[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Scott Segal on Deep Ecology
Scott Segal may have missed the point of the deep ecology paper, but
perhaps because of my lack of eloquence.
1. Yes, not everyone likes deep ecology. Otherwise, it would make a bad
debate topic.
2. Yes, not everyone defines it the same way or thinks it is "deep" enough.
This gives debaters options to choose from -- you can get more shallow or
more deep in your negative approach.
3. I am sure this doesn't appeal to him from his current professional
position, but debate isn't just for training lawyers to make money, but
more to train thinking citizens. Sorry if that shocks some. This is not an
anti-lawyer remark, either, just a statement about how often deep ecology
is discussed in the legal field.
4. Most of the difficulties he suggests he could think of answers to if he
were in a debate. You could, too. That is a good thing.
Scott Segal <SEGASH+aPO1%Bracewell_&_Patterson@MCIMAIL.COM>
>It is not my intention to respond to all the breathtaking implications of Tuna
>Snider's suggestion that the topic "embrace" the philosophy of "deep
>ecology."
And in doing that you may miss the boat, Scott, or at least the one I am
launching. There is a lot more to this than just "deep eco." You do,
however, address the problems of the other parts of the topic wording
within your discussion of deep ecology.
> As a general response, I strongly disagree with the topic's
>reification of deep ecology, which is but one fringe concept in the rich
>panoply of justifications for environmental protection. Unlike a policy
>topic that specifies an increase in protection or regulation (but leaves the
>justification to the creativity of the debater), specifying "deep ecology"
>strikes me as intrusive. Let me explain why ---
It may be fringe in the legal world of regulation and control and cost
benefit balancing, Scott, but it is hardly fringe. The University of
Vermont, for example, has one of the leading environmental studies majors
in the world, and it is very much a deep ecology haven. A large portion of
the world activist concerned community also embraces this concept. We have
a bi-weekly deep ecology TV show here in Vermont, even if it is produced in
Oregon. Yeah, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation don't like it,
but that makes it a good debate topic.
>Query -- could we advance progressive environmental reform -- let's
>say animal rights legislation -- but base it upon a utilitarian (even
>economic) advantage, and thereby lose because the Aff -- part of the
>collective "we" -- failed to "embrace" deep ecology? Simply put -- that is
>the stuff of advantages and the case, and its none of the business of
>the topic makers. Topicality debates could easily devolve into
>content-based censorship of case advantage. Can you imagine an Aff
>case being non-topical by virtue of the Aff's "personal commitment" being
>called into question or because the Aff's argument choice (not its plan)
>failed to express deep enough ecology? Give me Black's Law or CJS
>any day!
Kenneth Burke says that our interests are what directs our attention. Yes,
you will take CJS and Black's because they fit your life and profession and
world view and perhaps also your conception of debate. There is nothing
wrong with that, but I am calling for "new" approaches in this topic. Your
real claim here seems to be that if it isn't familiar and "what we already
do," then we don't want to do it. That is your opinion.
This entire intent question indicates that I may not have made myself clear
to you in my discussion of deep ecology and the long passage from Naess
that I offered. Naess puts forward the standard of "rejecting two" of the
eight principles as a way to resolve this. The other standard he provides,
conceptual equivalence, is also not addressed. You seem to think that deep
ecology rules out consideration of economics and utility, which is false.
It calls for a different weighing of these variables. Finally, Scott, all
topicality arguments are, at some stage, censorship -- you get punished for
having said the wrong thing. As a matter of fact, all debate is censorship
-- if judges don't like what you say they vote against you.
>How about negative arguments that are premised upon the inherent
>tradeoffs in allocation of environmental protection resources. Could
>these positions lose the round because -- at least at the impact level --
>they too "embrace" deep ecology (i.e., they have an impact placing high
>value on the environment)?
Once again you seem to think that deep ecology ignores issues of resource
trade offs. On what do you base this?
>And why risk the argumentative apples on deep ecology anyway? As I
>noted, it is but one somewhat dated philosophy that occupies an
>ideological extreme. The policy topics, by contrast, seek to divide ground
>at or near the middle -- and not at the extreme.
I am not sure why these fruits are at risk. This may seem extreme to you
but I assure you it is no more extreme than CLS or anarchy or a Chinese
nuclear strike on the USA or any number of other common debate arguments.
Dated philosophy? It has barely been around for 20 years and is extremely
popular in the current literature. You certainly found a 1995 book
attacking it, so why is it dated? What has replaced it?
> Perhaps the most
>influential environmental book written in the past five years -- Gregg
>Easterbrook's A Moment on the Earth (Viking/1995) had this to say about
>deep ecology (p.144):
By the way, what gives this book that title? I'll claim the same only more
so for the DEEP ECO FOR THE 21st CENTURY book. But wait, that would be
argumentative quibbling. I won't do that.
