is also not merely a specimen of a living organism or of the species animal rationale, rational animal. InDasein there takes place a disclosure or opening of being - in the disclosure of self in singular manner as well as of the world. But

this disclosure is through and through 'ec-static', outside itself, not closed up in itself, but 'outside' - out there, as the Freiburg

Cathedral earlier.This being-out-there refers not only to the present, but also and equally to the world horizon of the future and ofthe past. What Heidegger in Being and Time called the horizonal-existential disclosure of being in Dasein - in the disclosure of

self and of the world - later, after the so-called "turning" in his thinking, he spoke of more and more as the indwelling opening-out

of the clearing of being, as indwelling in the temporal, threefold open and the opening-out of this indwelling through the whole of

Dasein. Ex-sistenz then meant indwelling opening-out of the open expanse of the Da. Theshifting from the

objectifying subject to the open expanse of the Daleads us away fromthe standpoint ofthesubjectwhich stands in the center of the world,to the mystery of the world itself, to the Ereignis of being

and of time, which we do not have at our disposal, but into which we are let. This shift is a re-thinking and a re-

tuningall in one, a leap into the open expanse of the Da. The re-tuning is nothing else but the re-tuning already mentioned, fromthe dreadful, shortsighted Uf3pl


29/29

A2 Tech Good

1. Our link proves their specific instance of technological thought is bad the

affirmatives drive for ocean engagement is based on a logic that views the earth as

an object under the influence and control of human actionsit reduces all being to

a standing reserve

2. Rejecting technologyscontrol over being IS synonymous with accepting the

benefits of some forms of technologymeans we access all of the offense you just

read, but youre still managerialistic sucks to suck get reked nerd.

Dreyfus, 93[Charles B., Heidegger on the connection between nihilism, art, technology, and politics chapter of TheCambridge Companion to Heidegger, ed. By Charles B. Guignon, p. 308]

Modernman mustfirst and above all find his way back intothe full breadth of the space proper to hisessence.That essential space of mans essential beingreceives the dimension that unites it to something

beyond itselfthat is the way in which the safekeeping of being itself is given to belong to theessence of man as the one who is needed and used by being. (QCT 39; TK 39)This transformation in

our understanding of being, unlike the slow process of cleaning up the environment, which is, ofcourse, also necessary, would take place in a sudden gestalt switch: The turning of the danger comes to passsuddenly. In this turning, the clearing belonging to the essence of being suddenly clears i tself and lights up (QCT 44; TK 39). The

danger-namely that we have a leveled and concealed understanding of being-when grasped as thedanger, becomes that which saves us. The selfsame danger is, when it is as the danger, the

saving power (QCT39; TK 39). This remarkable claim gives rise to two opposed ways ofunderstanding Heideggers response totechnology. Both interpretations agree that once one recognizes the technological understanding of being forwhat it is-a historical understanding-once gains a free relation to it.We neither push forward

technological efficiency as our sole goal, nor always resist it. If we are free of the technologicalimperative we can,in each case,discuss the pros and cons.As Heidegger puts it: We let technological

devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside,as things which arenothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportmenttoward technology which expresses yes and at the same time no,by an old work, releasement towardsthings (DT 54; G25).

template debate

Documents