>"Environmentalism has not come to terms with the inherent horribleness
>of many natural structures, considering recognition of this point to be bad
>public relations. For instance the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess,
>inventor of the phrase 'deep ecology,' in his 1989 book Ecology,
>Community and Lifestyle danced around the fact that much of the natural
>order is based on violent death. 'The ecological viewpoint presupposes
>acceptance of the fact that big fish eat small,' Naess wrote. Deep
>ecologists are supposed to believe that in the moral value human beings
>are the same as animals: no better or worse, just another creature. So
>if its okay for animals to kill each other is it okay for people to kill each
>other? Naess waffles: 'It is against my intuition of unity to say 'I can kill
>you because I am more valuable,' but not against that intuition to say 'I will
>kill you because I am hungry.' Then would Naess object if a poor man
>who was hungry killed Naess to take his wallet? Because orthodox
>environmentalists feel they must pretend that there is nothing -- not the
>slightest little thing -- wrong with nature, they can easily be trapped, as
>Naess trapped himself, into declaring that its okey-dokey to kill to eat."
Yes, there are arguments against deep ecology, although I don't think this
one is particularly compelling. I like the use of the "horribleness"
expression for the natural order. This due ain't got the ethic. The charge
here is that deep ecology worships nature blindly. Well, that is not
inherent in the 8 principles, nor is it forced on the aff team. Some
lawyers worship money blindly like economic whores, but I don't apply that
label to Scott. Some misty eyed rainbow warriors blindly worship nature,
but at its heart deep eco is not a religion or anything which is "blind."
The role of "logic" is accepted and discussed, for example, in the
distinctions between deep ecology and social ecology.
Yes, there are arguments against deep ecology. Otherwise it would make a
bad debate topic. The affirmative needs to advocate change, something
different. So, the neg needs ground. They get it.
>The extremism of deep ecology does not stop with its failure to
>recognize the frequent depravity of natural systems. According to
>Easterbrook, even Bill Sessions was criticized for articulating
>"biocentrism" -- placing living objects above technology -- because it
>slighted inanimate natural objects. "Ecocentrism" was therefore
>preferred. Was Sessions not deep enough? Was he non-topical in
>some writings because of the arguments he used?
Oh, the "depravity" of natural systems! Again, you need to keep in mind the
8 principles and the two standards for determining whether you "embrace"
deep ecology. I like the fact that there is a more "radical" alternative to
deep ecology, or other alternatives like ecofeminism and social ecology.
That way the neg can either defend an economic and anthropocentric view of
the environment or they can defend a more radical view. I like giving the
negative those options.
>The most systemmatic (sic) critque (sic) of deep ecology and other radical
>doctrines was not even mentioned in Tuna's brief bibliography. It is
>Martin W. Lewis's Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of
>Radical Environmentalism (Duke U Press/1992). Lewis argues that deep
>ecology, as well as antihumanist anarchism, primitivism, eco-Marxism,
>and eco-feminism, each have deep contradictions and flaws. Each, in its
>extreme, is so deeply alienating of our current values and choices that it
>potentially tumps the political boat and drowns the consensus for any
>real environmental progress.
Oh, and I did not put forward a complete bib. True. For example, I did not
include the over 300 references to deep ecology on Lexis-Nexis, most of
them critical. By the way, am I supposed to dump this topic because some
people don't like deep ecology? YOU ARE PROVING THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD
TOPIC! Lots of argument ground for the negative, I would say.
>Anyway, these are my brief OPINIONS of the "deep ecology" proposal.
>They are not meant as personal attacks on the supporters of the view.
>Just as I have stated previously on NDT-L, I don't like "lists" because
>they are artificial constructs that take debater discretion away from plan
>construction, so too would the deep ecology topic take case justification
>choice away.
I respect your opinions and sense no personal attacks. I have already
explained how aff will have flexibility in picking plans. All topics
constrain choice somewhat, but this one no more than others.
Please do not interpret this as a personal attack as well, but new and
innovative approaches cause people to break out of formulaic thinking and
learn in new ways. I invite you to leave any legalistic environmental
regulation framework you might have and view things in a new way. Debate is
for learning. The money earning stuff comes later.
There are no killer arguments here, but only:
1. There are arguments against deep eco. (TURN: makes it a good topic)
2. Topicality debates will be different (TURN: I think that's good; TAKE
OUT: the 8 principles and 2 standards point)
3. Mischaracterization -- dated, extreme, fringe, etc. I'm not very
impressed by that. It isn't true as well. Extreme for Bob Dole & Bill
Clinton, but perhaps not for Al Gore or even for debaters. Dated? Does this
mean we need a concept that is less than 20 years old?
By the way, Scott, were not you the debater proposing a solar sail race
around the moon for a cash prize as an affirmative case? I love that
visionary stuff in a debater. Let this generation of debaters look at their
vision.
Best wishes and I hope all is well.
Tuna
Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
+++++
14th NATIONAL DEBATE INSTITUTE 7/27-8/10/96
Application & Scholarship forms at http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ndi.html
+++++
DEBATE CENTRAL: http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html;
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
+++++
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION: http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html
+++++
VERMONT REGGAE FEST: http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/vrf.html
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page